My (hopeful) device:

[Curtius Maximus]

I am working on a device which I wish to submit shortly. Doing research, I haven't come across any current blazons that do not meet the minimum 2 point difference rule. However, I'm not entirely sure I have the blazon written correctly, nor am I certain my use of eight counterchanged roundels is feasible with the eagle displayed. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

As it stands, my blazon would read "Gyronny sable and gules, eight roundels counterchanged, an eagle displayed or" I -think-. A visual device is below for comparison. If I need to re-work anything, I would prefer to rework the blazon pattern (description?) and keep the device visually as is.

[Emeric]

Hey, Maximus;

The Rules for Submissions do not allow more than four field divisions unless it's divided equally between colours and metals--your sable and gules are both colours, and divides the field into eight. If you want to keep the field sable and gules, there are lots of field divisions open to you--quarterly, per saltire, per bend, per pale, etc.--as long as you have no more than four divisions.

I found this out the hard way--two years into the submission of my devise, I had it returned because it was originally submitted as gyronny of six sable and gules. Once I changed the field to per saltire, it passed.

Your rondels should be bigger, which will be easier to do on larger field divisions. But, you can't counter-change them as proposed, as that puts a coloured charge on a coloured field--breaks the Rule of Tincture that says "Thou Shalt Not Place a Colour on a Colour or Metal on a Metal." Gold rondels would work fine, though; but you might have to make the eagle a bit smaller to give the rondels enough space to be visually recognizable.

Your blazon is pretty good, although you should mention the principal charge (the eagle) before the secondary charge group (the rondels). So, depending on how you choose to re-design it, it may be more like "Quarterly sable and gules, an eagle displayed within four rondels or."

Nice looking device, though!

[Curtius Maximus]

Seriously? According to http://www.sca.org/heraldry/primer/ , "gyronny sable and argent" is listed as an acceptable field division. Under counterchanging, it also states "Any field division which is in two tinctures can have counterchanged charges placed on the field", giving a clear example of gyronny sable and argent, eight roundels counterchanged.

img:


I'm not arguing with you, I simply want to know why your device was bounced when using the sca.org's primer states it as feasible? Furthermore, the Kingdom of Ansteorra has listed several gyronny divisions with counterchanged roundels as -registered- devices. Thanks for pointing out the color on color thing however. I assume it is alright if I swap sable with argent then? Also, assuming I have to scrap the gyronny, how would one surround the eagle displayed with roundels as I have done?

Assuming I'm able to use gyronny, I'd be happy with

[Raoul]

Seriously? According to http://www.sca.org/heraldry/primer/ , "gyronny sable and argent" is listed as an acceptable field division.

Gyronny sable and argent is acceptable because sable is a colour and argent is a metal. If you change your device to gyronny argent and gules you should be ok and can keep the counterchanged roundels. However, I'm not sure, but you might run into a problem with the eagle becuase it is a metal and so you would have a metal on a metal (or on argent).

It would be easier to pass if you went with a simpler field division, like quartered. Then you could use two colours and have your eagle overtop in a metal without any problems. If what you really like about your device is the counterchanged roundels then maybe you might consider dropping the eagle and keeping the gyronny with a colour and a metal.

One other piece of advice (you might already know this), when you send in your submission don't print your colour drawings on a colour printer and just send that in. Print line drawings and colour them in by hand with Crayola permanent markers and stick to the primary colours. 2 reasons:
-Printer ink tends to drift colour by the time they look at your submission.
-Heralds tend to be anal about colour. If your blazon gules but you colour oxblood, someone will decide it looks brown and bounce your submission because the drawing doesn't match the blazon. They are sometimes amazingly intolerant of colour variances.

Raoul

[Manyra]

Also - Not sure if I'm just imagining the grey (silver?) & I know argent is technically a metal but it should be shown as white. Just as Or is yellow not gold.

[Curtius Maximus]

Raoul,

Thanks very much for the input and patience! If I have to swap to quartered to keep the Eagle I will, definitely.

'Nyra,

I used grey to simply seperate a more clear division between the white background and the device itself for "online" display purposes. It is technically supposed to be white, I should have mentioned that previously. Thanks!

[Emeric]

If you change your device to gyronny argent and gules you should be ok and can keep the counterchanged roundels. However, I'm not sure, but you might run into a problem with the eagle becuase it is a metal and so you would have a metal on a metal (or on argent).

Not a problem--RfS VIII 2 a) ii) reads;

An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and any other element as long as identifiability is maintained

.

So, as long as a gold eagle is displayed equally over a red (or black) and white field, there is still sufficient contrast in the design.

The trick is going to be maintaining identifiability while using the eagle, and surrounding it with rondels. You see the example you provided from the Heraldic Primer--the rondels are bigger than in your original design. The space in between them is all you should consider available to you for the eagle, and that might raise the question as to whether the eagle remains identifiable. Personally, I think that's plenty of space for an identifiable eagle, but the College of Arms adopts some strange ideas sometimes... If you've found some registered Ansteorran devises with gyronny divisions and rondels, with a central charge, that would help provide precedence--although the CoA does change the rules from time to time, and will not regard earlier registered armoury as a presedence for a newly-submitted device to "break the rules."

(during my first submission, I appealed the bouncing of my gyronny of six to the Laurel Sovereign of Arms, citing An Tir's device having a multi-part field of or and argent--he replied to me that An Tir's device was one they cited as an example of a field that does not provide good contrast at a distance, and was a reason for the rule to disallow metal/metal or colour/colour field divisions of greater than four pieces!)