Vert semy of billets Or = Vert billety Or.
I was trying to clarify that you are wanting the shield divided more or less in thirds.
Sorry guys, I forgot to put the "bends" in the first half of the blazon, which I think is what’s causing the confusion.
Having pictured it in my head, however, I’m going to sketch out "per fess Sanguine [or Vert] semy of billets Or, and Or" and see how it looks.
Medugal;96214 wrote:
Sorry guys, I forgot to put the "bends" in the first half of the blazon, which I think is what’s causing the confusion.
That makes more sense now.
Medugal;96214 wrote:
Having pictured it in my head, however, I’m going to sketch out "per fess Sanguine [or Vert] semy of billets Or, and Or" and see how it looks.
You might also try the entire shield billety and counterchanged.
Just a quick question as I toy with designs: is quartering and creating center inescutcheons for the purposes of visual appeal instead of heredity considered acceptable?
I’m juggling a few designs that I like, and have been attempting to take what I like from each and incorporate it into a single design.
Medugal;96483 wrote:
Just a quick question as I toy with designs: is quartering and creating center inescutcheons for the purposes of visual appeal instead of heredity considered acceptable?
Not really. See the AHS guidelines:
2.1.1.5. Newly designed arms should normally consist of a single united field, not of several distinct fields combined together. This does not exclude the use of the standard heraldic partition lines (per pale, per fess, per pall, per saltire, per chevron, quarterly, etc.), but anyone using them should take care not to imply incorrectly that the new arms are a combination of previously existing arms. The risk of such a misleading impression is particularly high when the arms are divided per pale or quarterly, as these are the most common methods of combining arms as a result of marriage or inheritance. The more complex each of the fields, and the more diverse the fields are from one another in color and composition, the more likely this false impression will be created. For example, a shield divided quarterly, blue and gold, with a star of the opposite color on each quarter (counterchanged) is unlikely to be viewed as anything but a single composition. On the other hand, a shield in which the first and fourth quarters are blue with a gold star and the second and third quarters are white with a red cross between four green fleurs-de-lys will probably be taken by most heraldists as a combination of two preexisting coats. There are a few exceptions to this principle—notably arms following the traditional quarterly pattern used by clans in the western Highlands of Scotland—but even in these cases it is best to include some element that serves to unify the four fields, such as a chief, or a cross, fess, or pale over all. Alternatively, one may introduce variations in the partition lines dividing the quarters (making one or both of them indented, wavy, nebuly, etc.), which indicates that they are not merely a combination of separate heraldic compositions. In general, however, designers should keep in mind that simpler designs are usually better (subject to the rule against negligent or intentional duplication), and that complicated combinations work against the arms’ function as an easily recognizable sign of identity.
That makes sense, I guess that puts one design in the recycle bin (I’ll post it anyway this weekend when I put up the current Fridge Lineup).
Sorry to have come late to your design party!
I really liked your gravedigger theme, but the skull is too much for my liking as well. Instead of a skull, could you use a leg bone (a femur)?
Sir Isaac Newton’s arms used two tibia: Sable two shinbones in saltire Argent, the dexter surmounted of the sinister
http://www.numericana.com/arms/index.htm#newton
Taking your designs and tincture themes thus far, how about this: Or billeté Vert, on two bends Sable as many femora Argent
You could easily work the thistle and bee concept that you had mentioned earlier into a crest.
Just a thought :cheers:
btw: I did not go the canting route myself. Most Harris end up with a hedgehog in their arms through the French word for the animal. I don’t have a connection with that particular beast, so I didn’t feel the need to include him.
Kenneth Mansfield;96076 wrote:
An allusion to a cemetery could be Per fess invected Azure and Pappeloné inverted Argent.
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://imageshack.us/a/img152/5872/showell04.png
</div>
I think Kenneth’s use of "pappeloné inverted" here is positively inspired! Fox-Davies reports that pappeloné is supopsed to resemble the scales on the wings of a butterfly, hense its name. Has pappeloné even been used, or is it just an academic exercise? (wouldn’t the per fess in Kenneth’s example be engrailed instead of invected? I always get those confussed…)
Joseph McMillan;96485 wrote:
Not really. See the AHS guidelines:
2.1.1.5. Newly designed arms should normally consist of a single united field…
Although I wholeheartedly agree with the Society Guidelines, I’ve always loved the simplicity of these arms – quartered as they may be:
I was working on a rather long-winded response when I saw Joe’s simple quote from the AHS Guidelines which made the same points in a simpler and much better way.
Steven wrote, "Although I wholeheartedly agree with the Society Guidelines, I’ve always loved the simplicity of these arms – quartered as they may be:
http://amateurheralds.org/gallery/de…p?image_id=149 "
The design is nice enough if viewed in a vacuum; but in an historical context, it runs into the same problem described in the Guidelines—i.e. it suggests a hypothetical junior branch of the Dukes (counts?) of Brittany (the plain ermine) who married the heiress of a family whose arms were Purpure two lions passant in pale Or. If one or both of the partition lines were varied (e.g. per pale and/or per fess indented ...) this wouldn’t be a concern, or at least not as much of a concern. Or perhaps quarterly Ermine & Purpure four lions passant counterchanged; or likely other possibilities that wouldn’t visually proclaim "quartered arms of two distinct families."
Of course these arms have been used for several years and the bearer might (if he were to now read our Guidelines) still prefer to keep them anyway; but we would I hope continue to offer advice to others consistent with the Guidelines that Joe posted.
Michael F. McCartney;96498 wrote:
If one or both of the partition lines were varied…
I agree, a similarly attractive design could have been made with per-saltire, or dare I say per pale and per chevron. Anything but quarterly.
Michael F. McCartney;96498 wrote:
or likely other possibilities that wouldn’t visually proclaim "quartered arms of two distinct families."
Come to think on it, I like the sound of "Quarterly (or ‘per saltire’) Ermine and Purpure, three lions passant in pale Or".
But we should get back to Medugal’s arms.
I wrote, "If one or both of the partition lines were varied…"
Kevin responded, "I agree, a similarly attractive design could have been made with per-saltire, or dare I say per pale and per chevron. Anything but quarterly"
Apologies if I was unclear— I was thinking of "Quarterly indented" or some such—i.e. quarterly but with one or both of the "per cross" division lines being something other than a straight line (see e.g. McLeod in the Heraldry Society of Scotland’s Members Roll - a grant from Lyon for a petitioner bearing a West Highland surname).
But outside of the West Highland context, it still IMO at least suggests the usual quartered arms of two distinct families, perhaps by a descendant not entitled to the usual straight-line quartering because the maternal ancestor wasn’t an heraldic heiress, so I wouldn’t much care for it in a new assumption if that weren’t the case.
Although Kevin’s suggestions are also interesting, if challenging, possibilities.
But we’re drifting away from Medugal’s arms…
One and six I certainly like but not entirely sure about dividing the shield parted per fess, although that’s more of a personal preference. For some reason I’m fascinated with four.
Haha yes it is pretty familiar- it’s inspired by St. Francis Xavier’s CoA:
The top left is my favorite, but the bottom right is also quite nice.