Thankyou Kenneth! On your advice I will leave the mantling as is. :o
Jeffrey, it’ s been a long time since we ‘ve seen some of your creations. Keep up the good work.
About the mantling question; during the time of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the state of Vorarlberg had the outer mantling argent and the lining was gules.
I don’t know if such an example applies to individuals too… but I like your card anyway!...
sterios;99163 wrote:
About the mantling question; during the time of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the state of Vorarlberg had the outer mantling argent and the lining was gules.
In the Gnglish heraldic lexicon, this is not mantling (i.e. a lambrequin) but a mantle (i.e., a robe of estate placed behind the arms of the high nobility and not much used in heraldry of British and British-influenced countries). But there are indeed many early examples of mantling/lambrequins that don’t obey the "color on the outside" convention.
Joseph McMillan;99164 wrote:
... this is not mantling (i.e. a lambrequin) but a mantle (i.e., a robe of estate placed behind the arms of the high nobility and not much used in heraldry of British and British-influenced countries).
Ups !!! :mrgreen:
Sterios, thank you for providing the Austro-Hungarian state example… at least if I conjure up some state arms I can reference this example even if it does not apply, as Joe has pointed out, to an actual mantling/lambrequin for an individual. So at this point I’ll assume that there is no relatively valid precedent for having the outer cover of the mantling be of metal rather than color.
As ever, I continue to learn with your assistance, thank you all!
Jeff wrote, "So at this point I’ll assume that there is no relatively valid precedent for having the outer cover of the mantling be of metal rather than color."
But as Joe noted earlier, "there are indeed many early examples of mantling/lambrequins that don’t obey the ‘color on the outside’ convention."
So while the color outside/metal inside is the most common practice, it’s not obligatory.
Michael F. McCartney;99179 wrote:
Jeff wrote, "So at this point I’ll assume that there is no relatively valid precedent for having the outer cover of the mantling be of metal rather than color."
But as Joe noted earlier, "there are indeed many early examples of mantling/lambrequins that don’t obey the ‘color on the outside’ convention."
So while the color outside/metal inside is the most common practice, it’s not obligatory.
Oh, ok, thanks for helping me parse that Michael… was reading Joe’s posts cross-eyed again. Thanks!
Jeff wrote, "...was reading Joe’s posts cross-eyed again"
Has that effect on all of us sometimes!
My latest heraldic doodle practices for fun, while at International House of Pancakes drinking coffee and eating… pancakes.
Also tinkered a little bit when I got home. These are shield devices of family members and also one of a friend.
[ATTACH]1386[/ATTACH]
Anyhow, just simple doodles for fun.
Very nice doodling, Jeffrey! Also, very nice penmanship.
The penmanship might as well be hieroglyphics for future generations. Unfortunately, cursive is going the way of Latin these days.
Thanks Mark!
Yes John, the cursive is difficult to read! lol
I chose cursive because I am so bad at calligraphy that it’s embarrassing, and was too lazy at the time to attempt decent printing, hehe.
Quote:
I chose cursive because I am so bad at calligraphy that it’s embarrassing, and was too lazy at the time to attempt decent printing, hehe.
Yep that’s about true…for me…. :wookie:
Overall, great stuff.
Ditto re: nice sketches, & also re: the designs themselves for your extended family, and your non-nuclear family friend!
You might consider appending at least the Garrison variants to one of the old threads re: design of your own/family’s arms, if they’re not already there. While our Guidelines don’t encourage cadency as a general practice and AFAIK most of us don’t opt to use differencing or cadency with our assumed arms, the Guidelines do IIRC allow for that option; and your approach is both interesting and well-done.
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;103244 wrote:
Thanks Mark!
Yes John, the cursive is difficult to read! lol
I chose cursive because I am so bad at calligraphy that it’s embarrassing, and was too lazy at the time to attempt decent printing, hehe.
Whether people learn to write cursive, they need to learn to read it. Otherwise, how will they know what to do when they get one of these in the mail? ("Mail"—guy in gray and blue uniform comes to your house in a white truck and puts paper things in the box by the street.)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/invitation_624.jpg