Not sure if I quite have the blazon worded correctly, but here goes…

Or in chief three quarterfoils sable sable a winged talbot argent

I think that might look quite nice, really.

Just to throw in some unsolicited personal opinions:

I would prefer the arms if the talbot were Or. Arms of two tinctures have such elegant simplicity and unity. The talbot Argent seems needlessly and excessively emphatic.

I think I would also lose the wings. They are not really needed for difference, since these arms do not resemble any others. To me they suggest a doggy angel—a little too cute for my taste.

Dohrman Byers;81081 wrote:

I think I would also lose the wings. They are not really needed for difference, since these arms do not resemble any others. To me they suggest a doggy angel—a little too cute for my taste.

I don’t care for the flying canine as well, but it does imply a sort of winged loyalty. And it is different.

Well, we’re at least past the point of right & wrong—the textbook rules/conventions & all—and working on variations of good & better—which is largely a matter of taste, style & personal preference.

In no particular order (like much of my life!)—

IMO the depth (height?) of "per fess enarched" is a matter of artistic license—it certainly isn’t sufficient to make two distinct non-infringing designs, so to me they are heraldically the same arms either way.  If the desired effect is of a dog flying over a portion of the globe (which was my impression too—& I like it!) it doesn’t seem to me to matter how much of the globe (the curve of the horizon) is shown, so long as the general visual effect comes across.

The winged doggie is another matter of personal preference.  There is certainly historical precedent for winged mammals—e.g. pegasus and the Bourbon badge of a winged stag; & who can forget the ever popular pigasus?  (well, OK, I made that one up—if pigs had wings…)  Adding a dog to the flying menagerie (sp?) isn’t IMO an unreasonable flight of fancy

—& if dogs do go to heaven, the concept is right up there with the angels.

As to artwork—like Ken (Kenneth? —I could say Kenny, like my oldest kid, but I’m too much the gentleman to even suggest that) the final fancy artwork should be most interesting.

On the other hand, while still considering the basic design, I prefer to stick with fairly simple, basic artwork until the final design has jelled—otherwise we risk being seduced by the wonderful artwork rather than the basic design itself.  Art, like makeup, soft music & candle light, can be intoxicating—but will we still feel the same way in the morning, when other competent but more ordinary artists do their thing?