Would this be blazoned as "paly argent and azure per saltire counterchanged"?http://s832.photobucket.com/user/lls38/media/220px-Paly_persaltirecounterchangedplain.png.html?o=0

Larry Snyder

larrysnyder;103063 wrote:

Would this be blazoned as "paly argent and azure per saltire counterchanged"?http://s832.photobucket.com/user/lls38/media/220px-Paly_persaltirecounterchangedplain.png.html?o=0

Larry Snyder

Unable to see the image unless I cut and paste the link here?  R-eposting it in case others have the same problem.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1370&stc=1&d=1415533589

larrysnyder;103063 wrote:

Would this be blazoned as "paly argent and azure per saltire counterchanged"?http://s832.photobucket.com/user/lls38/media/220px-Paly_persaltirecounterchangedplain.png.html?o=0

Larry Snyder

I’m guessing that would be the best blazon for this, yes, but… don’t like the double field treatment personally.

I’m not sure if "counterchanged" can be used in that way.

Technically, it might be: "Per saltire paly argent and azure and paly azure and argent" - but that’s just a guess.

The design is a little harsh on the eyes.

Since there’s no charge on the shield, there’s nothing to counterchange.

All you have to do is replace the per saltire division with a simpler one like per fess and the blazon becomes obvious.

"Paly of six and per fess Argent and Azure."

Therefore "Paly of six and per saltire Argent and Azure."

This is one of those "KISS" situations, keep it simple, stupid!

Larry

I wouldn’t use it… it seems… wrong. :|

As to the design itself, some will like it, some won’t.  De gustibus non disputandem, which I’ve likely spelled wrong.

As for the blazon, any of the earlier suggestions is probably OK, if inelegant.  IMO Joe’s suggestion best meets the KISS test.