College Chess Club Arms—Needs More Critiques

 
PBlanton
 
Avatar
 
 
PBlanton
Total Posts:  808
Joined  06-11-2005
 
 
 
23 December 2006 22:56
 

Trent,

I must apologize. Earlier, I made the following erroneous statement:

 


PBlanton wrote:

As to the matter of which tincture should be described first, imagine the entire shield as chequy without the azure "overlay". Then determine which tincture would fall in the dexter chief corner. That tincture would be stated first. So for the picture you have displayed, it would be chequy Sable and Argent.


I have since found that statement to be wrong. I believe your original blazon of per bend sinister Azure and chequy Argent and Sable is correct. My reasoning lies in the following statement from A Heraldic Primer:


Quote:

The field may be divided into multiple sections in certain conventional ways. The field is still considered to be a single layer, so no section is considered to be "on" any other.

Following this line of thinking, if one follows the sequence of tinctures in your emblazonment, one will see azure, argent, then sable.

Hope this helps.

 

Take care,

 
 
Trent
 
Avatar
 
 
Trent
Total Posts:  325
Joined  01-11-2006
 
 
 
24 December 2006 15:18
 

PBlanton wrote:

Following this line of thinking, if one follows the sequence of tinctures in your emblazonment, one will see azure, argent, then sable.

 


Phil,

 

Does the above quote mean that I should base the blazon off the top sinister corner?

 
PBlanton
 
Avatar
 
 
PBlanton
Total Posts:  808
Joined  06-11-2005
 
 
 
24 December 2006 15:36
 

Trent,


Trent wrote:

Does the above quote mean that I should base the blazon off the top sinister corner?

No, all blazons should read top to bottom, left to right, when looking at the shield. Therefore your blazon should be:

Per bend sinister Azure and chequy Argent and Sable, in dexter chief an open book within a laurel wreath Argent.

 

What I was apologizing for was my statement about picturing the azure portion as an "overlay". The field party per bend sinister should all be seen as one layer. Does that make more sense? Sorry for the confusion.

 

Take care,

 
 
Trent
 
Avatar
 
 
Trent
Total Posts:  325
Joined  01-11-2006
 
 
 
24 December 2006 21:08
 

Phil,

I think I get it now.  Let me know if I have the reasoning right:

 

If I specify the sinister portion of a per bend sinister division as "chequy argent and sable," then that specification in and of itself means that the dividing line must be drawn across a diagonal of argent squares?

 

If this is true, then the idea of starting the blazon based on the top sinister corner still holds up because (reading from top to bottom and left to right) that corner is still the topmost and first part of the azure field that touches the chequy division.

 

Originally, I, like you, based my blazon on the "overlay" idea as well.  We reached different conclusions because I was counting an odd number of files in the chequy division.  This count included the part that couldn’t be seen "under" the azure field.  The odd number of files meant that both the top dexter and top sinister corners would be argent.

 

So I arrived at the right conclusion based on what you found in the Primer, but I arrived at it the wrong way.

 
Linusboarder
 
Avatar
 
 
Linusboarder
Total Posts:  732
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
25 December 2006 09:51
 

Trent wrote:

I finally figured out how to get the images in the posts.  I used Imageshack, but if anyone knows how to do it using Yahoo Photos, please let me know.  Photobucket wanted my DOB, zip code, cell phone number, first born, and an arm and a leg.  That was just asking a little too much.  All Imageshack needed was an email address.


Uploadfile.info doesn’t ask for anything, that’s what I use. Only downside i it will drop the image after about a month or so.