Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

General Heraldry subjects
User avatar
MenkAndemicael
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Apr 2014, 02:04
Location: San Leandro
Contact:

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby MenkAndemicael » 17 Jun 2017, 21:12

My point was that both designs could be generated from 'swallowtailed' since most artists would simply interpret it as "embattled indented,' with some potentially doing 'dovetailed indented.'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swallowtail_(flag)

I was mulling over leaving that open to interpretation, but it does seem better to be more precise!

Interesting development: like the Canadians, Lyon has also suggested "dovetailed indented." Your addition of "above and below" ensures it's drawn correctly. Thanks!

One final consideration: is there any way to blazon the starting point of the division? So that it appears as shown, with two tails central and a third split between both edges of the shield, creating "three mountains" in the negative space?

Iain Boyd
Posts: 117
Joined: 15 Jul 2012, 01:48
Location: New Zealand

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby Iain Boyd » 17 Jun 2017, 22:36

I tend to agree with Michael on this - I like your original 'thorny' line of division much better than the 'embattled' variation.

I am not sure how or whether it is advisable to try and blazon the 'thorny' in such a way as to get three mountain peaks in the negative space. It will probably required more words than are justified. I think I might tend to go for referring to the emblazonment in the margin of the grant (I can not think of the traditional wording at this moment).

However, I would suggest that one use 'swallow-tailed counter swallow-tailed' rather than ' dovetailed swallow-tailed above and below' as suggested by Michael.

Regards,

Iain Boyd

User avatar
MenkAndemicael
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Apr 2014, 02:04
Location: San Leandro
Contact:

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby MenkAndemicael » 18 Jun 2017, 00:30

Any specific reason why "above and below" is wrong? I don't have the sketch handy, but I think that using "countered" would put the other dovetails below the line of division instead of interlocking with it using the negative space. This seems to be the case with counter-trefoily, counter-fleury, etc.

Also, im curious, why use swallowtailed at all, since we've already determined the splay is from the dovetail? Beyond that, what difference is there between saying swallowtailed rather than the more familar Indented?

As for precisely positioning the line, it seems there's precedent for "upwards" and "inverted"

So, "per fess dovetailed of three tails downward, indented above and below"

Or perhaps, simply
"Per fess dovetailed indented of three tails inverted"
Last edited by MenkAndemicael on 18 Jun 2017, 03:06, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 565
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby JMcMillan » 18 Jun 2017, 01:48

Dovetailed is well-established in heraldry as referring to splayed with flat ends, as in the cabinetmakers method of joining pieces of wood:

Image

The problem of an artist not being able to draw the arms from the blazon without being coached is, in my opinion, merely one of abstract theory. (The theory being that the blazon should permit the accurate emblazonment of the arms with no further information.) There would never be any new partition lines if people got tangled up in that theological shibboleth. Who would know from the blazon alone what sapiné/kaasikuro, sapinage/havukoro, érablé, serpentine/Schlangenschnitt looked like the first time they were ever used?
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

User avatar
MenkAndemicael
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Apr 2014, 02:04
Location: San Leandro
Contact:

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby MenkAndemicael » 18 Jun 2017, 02:50

Dovetailed isn't the issue at all; swallowtailed is. The problem is that swallowtail already is used in closely related vexilology with a visual representation that differs from my intended one.

With other partition lines, it seems they were created within an heraldic jurisdiction where they were especially relevant for use by multiple armigers, often by an authority. Doesn't it seem more appropriate for a "one off" to attempt to use blazoning that would work as well a century or more ago, as it would today? I take your point that it is abstraction, but isn't blazoning at all an abstraction in the digital age?

Consider the arms of the SA free state. Why blazon them fully, and not simply create a new line of partition called "flat mountainy" or similar? They certainly had more justification to do so than someone assuming personal arms.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/za-fs.html

User avatar
MenkAndemicael
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Apr 2014, 02:04
Location: San Leandro
Contact:

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby MenkAndemicael » 19 Jun 2017, 03:40

So. Considering the unanimous opinion here and my own results from a fridge test, I've decided to keep my existing arms — with a simple correction to the currently dubious blazon.

After reading a bunch of existing blazons for complex divisions, I've settled on the following two corrected variants that not only:
    1) clearly explain how to draw the division
    2) ensure I get the meaning of the "3 peaks" of my dancetty alternative without changing anything
    3) ensure my arms will be drawn bold and clear and will read even at small size.

The first is short and sweet and in line with both Lyon's and the CHA's recommendations.
The second leaves nothing to chance and may even be clearer and sound better

Any preference, or final thoughts?

"Per fess dovetailed indented of three tails downwards Or and Vert, in chief a bee volant and in base a rose all counterchanged.”


"per fess dovetailed of three steps downwards, the tails and counter-tails indented Or and Vert, in chief a bee volant and in base a rose all counterchanged."


Thanks again for all the help!

Iain Boyd
Posts: 117
Joined: 15 Jul 2012, 01:48
Location: New Zealand

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby Iain Boyd » 19 Jun 2017, 04:07

I do have to say that I am pleased that you have decided to retain the coat of arms you initially adopted.

All the best,

Iain Boyd

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 2778
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby Chris Green » 19 Jun 2017, 05:43

Me too.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Apohypaton

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
Posts: 332
Joined: 24 Apr 2015, 23:34

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby Michael F. McCartney » 19 Jun 2017, 23:11

Me three! :)
As to the blazoning - I don't have a personal preference between swallowtailed and dovetailed indented - since the intended symbolism is thorns, neither bird tails nor furniture construction has any apparent symbolic relevance beyond mere description of the partition line. (Unless you have an ancestor you haven't mentioned who was an ornithologist or a cabinetmaker... ;) )

If I've been following the discussion as closely as I should (I haven't - too many medical, work, and family distractions!) I think the "official" score is two heraldic authorities (Lyon & CHA) for dovetailed indented vs one (SA BOH) for swallowtailed. If you plan or hope to petition for a grant or registration from any of these three, or just prefer to defer to one or another of them, then by all means go with your intended target audience. Otherwise, I'd say the possible confusion re: swallowtailed in vexillogic terms would be a negative, swinging the decision towards the less ambiguous dovetailed indented.

Or just stick​ with e'pine' ;)

FWIW...others may see it differently.
Michael F. McCartney
Fremont, California

User avatar
MenkAndemicael
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Apr 2014, 02:04
Location: San Leandro
Contact:

Re: Considering the following change to my arms. Thoughts?

Postby MenkAndemicael » 20 Jun 2017, 02:51

Yes, swallowtailed is a concern for the flag reason. Actually, SA heraldry makes use of the word "broad", in "broad fitchy" to create an embattled shape with a broader base, so the same logic COULD be applied to swallowtailed. But as you pointed out, no special connection to birds here, so why push it.

This is unrelated and interesting: also from SA, and ironically describing the above shape in a different manner:

Boksburg civic arms:
"Vert and Azure, upon a fess abaisse embattled counter embattled in the form of mine dumps"

Tempting to use "in the form of acacia thorns" or mention mountains. After I tell people how to draw the darn thing without using google, of course!


Return to “General Heraldry”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest