Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Chief per Chief
166 views
Skip to first unread message
Turenne
Jul 13, 2012, 7:12:03 AM7/13/12
to
Does anyone know what a chief per chief looks like?
Chequy az. and or a chief per chief nebuly of the first and second. -|- Tavestoke.V*. Tavystock,F.
RL
Chequy az. and or a chief per chief nebuly of the first and second. -|- Tavestoke.V*. Tavystock,F.
RL
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Jul 14, 2012, 3:48:26 AM7/14/12
to
The chief would be divided horizontally by a nebuly partition. Real
dog-heraldry, which is why the expression is not known well!
dog-heraldry, which is why the expression is not known well!
Turenne
Jul 15, 2012, 12:06:07 PM7/15/12
to
On Saturday, July 14, 2012 8:48:26 AM UTC+1, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> The chief would be divided horizontally by a nebuly partition. Real
> dog-heraldry, which is why the expression is not known well!
Thanks Alex. Would the Chief be Chequy too?
> The chief would be divided horizontally by a nebuly partition. Real
> dog-heraldry, which is why the expression is not known well!
RL
The Chief
Jul 15, 2012, 5:02:06 PM7/15/12
to
On Saturday, July 14, 2012 7:48:26 AM UTC, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> The chief would be divided horizontally by a nebuly partition. Real
> dog-heraldry, which is why the expression is not known well!
Two questions/comments:
> The chief would be divided horizontally by a nebuly partition. Real
> dog-heraldry, which is why the expression is not known well!
1) When you say "dog-heraldry" I think talbots, but somehow I don't think that is what you mean??
2) Is this "chief per chief" something every respectable chief should aspire to?
Regards,
The Chief
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Jul 16, 2012, 2:44:31 AM7/16/12
to
No, it refers to the tinctures, so Azure on top and Or beneath, though
the other way around would have looked better in my view.
the other way around would have looked better in my view.
Turenne
Jul 16, 2012, 2:40:52 PM7/16/12
to
On Monday, July 16, 2012 7:44:31 AM UTC+1, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> No, it refers to the tinctures, so Azure on top and Or beneath, though
> the other way around would have looked better in my view.
Thank you Alex. Here's a couple more:
> No, it refers to the tinctures, so Azure on top and Or beneath, though
> the other way around would have looked better in my view.
Gu. a griffin statant or a chief per chief indented erm. and or. -|- Browne, Essex, W.
Per fess gu. and arg. a chief per chief indented of the same. -|- Hachet, V*. Hanchet, V*.
How would you blazon these arms avoiding the term 'chief per chief'?
RL
Turenne
Jul 16, 2012, 2:47:14 PM7/16/12
to
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:02:06 PM UTC+1, The Chief wrote:
> On Saturday, July 14, 2012 7:48:26 AM UTC, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > The chief would be divided horizontally by a nebuly partition. Real
> On Saturday, July 14, 2012 7:48:26 AM UTC, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > dog-heraldry, which is why the expression is not known well!
>
> Two questions/comments:
>
> 1) When you say "dog-heraldry" I think talbots, but somehow I don't think that is what you mean??
It's a rather good term. The sort of heraldic equivalent to 'dog-latin'.
> 2) Is this "chief per chief" something every respectable chief should aspire to?
Absolutely! Get one right away!
>
Cheers
Richard
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Jul 17, 2012, 4:04:11 AM7/17/12
to
old blazon say up to the C17, and still in French practice, coupe
means a horizontal division and parti a vertical one, eg coupe d'un
trait, de deux traits (ie into three equal parts) etc, and similarly
parti d'un trait, trait being a division rather than a tract as we now
use it, eg in banners.
So I guess that you could say a 'chief coupe nebully Azure and Or',
but on the whole I prefer 'chief per chief'. We also sometimes use
the expression a cross per cross, when the field is quartered and the
cross is counter-changed.
Outis
Jul 17, 2012, 8:00:55 AM7/17/12
to
On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 10:04:11 UTC+2, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> On Jul 16, 7:40 pm, Turenne <rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 16, 2012 7:44:31 AM UTC+1, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > > No, it refers to the tinctures, so Azure on top and Or beneath, though
> > > the other way around would have looked better in my view.
> >
> > Thank you Alex. Here's a couple more:
> >
> > Gu. a griffin statant or a chief per chief indented erm. and or. -|- Browne, Essex, W.
> >
> > Per fess gu. and arg. a chief per chief indented of the same. -|- Hachet, V*. Hanchet, V*.
> >
> > How would you blazon these arms avoiding the term 'chief per chief'?
> >
> > RL
> but on the whole I prefer 'chief per chief'. We also sometimes use
> On Jul 16, 7:40 pm, Turenne <rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 16, 2012 7:44:31 AM UTC+1, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > > No, it refers to the tinctures, so Azure on top and Or beneath, though
> > > the other way around would have looked better in my view.
> >
> > Thank you Alex. Here's a couple more:
> >
> > Gu. a griffin statant or a chief per chief indented erm. and or. -|- Browne, Essex, W.
> >
> > Per fess gu. and arg. a chief per chief indented of the same. -|- Hachet, V*. Hanchet, V*.
> >
> > How would you blazon these arms avoiding the term 'chief per chief'?
> >
> > RL
>
> It is necessary to show that the chief is divided horizontally. In
> old blazon say up to the C17, and still in French practice, coupe
> means a horizontal division and parti a vertical one, eg coupe d'un
> It is necessary to show that the chief is divided horizontally. In
> old blazon say up to the C17, and still in French practice, coupe
> trait, de deux traits (ie into three equal parts) etc, and similarly
> parti d'un trait, trait being a division rather than a tract as we now
> use it, eg in banners.
>
> So I guess that you could say a 'chief coupe nebully Azure and Or',
>
> but on the whole I prefer 'chief per chief'. We also sometimes use
> the expression a cross per cross, when the field is quartered and the
> cross is counter-changed.
I wonder why you would prefer "chief per chief". Given that "chef coupé" or "chief per fess" should describe equalparts horizontal division adaquately, I would have supposed that "chief per chief" implies that the division should be positioned higher than the middle of the chief -- but this does not seem to be the intention.
> cross is counter-changed.
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Jul 17, 2012, 6:08:20 PM7/17/12
to
> I wonder why you would prefer "chief per chief". Given that "chef coupé" or "chief per fess" should describe equalparts horizontal division adaquately, I would have supposed that "chief per chief" implies that the division should be positioned higher than the middle of the chief -- but this does not seem to be the intention.
I see the point, but the term is chief per chief. Whether chief per
fess makes sense I don't quite know. I did wonder about it, but I
thought that introducing another ordinary would be pretty confusing,
so better to stick to what we know (and love!)
Outis
Jul 17, 2012, 7:42:52 PM7/17/12
to
On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 00:08:20 UTC+2, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > I wonder why you would prefer "chief per chief". Given that "chef coupé" or "chief per fess" should describe equalparts horizontal division adaquately, I would have supposed that "chief per chief" implies that the division should be positioned higher than the middle of the chief -- but this does not seem to be the intention.
http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
> > I wonder why you would prefer "chief per chief". Given that "chef coupé" or "chief per fess" should describe equalparts horizontal division adaquately, I would have supposed that "chief per chief" implies that the division should be positioned higher than the middle of the chief -- but this does not seem to be the intention.
>
>
> I see the point, but the term is chief per chief. Whether chief per
> fess makes sense I don't quite know. I did wonder about it, but I
>
> I see the point, but the term is chief per chief. Whether chief per
> thought that introducing another ordinary would be pretty confusing,
> so better to stick to what we know (and love!)
But chief per fess is nothing new! A quick search of "a chief per fess" shows many more results than "a chief per chief", and one of an early example can be seen here:
> so better to stick to what we know (and love!)
http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
Message has been deleted
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Jul 18, 2012, 1:29:35 AM7/18/12
to
>
> But chief per fess is nothing new! A quick search of "a chief per fess" shows many more results than "a chief per chief", and one of an early example can be seen here:http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
discussing, but the precise point of discussion is how we describe it
in blazon. I have searched on the expression "chief per fess" and
come up with only one example, from American heraldry on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_%28heraldry%29
However, if you like to use that expression, then I'm fine with it,
there are more ways of skinning a cat! I was just asked for a
different way of expressing "chief per chief" as Richard came up with
some more examples, so I suggested using coupe.
Outis
Jul 18, 2012, 10:28:36 AM7/18/12
to
I ran the search on Google: "chief per fess" returned thousands of results while "chief per chief" returned less than 10. The page I linked to shows the arms of Elizabeth Woodville (15th cent.) blazoned as "chief per fess".
Of course I have no issue with people preferring different terms, I'm merely pointing out that:
1. "chief per fess" is not a new innovation, and
2. It is probably the de facto norm for blazoning this visual design.
On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 07:29:35 UTC+2, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> >
> > But chief per fess is nothing new! A quick search of "a chief per fess" shows many more results than "a chief per chief", and one of an early example can be seen here:http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
Of course I have no issue with people preferring different terms, I'm merely pointing out that:
1. "chief per fess" is not a new innovation, and
2. It is probably the de facto norm for blazoning this visual design.
On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 07:29:35 UTC+2, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> >
>
> I think that what you show is certainly the emblazonment which we are
> discussing, but the precise point of discussion is how we describe it
> in blazon. I have searched on the expression "chief per fess" and
> I think that what you show is certainly the emblazonment which we are
> discussing, but the precise point of discussion is how we describe it
> come up with only one example, from American heraldry on Wiki.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_%28heraldry%29
>
> However, if you like to use that expression, then I'm fine with it,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_%28heraldry%29
>
> there are more ways of skinning a cat! I was just asked for a
> different way of expressing "chief per chief" as Richard came up with
Outis
Jul 18, 2012, 10:29:07 AM7/18/12
to
ps. Incidentally, "chief per chief" returns 0 hits on wiki.
On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 07:29:35 UTC+2, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> >
> > But chief per fess is nothing new! A quick search of "a chief per fess" shows many more results than "a chief per chief", and one of an early example can be seen here:http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 07:29:35 UTC+2, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> >
>
> I think that what you show is certainly the emblazonment which we are
> discussing, but the precise point of discussion is how we describe it
> in blazon. I have searched on the expression "chief per fess" and
> I think that what you show is certainly the emblazonment which we are
> discussing, but the precise point of discussion is how we describe it
> come up with only one example, from American heraldry on Wiki.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_%28heraldry%29
>
> However, if you like to use that expression, then I'm fine with it,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_%28heraldry%29
>
> there are more ways of skinning a cat! I was just asked for a
> different way of expressing "chief per chief" as Richard came up with
Turenne
Jul 18, 2012, 6:36:29 PM7/18/12
to
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 3:29:07 PM UTC+1, Outis wrote:
> ps. Incidentally, "chief per chief" returns 0 hits on wiki.
> > &gt; But chief per fess is nothing new! A quick search of &quot;a chief per fess&quot; shows many more results than &quot;a chief per chief&quot;, and one of an early example can be seen here:http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
> >
> > I think that what you show is certainly the emblazonment which we are
> > discussing, but the precise point of discussion is how we describe it
> > in blazon. I have searched on the expression &quot;chief per fess&quot; and
> > come up with only one example, from American heraldry on Wiki.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_%28heraldry%29
> >
> > However, if you like to use that expression, then I&#39;m fine with it,
> > there are more ways of skinning a cat! I was just asked for a
> > different way of expressing &quot;chief per chief&quot; as Richard came up with
> > some more examples, so I suggested using coupe.
I can't seem to visualise a chief per chief. Is it a third of a chief?
RL
> ps. Incidentally, "chief per chief" returns 0 hits on wiki.
>
> On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 07:29:35 UTC+2, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > &gt;
> On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 07:29:35 UTC+2, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > &gt; But chief per fess is nothing new! A quick search of &quot;a chief per fess&quot; shows many more results than &quot;a chief per chief&quot;, and one of an early example can be seen here:http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
> >
> > I think that what you show is certainly the emblazonment which we are
> > discussing, but the precise point of discussion is how we describe it
> > in blazon. I have searched on the expression &quot;chief per fess&quot; and
> > come up with only one example, from American heraldry on Wiki.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_%28heraldry%29
> >
> > However, if you like to use that expression, then I&#39;m fine with it,
> > there are more ways of skinning a cat! I was just asked for a
> > different way of expressing &quot;chief per chief&quot; as Richard came up with
> > some more examples, so I suggested using coupe.
I can't seem to visualise a chief per chief. Is it a third of a chief?
RL
for Nicolai
Jul 20, 2012, 8:51:53 AM7/20/12
to
RL...I believe
it would be a little difficult to accomplish a 1/3rd division
with a "nebuly"
...the resulting "nebuly" would be rather small..., no???!!!
...here it isn't divided in equal parts
http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
it would be a little difficult to accomplish a 1/3rd division
with a "nebuly"
...the resulting "nebuly" would be rather small..., no???!!!
...here it isn't divided in equal parts
http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
for Nicolai
Jul 20, 2012, 9:39:41 AM7/20/12
to
I guess it depends if the size of the "Chief" is 1/4 or 1/3 of the Shield......
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5233/1abchiefperchief.jpg
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5233/1abchiefperchief.jpg
Outis
Jul 20, 2012, 9:50:49 AM7/20/12
to
On Friday, 20 July 2012 15:39:41 UTC+2, for Nicolai wrote:
> I guess it depends if the size of the "Chief" is 1/4 or 1/3 of the Shield......
>
> http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5233/1abchiefperchief.jpg
But this look like more than just a simple chief with division. I'd call it either a "chief per fess nebuly azure & or, a chief or" or "chief or, a label of 6 points nebuly azure". But yeah I just invented that last one.
> I guess it depends if the size of the "Chief" is 1/4 or 1/3 of the Shield......
>
> http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5233/1abchiefperchief.jpg
But this look like more than just a simple chief with division. I'd call it either a "chief per fess nebuly azure & or, a chief or" or "chief or, a label of 6 points nebuly azure". But yeah I just invented that last one.
Outis
Jul 20, 2012, 9:52:13 AM7/20/12
to
On Friday, 20 July 2012 15:39:41 UTC+2, for Nicolai wrote:
> I guess it depends if the size of the "Chief" is 1/4 or 1/3 of the Shield......
>
> http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5233/1abchiefperchief.jpg
Or even a "chief tierced per fess and fess nebuly or, azure, or"
for Nicolai
Jul 20, 2012, 9:43:35 AM7/20/12
to
I guess it depends if the "Chief" is 1/3rd or a 1/4
of the Shield!
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5233/1abchiefperchief.jpg
of the Shield!
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5233/1abchiefperchief.jpg
Outis
Jul 20, 2012, 9:47:40 AM7/20/12
to
On Friday, 20 July 2012 14:51:53 UTC+2, for Nicolai wrote:
> ...here it isn't divided in equal parts
> http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
How is it not? The "chief per fess argent and or" shows the chief equally divided in 2.
> ...here it isn't divided in equal parts
> http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-253
How is it not? The "chief per fess argent and or" shows the chief equally divided in 2.
for Nicolai
Jul 20, 2012, 10:35:11 AM7/20/12
to
...now I am confused as well, is the term
"Chief per Chief" divided by two or three equal parts???
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5343/1abchiefperchiefd2.jpg
"Chief per Chief" divided by two or three equal parts???
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5343/1abchiefperchiefd2.jpg
Turenne
Jul 20, 2012, 4:26:23 PM7/20/12
to
On Friday, July 20, 2012 3:35:11 PM UTC+1, for Nicolai wrote:
> ...now I am confused as well, is the term
> "Chief per Chief" divided by two or three equal parts???
> ...now I am confused as well, is the term
>
> http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5343/1abchiefperchiefd2.jpg
Thank you Nicolai. That's my question too! I assumed that it was a third of a chief, and the chief is a third of the shield
RL
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Jul 21, 2012, 4:02:38 PM7/21/12
to
Turenne
Jul 21, 2012, 4:30:33 PM7/21/12
to
On Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:02:38 PM UTC+1, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> On Friday, July 13, 2012 12:12:03 PM UTC+1, Turenne wrote:
> > Does anyone know what a chief per chief looks like?
> On Friday, July 13, 2012 12:12:03 PM UTC+1, Turenne wrote:
> >
> > Chequy az. and or a chief per chief nebuly of the first and second. -|- Tavestoke.V*. Tavystock,F.
> >
> > RL
>
> My opinion is that it i reality refers to a chief which is split equally, but logically perhaps it should refer to splitting the chief 1:2. In any case it is a bit minor in the panoply of heraldry.
That's true, but a friend of mine is translating Papworth into German, and needs as much help as he can get!
> My opinion is that it i reality refers to a chief which is split equally, but logically perhaps it should refer to splitting the chief 1:2. In any case it is a bit minor in the panoply of heraldry.
What he needs to know is whether there are any other ways of blazoning a chief per chief, the he can clump all the same blazons together (I hope that makes sense)
RL
Outis
Jul 21, 2012, 6:56:57 PM7/21/12
to
On Saturday, 21 July 2012 22:30:33 UTC+2, Turenne wrote:
> On Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:02:38 PM UTC+1, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > On Friday, July 13, 2012 12:12:03 PM UTC+1, Turenne wrote:
> On Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:02:38 PM UTC+1, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > &gt; Does anyone know what a chief per chief looks like?
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Chequy az. and or a chief per chief nebuly of the first and second. -|- Tavestoke.V*. Tavystock,F.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; RL
> >
> > My opinion is that it i reality refers to a chief which is split equally, but logically perhaps it should refer to splitting the chief 1:2. In any case it is a bit minor in the panoply of heraldry.
>
> That's true, but a friend of mine is translating Papworth into German, and needs as much help as he can get!
>
> What he needs to know is whether there are any other ways of blazoning a chief per chief, the he can clump all the same blazons together (I hope that makes sense)
>
> RL
Since German blazoning is barely systematized and tend strongly toward the descriptive, it'd be bit of a wasted effort to dwell too much on the precise wording. I'd simply go for "Schildhaupt gespalten".
> What he needs to know is whether there are any other ways of blazoning a chief per chief, the he can clump all the same blazons together (I hope that makes sense)
>
> RL
for Nicolai
Jul 21, 2012, 8:36:05 PM7/21/12
to
On Saturday, July 21, 2012 3:56:57 PM UTC-7, Outis wrote:
> Since German blazoning is barely systematized and tend strongly toward the descriptive, it'd be bit of a wasted effort to dwell too much on the precise wording. I'd simply go for "Schildhaupt gespalten".
gespalten = vertical action-division
geteilt = horizontal action-division
in this case it might be = belegt ???
!
> Since German blazoning is barely systematized and tend strongly toward the descriptive, it'd be bit of a wasted effort to dwell too much on the precise wording. I'd simply go for "Schildhaupt gespalten".
gespalten = vertical action-division
geteilt = horizontal action-division
in this case it might be = belegt ???
!
for Nicolai
Jul 21, 2012, 8:52:58 PM7/21/12
to
"IF" it is a simple horizontal division in two equal parts
"Unter einem von Blau und Gold im Wolkenschnitt geteilten Schildhaupt "
"Unter einem von Blau und Gold im Wolkenschnitt geteilten Schildhaupt "
for Nicolai
Jul 24, 2012, 7:08:46 AM7/24/12
to
But this doesn't answer RL's question,
In my opinion a 2:1 or 1:1 division isn't (ain't) (aye)
a minor difference!
;)
In my opinion a 2:1 or 1:1 division isn't (ain't) (aye)
a minor difference!
;)
Outis
Jul 24, 2012, 8:56:27 AM7/24/12
to
On Tuesday, 24 July 2012 13:08:46 UTC+2, for Nicolai wrote:
> But this doesn't answer RL's question,
>
> In my opinion a 2:1 or 1:1 division isn't (ain't) (aye)
> a minor difference!
> ;)
This is the only depiction of chief per chief that I can find (and it happens to be the one Turenne speaks of).
http://www.mouserfonts.com/Arms/Arms/T/tavestoke.htm
Looks like a 1:1 division to me. Not that we should automatically take this as authoritative.
In the end, I'd say this is a grey area, and it's up to the artist to decide.
> But this doesn't answer RL's question,
>
> In my opinion a 2:1 or 1:1 division isn't (ain't) (aye)
> a minor difference!
> ;)
This is the only depiction of chief per chief that I can find (and it happens to be the one Turenne speaks of).
http://www.mouserfonts.com/Arms/Arms/T/tavestoke.htm
Looks like a 1:1 division to me. Not that we should automatically take this as authoritative.
In the end, I'd say this is a grey area, and it's up to the artist to decide.
for Nicolai
Jul 24, 2012, 1:36:21 PM7/24/12
to
http://www.mouserfonts.com/Arms/Arms/T/tavestoke.htm
This "could" be interpreted as divided by three,
and the nebuly is placed in the center!?
...but since we don't have anything to compare it to
my guess is just as good as any other....!???
This "could" be interpreted as divided by three,
and the nebuly is placed in the center!?
...but since we don't have anything to compare it to
my guess is just as good as any other....!???
Outis
Jul 24, 2012, 2:43:30 PM7/24/12
to
On Tuesday, 24 July 2012 19:36:21 UTC+2, for Nicolai wrote:
> http://www.mouserfonts.com/Arms/Arms/T/tavestoke.htm
>
> This "could" be interpreted as divided by three,
> http://www.mouserfonts.com/Arms/Arms/T/tavestoke.htm
>
> This "could" be interpreted as divided by three,
> and the nebuly is placed in the center!?
That wouldn't make any sense: it's divided into 2 tinctures.
Odysseus
Jul 25, 2012, 12:50:29 AM7/25/12
to
In article <a4d94360-5d4d-4e86...@googlegroups.com>,
Presumably the reference was to visual division of the space, as opposed
to partition. But in a whole shield per fesse nebuly I don't think the
zone of overlap or interleaving would take up as much as one-third of
the field. At any rate the partition line in the illustration does
appear to trend through the middle of the chief.
The page cited Parker's Glossary, so I looked it up: in the CHIEF
article (where the Tavestoke blazon is found) he says "A chief may also
be party per pale, per bend, &c., or even quarterly. When divided by a
horizontal line the expression per chief is more accurate than per
fesse." Unfortunately the basis for the latter remark is not explained
-- perhaps it's that a "per fesse" division is taken to be anchored to
the fesse point of the shield -- but it would seem to suggest that "a
chief per fesse" and "a chief per chief" are more or less synonymous as
far as the emblazonment is concerned.
<http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossc.htm#Chief>
--
Odysseus
to partition. But in a whole shield per fesse nebuly I don't think the
zone of overlap or interleaving would take up as much as one-third of
the field. At any rate the partition line in the illustration does
appear to trend through the middle of the chief.
The page cited Parker's Glossary, so I looked it up: in the CHIEF
article (where the Tavestoke blazon is found) he says "A chief may also
be party per pale, per bend, &c., or even quarterly. When divided by a
horizontal line the expression per chief is more accurate than per
fesse." Unfortunately the basis for the latter remark is not explained
-- perhaps it's that a "per fesse" division is taken to be anchored to
the fesse point of the shield -- but it would seem to suggest that "a
chief per fesse" and "a chief per chief" are more or less synonymous as
far as the emblazonment is concerned.
<http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossc.htm#Chief>
--
Odysseus
0 new messages