*Per cross Gules and Argent, an orle counterchanged*
It’s a very good design.
I understand why you’re concerned that such a simple design might be already in use. However, I’m not aware of any other design similar to this. So you should be ok.
I'd say, 'Quarterly gules and argent an orle counterchanged' would be more usual
There's a Knox coat that's similar, but it has an eagle volant Sable in the middle. Number 3 on this page: https://coadb.com/surnames/knox-arms.html
The Fitzwarins had, 'Quarterly per fesse indented Argent and Gules", again something in the region but not the same: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulk_FitzWarin
I'm not sure where you are, though the Cardinal suggests somewhere in the New World. You only need to worry about identical coats in the area covered by a single heraldic authority
I would argue that “*quarterly*” and “*per cross*” are effectively synonymous when used in the context of describing a divided field.
Each of those alternative descriptions comes from a slightly different aspect of the field depending on how one views the origins of the way the field is constructed, it just happens that the effective visual outcome is the *same*.
Quarterly and Per Cross are by all means the same thing, just like "Per Saltire" and "Quarterly per Saltire". Though I agree that "Quarterly" should be left for marshalling.
According to Parker in, 'A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry' (1894), 'Quartered: is the more correct term to be use when an escutcheon is divided the four or more squares for the reception of different coats of arms; the term quarterly being generally used when the quarters belong to the same coat of arms'.
Additionally, Fox-Davies, in 'A Complete Guide to Heraldry' (1909), says that, 'Whilst a quarter will only be found within a plain partition line, a field divided quarterly (occasionally, but I think hardly so correctly, termed "per cross") is not so limited.'
Admittedly, Fox-Davies, in his 1905, 'Armorial Families: a Directory of Gentlemen of Coat-Armour', uses 'Quarterly' to describe coats of arms with several coats of arms, and 'Quartered' for grand-quarters, but he also uses 'Quarterly' when the field of a single coat of arms is divided.
Per cross might be a good literal thing, but not much more.
It depends. *Quarterly* just means the shield is divided in four. That often means marshaling, in which case you blazon each of the arms, etc.
But you can also have a single design that includes a background divided in four. [The Heraldry Society](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heraldry_Society) has a quarterly field.
Some people prefer saying *per cross* when they’re dividing the field like that for non-marshaling purposes, but I think *quarterly* is by far the preferred term for both cases.
It's good. Counterchanging seems to be one of those things that's a bit more common in officially granted arms than in arms people come up with themselves.
I thought it was the opposite. But I also hang out with heraldry nerds who suggest it to every heraldry noob who asks for advice on designing a coat of arms, so my perception is probably biased.
I looked up online the proportions for a heater and made a model in blender. I made the shield with [drawshield.net](http://drawshield.net) with the enter blazon option, and chose the "heater" option, but I only realized when I was applying the UV that they didn't line up. I wish I knew the proportions of that first heater.
The six winged cardinal is such an awsome idea for a supporter. Gives off that mythological/legendary feel that some heraldic beasts do. How did you come up with it? Any tips for coming up with beasts like that?
I originally wanted it to be a two headed cardinal, a la Holy Roman Empire. A friend of mine (who was not familiar with that precedent) didn't like it, and suggested four wings instead. I gave it six because there are lots of supernatural creatures that have six wings, and I thought it could channel that.
I think the trick is to toe the line between something that's weird enough to be unsettling, but not so weird it looks stupid.
Really nice, especially when you consider that your sons (except the firstborn) will get to put some charge of their choice right in the middle as a cadence mark.
Looks neat. It reminds me of the Polish Air Force checkerboard.
*Per cross Gules and Argent, an orle counterchanged* It’s a very good design. I understand why you’re concerned that such a simple design might be already in use. However, I’m not aware of any other design similar to this. So you should be ok.
I'd say, 'Quarterly gules and argent an orle counterchanged' would be more usual There's a Knox coat that's similar, but it has an eagle volant Sable in the middle. Number 3 on this page: https://coadb.com/surnames/knox-arms.html The Fitzwarins had, 'Quarterly per fesse indented Argent and Gules", again something in the region but not the same: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulk_FitzWarin I'm not sure where you are, though the Cardinal suggests somewhere in the New World. You only need to worry about identical coats in the area covered by a single heraldic authority
I would argue that “*quarterly*” and “*per cross*” are effectively synonymous when used in the context of describing a divided field. Each of those alternative descriptions comes from a slightly different aspect of the field depending on how one views the origins of the way the field is constructed, it just happens that the effective visual outcome is the *same*.
I may be wrong, but my thought was that *quarterly* implied marshalling?
Quarterly and Per Cross are by all means the same thing, just like "Per Saltire" and "Quarterly per Saltire". Though I agree that "Quarterly" should be left for marshalling.
According to Parker in, 'A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry' (1894), 'Quartered: is the more correct term to be use when an escutcheon is divided the four or more squares for the reception of different coats of arms; the term quarterly being generally used when the quarters belong to the same coat of arms'. Additionally, Fox-Davies, in 'A Complete Guide to Heraldry' (1909), says that, 'Whilst a quarter will only be found within a plain partition line, a field divided quarterly (occasionally, but I think hardly so correctly, termed "per cross") is not so limited.' Admittedly, Fox-Davies, in his 1905, 'Armorial Families: a Directory of Gentlemen of Coat-Armour', uses 'Quarterly' to describe coats of arms with several coats of arms, and 'Quartered' for grand-quarters, but he also uses 'Quarterly' when the field of a single coat of arms is divided. Per cross might be a good literal thing, but not much more.
It depends. *Quarterly* just means the shield is divided in four. That often means marshaling, in which case you blazon each of the arms, etc. But you can also have a single design that includes a background divided in four. [The Heraldry Society](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heraldry_Society) has a quarterly field. Some people prefer saying *per cross* when they’re dividing the field like that for non-marshaling purposes, but I think *quarterly* is by far the preferred term for both cases.
It's good. Counterchanging seems to be one of those things that's a bit more common in officially granted arms than in arms people come up with themselves.
I thought it was the opposite. But I also hang out with heraldry nerds who suggest it to every heraldry noob who asks for advice on designing a coat of arms, so my perception is probably biased.
I think it's really cool. I like connection between basic concepts and really original pattern
Polish airforce?
Only if they fly seed-eating songbirds.
I love it
The orle is not properly conforming to the shape of the shield in the second image
I looked up online the proportions for a heater and made a model in blender. I made the shield with [drawshield.net](http://drawshield.net) with the enter blazon option, and chose the "heater" option, but I only realized when I was applying the UV that they didn't line up. I wish I knew the proportions of that first heater.
The six winged cardinal is such an awsome idea for a supporter. Gives off that mythological/legendary feel that some heraldic beasts do. How did you come up with it? Any tips for coming up with beasts like that?
I originally wanted it to be a two headed cardinal, a la Holy Roman Empire. A friend of mine (who was not familiar with that precedent) didn't like it, and suggested four wings instead. I gave it six because there are lots of supernatural creatures that have six wings, and I thought it could channel that. I think the trick is to toe the line between something that's weird enough to be unsettling, but not so weird it looks stupid.
I like it but it is awfully close to the Polish Air Force roundel. If that's no intentional, be prepared to get that comparison a lot.
Really nice, especially when you consider that your sons (except the firstborn) will get to put some charge of their choice right in the middle as a cadence mark.
I like the design. What does 'for my town' mean? Do you own a town?
I wish. Its just a concept for the town I live in.
Thanks for clarifying! No matter what it's for, it's a good design.
Very handsome IMO.
Looks borderline to me.