Compiled by Da'ud ibn Auda
Html Markup by Silver Dragon Company
Combined into one page by Lindorm
Contents A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
INTRODUCTION TABLE OF HEADINGS
While this volume is entitled "Precedents of Mistress Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane", it would really be much more accurate to entitle it "Precedents, Decisions, Rulings, Interpretations, Restatements and Explanations of the Rules for Submissions As They Have Been Applied to Submissions by Mistress Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, Laurel Queen of Arms", but that title becomes much too unwieldy. So we try for something simpler in the hopes that the entries herein will not all be considered as breaking new ground or as redefining the Rules for Submissions in some new way.
I have tried to follow the general format and philosophy of Master Baldwin of Erebor, editor of Precedents Vols. I, II and III, in this collection. For a more specific discussion of those, see his Introduction to Precedents III. Not all entries are a precedent per se, but are specific applications or clarifications of the Rules for Submissions.
In January, 1990 the Board of Directors of the Society approved a new set of Rules for Submissions. Thus, this volume of Precedents spans two sets of Rules. From November, 1989 through May, 1990, Mistress Alisoun processed all submissions using both sets of Rules; thus if a submission would pass under either set, it was registered. There were also explications of the new Rules in her decisions, and as a consequence, you will find many comments in this volume of Precedents referring to the "old rules", "new rules", or both. Many of these will be helpful in understanding the philosophy behind the new Rules for Submission.
This combined volume of Mistress Alisoun's Precedents contains all those which have already been published in her Precedents, Volumes I, II, III and IV, with the exceptions that many repetitive rulings have been deleted and reference made to those deleted by the notation "(See also: ...)" following the citation which I considered to be the most clearly worded. In a few other cases, rulings which were clearly overturned by later precedent of Mistress Alisoun have been deleted.
Unless otherwise noted, all citations are direct quotes from Mistress Alisoun in LoARs or CLs. Emendations for clarity are enclosed in [square brackets]. Where material not necessary to the discussion is deleted, such deletions are noted by ellipses (...). Deletions at the beginning or end of a quote are made without comment. When the name of a charge or tincture is not pertinent to the topic, I usually replace it with [charge] or [tincture]. When the name of the submittor was not pertinent to the topic, it is usually replaced with [Name]. Some entries may be longer than necessary. I felt it best to err on the side of conservatism, and sometimes give more background to a decision to ensure that the reader has the information necessary to see why the decision was made the way it was without having to look up the cited LoAR.
A few obvious misspellings have been corrected without comment. Elsewhere, I have used Mistress Alisoun's spellings. (However, responsibility for typographical errors is mine alone.)
Headings are placed here for ease in researching a particular topic, and are not to be ascribed to Mistress Alisoun. A specific citation may sometimes appear under more than one heading.
LoAR -Laurel Letter of Acceptances and Returns
These are listed by day, month (a three letter abbreviation) and year (the last two digits). All years are 19xx A.D. of the date typed on the letter, no matter when actually mailed, and then the page number of that letter to which citation is made.
CL -The Laurel Cover Letter accompanying an LoAR. Date may be different than that of the LoAR they accompany.
Individuals mentioned in one or more places:
Principal Heralds or Submissions Deputies [should] send a copy of each Letter of Intent to the Laurel Office at the same time that it is sent to the members of the College of Arms. Please do not wait to send the letter with the paperwork for the letter of intent as, if the latter is delayed for some reason, the Laurel Office then will be unaware of its existence and cannot schedule it properly for future meetings. (CL 20 Jun 87, p. 1)
PRECEDENT: Any period form of anchor, including the curved-arm, barbed ancient or straight-armed form, may be used in Society heraldry. (CL 7 Dec 86, p. 3)
The annulet of annulets far too strongly resembles an annulet of chain, which is reserved in Society usage to the Chivalry. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 10) (See also: LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 9)
The annulet of violets might be mistaken for a wreath of roses and [we] suggest using a smaller number of flowers in a resubmission. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 10)
See also, Rule of Excessive Anomaly
The interlacing of the flaunches by the [charge] is not period style and is, in and of itself, too great an anomaly to allow. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14)
Antlers proper have been identified as "white or light yellow brown" (Wilhelm von Schlussel, 26 December, 1983). (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)
The anvils in the position in which they are placed [palewise addorsed] are extremely difficult to identify. Several of those looking at the emblazon without reading the blazon mistook them for mallet or axe heads. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 5)
The default for a single-horned anvil has the business end, i.e. the "pointier" end, to dexter. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 7)
The submittor did not offer new evidence on this point (which means that this was not a valid appeal). (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 1)
The visual similarities between the crab and the scorpion create enough visual confusion that the two cannot be considered clear. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, pp. 16-17)
The "enarching" here is merely one of the standard period methods of depicting a normal chevron and therefore there is insufficient difference from the mundane arms of [Name]. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 14)
The device was judged to be excessively complex [charged primary, secondary in base, and embattled bordure] and poor style to a degree which should not be accepted for group arms which precedent indicates "should set a good example". (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 13)
There is a long-standing precedent in Society heraldry which considered charged sails as being equivalent to arms of pretense and therefore forbidden for Society usage: "You may not charge a sail if the resulting sail conflicts with existing arms".... (The passage of the arms of Eisenmarche cited ... in the letter of intent is a special case ...: the arms of the Society, which the Board has specifically stated may be displayed by any group.) (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 13)
The Kingdom's arms are the arms of the king and should be worn only by the king himself and his herald, when speaking as the king's voice. After some consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate that the arms of a Kingdom should be used as an augmentation, even if the recipient is entitled to bear a coronet on his or her arms. The badge of a Kingdom or a rendition of the arms without the laurel wreath can, however, be used. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 16)
The form of the label with angled "tags" is period and is a matter of artistic license. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 8)
No additional difference should be added for the difference in depiction between a dolmen of three uprights and the more usual trilithon: even as a primary charge, the viewer will register "dolmen" and assume that the depiction is artistic license. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 11)
The difference between a tyger and its cub may safely be left to artistic license. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 7)
Rendering ordinaries in a slightly concave manner was a standard artistic variant in mediaeval heraldry so that the proposed device could legitimately be depicted in the mediaeval manner with concave lines without a differing blazon. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 17)
Note: since this augmentation was stated in the letter of intent to have been granted by the Crown to all dukes, it should be registered to the kingdom for that purpose, rather than to the four individuals currently covered by the royal decree. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 1)
[Gules, (with charges), on a canton sable, fimbriated argent, (charges)] This submission points out many of the problems which occur when a "modern" canton of augmentation is added to a period-style device without consideration for the overall design. [Not period style; placement of canton reduces identifiability of low contrast overall charge; fimbriation is thin-line heraldry; unacceptable level of complexity (five layers).] (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
The overall augmentation was so complex that no one in the College who was not already familiar with the submittor was able to determine what the underlying arms were, i.e., to identify the submittor without knowing in advance who he was. The essence of the augmentation is that it is something added to a set of arms to indicate honour. In this case, some thought the original arms were this design minus the complex orle, other interpreted it to be the design minus the gorged head, none automatically assumed that the orle and head (which is in base, the less honourable position, which is generally not used for augmentations) were combined to form the augmentation. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 20)
After some consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate that the arms of a Kingdom should be used as an augmentation, even if the recipient is entitled to bear a coronet on his or her arms. The badge of a Kingdom or a rendition of the arms without the laurel wreath can, however, be used. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 16)
The use of the inescutcheon here for the augmentation would seem to be prohibited by the ban on appearance of pretense in AR10d: note that such usual insignia of augmentation as chiefs, cantons, bases are not included here. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 16)
[Three pallets and three barrulets fretted in sinister base, in dexter chief in pale three roses in chevron and a goblet] [With] the primary charge abased to the sinister base ... the remaining charges [are] consequently diminished so in size as to appear like an eccentric canton of augmentation. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, pp. 18-19)
Pending a demonstration of the positive advantages to be gained from changing the rules to allow such an inescutcheon of augmentation at the honour point, we cannot see changing the current clearly expressed policy. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 16)
The [papal] cross was not used in secular armoury except in those cases where it was granted as an augmentation by the Pope. This being the case, we feel it inappropriate to modify its current status as a reserved charge. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 11)
[Per chevron argent and sable, an annulet counterchanged] This is in conflict with the mundane arms ... ("Gyronny of eight sable and argent, an annulet counterchanged."... All the examples in the Rules for Submission make it clear that the "automatic sufficient difference" for counterchange is intended to apply only between a plain field charged and a divided field with the same charge counterchanged along the line of division. In this case only the line of division is changed. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 14)
The intention [of Rule AR18a] was to allow automatic difference [between Society and mundane or fictional arms] in cases where period (and modern) heraldic practice would not perceive cadency. Thus a Society device which bore "Azure, a unicorn's head Or, between three swords proper" would not conflict with "Azure, three swords palewise proper" because period heralds would perceive a potential cadet relationship not with the mundane coat cited, but with "Azure, a unicorn's head Or". In the case of a charge added overall, the same situation does not exist, mundane heraldry does in fact indicate cadency by adding a charge overall. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 4)
On or after August 15, 1989, no submission may be registered which contains any item which is known solely from Australia prior to 1600. (CL 8 Aug 89)
This was originally returned ... because ... the charges were difficult to recognize because of their fretting. Given the items that Society heraldry has fretted in the past, including "six two-pronged forks", fretting two axes seems reasonable. [Device registered.] (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 6)
[A U-form axle bracket] This is a simple and elegant charge. The modifier has been added solely to avoid confusion with the O-form of axle bracket or ring which ... did exist in period. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p 11)
[Charge between four roundels within a bordure embattled] Note that, although the number of charges here would seem a trifle busy for a badge, the design forms a unified whole. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 4)
Three unrelated objects strewn on a field do not a badge make. (See Baldwin's Rule of Thumb [below]). (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)
The chevron here forms one of the standard runes, as given in Koch's Book of Signs, and runic characters are forbidden for use in devices, although they have been used on a case by case basis in badges. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)
The red rose of Lancaster, like the white rose of York, deserves extra protection versus Society badges which should differ by more than one major point from this particularly famous royal badge. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14)
[The] appeal raised the question of potentially differing standards of identifiability for charges on badges because of their theoretically short-range usage in the Society. Leaving aside [the] fact that we are trying to encourage period usage of insignia, not the bookplate approach to heraldry, the fact remains that in the Society badges are - or should be - used to identify the individual, not the other way around. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)
[The submittor] should be reminded that, since his badge uses the restricted insignia of the chivalry [an orle of gold chain], it may not be borne or used by anyone not of that rank. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 4)
While abstract symbols may be used in badges, AR10c specifically states that "a badge shall not consist solely of one abstract symbol". Any kanji character must be considered an "abstract symbol" in the sense that the Rules intend. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 9)
This is by definition too complex for a badge since [what] it involves is three unlike charges floating on a divided field (this would be illicit for a device in fact!). (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)
[Azure, a bezant, pierced sable, between four plates, all within a bordure argent] This is right at the margin of acceptable complexity for a badge (the voiding of the bezant tried to tug it over, the unifying tincture of the outer charges pulled it back). (LoAR Aug 87, p. 4)
The addition of the bordure, which is a standard cadency mark, to a badge which was substantially the same seemed to demand a letter of permission. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
Badges for orders are usually registered as simple armoury without specifying the shape of the field (i.e., without saying "on a roundel"): the method of display is up to the group involved. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 8)
[Per bend sinister embowed counterembowed, in fess a hammer fimbriated and a falcon] This submission ... is clearly too complex for a badge. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 21)
[A charged arch between two towers, between in pale two different monsters] There was a virtually unanimous opinion among the commentors that this is too complex for a badge. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 22)
Laurel herself shares the doubts of the Western heralds about the advisability of registering crestiform badges. However, as explained in ... the December, 1989, letter, commentary in the College seems more latitudinarian and the new rules do not prohibit them. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 6)
According to precedents set by Master Baldwin and enshrined in DR2, no difference may be derived from the field. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20)
This was submitted as a fieldless badges [semy of charges], but the College had distinct qualms about the feasibility of "strewing" a non-existent field. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 8)
This badge, while marginally legal since the [color beasts] maintain the [metal charge], would be vastly improved if both types of charges were of [a single] class of tincture. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 9)
Under the new rules "fieldlessness" is recognised as a state and a point of difference granted for that state so that fieldless armoury and fielded armoury are no longer automatically considered identical. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 48)
[Insect volant fesswise between in fess two branches palewise] The manner in which the [insect] is placed between the two other charges does not really form a coherent self-contained design in the period manner as specified in the rules: the charges are not conjoined nor are they logically lined in a typical group arrangement.... This [is] non-period style, at least as far as the style for fieldless badges has previously been defined in the Society. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 14)
For a group badge, two anomalies were felt to be excessive. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 3)
This is either an official guild, in which case the badge should be registered to the ... Kingdom, or is unofficial, in which case the name of the Kingdom should not be used. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 17)
Added to the relatively unbalanced arrangement of the [charges in bend] on either sided of the [per pale] field, the chief itself with its "moving" charge adds an undesirable degree of complexity and lack of balance to the design. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, pp. 16-17)
[Three pallets and three barrulets fretted in sinister base, in dexter chief in pale three roses in chevron and a goblet] The overall arrangement of the charges is extremely unbalanced, with the focus of the primary charge abased to the sinister base and the remaining charges consequently diminished so in size as to appear like an eccentric canton of augmentation. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, pp. 18-19)
The default point in base is centered and contributes to the balance of the design rather than unbalancing it, as does this [dexter] point.... Granted that certain other unbalancing charges (most notably the charged gore) crept into Society heraldry in the past, we see no reason to allow the inherently unbalanced charged dexter (or sinister) point. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 20)
[Three pallets and three barrulets fretted in sinister base] While this resubmission laudably simplifies the device, it does not resolve the problem with the off-center "cross" which produces a distinctly non-period dynamically unbalanced design. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 10)
The difference between barry of six and barry of eight is negligible. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 18)
By the current rules a barry field may not consist of two colours (AR2a). (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 10)
Although the submittor has provided some documentation for the enarched chief and base as separate elements, there is some doubt whether a base of this sort is period and certainly the "cat's eye" effect is distinctly modern. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17)
[Coney vs. otter] [This] has ... a minor for the type of charge (the differences in tail and ears between the coney and otter are worth at least a strong minor when a single animal is in question). (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 5)
[The issue raised was] whether the addition of the wings is indeed a minor point of difference or should be counted as a major point of difference.... We have concluded that the determination of difference depends not only [on] the proportion of the charge which is modified but also on the "pattern of recognition" involved. In other words, if the modifications create a beast which has a separate identity of its own, either in period or modern heraldry (e.g., a lion as opposed to a sea-lion), it is feasible for the modifications to produce a major point of difference. If the modifications produce a beast which is clearly derivative (e.g., a winged sheep), then the difference created will be minor. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)
[Two foxes salient respectant in annulo] The attempt to force the beasts into an annulate arrangement forces them out of any identifiable salient or rampant posture. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 13)
While a number of commentors objected strenuously to the use of a beast unknown to western Europe in period, the wording of the current rules dictates acceptance of the platypus as a charge: "Objects, living things, or design elements not normally used in heraldry, ... but were known to humanity prior to 1601, may be accepted as charges on a case-by-case basis. The guideline for acceptability is whether there is one recognizable form." It would indeed be offensive to deny that the aboriginal natives of Australia are a subset of humanity.... The issue then is reduced to whether there is a single recognizable form for a platypus: since there is, the charge must be accepted. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 3)
The submittor has indeed copiously documented the existence of piebald horses in period. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17
We do not register baby animals: a bear is a bear is a bear, the precise depiction is left to the artist. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 22)
There was a considerable consensus in the College that the hexapodal [six-legged] weasels were not consonant with period style. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 24)
The standing precedent [is] of not allowing "complete difference of charge" between quadrupeds, no matter how different. Under the requirements for Type Change (X.4.e) in the new rules, the shape of the modified rabbit in any normal depiction is clearly different from that of a rhinoceros or an enfield. Since this significant change in type is applied where the charges are primary charges alone on the field, the Difference of Primary Charges rule (X.2) comes into play and the device is definitely clear. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 27)
The new rules do not require complete difference of charge between the ... primary charges on simple coats, merely significant difference of primary charge, as defined in the section on Significant Armorial Differences. Under that section, it is clearly stated that charges will be considered different in type which were considered clearly separate in period heraldry. Rabbits or hares and lions were so considered. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 14)
It was the sense of the meeting that section X.2 of the rules should apply between mice and lions used a qualifying primary charges. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 4)
Note that the equine is depicted as a normal horse: we have not withdrawn the ban on non-heraldic "baby animals", but followed period precedent in using a term that will produce a cant. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 8)
The visual similarity between the fox and the wolf as depicted in the Society was too great to allow difference lacking solid evidence that the two were distinguished as separate charges in period. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 19)
[One commenter] provided some distinct evidence that the panda was not seen by an European until this century and that its furs were not known to Europeans until the last century. However, there is no doubt that Europeans were in China so that it falls in the "domain" of the Society as we were discussing it this summer when the spirit of the discussion seemed to be that any flora and fauna from any continent visited by Europeans in period was "fair game" on the grounds that those items could have been known to explorers.... While we are extremely dubious about the appropriateness of panda bears for Society use, [a commenter] is correct in saying that, if you register a panda for anyone, you must register it for everyone. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 5)
We have acceded to the desire of the [submittor] to maintain the cant by specifying the sex of the bears (although no one but a he-bear would presumably be able to tell). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 19)
The beast was blazoned as a "grice" on the submission in a very complex allusive cant. The obscurity created for heraldic artists and researchers does not seem to be justified in view of the extreme reach of the cant. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 3)
The "proper" tincture for a boar's head is brown. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 2)
[English sheepdog] This variety of dog appears to have developed after our period and therefore are not permissible under AR7b (see Ammalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir "May I Use a Collie in My Arms?" in the Proceedings of the Meridian Heraldic Symposium, specifically p. 54). (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 28)
Mary, Queen of Scots, had a Skye terrier so that there is at least a presumption that the "Scottie" is period (Ammalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir, "May I Use a Collie in My Arms?", Proceedings of the Meridian Heraldic Symposium, pp. 45-55). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 2)
Since the ferret ... can exist in several colorations, it cannot be proper. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 20)
See also, Monster - Sleipnir, Monster - Unicorn
The name Rhiannon may not be coupled with horses or unicorns in view of Rhiannon's function as a horse goddess. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 12)
A name which appears so close to Rhiannon, whether it is derived from it or not, cannot really be used with a unicorn or horse as an element of the related armory. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 22)
A horse certainly is too complex an image to fimbriate under either set of rules. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 35)
Note that the equine is depicted as a normal horse: we have not withdrawn the ban on non-heraldic "baby animals", but followed period precedent in using a term that will produce a cant. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 8)
The mountain lion [proper] on the emblazon sheet is shown as a dark brown, but all our sources show the beast as a much lighter tincture that could only be blazoned as Or, so the cat would have insufficient contrast with the argent field. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 21)
The difference between a tyger and its cub may safely be left to artistic license. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 7)
The default for a cat's head is not cabossed. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 2)
The foreparts of the lion are dismembered and the hindparts are not, in a distinctly non-period manner. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 18)
[Lion vs. house cat] The distinction between a lion and a domestic cat under current rules can be no more than a minor point of difference. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 19)
[Tyger sejant vs. domestic cat sejant] Only a minor point of difference can be derived between the two ... charges. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 15)
This would be much better style if the panthers were drawn as separate entities (dropping the entwining of the tails). [Submission registered] (LoAR Aug 88, p. 8)
[Demi-lion vs. natural panther incensed] While it can by no means be assumed that a demi-beast will always be a major point of difference from a whole beast in the same relative position, in this case a comparison of the emblazons shows that the cumulative differences carry this feline well clear of the natural panther.... In addition to the truncation of the lower extremities, there is a significant difference in the portions of the beast that remain: the shape of the head (maned versus maneless), forelegs and tail (shaggy versus smooth) and general treatment (plain versus incensed of flame). (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 2)
[A monkey argent vested Or vs. a monkey proper] The overall tincture of the [proper] monkey is as close to Or as makes no difference and the golden clothing covers the monkey to such an extent that it appears to be Or at any distance. The cumulative changes in the detail of the monkey do not make a full "point and a half" required for difference from a Society badge. It should be pointed out to the submittor that there was severe disquiet on the part of some commenters at the use of the "Monkey King" as a heraldic design. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 18)
The default lamb is passant. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 5)
The primary charge cannot be blazoned as a sheepskin since that is already defined as a sheep's fleece (as in the insignia of the Golden Fleece). What she clearly wants is a sheepskin rug; what she has drawn is a flattened sheep. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 7)
There is a precedent going back some eight years banning the use of the "Badge within a strap" since this is a standard form of display for Scottish badges: the chief uses the plain badge and the clansmen use the badge within a strap. Therefore, we have on several occasions returned or pended submissions to allow them to be considered without the strap. In this case, dropping the strap would not be adequate to resolve this problem since conflicts then arise. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 20)
Cotising a bend in one tincture with another tincture is quite common in period rolls of arms and cannot be considered an anomaly. (Although it is far more common when the field is a colour and the bend and cotises are two metals.) (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 4)
The precedent in this case appears to be the badge of Albert von Drechenveldt which was returned in December, 1985, for appearing to be a "no outhouses" symbol. Since the tincture of the ordinaries in that case was Or, evidently the use of gules is not a consideration. Note also that in the Discouraged practices section (X3) merely specified "the bend-plus-bordure ‘no X’ motif". That this is a design that well could have existed in period (and show cadency from a family [arms]) is rendered irrelevant by the problems raised by the essentially twentieth-century perceptions of the majority of the membership. My feeling, however, is that rendering the bend and bordure in different tinctures would remove the visual suggestion of the "no [charges]" sign and thus resolve the problem. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 29)
The cumulative [differences] between the birds are worth a minor point at best (in this position [migrant] the primary difference is in the tail configuration). (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 16)
The position of the bird was blazoned originally as volant, but the posture of the wings, body and legs is clearly much closer to that which we associate with "striking". (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 12)
[A demi-eagle rising from a base rayonny] This is functionally a phoenix visually: the blazon provided ... has been retained to reinforce to the heraldic artist the essentially horizontal orientation of the top of the ... "flames". (LoAR Aug 87, p. 4)
The position of the heads must be specified since guardant is the default position for owls. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6)
There is a clear point of difference for the differences of posture, but the double-heads are not sufficiently visible against the peacock's tail to add the necessary extra difference. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 14)
However one counts the "points", this [argent, an owl rising guardant, wings elevated and addorsed, maintaining an arrow bendwise sable] is strongly in visual conflict with [argent, a raven rising reguardant, wings disclosed proper, in the dexter claw a sword gules]. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 12)
The bird "perched" on the line of division is not period style so far as can be determined. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 13)
The difference between eagle and hawk is really non-existent. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 24)
The triple-headed eagle has been banned from use in the Society for nearly nine years because of its close association with the aspirations of the Holy Roman Empire (it appears in at least one period armorial as the imperial arms ONCE Jerusalem has been reconquered). (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 25)
Since the submittor is a member of the Order of the Pelican, the use of the Pelican [is] legitimate. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 20)
[A penguin close] This bird is technically in "trian aspect".... This "Penguin Paperback" view of the bird seems to be the Society default for a penguin close. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 7)
As the peacock is normally as different from the standard cock as a wolf is from a lion (different head shape, distinctive tail, etc.) we have no hesitation in counting a difference between the two. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 3)
There is no heraldic difference between a heron, a crane and a stork. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 16)
[Two owls close guardant aspectant] The birds ... have been specified to be "guardant", although this is the usual default for owls close, because the particular arrangement might suggest that they are actually looking at each other. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 13)
The posture of the wings and body can be described best, not by "rising but by the swan specific "rousant". (LoAR Aug 88, p. 5)
Note: the awkwardness of the blazon reflects the "modern" style of the device. [Device registered anyway] (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 3)
What is registered is the emblazon, not the blazon; as the original sheets showed a [monster] couchant, rather than the clearly dormant [one] of the new emblazon sheets, this is technically a change of device rather than a blazon correction. A blazon correction exists when the original blazon does not correctly reflect the registered emblazon or the verbiage does not reflect the intent (e.g., for canting purposes) of the submittor and the new blazon will not be heraldically different from the registered emblazon: since a minor point [of difference] can be derived from a major charge which is dormant rather than couchant, this cannot be merely a blazon correction. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 11)
[A seal displayed erect, tail sufflexed] A charge must be identifiable without the blazon and this is not. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)
No blazon appeared on the emblazon forms to verify whether the coloration of the [charge] was intentional or an omission. All paperwork should include the proposed blazon on the forms! (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 25)
The line of division was submitted as "erased" and accompanied by documentation from a fourteenth-century Welsh heraldic tract which did indeed show that "erased" was a period form of usage for that partition line that is shown in our standard references as "rayonny". While we agree that, all things being equal, it is better to use a period term than a modern one, in this instance it seems preferable to retain the term "rayonny".... The usage of "erased" as a line of division is so obscure that we were unable to find it in any of the standard texts used by herald artists and local heralds throughout the Society.... This being so, the natural instinct of the heraldic artist will be to consider this as a heraldic neologism, derived from the usage of erased in the depiction of beast's heads, which would result in a line of partition rather different from that which appears on the emblazon. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 11)
The emblazon cannot really be reconstructed from the blazon given: the style is so far from period style that it cannot be expressed in the traditional vocabulary. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 13)
If a blazon is correct in terms of the conventions in force at the time it passed and that blazon is not actually erroneous to such a degree that a herald researching for difference or an artist drawing the emblazon would misunderstand it, I will be loathe to change it....
The touchstone that we use for determining if the blazon is as clear as possible is whether the average heraldic artist would be able to draw a reasonable approximation of the emblazon from the blazon provided. Since clarity is our primary goal, terminology which is not readily available in standard texts must be avoided, even though it may be period and may even be more elegant than a commonly used term....
We should value [elegance and brevity] highly, but in our search for the most elegant turn of phrase we cannot lose sight of the fact that elegance is secondary [to the] primary goal of blazon: to describe the emblazon correctly. Nowhere is it truer than in heraldry that a picture is worth a thousand words: if our thousand words do not reflect the picture accurately, they are useless. (CL 18 May 87, pp. 2-3)
Although documentation was provided for the form of the primary charge's being a legitimate one for [charge], it is by no means the only form of [charge]. Therefore, the charge could not be reconstructed by a competent heraldic artist from the blazon and may not be used for Society heraldry. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 12)
The blazon is as clumsy as it is because this is not really period style, although it is ... Society heraldry. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 7) [Device registered]
The flora was blazoned as a "scrog" on the letter of intent and this is a term in Scots blazon. However, its obscurity makes it inaccessible for the average heraldic artist and it must be avoided here since a perfectly good "plain language" option [a leafless branch] is available. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 2)
[A demi-eagle rising from a base rayonny] This is functionally a phoenix visually: the blazon provided ... has been retained to reinforce to the heraldic artist the essentially horizontal orientation of the top of the ... "flames". (LoAR Aug 87, p. 4)
The differences between the two serpents [cobra coiled affronty vs. rattlesnake coiled to sinister] in position and type are so weak as to be virtually negligible. The two may be blazoned differently for canting or symbolic purposes, but are not significantly different visually. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)
Since a bezant and a roundel Or are equivalent terms, there seems no reason to deny the submittor his preferred blazon, since he feels strongly on the issue. (This does not change the prejudice of Laurel towards the term bezant as being more concise and more elegant in most circumstances.) (LoAR 27 Sep. 87)
[Argent, a saltire vert between a pile and a pile inverted sable] The blazon does not really correctly describe the device as the sable is not really pile-shaped. The nearest blazon probably is "Per saltire sable and argent, a saltire vert, fimbriated argent...." However, this is not permissible since much of the "fimbriation" will fade into the argent portion of the field. [Submission returned] (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11)
[Passant counterpassant] The occasional use of "counterpassant" in Society blazonry as the equivalent of "passant to sinister" demands the longer blazon. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 14)
[(Field), in bend a comet bendwise sinister, head to chief, and an armoured leg, bent at the knee] Note that, if we have erred in the direction of explicitness on the blazon, it is because comets in the Society are more often than not placed in positions other than "bendwise sinister" and human legs have been used in a variety of postures, some not at all usual in mundane heraldry. To guarantee the submittor the device he wishes, we must forego the most elegant blazon. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 11)
If an alternate blazon applies, the device must be tested against that blazon. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 16)
Society terminology follows the later English tradition which distinguishes between the two-legged wyvern and the four-legged dragon, although this distinction seems not to have existed in the earlier period and still does not exist in continental heraldry. (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 1
[Shamrocks rather than trefoils] The lady desires these to be blazoned as shamrocks to suit her persona, since there is no real difference between the two from the point of view of "differencing", we see no reason why we should not accommodate the lady. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 3)
While we understand the desire of the submittors to have this blazoned as a "merchild", there is no precedent for registering the young of such monsters and the only thing to distinguish the being as emblazoned from the typical merman is a certain roundness of body which could be accidental. We feel that this should best be left to the artist's discretion. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 10)
The details of the device (i.e., the colour of the beast's toenails and the number of trees in orle) are simply details that we do not today blazon.... By and large, we blazon no more than is necessary to have a clear representation which will adequately depict the device so as to include all differencing items. The toenails and the difference between eight and nine or nine and ten trees are not differencing. Therefore, they are not blazoned. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, pp. 6-7)
[The principal herald] came up with the very late term "verdoy" for a bordure charged with flora. As [one commenter] noted, this does not demand a specific number or arrangement, may be a decadent usage and is equivalent to the usual Society usage for semy. To avoid any confusion for heraldic artists who may not have libraries as extensive as those of [the principal herald and commenting herald], we have used the commoner term. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 26)
The blazon stated the design to be "per fess rayonny enhanced". As many in the College noted, there is no such thing. What we have here is a chief, properly enlarged in the period manner to allow the harp to be clearly visible. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 1)
[A quill pen maintained by a cubit arm fesswise] Note that in the new rules (Changes to Charges on Charges, X.4.j) it is noted that "charges maintained by other charges are generally too insignificant to count towards difference at all." The qualifier was placed in this rule expressly to deal with situations like this where the object held is in fact of equal size to the being/thing maintaining it. (As opposed to the usual situation where a beast maintains a sword/flower/other artifact which is considerably smaller in size and design importance.) In terms of size and design importance the feather is equal to the cubit arm in this design and thus can be treated as having full weight for purposes of difference. In order to emphasize [this] fact..., we have reblazoned the badge to emphasize its primary importance in the design. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, pp. 3-4)
The usage "a sheaf" for "two [charges] in saltire surmounted by a third palewise" is a space-saving Society convention: it does not necessarily mean that the [charges] must be counted for difference as a single unit any more than a sword and a quill in saltire would be considered a single item. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 13)
Although the default posture for closed books in older examples appears to [be] palewise, since so many modern coats (e.g., Cambridge) have closed books fesswise, ... it should be specified that [the books in this submission] are palewise. Indeed, it is also necessary to specify the orientation of the books [spines to sinister]. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 8)
After much consideration (and evaluation of so many pictures of heraldic legs and boots that some accused Laurel of adopting foot fetishism!), we have come to the conclusion that the two cannot be considered adequately different enough to carry this clear.... Certainly, comparisons of the "heraldic boot" and the "heraldic leg" are similar enough in depiction that the two cannot be considered to be fully distinct charges. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 39)
There is a precedent in Society usage for the unusual bordure [of flames proper] with the device of [Name] ("[Tincture], a bordure of flames proper") (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 2)
The use of a bordure of the same tincture as half the field is extremely poor practice: in effect the bordure only surrounds a portion of the field. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 28)
[Per fess purpure and argent ... all within a bordure counter-compony purpure and argent] This approaches the limits of visual complexity. This would be improved with a simpler bordure which did not leave islands of argent in purpure and vice versa. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 8) [Device registered]
A bordure should not surmount a chief. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 15)
The bordure countercompony of vert and argent adds an unacceptable level of complexity to the device since the vert portions of the bordure fade into the azure and the argent fades into the argent of the field, leaving an effect of isolated rectangles of tincture. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 15)
There seemed to be considerable feeling in the College that the bordure compony which included as one of its tinctures the tincture of the field should not be permitted. Yet the Rules for Submission specifically use a bordure counter-compony as an example where a divided tincture charge which shares on tincture with the field may be used (AR1c). In both cases there are "islands" of the non-field tincture hovering on the field, although the underlying identity of the charge is a trifle clearer in the case of counter-compony. We could find only one mundane example of this phenomenon ..., and this was not dated.... (LoAR 28 Jun 87, pp. 3-4) [A bordure compony sharing a tincture with the field was later ruled not registerable.]
The device was blazoned with a double tressure, but the emblazon showed a bordure gules charged with an orle sable, which would not be licit. (LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 4)
In both period and modern heraldry a chief, when it is combined with a bordure, is not overlain by the bordure. In some older cases of chief added for cadency, the chief is added above an attenuated field completely surrounded by the bordure. More common, however, in both period and modern heraldry is a chief which simply overlies and truncates the bordure. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 13)
The addition of the bordure, which is a standard cadency mark, to a badge which was substantially the same seemed to demand a letter of permission. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
The consensus was that this was visually too reminiscent of [Name] ..., particularly given the fact that the largest visual difference between the two was the addition of the bordure, which is a standard mark of cadency. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
A bordure compony where one tincture is identical to the field should not be permitted.... The "islands" of tincture ... [are] too large to permit the distinction between the plain bordure compony and a bordure embattled being readily apparent. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 8)
The bordure overlays the chief, which is not period practise. [Returned for this and for conflict] (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 15)
[Gyronny of two colors, a bordure "voided counterchanged"] The "voiding" or "fimbriating" of a bordure is not permitted under the rules and the counterchange of two colours upon one another is not permitted (a bordure counterchanged is only permitted when the two tinctures involved are from different classes). (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 18)
[Sable, a bordure gules] The bordure violates the rules on contrast (Society heraldry does not allow the latitude to bordures of cadency that late mundane heraldry does). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 22)
[A barruly field] The bordure which is of the tincture of half the filed makes the gules traits look like barrulets couped floating in the middle of the field: this is why AR1c prohibits such a usage. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 19)
A bordure compony gules and Or may not be placed on a field Or: under both sets of rules, this would reduce the identifiability of the bordure to an unacceptable degree. (Note that the submittors intuitively grasped this problem: the field and the bordure are depicted in radically different shades of Or.) (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 34)
The bordure of flame proper here, particularly as depicted in the emblazon as individual tiny points of red placed on almost separated yellow tongues of flame, is not really a period effect. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)
[A bordure parted bordurewise indented] The bordure is a period usage, as noted by several commentors who adduced a number of examples of bordures and other ordinaries parted in this manner. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 21)
There is a standing precedent against the use of bordures of flame. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 18)
The only charge which appears to have been regularly surmounted by a chief was the bordure (and even then the practice was decidedly variable). Such period examples of orles or tressures in conjunction with a chief that we have been able to locate have the full orle placed below the chief, as in the arms of the Worshipful Company of Musicians. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 13)
In and of itself, [a skold] is no more offensive than the scourge ... or fetterlocks, both of which suggested "leather and bondage" to more than one member of the Laurel staff.... Since the brideskold can appear in various tinctures and forms, there can be no "proper" and a specific form must be specified. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 18)
[Two towers connected by a bridge vs. a castle] When a submission for the same order was returned in February, 1988, "the strong resemblance of the conjoint charge to a standard depiction of a castle" was noted. (It is essentially two towers conjoined by an embattled wall with arches to base.) There is no clear difference visually between a castle and the bridge on this submission. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 18)
Society tradition does not protect the ermine field of Brittany unless it appears in the context of quartering or attached to a name which is strongly redolent of Brittany. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 2)
Registration of a device or badge using the field of Brittany to a [submittor] with the byname "of Brittany" bothered several commentors, despite the fact that this was designated for an alternate persona. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 19) [Submission was returned by Lady Laurel.]
The addition of the bordure, which is a standard cadency mark, to a badge which was substantially the same seemed to demand a letter of permission. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
The consensus was that this was visually too reminiscent of [Name] ..., particularly given the fact that the largest visual difference between the two was the addition of the bordure, which is a standard mark of cadency. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
While standard cadency marks such as the label may be used as "regular charges" in Society heraldry, i.e., not be used solely in the context of cadency, it is not feasible or appropriate to use such recognized cadency marks to provide the primary difference from mundane or Society armory. (LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 8)
The intention [of Rule AR18a] was to allow automatic difference [between Society and mundane or fictional arms] in cases where period (and modern) heraldic practice would not perceive cadency. Thus a Society device which bore "Azure, a unicorn's head Or, between three swords proper" would not conflict with "Azure, three swords palewise proper" because period heralds would perceive a potential cadet relationship not with the mundane coat cited, but with "Azure, a unicorn's head Or". In the case of a charge added overall, the same situation does not exist, mundane heraldry does in fact indicate cadency by adding a charge overall. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 4)
Note that this is an excellent example of Society feudal cadency since it combines elements from the devices of his mother ... and his father. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 14)
In period (and many modern) sources, it is clear that charges overall are added to a coat for cadency.... While the charge overall is certainly has significant visual weight, the addition of a charge overall to a pre-existing coat is a recognized form of indicating cadency (see the examples in Gayre, Heraldic Cadency, chapters XIV and XV) so the modifications to the charge overall should not be sufficient in and of themselves to establish difference between the two coats. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 6)
[A boar] The beast was blazoned as a "grice" on the submission in a very complex allusive cant. The obscurity created for heraldic artists and researchers does not seem to be justified in view of the extreme reach of the cant. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 3)
There is no difference derived from specifying the wings as those of an angel, but this is a case where it is permissible to specify to preserve the cant on the Blue Angels, whose home base is in the Shire. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 5)
The cant on "dragon" or "drake" appears to be equally well-satisfied by either wyvern or dragon, if one is to judge by actual mundane examplars, English and continental. (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 1)
[Sable, a bordure ermine, overall a canton purpure] A canton should not overlie a bordure in this manner and, in any case, the purpure canton on the sable field breaks the well-established rules on contrast. There was a general feeling that the canton did have the appearance of an augmentation and ... the submittor should be strongly encouraged to drop it. [Device returned] (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 17
Based both on period practise and modern perception, it is clear that the difference between a single-towered tower and a multi-towered castle should be at most a minor point of difference as we currently count difference. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 20)
After much consideration and a lot of picture comparisons, we were forced to the conclusion that the visual difference between the triple-towered castle as usually depicted in mundane heraldry and the castle depicted here (with two towers) is not enough to produce a clear minor under the old rules. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 27)
We have traditionally allowed more difference for a tower, as opposed to a castle, as the two are depicted significantly differently in mundane heraldry (see Woodward, Plate XXXII). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 27)
[Two towers connected by a bridge vs. a castle] When a submission for the same order was returned in February, 1988, "the strong resemblance of the conjoint charge to a standard depiction of a castle" was noted. (It is essentially two towers conjoined by an embattled wall with arches to base.) There is no clear difference visually between a castle and the bridge on this submission. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 18)
The annulet of annulets far too strongly resembles an annulet of chain, which is reserved in Society usage to the Chivalry. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 10)
It is not good style to charge the chape or chausse portion of a field. However, since there is ample Society precedence for the practice, I feel compelled to accept it in this case. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 9)
Although a charged chape or chausse is a solecism in mundane heraldry, this has been done often enough in Society heraldry that it would probably be pedantic to quibble over the usage here. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 4)
A field chausse should not have [a] charge overlie both the field and the "draping". (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
Charging a chape or vetu is extremely bad practice in itself. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 14)
The charged chausse here is really something of a solecism. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 16)
The Society traditionally considers "chaussé" as a field division variant. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 21)
[A rapier surmounted by two quill pens in saltire] [One commenter] noted a previous return for combining "dissimilar" charges in a single visual unit. In the case cited, however, it was two types of sword ... rather than two clearly different charges, adding and extra degree of potential visual confusion. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 6)
The use of two types of charge in saltire is so well established in the Society that it is a standard arrangement that does not add to complexity so long as both charges are clearly identifiable.... Note that the sword and axe are distinct charges, both mundanely and in the Society, so that there is not the same type of potential for confusion that there would be if, for instance, a rapier and scimitar or a pike and a battle-axe were in saltire. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 11)
[A quill pen maintained by a cubit arm fesswise] Note that in the new rules (Changes to Charges on Charges, X.4.j) it is noted that "charges maintained by other charges are generally too insignificant to count towards difference at all." The qualifier was placed in this rule expressly to deal with situations like this where the object held is in fact of equal size to the being/thing maintaining it. (As opposed to the usual situation where a beast maintains a sword/flower/other artifact which is considerably smaller in size and design importance.) In terms of size and design importance the feather is equal to the cubit arm in this design and thus can be treated as having full weight for purposes of difference. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, pp. 3-4)
The use of variants of ordinaries and other charges in the Polish manner is a reasonable usage (so long as the variant is susceptible of adequate description). (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 19)
The badge ... uses the crossed trumpets currently reserved to official heralds in the Society for a non-official organization, even if these are surmounted by a third trumpet.... It combines with the fleur-de-lys which appears in the insignia of the Norrey King of Arms ... with the argent lion supporters of the arms of the College of Arms itself. In this manner, the badge lays claim to symbols not only of the Society College of Arms but also of the English College of Arms as well. This is excessive. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 17)
The standing precedent in the College (stated by Baldwin of Erebor, February, 1985) dictates that the name Corwin may not be used in conjunction with roses of any tincture. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 35)
The orle flory counterflory is visually too close to the reserved tressure of Scotland, a decision reaffirmed as recently as September, 1989.... While [the principal herald] is correct in noting that this is not identical to the Scots tressure, its "visual weight" is essentially the same and there was a fairly strong feeling at the time this charge first was presented that it was visually tantamount to the reserved charge. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 42) (See also: LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 13)
[A chaplet of roses] While [the submitting herald] noted that the blazon had been selected specifically to distinguish it from the wreath of roses reserved to Queens and Ladies of the Rose, this is a distinction rather than a difference. Not only are chaplets regularly listed under "wreath", but several pieces of royal armoury have the wreath blazoned as a chaplet (most notably that of the Queen of the Middle).... As a territorial princess is not eligible to become a member of the Order of the Rose on the basis of her service to her principality, she may not use the wreath of roses (however blazoned) on her official or personal armoury. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 15)
[Escarbuncles ending in arrowheads] There was a very strong feeling among commentors from coast to coast and points in between that the use of the sign of Chaos from the Moorcock universe in Society armoury was quite inappropriate, not only because of its meaning but also because of its modern associations and design. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 11)
The squirrel pelts are not standard heraldic charges and are not identifiable without the blazon (one member of Laurel staff blazoned this as "three Caspers in fess"!). (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 14)
The new rules are somewhat looser on the subject: anything that is demonstrably used in period heraldry may be used in Society heraldry. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 14)
Laurel is aware of several armorial bearings which use a scroll with inscription as a significant part of the design (admittedly several of these are attributed arms and the remainder are mostly ecclesiastical armoury, which is occasionally weird). Thus the scroll may be used in such a design, provided that the wording is neither offensive nor used in such a way that the precise lettering is required for the design. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 14)
The bordure is chequy since it consists of small panes formed by a grid of lines palewise and fesswise; a bordure compony-countercompony is formed with one set of lines following the edge of the shield and the others dividing the space more or less evenly with the starting points lines in saltire issuing from the upper corners of the shield. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 26)
We have been unable to find any period precedent for such a multiply tinctured chequy [of three tinctures]. If such could be found, we would entertain an appeal; otherwise, we feel that this is an innovation that we would rather not make in Society heraldry. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 17)
Fields checky of two colours have not been permitted for some time. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 16)
Since the "perpendicular" lines of a chequy parallel the edges of a charge (examine the examples of a bend or a saltire chequy in Elvin and other sources), the proper blazon for the division the submittor desires for the bordure would seem to be "chequy", not the "lozengy" of the submitted blazon. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 5)
Chequy of nine panes is, by definition, not evenly divided as to tincture: one tincture must be dominant and in this case it is [color]. This being the case, this must be treated as if it were a [color] dominant field, not an evenly divided (and hence neutral) field. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 16)
"It shouldn't be necessary to specify ‘throughout’: that's simply one period way of drawing chevrons. It carries no heraldic difference." [Quoting Crescent PH] (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 11)
The "enarching" here is merely one of the standard period methods of depicting a normal chevron and therefore there is insufficient difference from the mundane arms of [Name]. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 14)
It was ruled some time ago that the "chevron throughout" is merely a period variant of the chevron and no difference can be derived from enhancing the chevron. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 9)
However this is blazoned, in appearance it includes a fimbriated chief, which is not permitted for Society usage. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 18)
A bordure should not surmount a chief. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 15)
AR2d indicates that "neutral tinctures may be used with any metal, color, or fur, except either of the component tinctures". While it is stated that the component tinctures may be used in simple cases, the underlying stricture is that a simple case only exists where the identity of the overlying charge is clearly identifiable. This is not the case with the Or chief placed on the field which is largely Or at the point where it intersects with the chief. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 16)
Please ... draw the chief properly (i.e., not as a narrow addendum to the shield). (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 7)
In both period and modern heraldry a chief, when it is combined with a bordure, is not overlain by the bordure. In some older cases of chief added for cadency, the chief is added above an attenuated field completely surrounded by the bordure. More common, however, in both period and modern heraldry is a chief which simply overlies and truncates the bordure. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 13)
[A chief arched] The arching here is virtually identical to that shown on period renditions of a plain chief and adds almost no visual difference. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 12)
The bordure overlays the chief, which is not period practise. [Returned for this and for conflict] (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 15)
The exemption from the "Rule of Tincture" extended to a chief in some periods of mundane heraldry is not permissible in Society heraldry. Thus the gules chief on the sable field is "colour on colour". (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 19)
Although the submittor has provided some documentation for the enarched chief and base as separate elements, there is some doubt whether a base of this sort is period and certainly the "cat's eye" effect is distinctly modern. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17)
A chief cannot be fimbriated. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 23)
The addition of identically charged chiefs to both devices gives the appearance not of direct cadency but common membership in an order, household or fraternal organization (the mundane analogue for this would be the use of a chief bearing the arms or badge of a martial order). (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 14
Orles do not overlie a chief. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 2)
[On a chief, a charge bendwise sinister] There was considerable feeling in the College that the unusual position of the charge on the chief was not period style. After much consideration, we have decided that it is eccentric and not advisable, but not grounds in and of itself for the return of the device. LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 12)
Although the letter blazoned the "decoration" of the chief as "five saltires", the visual effect is one of the standard depictions of a chief fretty and is more simply blazoned in this manner. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 7)
The blazon stated the design to be "per fess rayonny enhanced". As many in the College noted, there is no such thing. What we have here is a chief, properly enlarged in the period manner to allow the harp to be clearly visible. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 1)
There is one clear visual difference for the addition of the chief and another for the addition of the tertiaries. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 5.)
The addition of the secondary [chief] and the addition of the tertiary [charges on the chief] are separate actions and in mundane heraldry would reflect different levels of cadency. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 6)
[Per pale and barry wavy argent and sable, on a chief triangular sable ...] As [the design's] identifiability is undiminished by its being depicted in one of the field tinctures, there is no problem with this device under either set of rules. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 3)
The only charge which appears to have been regularly surmounted by a chief was the bordure (and even then the practice was decidedly variable). Such period examples of orles or tressures in conjunction with a chief that we have been able to locate have the full orle placed below the chief, as in the arms of the Worshipful Company of Musicians. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 13)
While we appreciate the comments of [commenters] on the interchangeability of the cinquefoil and the heraldic rose in the early period..., it is a fact that the Society has for lang and lang distinguished between them, as a glance at the Armorial or even the Pictorial Dictionary ... will reveal. (Now fraises and cinquefoils, on the other hand.) (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 10)
There is not a full point of difference between [a] shooting star and an estoile. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 17)
[A comet bendwise sinister] Comets in the Society are more often than not placed in positions other than "bendwise sinister".... To guarantee the submittor the device he wishes, we must forego the most elegant blazon. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 11)
This charge was not identifiable. While a compass point is mentioned in Parker (p. 388), no indication is given that this was used as a charge in period. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 24)
The primary charge was shown in the blazon on the letter of intent as an estoile, on the emblazon on the letter of intent as a compass star, and on the emblazon sheet provided by the submittor as [a billet surmounted by a lozenge fesswise surmounted by a lozenge palewise]. What the submittor has provided is four layers, even though the surmounting charges are of the same tincture.... It is not at all clear whether the submittor would prefer a compass star, an estoile (which would have six wavy rays) or neither of these. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 15)
By tradition the Society has considered a compass star to differ by at least a strong minor from a mullet, this is well clear. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 3)
A compass star is too complex a charge to fimbriate. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)
Complete difference of charge cannot exist between a woodchuck and a squirrel: the visual similarities are too great. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 17)
There is not complete difference of charge [between a hexagon and a roundel of the same color]. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 20)
Where two devices consist solely of any number of identical charges in a standard arrangement [including semy] upon a plain field or of such charges used in conjunction with an uncharged bordure or chief, sufficient difference shall automatically be considered to exist if the primary charges are completely different with no possibility of visual confusion between the two types of charge. (CL 25 Nov 87, p. 3)
[Experience] seems to indicate that modern sensibilities, as much as period perceptions, would consider the fleur-de-lys completely different from any variant of human or beast head. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 7)
[The submitting herald] errs in considering that there is complete difference of charge between a tree eradicated vert and a tree eradicated blasted vert: at best there is a minor point of difference. (Nor is there complete difference of charge between a lion and a lion defamed: in fact, Society precedent would hold that the difference between the two types of lion would be negligible.) (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 6)
"Complete difference of charge" should [not] be accorded to two different types of mushroom proper: unless the tinctures are completely different only a weak minor point could be derived. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 18)
[Per saltire argent and gules, four roses counterchanged vs. Per saltire Or and gules, four escallops, points to center, counterchanged] Complete difference of charge applies here. [Returned for other conflict] (LoAR Jul 88, p. 20)
[The principal herald] requested that the "Complete Difference of Charge" leniency be granted for charges which involved orles as well as those which involved bordures or chiefs. After much consideration, we have decided that this is not an advisable path to pursue.... The rationale behind this in part involved cadency: the bordure and the chief were preeminently charges added to indicate cadency in period and, as such, would be automatically "added" to a base device to indicate the "parent" armoury. This is not the case with orles which are almost always a primary design, rather than a cadency mark, and therefore are less likely to be "transparent" to an onlooker. Moreover, ... under normal circumstances, the very nature of the orle diminishes the primary charge in size, seriously reducing its identifiability. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 19)
[A winged natural panther vs. a falcon] We did not feel complete difference of charge could reasonably apply here since you have two winged creatures in essentially the same posture (allowing for the differences in the bodies of the two beasts). (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 16)
The Complete Difference of Charge rule cannot apply between variants of crosses. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 20)
After much soul-searching and a comparison of the emblazons, we decided that the shapes are too similar for complete difference of charge to exist between a goblet and an hourglass ... under both the old rules and the new. The visual assonance is very clear: the only difference between the two devices with the hourglass drawn in one of its standard Society depictions (i.e., without the posts) is the balance and "fatness" of the lower portion of the goblet. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 36)
Under the new rules, this is definitely clear since complete difference of charge may apply to coats where a charged chief is the only accompaniment to the primary charges (Difference of Primary Charges, X.2). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 3)
Under both sets of rules ... "complete difference of charge" cannot function where a semy is present. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 23)
Note that complete difference of primary charge cannot apply ... because the secondaries are flaunches. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 7)
The new rules do not require complete difference of charge between the ... primary charges on simple coats, merely significant difference of primary charge, as defined in the section on Significant Armorial Differences. Under that section, it is clearly stated that charges will be considered different in type which were considered clearly separate in period heraldry. Rabbits or hares and lions were so considered. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 14)
It is certainly a possibility to consider that the phrase "alone on the field" should be taken literally in the new rules and the significant difference of charge license apply even where the primary charges are themselves charged.... After much wrestling with this issue, we have come to the conclusion that the letter of the law in this case is also the spirit of the law and thus section X.2 [Difference of Primary Charges rule] of the new rules can apply to charged primaries. However, it must be stressed that the tertiary charges cannot significantly diminish the identifiability of the primaries in each case (by definition, both must be charged or else the two coats would be clear under the new rules). Also, it is presumed that the "visual conflict" rule may apply in cases such as that cited above where charges of the same type and tincture are modified with no other modifications. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 5)
Section X.2 of the new rules, which allow for automatic difference when there is a change of primary charge on a simple coat, is interpreted fairly strictly to allow such difference of primary charge to apply when the primary charge(s) are themselves charged, provided the other criteria outlined in that section of the rules are met.
In applying this precedent, please remember that the "visual test" still remains active. If the combination of position, tincture, arrangement, etc. of the identical items in the design creates an overwhelming visual resemblance to a piece of protected armoury, "visual conflict" may still be called. (CL 15 Jun 90, p. 3)
It was the sense of the meeting that section X.2 of the rules should apply between mice and lions used a qualifying primary charges. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 4)
[Charge between four roundels within a bordure embattled] Note that, although the number of charges here would seem a trifle busy for a badge, the design forms a unified whole. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 4)
It was the general consensus that [the primary charge's low contrast with half the field], taken with the non-standard and rather busy position of the [quadruped secondaries], pushed this device over the edge of unacceptable complexity. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 12)
The device was judged to be excessively complex [charged primary, secondary in base, and embattled bordure] and poor style to a degree which should not be accepted for group arms which precedent indicates "should set a good example". (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 13)
In referring to an "off-center" gyronny in [a] return ... in February, 1982, Master Wilhelm noted "this sort of division is not heraldic". Whilst this referred to a gyronny of two colours, the general principle holds true. It was the consensus of the meeting that the unequal division of the tinctures on the [primary charge] taken together with the low contrast between the [metal portions of the primary charge] and the [metal] of the field and the [tertiary charge] creates too great a complexity for a badge. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, pp. 9-10)
This is overly complex for period style, involving as it does five tinctures and four different types of charge. If would add a considerable amount of unity to the design if the [major charges] were both of the same tincture. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 16) (See also: LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11; LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 27)
Unfortunately, this is four layers and therefore technically too complex for a device, let alone a badge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 15) (See also: LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 6)
[Tierced per fess of three tinctures, two identical charges and a third charge, all counterchanged] This is not period style. Even were there only two tinctures involved, the visual complexity (these appear to be two different types of charge divided per fess and overlying a fess) would make the effect confusing. This would be far better if one of the charges were placed on the fess surrounded by three of the other charge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 26)
Three different charges on a field party per pall have been ruled previously to be too complex by definition to be registered in the Society (AR 6c). (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 19)
The primary charge [a sword proper, blade enflamed gules, entwined by a rose vine argent slipped and seeded Or] is just too complex and displays too poor contrast to be acceptable. The hilt Or ... fades into the argent field and the vine of roses is such a minor detail combined with the visual distraction of the flames gules, that it is difficult to determine precisely what it is. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 13)
[Semy field, a charge and a chief triangular semy; five tinctures] This is almost overly complex, but is legal. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 3)
[Per fess purpure and argent ... all within a bordure counter-compony purpure and argent] This approaches the limits of visual complexity. This would be improved with a simpler bordure which did not leave islands of argent in purpure and vice versa. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 8)
The label charged with two different charges in two tinctures is just too complex. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 14)
The bordure countercompony of vert and argent adds an unacceptable level of complexity to the device since the vert portions of the bordure fade into the azure and the argent fades into the argent of the field, leaving an effect of isolated rectangles of tincture. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 15)
The design, particularly the exiguous laurel wreath about the thin and complexly nowed serpent was too complex visually for group arms. (LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 3)
This is by definition too complex for a badge since [what] it involves is three unlike charges floating on a divided field (this would be illicit for a device in fact!). (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)
[Azure, a bezant, pierced sable, between four plates, all within a bordure argent] This is right at the margin of acceptable complexity for a badge (the voiding of the bezant tried to tug it over, the unifying tincture of the outer charges pulled it back). (LoAR Aug 87, p. 4) [The badge was registered.]
[On a fess per fess sable and argent, a bar counter-compony argent and sable] There was ... a consensus that the central charge, whether it be blazoned as a charged fess or a parted fess fimbriated, was too complex to readily identify "on the field". (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)
The collocation of charges in base [a bezant, pierced sable, between four plates within an annulet argent] is too complex to be identifiable as a component of this device. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 12)
It did not seem that the fimbriation of the crescent was enough per se to cause the submission to be returned. However, it was felt that the fimbriation in an already relatively complex design ... added an unacceptable complexity to the design. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 8)
[Per pale gules and azure, a lion and a dragon combattant argent, maintaining in their forepaws a sword and a great axe crossed in saltire, in base a massacre Or] This very nearly falls over the great cliff of overcomplexity: were the charges not confined to two tinctures, this would be too complex. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 1)
[A chevron and on a pale counterchanged a rapier inverted counterchanged] It [is] just too complex for Society heraldry, not only containing four layers (field + chevron + overlying pale + rapier) but reducing the rapier to a nearly unidentifiable state through the counterchanging. (LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 7)
Even for an augmentation this adds an unacceptable level of complexity since the charged canton is placed on top of a charge overall, making the canton itself the fourth and fifth layer of the design. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
[A sword inverted palewise between two others in pile, all proper and issuant from a demi-trefoil vert itself issuant from a torse wreathed vert and Or, the trefoil charged with a rose Or] As the convoluted blazon suggests, this is too complex for a badge: six different charges of four types. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 20)
[Per bend sinister embowed counterembowed, in fess a hammer fimbriated and a falcon striking] This submission ... is clearly too complex for a badge (in itself, the hammer is too complex a charge to fimbriate). (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 21)
[Quarterly, a (charge) bendwise surmounted by a compass star, between two flowers, within a bordure embattled counterchanged] This pushes the very outer limits of complexity [in a device]. It would be vastly improved by the removal of either or both of the central charges. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 2)
[Gules, a fess argent, overall seven mascles, four and three, counterchanged] Not only does this conflict with the arms of Austria ("Gules, a fess argent."), but it is visually confusing to an unacceptable degree. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 18)
[In pale a candle enflamed upon a flat candlestick, the latter between two natural rosebuds, slipped and leaved in chevron inverted, all within a mullet of eight points elongated to base and voided] The voiding of an inherently complex charge like the mullet of eight points is exacerbated by the elongation of the mullet to base and can be considered "thin line heraldry". Not one but three charges are framed within this voided mullet and they are so arranged as to minimize their identifiability. [Device returned] (LoAR Jul 88, p. 18)
The bordure, semy of two separate charges in alternation [is] too complex for use in the Society While such a usage does indeed occasionally occur in the Iberian peninsula..., even there it is usually done in conjunction with a bordure compony so that the alternation of the charges is made more obvious by the differentiation of the bordure tinctures (the most famous of these examples is the bordure adopted by several Spanish families which alternates the lion of Leon and the tower of Castile). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 19)
[Gyronny Or and chequy azure and argent, a spider tergiant palewise sable and in chief a faceted gem fesswise between two others in chevron gules] Most of the commenters felt that this pushed the limits of acceptable style to near the breaking point, but ultimately we decided that this fell short of unacceptability. In fact, apart from the peculiar positioning of the gems, this is a rather simple device (or would be if the field were a bit quieter). (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 10)
[On a chevron an increscent and a decrescent, overall a monster rampant, in chief a fleur-de-lis] This submission comes perilously close to the limit on complexity and could do with some simplification. [Device registered] (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 10)
[Quarterly azure and azure, ermined, on a cross floretty engrailed between in bend two (beasts) heads jessant-de-lis, a cross floretty] This device pushes close to the limits of acceptability from the point of view of complexity and presumption, but falls just this side of disaster. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 9)
Added to the relatively unbalanced arrangement of the [charges in bend] on either sided of the [per pale] field, the chief itself with its "moving" charge adds an undesirable degree of complexity and lack of balance to the design. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, pp. 16-17)
The complexity of the voided and interlaced charges diminishes the visual impact of the concavity [of the lines] to negligible status. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 17)
[A charged arch between two towers, between in pale two different monsters] There was a virtually unanimous opinion among the commentors that this is too complex for a badge. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 22)
[Per chevron, on a chevron between two birds and a winged beast, three charges] This device pushes at the very limits of complexity, only being saved by the use of colour to tie the secondary and tertiary charges together. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 3)
The style we strive for is that of an earlier period when heraldry was actually used for identification, not book plates and carriage embellishments. This is the underlying principle behind the ban on complexity and the requirements for contrast. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 10)
The use of two types of charge in saltire is so well established in the Society that it is a standard arrangement that does not add to complexity so long as both charges are clearly identifiable.... Note that the sword and axe are distinct charges, both mundanely and in the Society, so that there is not the same type of potential for confusion that there would be if, for instance, a rapier and scimitar or a pike and a battle-axe were in saltire. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 11)
The use of the [two] hands in different orientations together with a relatively unidentifiable charge [falcon's hood affronty] in base [all around a charged chevron] pushes this device towards unacceptable complexity despite its simplicity of [only using two] tincture[s]. [Device returned] (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 15)
While the two grape bunches do lie on the [primary charge] in the emblazon, the identifying leaf portions of the [vert] vine lie almost entirely on the [color] field. Additionally, the vine adds an extra level of complexity of tincture and design that is ... "awfully busy". (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 17)
[Per fess potenty (color) and (fur), a (charge) between two (of another charge), in base a (beast) couchant reguardant, environed of a rose vine] This device is excessively complex. There is a low contrast complexly divided field, four different types of charge in a non-standard arrangement and, to push the whole thing over the edge, the detail of the rose vine in which the [beast] is entrapped, which is nearly unidentifiable, even though most of it does lie on the [beast] and so has reasonable contrast. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 18)
[A stag salient through a heart voided] Were [the voiding of the heart] the only anomaly, the issue of complexity and style would be much dicier. However, joined to the voided heart is the design which depends on the beast "doing a circus stunt" ..., i.e., jumping through the heart. This posture inevitably obscures some of the identifying features of both the stag and the heart, since the head and antlers of the stag overlie the indentation of the heart to chief. Thus the shape of the upper portion of the heart is obscured and, since the [metal] antlers lie largely along the [metal] curve of the heart, so are the identifying antlers. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 18)
There is no doubt that the addition of this augmentation raises the complexity level of an already complex device several degrees.... Adding the [augmentation] inescutcheon adds a further two layers as well as three tinctures and four types of charge, all depicted at extremely small scale.... This is just too much complexity. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 16)
[In pale two charges in saltire and another charge, all between two pallets] It was our feeling that this sailed just this side of overcomplexity. [Device registered] (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 7)
[Two bendlets disjointed fimbriated] The addition of the fimbriation here adds an unacceptable degree of confusion to the visual effect which seriously reduces the overall identifiability of the unusual bend. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 10)
The complex central charge, with its unusual variant of a standard charge ..., the addition of the [birds] and the mount and the gores add an unacceptable degree of complexity in type and tincture of charge. (LoAr 18 Jun 89, p. 13)
While we grant that the heart is an essentially simple charge, the fimbriation here adds a degree of complexity that is inappropriate for a badge, diminishing as it does the immediacy of the identifiability of the gules heart. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 21)
[Per fess, in fess three human skeletons affronty, kneeling on their dexter knees, each maintaining in its dexter arm a book and in the sinister hand a staff palewise, and a beast, maintaining a sword bendwise] This [is] just too busy, the more so in view of the difficult-to-process charges used here. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 25)
In this case, where the charged ordinary significantly affects the identifiability of the primary charge and four tinctures combined with three different types of charge increase the visual "traffic" in the design, we ... concluded that this was just too complex. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 27)
[Per saltire of two colors, on a saltire bretessed between two charges in pale and a decrescent and an increscent in fess, a musical instrument] This pushes at the outer limits of complexity. [Device registered] (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 9)
[The submission] uses six charges of three types in a fieldless arrangement which is moderately complex for a fieldless badge. [Returned for this and other problems] (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 17)
[A cornucopia in annulo, atop the fruit a bird, wings displayed] While this badge pushes at the limits of acceptable complexity, the basic design is within the spirit of such period badges as the bear and ragged staff. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 25)
Note that this pushes the outside limits of complexity as defined by the "rule of thumb" used in the new rules. There are four types of charges and either four tinctures (if one counts "proper" as a single tincture) or five (if one breaks the [charge] into is component black and white). (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 25)
The device is pushed over the edge of complexity under both rules by use of the four tinctures and four different charges with one type (the [ordinary]) diminished in identifiability because it is defined entirely by its fimbriation and two others because they are almost identical in their shapes (... which are in fact drawn almost identically). (LoAR 26 Nov 89, pp. 33-34)
The four [charges] in two tinctures, three heads and whole [beast], [are] just too complex for period style even without the anomaly of the heads holding the [charges] in their mouths.... The four tinctures with three types of charge (four, if you categorize secondary and tertiary charges of the same type as visually different in weight) are just too much. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 40)
[Per pale, two monsters and a garb, on a chief three charges; four tinctures total] Note that the device pushes at the very borders of complexity under both old and new rules. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 16)
[Two beasts combattant maintaining between them two charges, in base a charge within a charge; four tinctures] This borders on the edge of overcomplexity under either set of rules. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 19)
This exceeds [the] limits [of complexity] under both sets of rules: five tinctures and at least four sets of charges, if you blazon the chief triangular as such to avoid the ambiguities of the two types of mullets in a group with the [primary charges]. Even without the two different types and tinctures of mullets in the same group in chief this would be dicey. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 23)
The combinations of tinctures and charges push complexity levels under both the old rules and new. (There are five tinctures and three types of charges, even without counting the cap [on the primary] as a separate charge.) (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 25)
[On a pale surmounted by a bend embattled on the upper edge counterchanged, a beast's head and an anvil] The overall design [is] just too complex and unbalanced for period style. The difficulties which were encountered ... in creating a blazon which would guarantee that the "staircase" would never overlie the charges on the pale was indicative of the problem. The counterchanging and the diminished size of the bend required by the [beast's] head above it on the pale decreased the immediate recognizability of the bend. Additionally, while the number of layers involved here can be reduced to three by reblazoning, the overall effects is visually complex and overly confusing, creating an effect of motion as the eye follows the "staircase" from top to bottom rather than processing the charges in a normal static manner. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, pp. 20-21)
[Per pale, in saltire a sword and a trumpet between four quill pens tergiant, nibs to center] This [is] overly complex, particularly for a badge: three types of charges, four tinctures and quill pens in a position (tergiant!) which almost guarantees unrecognizability. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 21)
There are just too many anomalies and too much business here. The lizard atop the rock is actually a naturalistic representation of a lizard on an obsidian-type rock and a good part of the vert lizard's typical leg and foot structures fade into the sable stone. While the general desert effect is quite clear, when this is placed on the overcrowded [semy of] suns, the effect is overly complex. When one also considers that the sable hilts ... cause the swords to appear like hiltless blades the visual confusion just falls over the edge. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 20)
This is just too busy: there are three types of charges (with two in a single group) and six tinctures (with three in a single group). (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 14)
[In fess two charges and on a point pointed Or, a different charge, on a chief a beast couchant] This device treads the very edge of complexity: only the fact that everything but the tertiary on the chief were in two tinctures, unifying the device, persuaded us that it did not fall over that edge. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 13)
[Per pall inverted, two birds respectant and a monster; four tinctures] This totters on the edge of overcomplexity, but falls just inside the line. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 11)
This is just too complex to meet our requirements of style.... In the first place, two different types of charge semy are placed on either side of an ordinary in identical tinctures (and not dissimilar shapes which creates a visual confusion). In the second place, the correct identification of the tertiary depends on a precise depiction and arrangement of the charges that is not period. In the third place, there is excessive complexity with four types of charges and four tinctures involved in this device. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 14)
A bordure compony-countercompony is formed with one set of lines following the edge of the shield and the others dividing the space more or less evenly with the starting points lines in saltire issuing from the upper corners of the shield. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 26)
A bordure compony where one tincture is identical to the field should not be permitted.... The "islands" of tincture ... [are] too large to permit the distinction between the plain bordure compony and a bordure embattled being readily apparent. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 8) (See also: LoAR 28 Jun 87, pp. 3-4; LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 20)
When an individual views two devices, apart or together, they go through several phases in processing the information.... The observer usually registers first the colour of the field, usually in terms of metal versus colour, then if it is divided and of what tinctures and only then by what type of line of partition, if one is present. Then the tincture of the charge closest to the center of the device is processed (... there is quite a bit of evidence that [our ancestors] looks at the type of central charge before its colour and a large minority of the populace do that as well). Again, the tincture recognition is usually a two stage thing: first the category and then the specific tincture. Then the overall type of central charge is determined, followed by its number and posture.... Only then will perception pass to the "peripheral" secondary charges, moving from center out and from top to bottom and repeating the tincture, type, number/posture process until all charges which lie directly on the field have been "digested". Then and only then normally does the eye return to the center of the device to consider tertiary charges....
In practice, this means that two devices which are strongly similar in the center will be perceived as being more alike than two devices which differ strongly in the center but are identical on the periphery.... Practically speaking, changes to tertiaries on an ordinary in the center of a device will contribute considerably greater visual difference than tertiaries on a charge which is itself on the periphery.
It must be conceded that these degrees of difference cannot be totally quantified and it is extremely dubious whether they should be.... The "grey areas" of visual conflict often seem to occur more frequently in the more complex the device in its processing ...: so much is required in the digestion and/or so unusual are the patterns that each change has less cumulative effect. It is unavoidable that there will be "judgement calls" in such cases. When this is the case, the final determinant will be the actual emblazons compared by Laurel and anyone else at the meeting. (CL 18 May 87, pp. 4-5)
The addition of the bordure, which is a standard cadency mark, to a badge which was substantially the same seemed to demand a letter of permission. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11) (See also: LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
Since each rose/laurel wreath collocation is essentially a single charge visually, this device is constructed on the pattern of a single primary charge and four identical secondaries. This being so, this is in conflict. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 14)
[Cauldron suspended from tripod vs. cauldron and a base rayonny] If we consider the pot and the tripod to be a single charge, the two [pieces of armory] would be in conflict since the addition of the base would contribute only one difference. In some designs, the trivet could be diminished in importance to a degree that it would not contribute difference. However, in this particular design the tripod has nearly equal weight with the pot and, were it not for the back leg of the tripod, the pot could as well be blazoned "between the legs of and suspended from a chevronel couped and inverted". This being the case, we feel that the new rules would allow the tripod to be treated as a secondary charge, with one difference for the difference in type and another for the difference in color. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 13)
Under both old and new rules there remains a conflict with the arms of [Name]...: there is only the addition of the secondaries which produces a major point or a single clear visual difference, depending on the set of rules you are using. This is not sufficient. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 20)
[Sable, on a triangle Or a pair of batwings displayed sable, all within a bordure] Valid concerns were ... expressed in the College about the use of the conjoint batwings on a gold background (albeit the classic depiction of the "quasi-arms of pretense" of Batman are on an oval fesswise and this is the form recently and aggressively protected). [Returned for conflict (not Batman) and stylistic problems] (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)
[Three piles issuant from sinister] This is also a direct visual conflict with [Name]...: the period depiction of the per pale indented field showed large indentations reaching nearly to the edges of the shield such as appear here. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 17)
[Argent, two gussets gules vs. Gules, a pall argent] Regrettably, this is in conflict.... The removal of the inverted triangular portion of the field from the top of the device does not create enough visual difference to carry the two devices truly clear. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 17)
See also, Brittany
As the person to whom these arms belong is peculiarly prominent, the weight for protection falls with the mundane arms. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 13)
[The arms of Tirol] were felt to be famous enough from their period and modern use to deserve extra protection. (LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 3)
This is very close to the device of [Name] ("[Blazon]"). There is a clear major point for the removal of the [secondary charges], but it is arguable whether the visual differences between the two sets of long [color] objects in saltire should be considered a major point of difference. In view of the extreme simplicity of the devices in both cases, we were inclined to give the submittor the benefit of the doubt but would seriously encourage him not to draw the [primary charges] in too elongated a fashion lest there be confusion with [Name]. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 15)
[A monkey argent vested Or vs. a monkey proper] The overall tincture of the monkey [proper] is as close to Or as makes no difference and the golden clothing covers the monkey to such an extent that it appears to be Or at any distance. The cumulative changes in the detail of the monkey do not make a full "point and a half" required for difference from a Society badge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 18)
[A delf and a lozenge, voided and interlaced] Given the visual similarity of the primary charge to a number of depictions of a snowflake in Society heraldry and mundane art, this appears to [conflict]. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 13)
[The submittor] must draw the upper portion of the field properly as mulletty, i.e., more evenly distributed. As drawn now, the design looks more like an attempt to depict a constellation ... which is not permitted as a charge in Society heraldry. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 9)
The design is unbalanced in the extreme, mostly due to the attempt to counterfeit the effect of a constellation (these are forbidden for Society heraldry). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 22)
The contrast was so poor between the argent [charge] and Or ["markings"] of the [charge] that it was impossible for most to identify clearly what it was at any distance. Although this may be a "[charge] proper", it does not serve well for identification. Perhaps the submittor would consider delineating the identifying markings in a colour? (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 10)
Antlers proper have been defined as "white or light yellow brown" (Wilhelm von Schlussel, 26 December, 1983) so there is insufficient contrast between the antlers and the argent chief. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)
The extremely low contrast level between the [azure charge] and the vert portion of the field renders [it] almost unidentifiable. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 12)
The [copper charges proper], whose default tincture must be heraldically Or, are metal on metal because of their position [against argent and Or primary charge], to the extent that they were unidentifiable at any distance. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 14)
[Fieldless badge, charge color, winged metal] Note that there is no field that this can "legally" be placed upon with adequate contrast (gules would provide adequate visual contrast, but would technically be colour on colour since the [charge] is the primary element here). However, since both tinctures are united in a single charge, this is legitimate according to AR13b. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 3)
It was the consensus of those present at the Laurel meeting that the contrast between the azure portion of the [per saltire] field and the brown and black of the [charge] was so great as to render the position of the beast unclear at any distance. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 11)
[Sword entwined with a rose vine proper, on a party two-color field] This ... has some serious problems with contrast as the portions of the roses and their leafing and vining fall into the field. (In fact, the leaves vert are invisible on the vert portion of the field and almost invisible on the azure portion of the field.) (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 18)
Since human flesh [proper] is a "light" tincture, it has insufficient contrast with the argent field. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 19)
The device [a demi-maiden conjoined to a tree stump] has some contrast problems: the upper portion of the [color] staff and the [color] hair of the maiden disappear into the upper [color] portion of the field. While these are details of the charge, in this case, where the charge itself is so unusual that its identity is not immediately obvious, the lack of contrast seriously affects the identifiability of the charge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 21)
The grape vine [proper] has insufficient contrast with the [gules] field: the brown vine and green leaves are almost invisible, although the grapes themselves, carefully placed on the [primary charge], show up reasonably well. If you consider the vine a major design element, the device must be returned for breaching the Rule of Tincture. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 23)
The contrast between the sable [Charge] and the azure portion of the [per bend] field was so poor that the primary charge was unidentifiable, even at a distance of a foot. We would suggest that the submittor modify the tincture of the primary charge or of the field colour to obtain a better contrast. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 25)
[Tierced per fess of three tinctures, two identical charges and a third charge, all counterchanged] This is not period style. Even were there only two tinctures involved, the visual complexity (these appear to be two different types of charge divided per fess and overlying a fess) would make the effect confusing. This would be far better if the one of the charges were placed on the fess surrounded by three of the other charge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 26)
[A rose overall Or, slipped and leaved vert] It might be argued that in this case the slipping and leaving are non-trivial and should be requ