Thank you Kenneth
Remember . . . . . don’t rush the process!
Make sure you have allowed more than just a few weeks from the design you submitted a short while ago, to what you have now. Don’t make the same mistake I made . . . . . give it some time.
Use the "refrigerator test".
There’s no hurry. You’ll have these arms for your lifetime, and perhaps pass them on to your family. 
Hmmmmmm .... I’ve been thinking (dangerous sign) ....
Your arms actually display three rooks. Well, kinda-sorta. Chough, crow, raven, magpie, ... rooks ~ they’re all "birds of a feather" sort of. And the castle in chess is called a rook. (erhumm…. coughing into his fist, says he…)
Nice emblazonment.
—Guy
I was waiting for someone to notice the connection….......haha no I wish I could say that that was my thinking when I first designed it, but is is purely coincidental. However when asked….............
I’m one that doesn’t mind the border but, like Kenneth, Im looking forward to seeing a more traditional emblazonment.
Does the (offending) border have a symbolism, or is it merely an aesthetic choice?
Aesthetic choice…for me it totally completes the look of the shield
The only criticisms of the border are that it’s not really necessary & crowds the other charges a bit. At best misdemeanors, not felonies! 
If you have cousins bearing the same surname, but distant enough (geographically or genealogically) to want some sort of difference, they can drop or modify the border without disturbing the arms.
Michael F. McCartney;94745 wrote:
The only criticisms of the border are that it’s not really necessary & crowds the other charges a bit. At best misdemeanors, not felonies!
If you have cousins bearing the same surname, but distant enough (geographically or genealogically) to want some sort of difference, they can drop or modify the border without disturbing the arms.
I have pretty much the same thoughts… in addition to believing that folks with heraldic backgrounds, seeing it for the first time not knowing the origination of the arms would think you are one of the "cousins" or a son of an original armiger…
I’m trying to think if I’ve seen an original assumption or grant which includes a border…
Kathy McClurg;94756 wrote:
I’m trying to think if I’ve seen an original assumption or grant which includes a border…
In our own member’s armorial, Messrs. Hammond, McCartney, Tucker, and Weeks use bordures of one kind or another.
A quick search of the Canadian register found this list:
At least two of them (Chledowski and Schmitz) use bordures to differentiate themselves from other branches of the family.
Benjamin Thornton;94761 wrote:
In our own member’s armorial, Messrs. Hammond, McCartney, Tucker, and Weeks use bordures of one kind or another.
A quick search of the Canadian register found this list:
At least two of them (Chledowski and Schmitz) use bordures to differentiate themselves from other branches of the family.
Yea - my arms are original - not differenced. For what it’s worth, Mr. Woodson, there are days I regret having the bordure or wish I had gone engrailed (to mirror the escallops) instead.
You got me thinking (and I know it’s ‘sorta’ backwards thinking) but I could register the arms "In Memoriam", sans bordure for my granddad.
Mr Hammond In my opinion you arms look great as is. I look at yours and say WOW
Here’s something to put a smile on everyones face http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9654/coathoughtproccess.jpg
You have to see the first couple of times ..color on color metal on metal
Read through a couple of websites on heraldy and tincture rules cut and paste together a design I really liked
The fact that the bordure is counterchanged within the shield’s existing two-color scheme makes it seem less like a "difference" to me, but registering them for an ancestor certainly gives it some perspective (assuming you are not the first in line from said ancestor).
