Re: Heraldry Questions

[Dave Montuori <damont@wolfstar.com>]

Poster: Dave Montuori <damont@wolfstar.com>


> Antonio Miguel Santos de Borja wrote: 
> >As a side note, I do not find "plumetty" in the Glossary of Terms 
> >found at http://www.sca.org/heraldry/coagloss.html. I have also not 
> >seen this before in SCA heraldry. Therefore, I am inclined to think 
> >that plumetty is not an allowable practice in the SCA.

Anarra Karlsdottir responded:
> That depends.  If plumetty was used in arms from our period, then the 
> College will allow it, given adequate documentation of that fact.  
> 
> If it's a made-up field treatment, then I agree, it might be hard to get 
> it past the College of Heralds.
> 
> Where did the original poster see that blazon?  Was it an SCA coat of 
> arms or a contemporary one from our period of study?

Both versions of "plumetty" are, at worst, one step away from
documented period practice. I think the College of Arms generally finds
either version acceptable. "Plumetty" which divides the the field into
equal panes of both tinctures can be informally described as "lozengy
fuzzy." The "plumetty" field treatment is an artistic variation of
"scaly" which is found a few times in late period rolls. As folks have
noted previously on this thread, the two meanings of "plumetty" don't look
the same, so have a care with your blazon!

Evan da Collaureo
Golden Dolphin Herald, Atlantia
(the above is my professional opinion as a herald but not an Official
Pronouncement (tm) of my office)

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org