Cross with a white outline

General Heraldry subjects
User avatar
rkasparek
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 May 2014, 15:38

Cross with a white outline

Postby rkasparek » 07 Jun 2016, 15:07

How would one blazon a cross with a specific colored outline?

i.e. say a gules cross, fimbriated argent on a per pale argent and sable: the cross is fimbriated argent in order to make it more visible above the sable portion of the field. Would this be proper?
Rick Kasparek
IAAH Vice President: Communications

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

Re: Cross with a white outline

Postby Chris Green » 07 Jun 2016, 16:25

So the fimbriation would be argent on argent (i.e. invisible) on one half and argent defining the gules cross against the sable field on the other half?

To my mind the fimbriation would have to be visible throughout, i.e. the artist would need to draw a line showing the argent fimbriation against the argent field. But without any fimbriation the cross would arguably violate the tincture "rule" being gules on sable. The whole thing simply suggests that the idea is bad heraldry one way or another and should be consigned to the WPB.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
rkasparek
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 May 2014, 15:38

Re: Cross with a white outline

Postby rkasparek » 07 Jun 2016, 16:48

Can a fimbriation be countercharged? i.e. fimbriated sable to dexter, argent to sinister? I'm curious - as far as a gules cross on a sable field - how do the Templars (sic) get away with a red cross that spans across argent and sable? (not trying to be sarcastic - I truly am curious).

Or what about per pale argent and sable with a cross countercharged gules and argent - i.e. gules over the argent, argent over the sable?
Rick Kasparek
IAAH Vice President: Communications

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

Re: Cross with a white outline

Postby JMcMillan » 07 Jun 2016, 17:45

rkasparek wrote:Can a fimbriation be countercharged? i.e. fimbriated sable to dexter, argent to sinister? I'm curious - as far as a gules cross on a sable field - how do the Templars (sic) get away with a red cross that spans across argent and sable? (not trying to be sarcastic - I truly am curious).


They "get away" with it because (a) the arms developed before anyone thought to write down any rules, and (b) the tincture rule generally doesn't apply--at least as strictly--for charges on a party-colored field.

Or what about per pale argent and sable with a cross countercharged gules and argent - i.e. gules over the argent, argent over the sable?


That's a better solution all around.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

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

Re: Cross with a white outline

Postby Chris Green » 07 Jun 2016, 18:04

rkasparek wrote:Can a fimbriation be countercharged? i.e. fimbriated sable to dexter, argent to sinister? I'm curious - as far as a gules cross on a sable field - how do the Templars (sic) get away with a red cross that spans across argent and sable? (not trying to be sarcastic - I truly am curious).
Or what about per pale argent and sable with a cross countercharged gules and argent - i.e. gules over the argent, argent over the sable?


I am not sure which Templars you mean. The modern so-called "Temple of the Order of Solomon" certainly uses Per Fess Sable and Argent a Cross Formy Gules (plus a couple of other charges irrelevant to the point at issue). Historically however Knights Templar wore a white surcoat with a red cross and a white mantle also with a red cross. Templar sergeants bore the red cross on a black tunic, but they were non-noble. It is a matter of conjecture whether the latter could be considered heraldic, or merely uniform.

Counterchanged fimbriation is certainly feasible, though in my opinion not good heraldry.

Per pale Argent and Sable a Cross per pale Gules and Argent is certainly do-able.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
rkasparek
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 May 2014, 15:38

Re: Cross with a white outline

Postby rkasparek » 07 Jun 2016, 18:34

JMcMillan wrote:They "get away" with it because (a) the arms developed before anyone thought to write down any rules, and (b) the tincture rule generally doesn't apply--at least as strictly--for charges on a party-colored field.


I hadn't thought of that - that makes sense.

Or what about per pale argent and sable with a cross countercharged gules and argent - i.e. gules over the argent, argent over the sable?

JMcMillan wrote:That's a better solution all around.

Okay cool

So Chris' suggestion for the blazon, "Per pale Argent and Sable a Cross per pale Gules and Argent" would be proper?
Rick Kasparek
IAAH Vice President: Communications

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

Re: Cross with a white outline

Postby Chris Green » 07 Jun 2016, 19:44

So Chris' suggestion for the blazon, "Per pale Argent and Sable a Cross per pale Gules and Argent" would be proper?


Counterchanged would be incorrect here as you can only interchange the same tinctures.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
rkasparek
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 May 2014, 15:38

Re: Cross with a white outline

Postby rkasparek » 07 Jun 2016, 22:13

Chris Green wrote:Counterchanged would be incorrect here as you can only interchange the same tinctures.

That makes sense. Duh - sorry about that... I guess I haven't had enough coffee ;)
Rick Kasparek
IAAH Vice President: Communications

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

Re: Cross with a white outline

Postby Chris Green » 08 Jun 2016, 11:40

The so-called "tincture rule" is discussed here:

http://amateurheralds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert


Return to “General Heraldry”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests