Patrick Michael Dipper No.0455

[J Duncan of Sketraw]

The Arms of Patrick Michael Dipper, South Africa



Entry: http://www.armorial-register.com/arms-z ... -arms.html

[Michael F. McCartney]

A bit busy but still nice!
Shouldn't the blazon have the wheat garb "Proper" rather than "Or"?

[Martin Goldstraw]

A bit busy but still nice!
Shouldn't the blazon have the wheat garb "Proper" rather than "Or"?

I would have done so however, the blazon was set by another "authority" so I didn't interfere. On a general note, it seems to me that more and more people are choosing to ignore the so called tincture rules and it may be that now that the trend has been set to completely ignore it, it is hardly worth the rather false pretense of using proper.

[Michael F. McCartney]

Hmmm... I'm not ready to go that far!

[Martin Goldstraw]

Hmmm... I'm not ready to go that far!

Neither am I, I dislike "proper" when it is used as little more than a mechanism to circumnavigate the (so called) tincture rules. A Gold garb on a Silver shield is a violation of the tincture rules regardless of whether the garb is described as Or or proper. The basis of the tincture rule is after all a matter for the eye, not the pen; it is what the eye sees that matters, not what is written on paper (or velum).

[Michael F. McCartney]

Agreed; but "Proper" gives the artist a broader license to use, say, a golden-brown which after all is closer to the "natural color."

[Martin Goldstraw]

Agreed; but "Proper" gives the artist a broader license to use, say, a golden-brown which after all is closer to the "natural color."

Hmm. This is being too pernickety in my opinion but I don't think it worth prolonging the debate since we are actually broadly in agreement. I just like simple, uncomplicated heraldry - but that's just me.

[Michael F. McCartney]

We can agree to generally agree!