Page 1 of 1

Metal on Metal problem

Posted: 04 Jun 2014, 05:48
by Larry Snyder
I am designing arms for a friend whose forbearers in America bore English arms. He is not in direct line so I am designing derivative arms. The original arms are Argent, on a bend azure cotised sable three crescents or. I have modified these arms as: Argent a Bend cotised Sable per Pale counterchanged, overall in Bend three Crescents Or. This results in one Crescent Or upon Argent in the sinister quarter. Is this completely unacceptable, or may I construe the three crescents to be a single charge upon the field. The emblazonment, by the way, is totally recognizable.

Re: Metal on Metal problem

Posted: 04 Jun 2014, 10:57
by Chris Green
I have seen worse examples of metal on metal. You wouldn't get away with it in these parts (Scandinavia), where the tincture rule is taken seriously (my arms - which are English - raised a few eyebrows here in Sweden). Have you thought instead of gold crescents making them counterchanged - one black, one white and the middle one parti-coloured?

Re: Metal on Metal problem

Posted: 04 Jun 2014, 17:21
by Larry Snyder
I have considered that. The person for whom I am designing the arms really prefers the gold crescents.

Re: Metal on Metal problem

Posted: 04 Jun 2014, 18:33
by Chris Green
Larry Snyder wrote:I have considered that. The person for whom I am designing the arms really prefers the gold crescents.


Fair enough. The customer is always right - except when it comes to designing CoAs one has to consider what is good, bad or indifferent.

How about: Sable crescenty Or a Bend cotised Argent; or: Argent a Bend Azure crescenty Or cotised Sable; "crescenty" meaning a field strewn with small crescents in the manner of "goutte".

Re: Metal on Metal problem

Posted: 05 Jun 2014, 23:56
by Larry Snyder
We have decided on: Ermine a Bend cotised Sable per Pale counterchanged, overall in Bend
three Crescents Or.

Re: Metal on Metal problem

Posted: 30 May 2016, 05:59
by GJKS
Larry Snyder wrote:We have decided on: Ermine a Bend cotised Sable per Pale counterchanged, overall in Bend three Crescents Or.

You have me mystified. Can you show me what you think that blazon looks like when produced as an image?
What is in Pale and what is counterchanged? Are the Crescents 'in Bend', Bendwise, or 'upright in Bend' (pale-wise)? You mention 'overall' (this is a piece of clothing) but I imagine you meant 'over all' - if this is the case, how are you envisioning the three Crescents as being 'over all' because you can't fit three Crescents 'over all' on such a shield - to be of sufficient size as to encompass the Bend and both Cotises (even without going to the edge of the shield, which is what 'over all' implies) the Crescents would be abnormally large and you wouldn't fit three bend-wise.

Re: Metal on Metal problem

Posted: 30 May 2016, 08:07
by Chris Green
A valid question Geoff, but Larry announced his decision on 6 June 2014, nearly 2 years ago. So it's probably a bit late to influence him now. That said I too should like to see the arms emblazoned. Perhaps the blazon could be improved.

Re: Metal on Metal problem

Posted: 30 May 2016, 08:46
by GJKS
Chris Green wrote: Perhaps the blazon could be improved.

Perhaps you are being too kind with such a word as 'could'. :shock:

Re: Metal on Metal problem

Posted: 30 May 2016, 10:57
by Chris Green
GJKS wrote:
Chris Green wrote: Perhaps the blazon could be improved.

Perhaps you are being too kind with such a word as 'could'. :shock:


Should? :mrgreen: