In David’s defence, I PM’ed him and literally asked for it. Thank you, David, for your insight. 
A shield divided per pale with a cross counterchanged is not symmetrical? :confused:
Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I mean is that I want the dexter and the sinister to be mirror images of each other. I sincerely apologize for the confusion. :( BTW, thanks to Joseph, I am reconsidering having the cross coticed instead of voided. Honestly, I’m rather torn between the two prospective designs. :rolleyes:
Stephen,
I apologize for not having more information on this but I was very sleepy at the time. It doesn’t involve heraldry per se but does passively involve the design you are considering.
Last night, during a bout of insomnia, I was flipping channels. Last night being Halloween—even though 2 AM technically was no longer—there was plenty of particularly bad horror on TV. But in flipping channels I saw your proposed arms on a tombstone. Not exactly, and not on a heraldic device, but on a tombstone there was what can only be called a passion cross urdy voided. I probably only noticed it because I had seen Kenneth’s emblazon.
Going back through the tv listing I’m fairly certain the movie was Gravedancers (2006), and in the opening minutes of the movie.
Kenneth Mansfield;64146 wrote:
A shield divided per pale with a cross counterchanged is not symmetrical? :confused:
It isn’t symmetrical across the horizontal axis.
Kenneth Mansfield;64146 wrote:
A shield divided per pale with a cross counterchanged is not symmetrical? :confused:
Did I write that your design in particular was asymmetrical? In my frank manner I would describe your design as unbalanced (the Passion Cross) and inelegant (counter-changing of a bland shape).
Dale Challener Roe;64149 wrote:
It isn’t symmetrical across the horizontal axis.
Thank you Dale! I am glad that someone else notices these details.
Here is an example of a coat of arms that I designed some years ago that utilised the cross as its main charge
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://www.amateurheralds.org/roll/r-arms/occo.jpg
</div>
Now, THAT is a beautiful piece of work!
Stephen R. Hickman;64147 wrote:
Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I mean is that I want the dexter and the sinister to be mirror images of each other. I sincerely apologize for the confusion. :( BTW, thanks to Joseph, I am reconsidering having the cross coticed instead of voided. Honestly, I’m rather torn between the two prospective designs. :rolleyes:
I don’t think the issue is cotising vs. voiding. You just need to put the time in on some research, that’s all.
With respect to David’s posts, I’d say whether a cross urdy is ugly or not is in the eye of the beholder; if you really like it, that’s what counts, but you shouldn’t (IMHO) adopt it just because it’s different, if you don’t like it otherwise.
I agree with David that you should avoid the passion/Latin cross form, not so much because it’s unbalanced as because it is (again in my opinion) a meaningless distinction in this context. On a typical heater shaped shield, any cross that looks "right" is going to have a slightly longer lower arm.
Stephen R. Hickman;64137 wrote:
I’m not sure exactly what a martlet is. :(
Stephen R. Hickman;64135 wrote:
gselvester, it was my understanding that a passion cross and a Latin cross were the same cross. If I am mistaken, then I am willing to know better. :D
Actually, I believe that a Passion cross and a Latin cross are not identical. I have also seen this blazoned a "pointed cross". (which could be either in the Greek or Latin forms) In addition, I have seen a cross raised on three grades or steps referred to as a cross Calvary or a Passion cross. So, there seems to be several different opinions. What, precisely, a"Passion cross" is seems to mean different things to different authors. However, a Latin cross means only one thing: a cross with the lower arm longer.
So, depending on which definition you accept this cross could be blazoned as:
A Latin cross pointed,
A Latin cross urdy
A Passion cross
A Pointed cross
but blazoning it "a Passion cross urdy" seems redundant.
Thank you, everyone, for the wealth of info! I now have a lot to think about over the weekend. I’ll keep you guys updated. Thanks again! :D
Dale Challener Roe;64149 wrote:
It isn’t symmetrical across the horizontal axis.
This is a straw man argument. Dividing the shield per pale has no bearing on the balance across a horizontal plane. That has to do with the way the space is filled. One could argue that horizontal symmetry is already not possible by Stephen’s choice of a cross with a longer bottom arm.
David Pritchard;64150 wrote:
Did I write that your design in particular was asymmetrical? In my frank manner I would describe your design as unbalanced (the Passion Cross) and inelegant (counter-changing of a bland shape).
I was responding to Stephen’s assertion that he wanted "to maintain dexter-sinister symmetry." But thanks for making it all about you. 
David Pritchard;64151 wrote:
Here is an example of a coat of arms that I designed some years ago that utilised the cross as its main charge
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://www.amateurheralds.org/roll/r-arms/occo.jpg
</div>
David, this has inspired me to rethink my design. Thank you so very much for posting it! BTW, it is beautiful! Well done! :D
