That’s very nice!
Still playing with pencil sketches, the two hemispheres should also work with the field parted per fess or quarterly, either plain or charged as in Larry’s artwork above.
Maybe one or more of these variants could be viable options in some future new arms design project! E.g. for someone named Fraser, the quarterly option in blue & white might give an attractive and distinctive way to incorporate white cinqefoils and red crowns? Or maybe with the field per fess, a cinquefoil in chief and a crown in base?
I am pleased you find some merit in the design. I like the Fraser idea, here is my take on Frazier (Fraser).[/URL]"]http://http://i832.photobucket.com/albums/zz250/lls38/Coats of Arms/FrazierColorSM.jpg[/URL]
Instead of demi-roundels and hemi-circles, if you look at it from a different perspective, the field could be seen as:
"Per pale Argent and Gules, two flaunches arched and conjoined at fess point counterchanged"
just a thought -
steven harris;103113 wrote:
Instead of demi-roundels and hemi-circles, if you look at it from a different perspective, the field could be seen as:
"Per pale Argent and Gules, two flaunches arched and conjoined at fess point counterchanged"
just a thought -
More or less the same conceptually as John Tunesi’s suggestion of concave piles issuing from the flanks, I think. But I don’t think a "flaunch arched" would have a concave curve, since a flaunch is already arched by definition.
Steven,
Presently this appears to be a case of heraldic semantics for your suggested blazon appears to be rewording my original suggestion? Which as I originally mentioned seemed to be as concise as you could get it looking at the proposed design or are you saying that the flaunches may issue the chief and base? This cannot be as flaunches are by their very nature found on the flanks of the shield and no where else.
However much we should wish to believe it, blazoning is not always the exact science we may imagine as often there are certain nuances that are left to the artist to interpret as best they are able.
As ever
John
John is right, though perhaps we could say flaunches issuing from chief and base - not sure that’s better than hemispheres issuing from etc.
How can a flaunch issue from the chief or base? That’s like blazoning a chief issuing from the flank!
Sorry bout that - there should be an emoticon for tongue in cheek…my bad
(but if it was an Indian chief…)
I agree that flaunches, by definition, come from the d. and s. sides and cannot come from the chief and base. That is why I tried to see the shield as a per-pale field with two "arched" or "pointed" flaunches meeting at fess-point. I suppose this shield could be blazoned a couple of different ways.
Michael F. McCartney;103119 wrote:
Sorry bout that - there should be an emoticon for tongue in cheek…my bad
(but if it was an Indian chief…)
Flaunches fesswise?;)
Dear All,
I would still contend that my original positing of ‘issuant from the flanks two piles concave and conjoined at fess point counterchanged’ is the most apt. Flaunches are always ‘bowed’ (convex) and therefore should not be blazoned as ‘arched’ or ‘pointed’.
I would not think any query would arise if one were designing a variant of the Scottish family of Henderson if one were to blazon such new arms as say, ‘Or issuant from the sinister flank three piles concave gules’ so why not my original contention?
As ever
John
liongam;103122 wrote:
I would still contend that my original positing of ‘issuant from the flanks two piles concave and conjoined at fess point counterchanged’ is the most apt.
John,
I think whether this works or not depends on the designer’s intent. If it is essential that the upper and lower areas be semi-circles, then (as I pointed out before) your blazon does not necessarily yield this result.
Quote:
Flaunches are always ‘bowed’ (convex) and therefore should not be blazoned as ‘arched’ or ‘pointed’.
Certainly not as "arched," which would be redundant, and it would be hard to guess what a "flaunch pointed" meant. If we were to take the approach of describing the division of the field by working from the flanks instead of from the top and bottom, then I’d agree that your formulation "piles concave" would be the best way of doing it.
But it seems to me that the dominant feature of the design is the two semi-circles, not the spaces between them, and that it is therefore preferable to blazon them directly rather than circuitously.
Quote:
I would not think any query would arise if one were designing a variant of the Scottish family of Henderson if one were to blazon such new arms as say, ‘Or issuant from the sinister flank three piles concave gules’
That’s absolutely true, but the dominant design element of a Henderson coat is the trio of horizontal piles. That doesn’t seem to be the case with this coat, at least not to me.
I agree that the dominant element is the blazon of the two semicircles and I’d like to see the simplest blazon. Since you are having such fun with this challenge, try a blazon for this, my original shield with a a hypocycloid of four points at the Fess point per cross counterchanged.
http://i832.photobucket.com/albums/zz250/lls38/Coats of Arms/7a7dc354-54df-4f4d-b0a3-26c8e4cd34e7.jpg
OOPS! The hypocycloid is counterchanged per saltire.
Larry
The hypocycloid is overall is it not?