Changing my arms…

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
11 April 2008 16:51
 

No. I’m not really considering changing my arms. I am however considering changing the blazon and I wanted to share my reasoning with you all and see if the group comes to the same conclusion.

I am only concerned with the main shield and not the chief. The blazon that we arrived at in an earlier thread is Vert three piles palewise throughout conjoined in chief Argent voided of the field…. This is how I registered it at the US Heraldic Authority and Michael Swanson emblazoned it exactly how I intended it to look. (I guess at this point I should be asking Michael… Did you go by the blazon or were you influenced by seeing the art on the threads?)

 

My fear is that with the current blazon, an artist might interpret it as is illustrated in example C or D below, which are not how I want it to look. My original stab at a blazon was Vert a barrulet dancetty per long Argent, but no one knew the term per long, which I had found in Parker’s A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry. I think, however, that I was more on track than I realized. I have now seen examples of ordinaries and partitions dancetty that give a certain number of points as well as examples of dancetty throughout.

 

After all that, I think the proper blazon for what I want is Vert a barrulet dancetty throughout of three points down. I believe this blazon would yield the example in A just like Michael has emblazoned for me, or at worst example B, which is still okay with me and still provides the the "image" I’m going for.

 

So, I guess my questions to the group are

1) How would you render the shield given my current blazon?

2) Are my fears founded or unfounded?

2) Does my new proposed blazon make sense?

 

http://www.hectorcito.com/heraldry/BlazonIssue1.gif http://www.hectorcito.com/heraldry/BlazonIssue2.gif http://www.hectorcito.com/heraldry/BlazonIssue3.gif http://www.hectorcito.com/heraldry/BlazonIssue4.gif

 
 
David E. Cohen
 
Avatar
 
 
David E. Cohen
Total Posts:  359
Joined  08-02-2008
 
 
 
11 April 2008 17:21
 

Depending upon the height and width of the shield, and how "steep" the artist wants to emblazon dancetty, the barrulet could also "enter" and "exit" fully or partly in chief, rather than entering and exiting to dexter and sinister up in the corners as in "A", or further down, as in "B".  There is no standard angle for dancetty, as far as I know.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
11 April 2008 17:53
 

David E. Cohen;57165 wrote:

Depending upon the height and width of the shield, and how "steep" the artist wants to emblazon dancetty, the barrulet could also "enter" and "exit" fully or partly in chief, rather than entering and exiting to dexter and sinister up in the corners as in "A", or further down, as in "B".  There is no standard angle for dancetty, as far as I know.


I believe the fact that it is a barrulet means it necessarily has to enter from the sides as without it being dancetty it is a horizontal line. I am not as particular about whether or not it enters at the topmost corners as I am that it not be different lines coming in from the top.

 
 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
12 April 2008 08:08
 

Kenneth,

You’ve fallen prey to an old one here: trying to manipulate your blazon so that only a particular emblazonment can be drawn. First, within the limits of heraldic language, it’s just not possible. Second, during your lifetime you have the ability to tell any artist who draws your arms what you want and don’t want. Third, you really have no control over future generations: they may have your arms drawn differently or not use them at all.

 

1. How would I blazon your shield? The way you have it done is fine.

2. Are your fears unfounded? Most certainly ... there really aren’t groups of sadistic heraldic artists out there who do emblazonments for the specific purpose of upsetting their clients. You will always have the final word when working with an artist.

3. Does your new blazon make sense? Yes, I guess it does. So does the blazon you currently have.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
12 April 2008 11:59
 

Patrick Williams;57192 wrote:

You’ve fallen prey to an old one here: trying to manipulate your blazon so that only a particular emblazonment can be drawn….


I think what has actually happened is that I simply rushed the process of choosing, not the arms per se, but the blazon in my haste to be done. I’m really quite embarrassed by it. Mike McCartney was actually right on with his suggestion I think, but the thread kept going with discussions of the pile blazon and I think I gave his idea short shrift. :oops:


Quote:

1. How would I blazon your shield? The way you have it done is fine.

Aha. You’ve done a tricky political move there, Patrick. You’ve re-asked a different question number one and answered it. Ignoring my actual question, but leading people to believe you’ve answered me. Are you running for office? wink

 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
12 April 2008 12:09
 

To further demonstrate, I’d like you to consider the piles conjoined and we’ll forget about them being voided right now. Which would be a correct rendering of two piles conjoined in chief?

Ahttp://www.hectorcito.com/heraldry/pileconjoinedY.gif Bhttp://www.hectorcito.com/heraldry/pileconjoinedN.gif

 

At this point I’m just annoying everyone, aren’t I?

 
 
dr.h.roth
 
Avatar
 
 
dr.h.roth
Total Posts:  129
Joined  19-03-2008
 
 
 
12 April 2008 12:22
 

Only A are true piles, since in B you have a square box on top of the pile.

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
12 April 2008 15:32
 

Kenneth Mansfield;57200 wrote:

At this point I’m just annoying everyone, aren’t I?


Yes. wink Look, Kenneth, your blazon is fine. Not a thing wrong with it.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
15 April 2008 11:38
 

Notwithstanding advice to the contrary, I have decided to change the blazon of my arms. My question at this point is whether to use "in" or "to"?

Vert a barrulet dancetty of three points in base throughout Argent...

 

or

 

Vert a barrulet dancetty of three points to base throughout Argent...

 
 
dr.h.roth
 
Avatar
 
 
dr.h.roth
Total Posts:  129
Joined  19-03-2008
 
 
 
15 April 2008 12:07
 

I would say ‘in’ base. Never seen the terminology ‘to’ base.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
15 April 2008 12:53
 

dr.h.roth;57320 wrote:

I would say ‘in’ base. Never seen the terminology ‘to’ base.


Per fess dancetty of 2 points downward…

The arms of Douglas Wagland

http://www.whitelionsociety.org.uk/Slidesandblazon/Slide56.GIF

 

...a chief dancetty of two full points upwards Purpure…

The arms of Baz Manning

http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/resources/bazmanning.htm

 

...a Fess couped dancetty with two points in base Azure…

The badge of Wychavon

http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/badges.html

 

...on a chief indented of four points to base, also Or…

The arms of Westville, Natal, South Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(heraldry)

 
 
werewolves
 
Avatar
 
 
werewolves
Total Posts:  477
Joined  14-08-2007
 
 
 
15 April 2008 13:43
 

I would go with the second option.  The "in base" would confuse me if I hadn’t seen your arms emblazoned.

 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
15 April 2008 16:13
 

What about "of five points two and three"?

The barrulet being a diminutive of the bar, itself a diminutive of the fess, I think I would read your new blazon as indicating that the barrulet is anchored at the midpoint of the dexter and sinister sides of the shield. If that’s OK, well, OK.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
15 April 2008 16:33
 

Dohrman Byers;57338 wrote:

What about "of five points two and three"?


If it has three in base, it can necessarily only have two in chief. I think three points downward, three points to base or three points in base is more succinct.


Quote:

The barrulet being a diminutive of the bar, itself a diminutive of the fess, I think I would read your new blazon as indicating that the barrulet is anchored at the midpoint of the dexter and sinister sides of the shield. If that’s OK, well, OK.


You are suggesting that you might draw example B from my first post in this thread. As I say there, that would be preferable to examples C or D, which are how I think I might read my current blazon.

 
 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
16 April 2008 21:46
 

On the blazon, I don’t like "three points downward/to base/in base," but I think it’s just a matter of style.

Yes, I would probably interpret your new blazon as something like B in your original post. Of course, there is always "as is more plainly depicted in the margin hereof."

 
PBlanton
 
Avatar
 
 
PBlanton
Total Posts:  808
Joined  06-11-2005
 
 
 
16 April 2008 23:03
 

Kenneth,

I can understand your concern about the piles extending past the bottom of the chief, but I think your concern is unfounded.

 

 

From Parker’s Glossary:
<div class=“bbcode_indent” >
"The chief does not, as a rule, surmount other charges, and consequently such have often to be abased. The bend, for instance, starts from the dexter corner just beneath the chief. When associated with a bordure (unless there is direct statement to the contrary) the bordure would be turned and continued beneath the base line of the chief."
</div>
So, as Patrick said, your blazon is fine.

 

Take care,