Talk:Proper: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
*Oops, I wrote this and I did it so long ago that I can't remember my basis for it. I think I got it from one of the SCA heraldry web pages (most likely Laurel Sovereign of Arms or West Kingdom Herald), and so most of this, including the table, should include the condition ''for the purposes of SCA heraldry''. [[User:Conrad Leviston|Conrad Leviston]] 19:54, 13 Dec 2005 (CST) |
*Oops, I wrote this and I did it so long ago that I can't remember my basis for it. I think I got it from one of the SCA heraldry web pages (most likely Laurel Sovereign of Arms or West Kingdom Herald), and so most of this, including the table, should include the condition ''for the purposes of SCA heraldry''. [[User:Conrad Leviston|Conrad Leviston]] 19:54, 13 Dec 2005 (CST) |
||
**O.K. However, in mundane heraldry including in period, as long as proper has been used (it was phrased in several different ways in the early period, but I'm talking about the concept, not necessarily the phrasing) it's always been true that imaginary animals could be blazoned as "proper" and how could they not be, since many of them were not recognised as imaginary at the time, and at any rate the real/imaginary dichotomy is not really helpful in any concievable way when it comes to heraldry? What I'm getting at is there seems to be a misconception of what "proper" means here: it means that the charge is in the tinctures the charge is "supposed" to be in, which is at times a convention rather than something observed from nature. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:14, 15 Dec 2005 (CST) |
**O.K. However, in mundane heraldry including in period, as long as proper has been used (it was phrased in several different ways in the early period, but I'm talking about the concept, not necessarily the phrasing) it's always been true that imaginary animals could be blazoned as "proper" and how could they not be, since many of them were not recognised as imaginary at the time, and at any rate the real/imaginary dichotomy is not really helpful in any concievable way when it comes to heraldry? What I'm getting at is there seems to be a misconception of what "proper" means here: it means that the charge is in the tinctures the charge is "supposed" to be in, which is at times a convention rather than something observed from nature. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:14, 15 Dec 2005 (CST) |
||
==Difference in SCA usage should be explained== |
|||
It is my understanding as per the chart that SCA heraldry differs greatly in its treatment of proper from how mundane heraldry has always dealt with it. In mundane heraldry proper is considered neither a colour nor a metal, but a sort of neutral tincture (yes, proper is a tincture!) that can be placed on either, even when the SCA's conception of proper maybe being a colour and maybe being a metal would cause rule-of-tincture violations, and even, theoretically, in low contrast situations (in theory, ''Vert a lizard proper'' would be a completely acceptable coat despite its being effectively invisible!). This might not be meaningful for inclusion in the article but I thought I'd bring it up. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:38, 15 Dec 2005 (CST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 06:38, 16 December 2005
"Most heraldic beasts have no proper colour as they are mythical creatures who only exist in heraldry": this is patently untrue. "Proper" is the tincture the beasts are "considered" to be; there are examples in period of a "phoenix proper," for instance. The tiger, being considered to be naturally red even though the heraldic tiger "exists only in heraldry" (though it was not so believed at the time, the form the tiger would take being generally believed to be that), would thereby be emblazoned as red if blazoned as "proper." --Daniel C. Boyer 10:45, 12 Dec 2005 (CST)
- Oops, I wrote this and I did it so long ago that I can't remember my basis for it. I think I got it from one of the SCA heraldry web pages (most likely Laurel Sovereign of Arms or West Kingdom Herald), and so most of this, including the table, should include the condition for the purposes of SCA heraldry. Conrad Leviston 19:54, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)
- O.K. However, in mundane heraldry including in period, as long as proper has been used (it was phrased in several different ways in the early period, but I'm talking about the concept, not necessarily the phrasing) it's always been true that imaginary animals could be blazoned as "proper" and how could they not be, since many of them were not recognised as imaginary at the time, and at any rate the real/imaginary dichotomy is not really helpful in any concievable way when it comes to heraldry? What I'm getting at is there seems to be a misconception of what "proper" means here: it means that the charge is in the tinctures the charge is "supposed" to be in, which is at times a convention rather than something observed from nature. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:14, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)
Difference in SCA usage should be explained
It is my understanding as per the chart that SCA heraldry differs greatly in its treatment of proper from how mundane heraldry has always dealt with it. In mundane heraldry proper is considered neither a colour nor a metal, but a sort of neutral tincture (yes, proper is a tincture!) that can be placed on either, even when the SCA's conception of proper maybe being a colour and maybe being a metal would cause rule-of-tincture violations, and even, theoretically, in low contrast situations (in theory, Vert a lizard proper would be a completely acceptable coat despite its being effectively invisible!). This might not be meaningful for inclusion in the article but I thought I'd bring it up. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:38, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)
