How about -
"Per saltire gules and argent a lozenge embowed throughout counter-changed."
The only major problem with this blazon is that a lozenge is actually a charge and, as such, is placed on the field, whereas, what is illustrated are two divisions of the field!
Regards,
Iain Boyd
Per saltire Gules and Argent a lozenge (?not sure how to describe the bowed sides) throughout counterchanged.
Iain Boyd;103127 wrote:
How about -
"Per saltire gules and argent a lozenge embowed throughout counter-changed."
The only major problem with this blazon is that a lozenge is actually a charge and, as such, is placed on the field, whereas, what is illustrated are two divisions of the field!
Regards,
Iain Boyd
The lozenge can certainly be viewed as a charge counterchanged. I see no issue with your blazon.
Kathy McClurg;103094 wrote:
Wouldn’t it be per fess Gules and Argent because the roundels are counterchanged?
Per pale Gules and Argent demi-roundels issuing from chief and base conjoined at fess point counterchanged.
I should really stop doing these things half asleep.. my question was shouldn’t it be per pale Gules and Argent rather than Per pale Argent and gules
Also, minor additional comment… I noted the original post was "I have been playing with divisions of the field" - If a "new" division of the field can be blazoned without having to make some kind of "new" description - then I would say it’s not a new division of the field.
The "roundel" solution due to "issuant" and "conjoined" is outside the normal "size" for a roundel - but I still think of all the charges traditionally available to us it is the most accurately descriptive for the next artist.
Having said that.. can one do something with a saltire convex.. Or a Saltire embowed in chief an base?... just throwing it out there.
Sketching out John’s suggested blazon of piles convex issuant from the flanks, I’m now not so sure about my objection. I did several versions with the piles in various proportions, and at least on a traditional heater shield none of them are so far removed from the semi-circular partition lines in the original drawing as to create a problem.
Narrow piles
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1376&stc=1&d=1417616939
Wide piles
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1377&stc=1&d=1417616939
All of which demonstrates that the "science" of blazoned is as much art as science. FWIW (maybe not much!) I prefer the versions that emphasize the major visual element - in this case, two semi-circles - rather than the relatively minor visual elements - in this case, the pile-like thingies between the semi-circles.
However, John’s pile version seems equally "correct" or at least close enough for government work, based on Joe’s sketches.
I do like Larry’s second proposal with the concave lozenge - attractive and easier to blazon 
The concave lozenge is, I believe, correctly termed a hypocycloid of four points, in my example it is over all upright (points up) and per saltire counterchanged.
larrysnyder;103133 wrote:
The concave lozenge is, I believe, correctly termed a hypocycloid of four points, in my example it is over all upright (points up) and per saltire counterchanged.
Geometrically it may be a hypocycloid, but I doubt you’ll find that term in any dictionary of heraldic terms. Blazon needs to be written whenever possible using the heraldic lexicon, so it can be understand by heraldic artists without consulting the mathematician next door.
Of course you could have as the motto "semper hypercycloidis"!
(sounds like an STD…)