http://www.fasg.org/_borders/Seal1.gif
Unfortunatly not in colour, but it appears that the cross is blue?
Since the cross is hatched, one may assume (with some risk, but little in this case) that the unhatched areas are argent. I would blazon this as Argent on a cross Azure 13 stars of the field, in dexter cheif a bell proper"—perhaps not the most elegant blazon, but IMO sufficient.
Perhaps "a Liberty Bell proper" to completely cover the obvious reference, and to include the crack in future emblazonments.
I’m surprised that the arms don’t include anything that makes reference to genealogy. Why no tree? Too obvious?
Of course I wasn’t there when these arms were disgned, but I’d say "yup."
Michael F. McCartney;47256 wrote:
Since the cross is hatched, one may assume (with some risk, but little in this case) that the unhatched areas are argent. I would blazon this as Argent on a cross Azure 13 stars of the field, in dexter cheif a bell proper"—perhaps not the most elegant blazon, but IMO sufficient.
I’m sure it’s the intention that the bell be proper, but there’s actually a (scarcely-ever-seen) hatching for the tincture proper which looks like closely-set-together bendlets dancetty.
I wasn’t aware of a hatching for "proper" but on reflection—& IMO only—in this case "seldom seen" is a blessing…
Michael F. McCartney;49815 wrote:
I wasn’t aware of a hatching for "proper" but on reflection—& IMO only—in this case "seldom seen" is a blessing…
I was wondering why this is your opinion? In mine it is a very good idea as the treatment of proper otherwise (usually, and as here) in monochrome can be quite confusing, leaving one simply to guess it isn’t argent (of course it wouldn’t make much sense, but it’s by no means sure that the field would irresistably lead one to that conclusion in all cases)...
Daniel C. Boyer;49675 wrote:
there’s actually a (scarcely-ever-seen) hatching for the tincture proper which looks like closely-set-together bendlets dancetty.
I have seen this hatching illustrated in a few heraldry books. I suspect that it is more a theoretical hatching rather than an actual one, along the lines of the heraldic fur erminites which is listed in many heraldry books but never seen in an achievement.
David Pritchard;49886 wrote:
I have seen this hatching illustrated in a few heraldry books. I suspect that it is more a theoretical hatching rather than an actual one, along the lines of the heraldic fur erminites which is listed in many heraldry books but never seen in an achievement.
I’ve seen it used in a very few monochromatic pics, but why it is so rarely used is beyond me as it is obviously of a great utility and in particular can prevent the kind of misunderstandings possible by simply leaving the charge in question blank, as if it were supposed to be argent. Sure, in many cases you can guess the charge is proper, but why should you have to?
Daniel C. Boyer;49905 wrote:
I’ve seen it used in a very few monochromatic pics, but why it is so rarely used is beyond me as it is obviously of a great utility and in particular can prevent the kind of misunderstandings possible by simply leaving the charge in question blank, as if it were supposed to be argent. Sure, in many cases you can guess the charge is proper, but why should you have to?
I suspect that the dancetty lines of the hatching for Proper are considerably more difficult to render by an artist than the dots, straight lines and broken lines representing other colours in the Petra Sancta system.
David Pritchard;49909 wrote:
I suspect that the dancetty lines of the hatching for Proper are considerably more difficult to render by an artist than the dots, straight lines and broken lines representing other colours in the Petra Sancta system.
Oh, I didn’t know what angle your criticism was coming from. Having done engraving, I can state unequivocally that this would be true. This is the worst hatching for the artist, but since it is the hatching we have for proper, and because we need a hatching for proper to prevent confusion, I would argue that unfortunately it should be employed where "proper."
My objection to a hatching for "proper" is that in many cases it will just visually confuse the image. Take the liberty bell in the ASG arms—how will adding hatching to this somewhat complex image make it any clearer or more recognizable?
Hatching can work very well for broad surfaces—the field, or an ordinary, or a simple charge like a star or crescent, all of which have with no internal detail that the hatching lines would obscure or confuse. For some fairly common heraldic charges like lions etc, the object is so familiar that even if there is some visual interference with internal details, we know what it is and it therefore "works" (though in many cases it may well detract from the artistic merits of the beastie or whatever. With less common charges, such as the liberty bell, the internal detail is part of what defines the object, & hatching just gets in the way of recognizing what it is.
Michael F. McCartney;49925 wrote:
My objection to a hatching for "proper" is that in many cases it will just visually confuse the image. Take the liberty bell in the ASG arms—how will adding hatching to this somewhat complex image make it any clearer or more recognizable?
You have an extremely good point, and one with which I’d agree, but only to the extent that it points out the limitations of the hatching system and I think only at most slightly and arguably would pertain more to proper to the hatching for proper rather than the system as a whole. Although adding hatching will undoubtedly make the image less clear and less recognisable, it’s just a tradeoff between this and the confusion that could possibly arise by people thinking, since hatching is employed elsewhere, that the Liberty Bell is supposed to be argent, though they can certainly make the conclusion that it must be proper as it wouldn’t be argent on an argent field. All in all, and with the qualification that the hatching for proper is clumsier and a bit more infelicitous than the others, I don’t see how the same argument couldn’t be put forth against the hatching for gules, say.
This entire conversation provides the exact reason as to why one needs to see (or hear) a blazon of arms rather than relying on an artistic rendering. Using a system of hatching is largely beginning to fall into disuse anyway. I have always felt that any hatching (no matter how much a part of the engraver’s craft) detracted from the artistic depiction of a coat of arms. It is best to abandon it entirely in my opinion. Regardless of that (which is a separate issue) hatching was not ever supposed to be a definitive communication of the tinctures. It is the blazon alone which does this.
gselvester;49935 wrote:
Regardless of that (which is a separate issue) hatching was not ever supposed to be a definitive communication of the tinctures. It is the blazon alone which does this.
Father,
What is your basis for this statement? I’m completely confused. Isn’t the hatching a kind of code for showing in a monochromatic representation the tinctures that would be shown in the emblazonment (which would be, of course, the tinctures specified in the blazon) were it "in colour?"