Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:41:09 +0000
From: Zenobia
Subject: Re: [ATH] conflict check, please?
Beatrice asks:
> Also, if there is armory which is close, would you be so kind as to
> point it out, and let me know why it isn't close enough to bounce the
> armory, so I can learn a bit more about all these x.y.z.1.3.2 rules?
The current organization of the Armorial and Ordinary (as per the
on-line A and O, at
http://ws57.c-ctc.siu.edu/heraldry/OandA/ordinary/
is very appropriate in almost all cases for the RfS.
So the question I have for you and everyone is:
1) What categories in the A and O will you be looking these up under?
2) Will you check everything in those categories, or just part of the
categories (e.g. "everything with a field of some color" or "only
look at things with the word 'six' in it" etc.)
3) What rules are you using to make these decisions?
Once you know where to look, and why you are look there, 3/4 of the
battle is won. The rest is the kind of "hmmm... I'm not sure how the
rule applies" thing that sends one to precedent, gets things sent to
Laurel by Lions Blood as a test case, etc.
So, Beatrice, everyone, where do we look these two armories up?
Zenobia Naphtali
>
> Device: Azure, on a bend between four roses argent, three roses azure.
>
> Badge: Fieldless, a rose per pale argent and azure.
Zenobia Naphtali
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:19:01 PDT
From: "Beatrice Domenici della Campana"
Subject: Re: [ATH] conflict check, please?
Greetings unto Dame Zenobia and the College of Heralds.
Leave it to Z to make me work for help. Thank you, Z.
>1) What categories in the A and O will you be looking these up under?
Alright. You asked for it, I guess. For the device "Azure, on a bend
between four roses argent, three roses azure", I checked the categories
"Flower-rose-4-or-more" and "Bend, charged, argent". This is the check
I most wanted help on, since it is much more complex than the badge, and
I'm rarely sure that I have _really_ checked something as far as it
needs to be checked.
For the badge "Fieldless, a rose per pale argent and azure", I checked
"Flower-rose-one-multicolor". I did not check any of the other
"Flower-rose-one" categories, because by changing half the rose, I get
an auto-cd from any single color rose, and with the fieldless, I get
another auto-CD for field. Hence, all the others are clear by default.
In both cases, I looked at each item in the listing which came up, and
did a quick 'count' on each one. For instance the (fictional) device
"Gules, four roses argent", I would count off "gules, bend" to myself.
This means that I would have one CD for the change to the field, and one
for the addition of the primary charge, the bend. I do realize that
this misses the "clear by addition of primary charge", but if I count
off two on each one, I _KNOW_ it is clear. This will find the most
obvious conflicts, usually.
>2) Will you check everything in those categories, or just part of the
>categories (e.g. "everything with a field of some color" or "only
>look at things with the word 'six' in it" etc.)
I think I covered this above, in my description of going through the
category.
>3) What rules are you using to make these decisions?
Mostly I don't worry about the rules, other than knowing, from the
rules, what makes a CD. I just count off my two as I pass through the
list. The only time I really examine a device is when I cannot
immediately pick out two CDs. Then I start to really look at a device,
picture it in my mind, and see if they look similar enough to me to
worry about. I also, at that point, start applying specific rules.
>Once you know where to look, and why you are look there, 3/4 of the
>battle is won. The rest is the kind of "hmmm... I'm not sure how the
>rule applies" thing that sends one to precedent, gets things sent to
>Laurel by Lions Blood as a test case, etc.
>
>So, Beatrice, everyone, where do we look these two armories up?
Beatrice has answered. Anyone else? I think I have the badge conflict
right. The device is what gets me. In most cases (less in this one,
because the device is simple armory) I'm not sure if there is anywhere
else I need to check, or if there is some conflict in some odd place in
the O&A that I have missed. Therefore, I try to get a double check from
those who have been doing this for longer.
Good Lady, you have been at this longer than I have. Have I covered the
bases I need to cover?
In Service and Learning,
Beatrice Domenici della Campana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:49:35 +0000
From: Zenobia
Subject: Re: [ATH] conflict check, please?
> Leave it to Z to make me work for help. Thank you, Z.
You're welcome, I think? If you just wanted help ("I'm a random
submitter willit pass huh huh?") that'd be one thing but you, m'dear,
have shown all signs of wanting to become, and making steady progress
towards becoming, a knowlegeable and skilled herald. A different thing
entirely. Which means
acquiring certain thought patterns to help you do your analyses.
(By the way, rather nice looking armory we are discussing here.)
[DIGRESSION about how I learned heraldry in the SCA, how heraldry
gets learned in An Tir, and (by implication) why I'm going to go into
great detail about this conflict question ... skip if desired and go
directly to the conflict question.]
I acquired these skills (basic blazon, basic conflict checking, basic
heraldic style, basic name style) as a baby herald by having to
blazon stuff on demand and read out conflicts and why they seemed to
conflict at Caidan Kingdom heraldry meetings (or if working names,
the docs I found that seemed to be pertinent to the name bits). These
meetings were what Caid does instead of having an Internal Letter. Most
of the Kingdom could get to meetings with a 3 hr drive or less, and
the conflict checking and name docs were done right at the meetings:
Crescent Principal herald developed an extensive office library and
people would bring their own books and Ordinaries and have at it.
These meetings were populated and/or supervised by Frighteningly
Knowlegeable and Skillful (but friendly) megaheralds like Bruce
Draconarius of Mistholme, Hrorek Halfdane of Faulconwood and
Eowyn Amberdrake. They were also populated by other heralds
at various skill levels from Kingdom staff to newbies like me.
So what happened at the meetings? Looking at a lot of submissions
coming through. Heralds blazoning stuff and counting conflict
points and talking about period style. Heralds quoting rules
in support or disagreement. Heralds pulling out precedents.
Heralds pulling out books about period heraldry and discussing
whether the latest precedent was wrong and if so did we want
to challenge it and was the submitter up for being a test case.
Heralds talking about whether the books in question (name or
armory mundane reference work) were authoritative, or suspect,
and why. Etc. Etc.
Aside from now-Master Manfried Odo von Falkenmond teaching me
basic blazon terms and heraldic ideas at fight practice, and
then suggesting I go to the meetings, I didn't have heraldic
education other than those meetings, for years aside from the
occasional class like Itha's Basic Heraldry. But that's the
stuff you need to learn, what we were doing there. Those heraldry
meetings took me from someone who didn't know squat other than
"that stuff on the shields looks neat" to where I am now, a
person with some nontrivial knowlege of the art, a great interest
in it, and a vast but not strictly pertinent to day to day life
wonder as to whether this is a good way to use my limited number
of brain cells.
We can't do submissions meetings here, the Kingdom is too big.
Even the Principalities may be too big. We have to rely on other
ways. We have the excellent discussions in the IL talking about
what the comments said and what was decided (but that's kind
of slow feedback), we have interaction at local comment meetings
where they exist (with more limited resources but fast feedback),
we have mailing lists (also fast feedback but limited resources.)
Oh yes, and classes at Ithras and Symposia and similar things
(fast feedback but not found very often.) We have more of it
here than in Caid though, perhaps because there's a greater
need for formal classes due to fewer opportunities for informal
learning.
So that's why I'm doing all this point counting here, to try and pass
on what I've learned from others. The more of us who know how to do
this, the more we can teach those who can't, and the better service
our submitters will have.
[...END OF DIGRESSION]
So on to your
rather nice (but maybe could use a bit of work around edges)
analyses. I have moved around some of your paragraphs for flow of the
response...
>
> Mostly I don't worry about the rules, other than knowing, from the
> rules, what makes a CD. I just count off my two as I pass through the
> list.
> The only time I really examine a device is when I cannot
> immediately pick out two CDs. Then I start to really look at a device,
> picture it in my mind, and see if they look similar enough to me to
> worry about. I also, at that point, start applying specific rules.
Of course knowing well what gets you CDs is knowing
quite a lot of rules, even if you don't always remember X.4.exactly-
what-letter, I don't either. But it is worth checking The Rules
regularly, just to make sure you remember correctly. First of all,
the rules do change a smidge from time to time (although I'm sure
Lions Blood will tell us if they do in the IL.) And brushup is always
handy, a question at last months' comment meeting made me realize I
had been giving X.2 in cases which were not actually X.2 simple,
which would mean that I may have missed some conflicts that were
vallid. I always keep the rules easily to hand or keyboard.
Speaking of X.2, rules X.1, X.2 are used VERY often and do comprise
things which are "only one change which is enough." Focussing too
heavily on X.4 (the two-CD rule) can make one run the risk of calling
conflicts which aren't really conflicts, or at the very least, make
one work a lot harder than one needs to (and I'm a lazy person, I
hate doing that, don't know about you :-) I don't think you are
miscalling conflicts by forgetting about X.1 X.2 or X.3 (which hardly
ever comes up), but it is an easy thing for a herald to do... watch
out for it.
> In both cases, I looked at each item in the listing which came up, and
> did a quick 'count' on each one. For instance the (fictional) device
> "Gules, four roses argent", I would count off "gules, bend" to myself.
> This means that I would have one CD for the change to the field, and one
> for the addition of the primary charge, the bend. I do realize that
> this misses the "clear by addition of primary charge", but if I count
> off two on each one, I _KNOW_ it is clear. This will find the most
> obvious conflicts, usually.
All true, all true. Although as you say "clear by addition of primary
charge" would save you some work.
> >1) What categories in the A and O will you be looking these up under?
>
> Alright. You asked for it, I guess. For the device "Azure, on a bend
> between four roses argent, three roses azure", I checked the categories
> "Flower-rose-4-or-more" and "Bend, charged, argent". This is the check
> I most wanted help on, since it is much more complex than the badge, and
> I'm rarely sure that I have _really_ checked something as far as it
> needs to be checked.
Yes, this does need to be checked a number of places. It's a good
armory to think about the basic problem of conflict checking!
This armory is X.2 simple, consisting as it does of an identical
primary group (which may be charged) (in this case, the charged
bend, only one of it, it's identical right?) and the identical
secondary group whch may be charged, but isn't in this case
(the roses on the field.) This would be subclause X.2.c.
So anything with a primary charge group that is substantially
different from a bend would not conflict by X.2. There isn't really
much I can think of that is not-a-bend that isn't substantially
different from a bend, and if I were feeling lazy I might not check
outside of the general bend area because the Ordinaries are SUCH
distinct charges (unlike most beasts, flowers, etc.) that I can't
think of something that is one CD from a bend, but not substantially
different from it.
It is also worth doing a dip through precedents to see if there is
any charge that isn't likely to be filed under "flower- rose" that
gets no difference from a rose. One example that comes to mind due to
long hard school of knocks is the possiblity of no difference with
some of the foils, and other flowers. I'm having problems with my
web browser right now so can't quote too many precedents, but
precedents is the place to look. I found one I didn't expect before
the web browser crashed for the 5th time, relatively recent (Bruce's
tenure) giving no type difference between a rose and a pansy
(which is filed somewhere other than flower-- rose, I think..
Flower- Few petals? Again the web browser crash hurts my research here.)
Also there is a fair body of precedent pertaining
to the foils and the roses, I think the summary is 'cinquefoils
aren't given difference, nor are quatrefoils or sexfoils, but other
foils are', however, without access to precedent right now I can only
say: that's something to check. I'm pretty sure there are some other
flowers like pimpernel that get listed under flowers, few petals
which have precedent saying they aren't a CD from a rose.
As for bends... Bend, argent, charged is the place to start,
unquestionably. But you could find arms with one CD only from this
in the following other types of bend categories:
Bend, uncharged argent (if it were exactly the same other than the
roses on the bend)... But you'd only have to check azure fields (or
else, you have two CDs automatically if the filing was done right.)
Bend, charged, complex line (if it were exactly the same but the bend
were wavy or embattled or...) Again, just azure fields.
Bend, charged, other colors (if the color of the bend had changed and
was otherwise exactly the same). Practically because of this design
with a white bend and white charges on a field, it's hard to imagine
needing to check things like bend, uncharged, vert. One is tempted
only to check the other colors with good contrast with the field.
But even so you
could get a freak like "Azure on a bend vert fimbriated between four
roses argent, three roses Or" which would get one one CD for bend
color, nothing (by X4j) for tincture only of tertiary... so you need to
even look there. Luckily at least, you only need (again) to look at
the azure fields and this will be an extremely small category for the
color bends.
A quick skim through bends, two or more would not be a bad thing
either. It's hard to imagine with tertiary charges but I guess it
could happen that the only thing changing is the number of bends.
Now, there's a tradeoff. If you are extremely thorough in your check
on the secondary charges (Flower, Rose four or more, Foils, all the
other appropriate flowers that aren't a CD from a rose),
then you would have two CDs checking the
categories you checked. After all, you would find those extra bend
type armories checking all the rose-like flowers, four or more:
they'd show up there.
But this strategy is a harder one than the one where you focus on the
primary charge first, especially with Ordinaries. We understand the
Ordinaries very well. They come complex line/plain line,
charged/uncharged and in multiples., and the A and O indexes them
really well this way. However, flowers are hard to
understand. We know they are roses but precedent (which is bigger
than the rules, and changes faster than the rules) says that a
number of other flowerish things aren't a CD from a rose.
>
> For the badge "Fieldless, a rose per pale argent and azure", I checked
> "Flower-rose-one-multicolor". I did not check any of the other
> "Flower-rose-one" categories, because by changing half the rose, I get
> an auto-cd from any single color rose, and with the fieldless, I get
> another auto-CD for field. Hence, all the others are clear by default.
You're absolutely right about the color analysis. Going back and
doing a skim through precedents about Flower -- Rose (to see what
isn't a CD from a rose) and doing a skim through the appropriate
other categories looking for (say) Gules a pansy per pale argent and
azure (which due to that Bruce precedent, is a conflict with one CD
for field but nothing for type of flower), should also be done to
feel really secure.
Hope this has been of use. Again, nice armory...
Zenobia
------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:38:36 +0000
From: Zenobia
Subject: Re: [ATH] conflict check, please?
EB, can you append this to the keeper post you put up?... humility is
a GOOD thing... :-)
Yesterday I said:
> This armory is X.2 simple [discussion of why snipped]
>
> So anything with a primary charge group that is substantially
> different from a bend would not conflict by X.2.
This is, actually, Not True. Rule X.2 says:
X2. Difference of Primary Charges -- Simple armory does not conflict with
other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is
substantially changed.
"Other SIMPLE armory." So if the thing being compared to (the
already registered thing) ISN'T X.2- simple armory, you can't use X.2,
even if the new submission IS simple. Which means you do have to
check those pesky secondary charges a bit harder than I said.
Now the other rule with simplicity criteria, X4jii, DOES only
consider the new submission's simplicity, not the already registered
one:
X4jii. In simple cases substantially changing the type of all of
a group of identical charges placed entirely on other charges is
one clear difference. Only the new submission is required to be a
simple case in order to benefit from the following clauses....
I was, however, clearly correct yesterday when saying:
> But it is worth checking The Rules
> regularly, just to make sure you remember correctly.
All I need to do is listen to me :-). Thanks to Beatrice for asking about
this (both the original question and the interpretation I gave in
response.)
Now, to see about maybe whether rule X.2 SHOULD only consider the
simplicity of the new submission rather than the new and the old one.
Hmmm....
Zenobia Couronne Rouge
Back to the original discussion.