Quote:
…the Bleu Celeste and Tenney combination that makes one think of the Miami Dolphins.
HA! And see me here in Colorado the first thing I think of with orange, blue and white is the Denver Broncos. True our blue is now a midnight blue, but we were known for that lovely sky blue for many a year.
I have not read all of the posts on this, but can someone explain to me why the blue charges on top of the orange in the chequy pattern is not a violation of tincture? Or is it?
I don’t think there’s any way around it. Since it’s a combination of a color and metal, no matter what you put on it one of them will clash. I’ll look around for some other examples and post some links.
Trent wrote:
I have not read all of the posts on this, but can someone explain to me why the blue charges on top of the orange in the chequy pattern is not a violation of tincture? Or is it?
Because it’s OK to put either a colored or metal charge on top of a parti-colored field.
Donnchadh wrote:
HA! And see me here in Colorado the first thing I think of with orange, blue and white is the Denver Broncos. True our blue is now a midnight blue, but we were known for that lovely sky blue for many a year.
Well that wasn’t the conscious intention (even though I am a huge Broncos fan. My Father had season tickets back in my formative years when they went to their 80’s superbowls). One of my sister’s first questions when seeing this was "The orange and blue isn’t for the broncos right?"
David Pritchard wrote:
that leaves only one assumption left to be dis-proven, that being the bendlet representing your a penchant for bandoleer wearing
Well not in public of course 
Trent wrote:
I have not read all of the posts on this, but can someone explain to me why the blue charges on top of the orange in the chequy pattern is not a violation of tincture? Or is it?
Nothing on top of a patterned field (like chequy) can be a tincture violation. Anything, whether fur, metal, colour or proper can be placed on it; the only thing I think there’s a problem with is a charge that’s a different kind of chequy but I could stand to see any further research on this.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
Because it’s OK to put either a colored or metal charge on top of a parti-colored field.
But technically I think it’s patterned, not party. Party would only be per pale, per bend, per fess, per saltire and the like, and "tierced in" and "quarterly" would be counted as party even though not so called.
Linusboarder wrote:
you mean Colin?
By the way my aunt’s suggestions were to put the otter on his back to make it a better representation of an otter, and maybe put the trunk up on the elephant, since that is a symbol for good luck. Both of which i consider thoughtful (if minor) suggestions that I will consider
Wow! where did I get David? I’m bad with names in real life but I need to be a bit more careful when I have the names spelled out for me :oops: sorry!
ESmith wrote:
Wow! where did I get David? I’m bad with names in real life but I need to be a bit more careful when I have the names spelled out for me :oops: sorry!
Np I was assuming since David was asking the questions you looked up saw his name and wrote that instead of mine, but I wanted to make sure.
At lunch today Colin & I played with the notion of an otter supporter lying on its back under the shield & holding it up with his little paws…I don’r think Guy was particularly impressed…
Michael,
Being a pro-supporter heraldist myself, I think that would make a great supporter for a coat of arms.
*********
Colin,
I came across a recent Canadian grant where the crest is an ermine otter on its back supporting a mascle gules.
See the website of the Royal Canadian Heraldry Society - Members Armorial -
<http://www.heraldry.ca/top_en/top_rollx.htm>
and look under ‘M’ for Gary A Mitchell.
Regards,
Iain Boyd
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
At lunch today Colin & I played with the notion of an otter supporter lying on its back under the shield & holding it up with his little paws…I don’r think Guy was particularly impressed…
Au contraire! I thought it was a wonderful idea and a most fitting design. Privately; not publicly.
[image the starfish Gules as a smaller representation of Colin’s shield.]
Colin: nice meeting you in person today! The SF Bay Area "Mario’s Pizza & Wappenschau" is growing! Already about 9 members; about half of whom are AHS members.
—Guy
And a bit like the Chief of Clan Robertson’s (Donnachaidh) third supporter:
Iain Boyd wrote:
Michael,
Being a pro-supporter heraldist myself, I think that would make a great supporter for a coat of arms.
*********
Colin,
I came across a recent Canadian grant where the crest is an ermine otter on its back supporting a mascle gules.
See the website of the Royal Canadian Heraldry Society - Members Armorial -
<http://www.heraldry.ca/top_en/top_rollx.htm>
and look under ‘M’ for Gary A Mitchell.
Regards,
Iain Boyd
Very nive Ian, I will hav to put something together to represent what we were talking about at lunh yesterday.
Guy and Mike, It was very nice to meet you guys. I look forward to our next lunch.
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
At lunch today Colin & I played with the notion of an otter supporter lying on its back under the shield & holding it up with his little paws…I don’r think Guy was particularly impressed…
But it’s not necessary to have it as a single supporter for this attitude, necessarily… I think there might be a way it could be used as one of two, or they both could be, in any attitude other than that close to rampant usually employed for supporters, and in addition to any benefits as regards the design it would be very helpful for necessary differentiation.
