Michael F. McCartney wrote:
Guy, it was Denny (I think) who suggested the two arrows chevronwise on the black chevron. I much preferred (& on artistic grounds still prefer) the singel arrow fesswise between the three horns; or possibly the red chief with the gold arrow dropped down to a fess—though this would likely require a whole lot of vetting for difference from existing arms.
After rereading tbhe thread, and especially the Y-DNA verification of descent from Foster of Hunsden and the two related red shields with gold arrows. (Hale & Garrish) however, some version using the chevron & one or more arrows makes more sense—sometimes one’s artistic preferences should bow to the genealogical or symbolic. The black chevron is preferable genealogically (also fewer colors) since it will require very little vetting—just enough to make sure no one else has so differenced the F of H shiled. The chevron in red would add a color (not fatal) and require a bit of looking to see if any other family or "name" has a red chevron between black horns, which IMO would be a "fatal" flaw.
This is one of the things I enjoy most about heraldry: it is a puzzle to be solved in terms of genealogy and design.
I see what everyone is saying about the arrow in chief, it does seem to focus the eye away from the other parts of the shield.
The chevron gules is a good idea, but has been used by a James Foster, with leapord heads in chief, I believe.
I would like to maintain the chevron at this point. What about differencing it with three pheons Or? True, they are not arrows, but could still allude to Hale and Gerrish?
Guy Power wrote:
ff is actually the capital F written in older form. "ff" was erroneously adapted as the correct spelling of the family name ffolkes.
Do you have any information on this sort of thing? I’ve never heard of it and little oddities like this interest me… sort of like the German eszett .... ſ + s = ß
The three pheons would be a nice difference—alluding to the related arms but easier to clearly distinguish visually, & should be a nice balance.
Back to the refridgerator!
ESmith wrote:
Do you have any information on this sort of thing? I’ve never heard of it and little oddities like this interest me… sort of like the German eszett .... ſ + s = ß
Yes, similar to the "sz" (I learned it as "scharfes ess").
I read about the "ff" in one of my calligraphy books. The below is not a good example, as it is not done on a manuscript in hand; but, if you look at the components of the F you might be able to see how it is (or could be) composed of "ff"
http://www.eff.co.uk/SS/MnkRR.gif
Just found this on line:
Quote:
The most interesting thing about ff is that its having been a ligature in printing has been enshrined in some surnames. Think of an old Gothic capital F: it’s an ornate confection of pen-lines and swashes, and it actually looks hollow inside. What this means is that it looked quite like two lower-case ff joined together. So you got surnames like ffrench and ffolkes and ffrangcon. Sadly, in these computerized days, these old names seem to be dropping away. The actress Gwen Ffrangcon-Davies seems always to have been written with a capital F.
Cheers,
—Guy
Here’s an example from the Herald’s Visitation of London.
If you are doing a text search of old documents, etc. you almost always need to enter the double "f" when looking for surnames such as Foster, Forster, etc.
Okay, here is version 0.7. Do you guys think it’s too busy? I have attempted to capture elements of the Hale and Gerrish arms, posted earlier, in the chevron, while maintaining the integrity of the basic form of the Foster arms.
I really like that design! I don’t think it’s too busy, but then again, I’m no artist! I think you’ve been able to capture both lines effectively and have a well balance CoA for yourself.
The five charges on the chevron seem too busy. But if you must have both the shells and the arrows for symbolic reasons, then maybe you could work one of the charges into some component of the crest. That way the chevron won’t have to do so much heavy lifting.
I agree with Trent (even though technically you’ve got them between two chevronels rather than on a chevron, the effect is the same). I think you’re sliding away from what started as a very nice design into one that’s too cluttered.
Also, no tenne on gules, please. Not only is it a tincture violation, it’s a very unwise one, as the two colors are so close together that the orange may well disappear against the red, depending on how they’re emblazoned, etc.
I have to agree with Trent and Joseph. The current design is too cluttered.
If you must include the arrows and shells, then what about making them sable upon a chevron or?
Take care,
I guess I’m voting fourth on the cluttered state of the chevron. If I may say so, Phil’s suggestion is excellent as well. Sable upon a chevron or would like striking indeed, if still a bit cluttered.
loaba wrote:
I guess I’m voting fourth on the cluttered state of the chevron. If I may say so, Phil’s suggestion is excellent as well. Sable upon a chevron or would like striking indeed, if still a bit cluttered.
I guess that makes me fifth… what if you dropped one or two of the horns and replaced then with escallops and kept the arrows on the chevron… perhaps not in this particular arrangement… I also second the tenne argument, I would say just to make it Or… looks about the same and doesn’t violate any rules, or leave anything questionable…
How about something like "Gules, between, in chief two hunting horns Argent strung Or and in base an escallop Argent, a chevron Or charged with (several) arrow(s) (in your choice or orientation) Gules.
Or is it chevron reversed… I can never keep that strait
Joseph McMillan wrote:
I agree with Trent (even though technically you’ve got them between two chevronels rather than on a chevron, the effect is the same). I think you’re sliding away from what started as a very nice design into one that’s too cluttered.
Also, no tenne on gules, please. Not only is it a tincture violation, it’s a very unwise one, as the two colors are so close together that the orange may well disappear against the red, depending on how they’re emblazoned, etc.
I need to adjust my colors…I was aiming for an "old gold" but unfortunately it comes out as "school bus orange."
The arrows are hard to incorporate on a chevron, so I am considering dropping the number and replacing them with pheons to see how that looks.
When I put the drawing together yesteday, I was worried it would be too busy, and it looks like the jury agrees.
As allways Gentlemen, thanks again for all of your helpful comments. It’s nice to have a design vetted before I drop the cash on a professional rendering.
Ben,
Maybe I’ve lost the thread amidst the recent flurry of trying to find and delete spam (and spam-posters) on the forum, but what is wrong with the first quarter of the arms you’re now using as your avatar?
I think it’s quite elegant and very Fosterish. Is there a usurpation/insufficient differencing problem that I missed?
On the tinctures, sorry to have seen the chevronels as orange, but I was misled by the fact that they were a different color from the arrows and bugle strings. Except for shading, all charges that are intended to be the same tincture should usually be depicted using the same shades (e.g., no bright yellow canary on a shield with metallic gold bezants).
I really think the one I saw a few posts back was the best one. Why did you move away from it?
Ben Foster wrote:
Something like this?