Two Blason questions

General Heraldry subjects
User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
Posts: 437
Joined: 24 Apr 2015, 23:34

Re: Two Blason questions

Postby Michael F. McCartney » 19 May 2016, 09:32

Very nice design! I assume the blazon would specify what sort of tree?
Michael F. McCartney
Fremont, California

User avatar
Torsten Laneryd
Posts: 102
Joined: 12 Sep 2012, 22:45
Location: Sweden

Re: Two Blason questions

Postby Torsten Laneryd » 19 May 2016, 10:17

Michael F. McCartney wrote:Very nice design! I assume the blazon would specify what sort of tree?

It does. It is beech.

Iain Boyd
Posts: 167
Joined: 15 Jul 2012, 01:48
Location: New Zealand

Re: Two Blason questions

Postby Iain Boyd » 06 Jun 2016, 22:59

Greetings all,

Sorry to be so late with a reply. I have been overseas for some time.

Re the crest of a tree 'pierced' by a sword and key in saltire -

In my opinion, neither 'pierced' nor 'transfixed' would be correct - unless the sword and key physically passed through the trunk or through a branch of the tree.

In this case, they appear to be entwined within the branches, hence, I would suggest something like -

"A beech tree vert with a sword and key (hilt and bow downwards) or disposed in saltire between the branches of the tree.".

Regards,

Iain Boyd

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
Posts: 437
Joined: 24 Apr 2015, 23:34

Re: Two Blason questions

Postby Michael F. McCartney » 12 Jun 2016, 08:07

But to me, this blazon doesn't suggest that the sword and cross actually extend above and below the crown of the tree. Maybe it's just me needing more sleep!
Michael F. McCartney
Fremont, California

Iain Boyd
Posts: 167
Joined: 15 Jul 2012, 01:48
Location: New Zealand

Re: Two Blason questions

Postby Iain Boyd » 12 Jun 2016, 12:04

But, then, neither 'pierced' nor 'transfixed' suggest that the sword and cross extend above and below the crown of the tree!

Iain

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
Posts: 437
Joined: 24 Apr 2015, 23:34

Re: Two Blason questions

Postby Michael F. McCartney » 13 Jun 2016, 08:28

True enough... so it's "as is more plainly shown in the margin" and off to bed!
Michael F. McCartney
Fremont, California

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Two Blason questions

Postby Chris Green » 13 Jun 2016, 08:36

Michael F. McCartney wrote:True enough... so it's "as is more plainly shown in the margin" and off to bed!


"As is more plainly shown in the margin" is a cop-out which only works in the blazoning of LPs. It is of no earthly use where the emblazonment is not present.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 613
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: Two Blason questions

Postby JMcMillan » 13 Jun 2016, 13:30

I think there's bit of straining over gnats in this. Isn't the degree to which the ends of the sword and key extend beyond the crown of the tree a matter of artistic treatment? The artist obviously has an obligation to represent the arms in a clear, identifiable fashion, and I'd think this would necessarily mean the ends of the sword and tree extending beyond the crown so that they're easily visible. But if an artist can represent the arms clearly some other way, that should also be acceptable. We have to guard against over-precise blazoning.

I think "piercing" or "transfixing" the crown of the tree is adequate blazonry.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Two Blason questions

Postby Chris Green » 13 Jun 2016, 14:48

Joseph: I agree, particularly as the tree, as illustrated, is the artist's very particular conception of ett bokträd (a beech tree). Were the tree rendered naturally the crown would of course be much larger:

Image
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert


Return to “General Heraldry”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests