Combined Precedents of the SCA College of Arms (1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda)

COMBINED PRECEDENTS OF THE S.C.A. COLLEGE OF ARMS

The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (both years)

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

"When submission heralds are sending out an LoI with an armory change or release (devices or badges), please include a blazon of the armory being released or changed. The blazons are not always in the file with the prior submissions." (CL 10/20/91 p.1).

"This is the submitter's 'secondary' version of this submission... We do not normally consider different versions of submissions at the Laurel level. I am making an exception this one time because of the long amount of time in which the submitter, his College of Heralds, and the College of Arms have been working with this particular device." (LoAR 10/91 p.13).

"Generally, when there is a problem with a blazon in a LoI, that submission is pended by Laurel, not returned." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).

"It is poor practice for the submissions herald(s) of a kingdom to anticipate Laurel decisions before those decisions are made and published. Generally, when there is a problem with a blazon in a LoI, that submission is pended by Laurel, not returned." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).

"[The] request that this be treated as a hardship case is a difficult decision here. Certainly, if the client was not given all of the reasons for return by the kingdom herald(s), there is a problem. However, the full reasons for return were given in the LoAR by Laurel, and I am hesitant to begin granting hardship allowances where the information passed on to the client was incomplete (as opposed to more serious kinds of misfeasance). I have seen many instances of a client stating that he or she was not given all of the reasons for a return, and Laurel has no way of double-checking to determine the accuracy of the client's, or the herald's, sometimes selective memory. To allow registration of a only partial fix of the reasons of return leaves Laurel (and the College) open to far too many opportunities for registering items in violation of our Rules for Submissions and the standards we have set for names and armory for the reason that 'I wasn't told that {X} was a problem.' [the submission was returned]

I would like to remind the submissions heralds (or those designated to inform clients of Laurel's decisions on their proposal(s)) that it is their duty to inform the client of the complete reason(s) for any changes or returns which Laurel makes to their submissions. Sometimes problems with a submission are mentioned 'in passing', especially when there is a clear conflict or Rules violation, but these problems are as much a part of the 'reasons for return' as the obvious calls. Our clients deserve to be fully informed of these 'minor' problems, too." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).

"After carefully reviewing all of the commentary on the viability of <submitter's> 'blanket letter of permission to conflict', I have come to the conclusion that to begin (as Lady Harpy put it) 'customizing protection' is to set a bad precedent. While I appreciate <submitter's> willingness to grant such a broad permission to conflict, to allow such a blanket letter of permission would involve at the very least a modification to the Administrative Handbook and a separate notation in the A&O, and possibly changes to the Rules for Submission themselves. Like many of you, I am extremely reluctant to complicate the Rules or Handbook with exceptions which have to be remembered and kept track of without very good cause and a much sounder basis than this appears to have. I believe the benefits of having a single standard for all armory which local heralds can understand and which can be explained to our clients outweigh those which creating special exceptions to that standard would bring." (CL 2/12/92 p.5).

"The holding name formed at the Laurel meeting [had a conflict with a famous mundane person]. As this is an administrative holding name, rather than a registration, we can correct this situation here, and do so." (Errata Letter 2/12/92 p.1).

ARCHITECTURE

[A turreted bridge vs. a tower triple-towered and vs. a castle triple-towered] "Given evidence that no difference was granted in period between towers and castles and the very strong visual resemblance of this bridge to a castle, no ...CVD could be granted." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).

"Walls appear to be throughout, masoned, and embattled by default." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).

[A tower corked at the top] "The cork in the tower is really not period style, and is by itself sufficient grounds for return." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).

["A church tower"] The charge... is not drawn as a church tower known in heraldic texts, nor is it a recognizable representation of a church. The heraldic church tower is a tower with the pointed roof and cross, but without the windows and flying buttresses of this submission. A church would probably not have the flying buttresses. Please ask the client to clarify what he wants and to resubmit with a redrawing." (LoAR 5/92 p.25).

ARRANGEMENT

"[There is a CVD for] the arrangement of the charges (in saltire vs. three, two and one)." (LoAR 7/90 p.11).

[A compass star and a flower in bend vs. a single flower ] "There are two CVDs: one for addition of the compass star, and a second for moving the flower to sinister base (the rationale being that this move is not forced this way by the addition of the compass star; were the two charges in fess or in pale, which would be the normal placement of two charges alone on the field, this would not be the case)." (LoAR 8/90 p.12).

[Per bend sinister argent and gules, a gules charge in dexter chief ] "It was our feeling that since the gules <charge> could not overlie the gules portion of the field, that its position would be intuitively obvious and therefore did not need to be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/90 p.12).

[A cross, vs. a cross in chief between two gores] "There is a CVD for moving the cross to chief and another for the addition of the gores." [implying the move to chief isn't forced by adding the gores] (LoAR 9/90 p.1).

[Two swords in pile, hilts crossed, vs. two swords in saltire ] "There is another [CVD] for the arrangement of the swords (in pile vs. in saltire)." (LoAR 9/90 p.4).

[Wreath of violets in orle, blazoned as an orle of violets] "This was returned before in part because the orle of flowers was too similar to the restricted wreath of roses. This issue has not been addressed in the resubmission, and so this must be returned once again for this reason. It was suggested that if the submitter would clearly separate the individual flowers in orle, that this would probably remove the problem." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).

[<field> in base a <charge>, vs. the same <charge> used as a crest (cited from Fairbairn's Crests)] "There is one CVD, for fielded vs. fieldless, but nothing can be granted against a fieldless badge (which is what we have treated crests as) for position on the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).

[A bend sinister between two sets of three <charges> two and one] "While the specification of this particular arrangement of the secondaries is not a particularly good style, given that the submitter feels strongly about this specific arrangement of the charges, it was felt that the good will engendered by complying with his wishes would outweigh the negative effects of this one weirdness in the device." (LoAR 10/90 p.6).

[Per bend sinister counter-ermine and bendy sinister Or and sable, in dexter chief three roses Or] "It was felt that versus...Azure, three roses Or, there was a CVD for the change to the field and a second for the position of the roses on the field. Though the roses would have had poor contrast with part of the field in the standard two and one arrangement, perhaps even returnably so in the SCA, the change of placement to dexter chief is not necessarily forced by the change to the field." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).

[A unicorn argent and a dragon Or combattant] "Conflict with...a dragon rampant...Or...there is only one CVD for the addition of the unicorn." [This implies that adding a second charge to result in two combattant beasts/monsters is only one CVD as opposed to change in number + change in arrangement/half change in type/ etc.] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).

[An arrow bendwise sable] "Versus... four arrows fretted sable...There is one CVD for the number of arrows and a second for the arrangement (one bendwise vs. two bendwise and two bendwise sinister. Had the arrows on the [conflicting] badge all been bendwise, this would not have been the case)." (LoAR 2/91 p.3).

"Though the [charges] were blazoned in the LoI as three and two, this should be the normal distribution of five objects around a bend or bendwise objects(s)." (LoAR 2/91 p.14).

[Per pale gules and Or a morningstar and a flanged mace in saltire sable...] "The morningstar loses its identifiability against the low-contrast portion of the field. Were the two charges in saltire identical, this would be less problematic, but as it stands the eye expects both charges to be maces." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 2/91 p.18).

[Annulets of five mullets conjoined] "The clusters of stars (besides reminding everyone of nothing so much as a five-star general's insignia) are not period style and are intrusively modern." (LoAR 2/91 p.22).

[Four swords fretted] "Conflict with...four arrows fretted...There is one CVD, for changing the arrows to swords." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).

[Three piles in point and an overall charge, vs. 3 piles ] "Addition of the overall charge is only one CVD" [This implies no difference between piles and piles in point] (LoAR 4/91 p.13).

[On a gyrrony field, quatrefoils in annulo vs. crusilly counterchanged ] "There is a CVD for the type of charge and a CVD for their arrangement on the field. [The crusilly] is definitely a seme, with crosses overlying the lines of division and cut off by the edge of the shield." (LoAR 5/91 p.7).

[Per bend sinister argent and sable, in dexter chief a <sable charge> ] "Conflict with...Azure, <the same sable charge>. There is one CVD for the change to the field but nothing for the placement on the field since that is forced by the tincture change." (LoAR 7/91 p.23).

[Per saltire an <a> and a ] "Conflict with... an <a> [whose default is palewise]. There is one CVD for the addition of the ." [This implies that the change of a's posture from palewise to bendwise is forced by the design, and not an independent change.] (LoAR 8/91 p.14).

[A <charge> and a chevron abased] "Conflict with...a chevron. There is only one CVD for the addition of the <charge>." [This implies no difference for abasing the chevron] (LoAR 8/91 p.18).

[Per pale argent and Or fretty vert, in dexter a leaved branch issuant from chief proper and <a charged chief> ] "The device has several problems. The first is the profound appearance of dimidiated arms, which the addition of the charged chief does not serve to diminish. The device is also right at the very edge of our complexity limits having four types of charge in four tinctures. Given the unusual arrangement and unbalanced design this is simply too much." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).

[A quill pen and a rapier crossed in saltire, and overall a compass star] "[This] is a single group of three dissimilar charges, which violates RFS VIII.1.a." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).

[In pale a <charge> and <two other charges> in saltire ] "This is technically just not slot machine heraldry, but only because visually there are two charge 'groups' rather than one group fo three different charges." (LoAR 9/91 p.9).

[Two <charges> interlaced in bend sinister] "Versus...three <charges>... there is a CVD for changing the number of primary charges and a second for the change in position (and interlacing) of the remaining two." (LoAR 9/91 p.2).

"The use of two bendlets way up to one side [in sinister chief] severely unbalances the device. With four tinctures and four types of charge this is right at the limit of complexity. Combined with the use of what are normally central ordinaries as peripheral charges and the unusual treatment in the 'veiling' of the cross, this must be returned for complexity and for non-Period style." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).

[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] "Because of the arrangement of the primaries, we cannot apply X.2 to grant sufficient difference between this arrangement of four fleurs-de-lys and the cross flory." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).

[Two bendlets, blazoned in LoI as enhanced, and in base a <charge> ] "Conflict with... two bendlets. There is one CVD only for addition of the <charge>. The enhancement of the bendlets would normally occur by adding a charge only in base." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).

"While commentary was somewhat split on this issue, the general feeling was that to modify the Rules to define half a group by line of division or as those charges on either side of an ordinary would only serve to encourage unbalanced armory. On the other hand, there are times when the visual impact of changes to charges which amount to 'less than half the group' should be granted more difference. As a consequence, we are adopting Lady Dolphin's (now Lady Crescent) suggestion of allowing two changes to the minority of a group (i.e., the 'lesser' half of a group of charges lying on either side of a line of field division or an ordinary) being sufficient for a Clear Difference. For example, 'Per bend sinister sable and Or, a decrescent moon Or and three fir trees proper' would be allowed two CDs from 'Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear's head argent and three fir trees vert' with one CD for the field and another for the two changes to the charge in dexter chief." (CL 12/21/91 pps. 1-2).

[Four <charges> in cross, bases to center] "Versus...semy of <charges>, there is a CD for number and another for arrangement (in cross vs. all palewise)." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).

"As several commenters noted, having the unicorn [salient] and sword in saltire is not good style." [However, despite this and some artistic problems, the device was still registered] (LoAR 12/91 p.2).

[A hammer and tongs in saltire, overall a sword] "Contrary to opinion expressed in the LoI, this is indeed slot machine heraldry, in violation of RFS VIII.1.a. It contains three disparate charges in a standard heraldic arrangement." (LoAR 12/91 p.16).

[Per bend sinister, two scarpes enhanced] "The style of this badge is very unbalanced and obtrusively modern in design, in violation of RfS VIII.4.d." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).

[Two swords palewise, the dexter inverted, and two arrows fesswise, the topmost pointed to sinister, all fretted ] "The fretting of two different kinds of charge in four different directions is not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).

[Gyronny of four issuant from dexter chief, three <charges> in dexter gyron ] "The placement of the <charges> on a single portion of the gyronny field is very unusual and not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).

[Per pall, two ravens addorsed counterchanged, in chief an estoile in soleil between two sprigs of mistletoe ] "This is not Period style and is too close to slot machine heraldry, having three different types of charge in what could be considered a standard heraldic arrangement on a per pall field. The 'estoile in soleil' is not something I think we wish to encourage, nor is the mirror symmetry of the entire device." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).

"Three is the default for the number of objects (besides wheat) in a sheaf." (LoAR 2/92 p.14).

[On a trefoil slipped three hearts points to center] "The radial arrangement of the tertiary charges is not period style, and their placement makes this effectively 'a shamrock... voided...' which is not permissible because it becomes effectively 'thin-line' heraldry." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).

[Two <charges> in saltire surmounted by a column entwined by a snake ] "Laurel does not, however, buy the argument made that this is four layers - field, <charges>, column, snake. We do not believe such an argument to be reasonable. A charge entwined about another is more like a held charge than it is an tertiary." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).

[Gyronny of six per pale... three <charges> alternating with three <different charges> ] "Prior Laurel precedent has returned alternating charges on a gyronny field (September 1988 LoAR, p.18). The one example of this style noted by Lord Codex in Italian armory has semys rather than single charges in each gyron. Given the weakness of this evidence, we are hesitant to register a design which has the appearance of being modern style." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).

[A fess enhanced... in base <charges>] "Conflict with [a fess]. There is only one CD for the addition of the secondary <charges>. With the addition of charges only in base, a fess would normally be drawn enhanced slightly to allow the secondary group sufficient visual 'space' in base." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).

ARROW

[Four swords fretted] "Conflict with...four arrows fretted...There is one CVD, for changing the arrows to swords." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).

[A sheaf of arrows argent, fletched and barbed gules] "Versus... Gules, three bird-bolts in a parcel argent, banded azure, one in pale and two in saltire, there is a CD... for changing half the tincture of the charges. It should be noted that period arrows were drawn with grossly exaggerated heads and fletching for greater identifiability. This fact should be considered in tincture changes." (LoAR 1/92 p.6).

[Per pale... two arrows counterchanged] "Conflict with... two swords palewise... While there is a CD between swords and arrows, Laurel cannot in good conscience apply RfS X.2 to them." [This elaborates a precedent in LoAR of 3/91 p.7, in which the compared swords and arrows were fretted and might have their type obscured thereby] (LoAR 4/92 p.21).

"[There is] nothing... for the change in tincture of the fletching [of the arrows] only" [implying that barbingand fletching is necessary for the half tincture difference alluded to in the LoAR of 1/92 p.6] (LoAR 5/92 p.22).

AUGMENTATIONS

[Sable, in bend sinister an axe inverted reversed and an axe both bendwise sinister Or between two scarpes, overall a laurel wreath vert, for an augmentation, in chief three mullets argent] "Yes, this augmentation makes their arms much more complex. There are few augmentations (or for that matter arms to which augmentations could be added) which do not make the underlying arms much more complex. This augmentation did not seem to go beyond the bounds of allowable complexity for an augmentation." (LoAR 12/90 p.8).

"While the [augmentation has] a tendency to unbalance the device somewhat, it is Laurel's feeling that we need to loosen the application of our standards a little with regard to augmentations, which by their very nature will add complexity to and not infrequently serve to unbalance a device." (LoAR 2/91 p.9).

[Augmentation: Azure, a saltire sable rayonny argent and overall a mace inverted argent as an augmentation on an inescutcheon in honor point Or, a mullet of five greater and five lesser points between in pale a crown of three points sable and issuant from base a demi-sun gules.] "The only real issue which would prevent registration here is the complexity of the base device and the augmentation (total complexity count of 11: five tinctures - azure, sable, argent, Or, gules - and six charges - saltire, mace, inescutcheon mullet, crown, and demi-sun). Laurel has said before (LoAR December 1990 p.8) that augmentations by their very nature add complexity to a device, and augmented arms should not be held to comply to the same standards as unaugmented devices. {Indeed, Laurel finds a certain sense of appeal to Lord Codex' suggestion that augmentations consisting of separable units (such as a canton or inescutcheon) should be counted as a single charge for the purposes of the 'rule of thumb' of the complexity guidelines, ignoring the charges and tinctures upon the augmentation. Using such a standard here would give a complexity count of six with three tinctures - azure, sable and argent - and three charges - saltire, mace and inescutcheon. Counting the augmentation as a single charge and its primary tincture (here, Or) may also be a reasonable rule of thumb. Laurel makes no ruling on this suggestion, but recommends it, with thanks to Lord Codex, to the College for their consideration in the development of a more objective standard.}" (LoAR 4/92 pps. 2-3)

"For those commenters who suggested that this augmentation was presumptuous of Ansteorra, I would point out that by removing the laurel wreath and orle from the Ansteorran arms, this coat would be registerable as a device to any royal peer, as it has two CDs from Ansteorra. Yes, it is highly reminiscent (which I believe was the Crown's intent in granting this augmentation), but it is not, by our Rules, presumptuous of the Kingdom." (LoAR 4/92 p.3).

[An augmentation of an inescutcheon in honor point, bearing the arms of an SCA barony ] "While most of the College, and Laurel himself, has no problem with the use of an escutcheon as a vehicle for an augmentation {if I may quote Lady Harpy: 'the whole point of forbidding the charging of inescutcheons and cantons in a way that resembles an augmentation is so that you can do it when you want an augmentation.'} mundane and Society precedent reserve inescutcheons of actual arms to those legitimately claiming the right to those arms. In mundane usage, this augmentation is a claim that [the submitter] is married to the Baroness of [the barony used for the augmentation] and that their children will inherit it. This is an inappropriate heraldic claim, and violates the standards set by Corpora IV.C.3.a., that the standards set by the College of Arms 'shall be designed... [sic] to avoid the appearance... [sic] of false claims.'

{There is also some question whether an individual or a group can grant the right to their undifferenced arms for use by someone else. The use of letters of permission to conflict (which is what Laurel considers the petition by the members of the Barony [whose arms are used in the augmentation] to be) in the College has always been to allow a reduced standard of difference, not to allow the use of arms undifferenced. It is Laurel's belief that the only way the use of arms registered to one party may be granted undifferenced to another is to transfer those arms, with the appropriate letters signed by both parties transferring the arms and accepting them.}

A second issue is the use of a laurel wreath on arms registered to an individual. Laurel wreaths have always been reserved in the Society to branches of the Society, and may not be registered to an individual. (see, e.g., Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR of 10 March 1985, p.4) It is Laurel's belief, and that of many of the commenting heralds, that this restriction applies to augmentations as well as to devices, the same way that coronets and loops of chain, even as augmentations, have been restricted to those who may rightfully bear them.

As has been noted by prior Laurel precedent, no Crown may specify the form an augmentation (or arms, for that matter), may take. Relevant prior rulings on this are found in the Cover Letter of 28 January 1983, p.4; the Cover letter of 7 December 1986, pp. 3-4; and the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of 24 January 1988, p.12.

It would seem that the simplest solution for this would be to make a resubmission of this and remove the laurel wreath from the augmentation. The augmentation would then be sufficiently different enough (with the 'letter of permission to conflict' from the Barony) from the arms of the Barony to avoid the problems of perceived presumption and at the same time to avoid the restriction on the registration of laurel wreaths." (LoAR 4/92 pps. 17-18).

AXE

[A double-bitted axe lying on a per pale counterchanged field] "There was some discussion regarding whether the axe fell under the ban on a long skinny charge counterchanged along its long axis. It was the consensus of the meeting...that the axe was clearly identifiable as an axe even though the haft was counterchanged." (LoAR 8/90 p.8).

[A woodaxe reversed argent] "Conflict with... a battle axe Or, headed argent, the edge to sinister... In each case there is... nothing for the change in tincture of the handle only." (LoAR 6/92 p.18).

BADGES

"We do not feel that the ban on fieldless badges containing disconnected charges of both metal and color, written into the old rules in AR13b, has been overturned by the new rules." (LoAR 8/90 p.17).

[<field> in base a <charge>, vs. the same <charge> used as a crest (cited from Fairbairn's Crests) ] "There is one CVD, for fielded vs. fieldless, but nothing can be granted against a fieldless badge (which is what we have treated crests as) for position on the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).

"The reason I place '{Fieldless}' at the beginning of the blazons of fieldless badges is to make it clear that the field tincture has not been left off in error. I do not consider '{Fieldless}' to be a part of the 'real' blazon, but an administrative notation which may sometimes prevent confusion or the belief that the lack of a field tincture is due to a typographical error. {Not that I ever make typogrephical erors, mined yu!}" (CL 11/5/90 p.3).

[(Fieldless) A charge between three other charges of a different type in pall inverted, all in same tincture class ] "It was felt that the overall design of this badge did not form a 'self-contained' design as within the meaning of RfS VIII.5." [The badge was returned for this reason] (LoAR 10/90 p.20).

[Azure, a <charge> Or] "This was submitted as '{Fieldless} Upon a hurt a <charge> Or'. As noted by Master Baldwin, fieldless badges should not have as their primary charge a charged convex geometric shape, as it then appears to be a display of arms...[quotes Master Baldwin from the 8 June 1986 LoAR p.7]...Accordingly, we have modified the blazon to better match the visual reality of this submission" [Also see LoAR 2/91 p.19] (LoAR 1/91 p.3).

"On and after June 1 of this year, the College will no longer register fieldless badges consisting of disconnected charges. This ban will include charges 'framing' another charge, unless such charges are conjoined...I do not believe that this ruling will require a change to the wording of the rules, since it is really only a stricter interpretation of the current wording of Rule VIII.5, Fieldless Style ('Ideally, a fieldless design will have all its elements linked together.')." (CL 3/8/91 p.1).

[Comparing two fieldless badges] "There is a CVD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 2/91 p.4).

"It is not possible to eclipse something 'of the field' on a fieldless badge." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).

[A quaver (musical note)] "In keeping with prior Laurel rulings on this issue, just as a badge may not consist solely of a single letter, neither may it consist solely of a single abstract symbol." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).

[(fieldless) on a delf Or a charge] "The precedent set by Master Baldwin in 1986 regarding the style of '{fieldless} on a (billet, roundel, delf, etc.)...' has not been abrogated by the new rules. This appears to be a display of arms... on a rectangle. The fact that such arms would be in conflict... is beside the point. A fieldless badge should not have a charge placed on a convex geometric shape which is used for armorial display." [the badge was returned] (LoAR 2/91 p.19).

[Fieldless, an ermine spot, drawn with "balls" not conjoined to the "tail" ] "It is Lord Laurel's considered opinion that an ermine spot should be considered a single charge, and so this does not fall under the ban on fieldless charges consisting of disconnected charges." (LoAR 8/91 p.13).

"Lord Laurel is confused by the misunderstanding some commenters seem to have regarding the difference between fieldless and tinctureless armory. Fieldless armory gets a CD for fieldlessness; tinctureless armory (SCA, not mundane) acquires one CD for fieldlessness - the other CD must come from a class other than tincture (RfS X.4.d). Japanese mon, while tinctureless, are not fieldless; thus, they cannot be granted the fieldlessness difference. Addition or removal of charges, field and charge divisions (since mon appear only to have used solid fields and solid charges), complex lines, all contribute difference from mon. Fieldlessness does not, unless the SCA armory being considered against it is fieldless, in which case the SCA armory, not the mon, gets a CD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 1/92 p.15).

[{Fieldless} A fleur-de-lis per pale] "Versus <mundane nobility>, {Fieldless} A fleur-de-lys, there is a CD for fieldlessness and another for the addition of a line of division on the charge. The assumption (until proven otherwise) is that mundane badges were displayed only in solid tinctures (including the furs). It is therefore reasonable that the addition of a line of division should count for difference, as here." (LoAR 2/92 p.10).

[{Fieldless} a bendlet crossed by two scarpes] "It is not possible to have ordinaries or diminutives of ordinaries on a fieldless badge. Blazoning them as couped will normally permit this; however, these cannot be blazoned as couped due to the unusual nature of the couping (horizontally.)" (LoAR 5/92 p.24).

"The Rules for Submissions, VIII.5. is revised to read:

VIII. 5. Fieldless Style - Fieldless armory must form a self-contained design. A fieldless design must have all its elements conjoined , like three feathers issuing from a crown used by the Heir Apparent to the throne of England. Since there is no field in such a design, it may not use charges that rely on the edges of the field to define their shape, such as bordures and orles, nor to cut off their ends, such as ordinaries or charges throughout.

The [italicized] phrase replaces 'Ideally, a fieldless design will have all its elements linked together.' " (CL 6/18/92 p.1).

BALANCE, ARMORIAL STYLE

[<field>, two charges in saltire, a dexter tierce, in chief three <other charges> counterchanged ] "It was the consensus of the commenters that this was not so excessively unbalanced a design as to warrant return, but it does come close." (LoAR 9/90 p.2).

BASE

[Gules, on a chevron Or between a pair of <charges> and a base arched and indented argent, three <tertiaries> ] "Conflict with [Gules, on a chevron Or three <different tertiaries>]. There is a CVD for the addition of the secondaries, but nothing for the change of type only of tertiaries. Conflict also with [Gules, on a chevron Or between three <different secondaries> argent, three <different tertiaries> gules], with the same count." [This strongly implies that two charges in chief + a base are a single group of charges, two and one, rather than a group of charges in chief + a separate, "peripheral charge" group] (LoAR 8/90 p.14).

[A bimount + charged chief vs. charged chief alone on field ] "The bimount, as a peripheral charge, is not a 'primary charge' as defined in the Glossary of Terms, and thus X.1 and X.2 cannot be invoked." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).

[Comparing armory using a per chevron field with armory using a point pointed ] "There is a CVD for...modifying the line of division of the field from straight to 'ploy‚' or embowed to base". (LoAR 3/91 p.3).

[A fret conjoined in saltire with four mice tergiant sable] "The large number of suggested reblazons for the primary on this device (including a 'fret vermined') is indicative of its non-Period style. We have seen no evidence at all for a fret terminating in a beast of any kind." (LoAR 8/91 p.24).

[Per bend sinister, two scarpes enhanced] "The style of this badge is very unbalanced and obtrusively modern in design, in violation of RfS VIII.4.d." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).

[Sable, on a vested arm fesswise embowed issuant from dexter holding a sword argent, a compass star sable, in chief a lit candle argent] "The badge is very complex in that it is unbalanced and appears to have no cohesiveness or unity of design. As such it must be considered a non-period design." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).

[Charge blazoned as 'a flame issuant from base'] "Although the LoI noted the submitter has been advised to draw more yellow in the flame, this is effectively a 'base rayonny gules, fimbriated Or'. Similar charges tinctured in this fashion have been returned in the past. If he wishes to redraw it with areal base of flames (gules with yellow throughout as well as along the edges of the rayonny) we will be happy to reconsider this proposal." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).

[Per fess gules and argent, a fess counterchanged between a <charge> and a <different charge atop a mount> ] "Conflict with... per fess gules and argent, a fess counterchanged. There is one CD for the addition of the secondaries." [This implies that the mount is considered part of the same secondary group and the charges surrounding the fess, as opposed to a separate peripheral charge.] (LoAR 5/92 p.22)

"Just as one should not have a charge overlying a chief or flaunches, a charge overlying a base is not registrable." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).

BEAST

[Dormant lion vs. couchant Egyptian sphinx, both in chief on differing per fess fields] "There is only one CVD, for the change to the field [implying no type difference]." (LoAR 8/90 p.18).

[A beast tergiant, overall three barrulets indented] "This design (as is almost any 'road kill' heraldry) is obtrusively modern, in violation of RfS VIII.4." (LoAR 10/90 p.15).

[A bear sitting with its legs forward in the style of a teddy bear, blazoned as 'sitting' in the LoI and 'sejant erect' in the LoAR] "We felt that the depiction of the bear was within the limits of artistic variation for sejant erect, and did not feel that a new term ('sitting') was necessary for this posture." (LoAR 12/90 p.13).

[Winged lion-dragon passant guardant] "It was the opinion of those at the Laurel meeting that while X.2 could be invoked against [a lion passant guardant] (for the addition of the wings and change of lower half of the body), [a griffin passant] (for the change to head and tail), that the similarity of outline was not sufficient to apply X.2 against [a wyvern]. (The default posture for wyverns on the Continent is passant, hence there is no difference for posture.) Given that wyverns were sometimes emblazoned with feathered wings rather than bat-wings, this call became much trickier, with changes only to head and forelegs, the detailing of the lion vs. reptilian torso being of less visual weight. In the end we felt we had to say that while there was clearly a CVD for type, that not enough difference was there to apply X.2." (LoAR 10/90 pps.15-16).

"This is clear of <cited conflict>, but only just...We felt that given the normal depiction of squirrels, with very large, bushy tails, that a second CVD could be granted for type from ferrets." (LoAR 11/90 p.9).

[A request for change of blazon from domestic cat to catamount ] "The emblazon in the files clearly shows a domestic cat." [The blazon was not changed] (LoAR 11/90 p.16). [Yak vs. bull] "We cannot see granting [a CVD] for the 'hairiness' of the bull." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).

[Winged natural tiger rampant] "Clear by X.2 from...a lion rampant..." (LoAR 1/91 p.19).

"Because the most distinctive feature of the enfield, eagle's claws for forelegs, are lost against the [maintained charge], there are a number of conflicts with various foxes and wolves...There is only one CVD for the tincture of the beast. Conflict also with...a lion rampant [in same tinctures]...with one CVD for the type of beast." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).

[Reblazon of bat to reremouse] "Regarding the creature blazoned a 'bat' in the LoI, the Fool of Arms said it best, in Motley Heraldry: You may say to bats in a belfry 'You're bats.' They won't mind, 'cause they are; But you mustn't say 'Bats' to the ones in shields - You'd better be silent by far; For the bat in a shield is a reremouse (You may call him a flittermouse, too) And if you say 'Bats' to the reremice proud They'll answer, 'And bats to you!' " (LoAR 3/91 p.3).

"[At the Huntington Library, in Pasadena, CA] there was there a Spanish book printed in 1560 which had a very large drawing of what was quite clearly an American Bison." (LoAR 8/91 p.14).

"There is a CVD for changing the lamb to a sea-lamb but the consensus among the commenters was that X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 8/91 p.17).

"The consensus of the commentary was that X.2 applies between ferrets and hedgehogs." (LoAR 9/91 p.2).

[A winged wolf] "Conflict with... a wolf... there is only one CVD for adding the wings." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).

[A horse's head couped argent maned gules fimbriated Or] "There are simply too many problems with the emblazon here to register this and tell the submitter to 'draw the X properly.' The greatest difficulty comes with the mane of the horse's head which, rather than being of flames proper, is gules, fimbriated Or. The mane is far too complex to fimbriate. (And there is some question as to whether 'maned of flames' is acceptable SCA style.) The suggestion by Lord Trefoil that we simply blazon the mane gules and tolerate its low contrast against the field as an artistic detail worth no heraldic difference will not work here. On this horse's head the mane is easily as significant as a pair of wings would be, and we would not allow them to break tincture either." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).

[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).

[Two wingless griffins combattant] "Conflict with... two lions rampant combattant... The only difference in the large emblazon between these wingless griffins and lions is to the nose of the animal. If the submitter would use either griffins with wings, or male griffins (with the spikes), [there would be a CD for type]." (LoAR 1/92 p.17).

"While I do not believe that X.2 would apply between a dog and a sea-dog, I do not have a problem with granting a CD, especially given the separate heraldic existence of a sea-dog from any other kind of dog." (LoAR 2/92 p.9).

[Two horses forceny salient addorsed] "Versus... two levriers rampant addorsed... it is not at all clear that X.2 does apply between the two types of beast as is stated in the LoI. However, [another conflict] makes that question moot." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).

[A rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attire] Conflict with... a coney. Given that the default posture for a rabbit is sejant, there is at best one CD, and many commenters did not find that much for the addition of the antlers." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).

[A cat sejant] "Conflict with... a fox sejant... There is one CD for the change to the type of primary, but X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).

BILLET and DELF

"Commentary seemed generally favorable to allowing gemstones as charges, and since Lord Batonvert found period armory using a faceted gemstone, they will be permitted in SCA armory. However, no difference can be counted for them against delfs, billets, pillows, and other gemstones of any cut." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).

BIRD

[<field> a hawk displayed wings inverted, <tincture> vs. many cases of <different field> an eagle displayed <same tincture> ] "In each case, there is only one CVD, for the field." [implying no difference for hawk to eagle, or for inverting wings] (LoAR 7/90 pps. 11-12).

[(fieldless) a falcon sable jessed sable and Or vs. (various fields) an eagle close sable, a raven sable, a falcon sable hooded, lined and membered Or ] "In each case there is only one CVD, for fieldlessness." [implying no difference for bird types and/or accoutrements] (LoAR 9/90 p.13).

[Crane blazoned in LoAR as 'standing on one foot'] "The crane was blazoned in the LoI as 'in its vigilance', but that definiton includes a stone held in the raised foot of the bird, which was not present in the emblazon." (LoAR 10/90 p.7).

[Double flowered thistle] "Given the normal emblazon of thistles...wherein the leaves rather than the heads are the most visually prominent element, we could not see giving a CVD for the addition of the second head (not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).

[Male American kestrels striking proper (Falco spaverius)] "The male American kestrels are mostly light buff and tan on the underside, and in this position have good contrast with the [purpure] bend sinister." (LoAR 11/90 p.4).

[A duck displayed guardant] "Conflict with [a dove displayed head elevated]...we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for type between two white birds in an identical position." (LoAR 11/90 p.16).

[Azure, a raven and a <peripheral charge> argent] "Conflict with...Azure, a goshawk argent. There is one CVD for the addition of the <peripheral charge>, but we could not see a second for the difference between a raven and a goshawk in an identical posture. Regarding the statement made in the return of [a submission in November 1990], it would have been clearer (and more accurate) had I said that there is no difference between two types of birds of similar shape or silhouette in identical postures. Thus this submission does not conflict with... Azure, a sheldrake argent, with CVDs for type of primary and addition of the secondary. (Even Laurel on one of his bad days can tell the difference between a raven and a duck!)." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).

[A dove volant wings addorsed, as only significant charge on device ] "Conflict with...a falcon volant... as cited in the LoI. There may possibly be a CVD for bird type here [see LoAR 1/91 p.23]...but certainly not the substantial kind of change required by X.2." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).

"It was felt that we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for the difference between a generic bird and an eagle." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).

"There appear to be some very strong feelings that birds should not be registered in quadrupeds' positions. As a consequence of this attitude (which Laurel has long shared): PRECEDENT: Henceforth, we will not accept rampant birds." (LoAR 5/91 p.5).

"In the device submission <field, in fess two falcons close sable>, the LoI counted difference versus...Or, two ravens in fess proper, for type of charge on the grounds that period heralds saw them as different charges. (Both devices have the birds in their default position, close.) However, in the SCA, we have to take into account, as Lady Dolphin noted, not only 'Clear Historical Differences', but 'Clear VISUAL Differences'. This issue is the flip-side, if you will, of the Estoile/Mullet question [also in CL 7/16/91]. Should we allow difference for two charges which look alike but which period heralds considered to be different (falcons and ravens, both sable), while not allowing difference for two charges which clearly look different but which period heralds did not treat as different (estoiles and mullets)? I would have a harder time explaining to a submitter that two birds which look almost exactly alike are really considered to be different heraldically than I would explaining to that same submitter that estoiles and mullets are really alike heraldically. Thank you, no." (CL 7/16/91 p.2).

"There are some fairly obvious differences to the head and body outline between doves and cocks; sufficient for a CVD." (LoAR 7/91 p.12).

[A hummingbird rising] "Conflict with...a falcon... There is a CVD for the change to type of bird but X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 8/91 p.15).

[A griffin displayed] "Versus...a double headed eagle displayed... there is...[a CD] (barely) for the differences between a griffin and an eagle in this position. The primary visible differences between an eagle and a griffin in this position are the griffin's ears and tail, as the forelimbs are almost invisible against the wings." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).

[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).

[Request for reblazon from "owl argent" to "snowy owl proper" ] "It has long been the practice of the College that when a standard blazon using heraldic tinctures is available that that blazon is preferable to using naturalistic propers. In this case, the only difference between the registered owl argent and the client's snowy owl proper is some of the internal detailing in sable. As this is exactly the level and kind of artistic detail that has always been left to the whim of the artist, we do not see sufficient reason to change the blazon here." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).

"There is more than sufficient documentation for the kleestengeln, which are representations of the wingbones found in German armory. They are blazonable, though they should probably not count for difference." (LoAR 4/92 p.16).

"Passant is not a bird position, so we have reblazoned the bird in the closest avian position, as 'rising, wings inverted and addorsed.' " [Actually, passantis a bird posture, and refers to a bird walking with one foot raised.] (LoAR 4/92 p.20).

[Firebird vs. Peacock] "After comparing the two emblazons, we found we could only grant one CD for the change to the posture [leaving no difference for type]" (LoAR 4/92 p.21).

[A bend charged with three martlets vs. a bend charged with three owls] "The change in type only from martlets to owls is insufficient to apply X.4.j.ii." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).

[Three martlets within a peripheral charge] "Conflict with... three parroquets... There is one CD for the addition of the <peripheral charge> but the differences between martlets and parroquets, which are more or less a generic bird, are too small to grant the necessary second." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).

[A martlet] "Conflict with... a falcon close... After a comparison of the emblazons we did not feel that a CD could be granted for type only of bird." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).

BLAZON

[Spearhead, charge submitted as an arrowhead] "While the submitter documented the form of a Tudor arrowhead in this shape, most heralds would see it first as a spearhead, hence we have reblazoned it thus. Given the gross changes in outline between a spearhead and a standard heraldic pheon or broad arrow, we do not see calling conflict between this and any of several pieces of armory with pheons inverted." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).

[A delf ... pierced two and two] "There was a lot of discussion about the submitted blazon, which called the charge a weaving tablet. While several of the commenters recognized it (and the submitter has demonstrated its existence well within period), they tended to be those who had used weaving tablets. We have therefore modified the blazon to ensure reproducibility without specialized knowledge or experience in fiber arts." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).

[A request for change of blazon from domestic cat to catamount ] "The emblazon in the files clearly shows a domestic cat." [The blazon was not changed] (LoAR 11/90 p.16).

"Thistles are slipped and leaved by default in the SCA. A rose proper is gules, barbed vert, seeded Or. By using the heraldic defaults, we have been able to shorten the submitted blazon by six words, a substantial savings." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).

[Azure a <charge> Or] "This was submitted as '{Fieldless} Upon a hurt a <charge> Or'. As noted by Master Baldwin, fieldless badges should not have as their primary charge a charged convex geometric shape, as it then appears to be a display of arms...[quotes Master Baldwin from the 8 June 1986 LoAR p.7]...Accordingly, we have modified the blazon to better match the visual reality of this submission." (LoAR 1/91 p.3).

[A German version of the gurges, a.k.a. a snail, a.k.a. (and finally blazoned as) a schneke ] "Given that the College of Arms has already adopted such German charges as the seeblatt and nesselblatt into its blazonry, we saw no reason not to accept the German blazon for this charge as well." (LoAR 1/91 p.7).

"While sympathetic with those who would blazon these as 'square weaver's tablets' or 'weaving cards', the existence of weaving tablets with five holes made Laurel less willing to do so, and so we have retained the 'delfs pierced two and two' of the earlier registration of this charge." (LoAR 1/91 p.11).

"We have no difficulty with blazoning the specific type of musket, though of course it would not count for difference from any other type of period musket." (LoAR 1/91 p.15).

"Blazoned in the LoI as 'Sable a <charge> argent and overall a fess counterchanged', an ordinary, when present, is normally considered the primary charge and should be blazoned first. Blazoned this way, it is much clearer that this is in conflict with...Sable, a fess argent, as noted in the LoI. In previous cases where a piece of armory could legitimately be blazoned in either of two ways, if either blazon had a conflict, the submission was returned." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).

[Per fess indented of five points] "Because the emblazon requires blazoning the number of points of the line of division of the field to make the design work, this is not particularly period style, but is not poor enough style to return." (LoAR 7/91 p.5).

"It should be noted that cotises follow the line of the ordinary they flank by default. When they do not (for example, a fess wavy cotised plain), it must be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).

[Per bend sinister paly azure and Or, and argent] "Though submitted as 'Per bend sinister azure and argent...' the above blazon much more closely follows the real visual impact of the design." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).

"Generally, when there is a problem with a blazon in a LoI, that submission is pended by Laurel, not returned." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).

[Per fess indented of two points] "It is not terribly good practice to blazon the number of points of the indented line, but seems within the bounds of SCA practice." (LoAR 1/92 p.8).

[A pale convex] "While the submitter has fixed one of the problems [of the previous return], the other remains. The notes made by Laurel in the file at that time state that 'a pale convex is not a heraldic charge.' The blazon submitted for it in the LoI, 'embowed', does not accurately describe the emblazon." (LoAR 1/92 p.18).

"Passant is not a bird position, so we have reblazoned the bird in the closest avian position, as 'rising, wings inverted and addorsed.' " [Actually, passant is a bird posture, and refers to a bird walking with one foot raised.] (LoAR 4/92 p.20).

"As a number of commenters noted, we normally do not blazon the number of traits in a paly field unless there is some overriding need to. Paly fields are most commonly of six or of eight, and neither needs to be blazoned." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).

[On a flame an <A> charged with a ] "Although this was blazoned as an <A> enflamed, the visual reality is as reblazoned above. A good, proper, Period enflamed has a few gouttes of flame scattered around the edge of the charge being enflamed. Where the flame completely surrounds an object, that object is said to be 'on a flame.' As a consequence this device has four layers: field, flame, <A> and ." (LoAR 5/92 p.26).

BOOK AND SCROLL

"The use of two similar but non-identical charges in a group has been cause for return many times in the past. A scroll is one kind of book and a book is another." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).

BORDURE

[A device using a bordure and a charged chief of the same tincture ] "A chief should not surmount a bordure (Parker p.112), nor should a chief be used with a bordure of the same tincture, which will have the visual effect of a bordure with a 'fat top'." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).

[A bordure parted bordurewise indented] "The bordure was blazoned as 'indented-in-point' in the LoI. The above blazon, though not quite as elegant, is believed to be clearer." (LoAR 2/91 p.12).

[A bordure triple-parted and fretted] "Bordures cannot be parted and fretted in this manner. (Picture doing it on a roundel, for example...Where would the fretting be?)." (LoAR 4/91 p.14).

[An impaled-style device, with a charged bordure] "There was some disagreement at the Laurel meeting as to whether the addition of a charged bordure removes the appearance of marshalling. That most of the commenters seem to think that it does or have said nothing leads us to believe that the College feels that the addition of a charged bordure does, in fact, remove the appearance of marshalling." (LoAR 7/91 p.4).

"In spite of the registration of a bordure and chief in the same tincture some time back noted in the LoI, a similar combination was disallowed in the LoAR for the January 1991 Laurel meeting [p.27]. It was noted there that a chief should not be used with a bordure of the same tincture as it will give the visual effect of a bordure with a fat top. Nor does period armory give much precedent for such a combination, as the vast majority of exemplars there go out of their way to demarcate the two charges by tincture, line of division, or both. As has often been noted, we follow the general practices, not the exceptions." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).

"Just as you may not have a compony bordure that shares a tincture with the field, neither may you have a plain bordure which shares the tincture with a gyronny field as here." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).

[Two <charges> in fess and a base] "This is clear of... three <charges>, with a change to the number of primaries and the addition of the subordinary. Peripheral charges such as chiefs, bordures, bases, flaunches etc. are not considered to be a part of the primary charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.3).

"As has been stated many times in the past, Society practice follows the general rule, not the anomaly. While Lord Brigantia did find one instance of a mundane coat of arms which had a bordure and chief of the same tincture, the general rule appears to be that while bordures and chiefs are sometimes found, they are of different tinctures, and frequently have differing lines of division to further differentiate them. This is therefore returned for having the chief and bordure of the same tincture." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).

"Counterchanging the bordure over the flaunches is not good style." [The badge was registered] (LoAR 1/92 p.3).

[A gurges... overall on a sinister gore a <charge>] "This is four layers (field, gurges, gore <charge>). There is serious doubt as to whether peripheral charges (e.g., bordures, chiefs, gores, etc.) may be used as an overall charge in this manner. Certainly we would much prefer to see some evidence of its acceptability in Period before registering it in the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.18).

[Argent, vêtu ployé gules, a <charge> within a bordure] "As drawn, the emblazon shows the bordure overall. If the client would redraw this so that the corners of the vêtu are not cut off by the bordure, this design would be acceptable." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).

"The division of the bordure (per saltire) of two colors makes it very hard to recognize what is going on with the bordure. We would prefer some documentation that bordures were divided this way in Period before we register it in the SCA." (LoAR 4/92 p.17).

[A bordure gyronny vs. a bordure compony] "There is one CD for the posture of the primary" [which implies no difference for the bordure tincture] (LoAR 4/92 p.24).

CHARGE GROUPS

[...between a chevronel and a chevronel inverted braced, a <charge>... ] "The relative sizes of the charges, not to mention the fact that chevrons and their diminutives are ordinaries, clearly made the chevronels the primaries..." (LoAR 7/90 p.2).

"After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for purposes of X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that the bottommost of three charges, either on the field alone or around an ordinary, is defined as one-half of the group...multiple changes to the basemost of three charges under this definiton will be granted a maximum of one CVD." (CL 9/6/90 p.2).

"Consideration of the devices of [submitters] in this LoAR has helped to focus on some of the difficulties in reconciling a relatively simple set of rules with the 'realities' of a visual art. In view of the overwhelming support for [a submitter's] appeal by the commenters, I have been convinced that the wording of Rule X.4.j, 'Generally such changes must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually significant...', gives us some leeway here. As a consequence, in certain particularly simple cases, changes to type or number plus change of tincture of one-half of tertiary charge(s) will be sufficient difference for a CVD. For now this will have to be considered on a case by case basis." (CL 10/16/90 p.1).

"After reviewing carefully what commentary there was on the change to X.2 proposed by Mistress Alisoun, X.2 will be changed as follows, effective immediately:

X.2 Difference of Primary Charges. Armory that consists of: (a) a charge or group of charges alone on the field; or (b) a charge or group of charges which may themselves be charged; or (c) a charge or group of charges accompanied only by a single group of identical charges upon the field; or (d) a charge or group of charges accompanied by a peripheral charge which may itself be charged - does not conflict with similarly simple, protected armory if the type of the primary charge is substantially changed.

This wording is a little longer than Laurel himself would have liked, but describes more clearly than a more abbreviated form would the various conditions under which X.2 will apply. Please note the careful placement of the word 'or' between the various subclauses: X.2 will not apply to two devices with secondaries and a charged chief, for instance. The change to the primary charge(s) must be substantial: type variants are not sufficient (a chevron vs. a chevron embattled is not a substantial change in type {both are, after all, the same type of charge, a chevron} for the purposes of this rule); some quadrupeds and crosses, for example, may be too close visually to apply this rule." (CL 10/16/90 pps. 1-2).

"It is Laurel's position that a semy is a group of charges in and of itself, separate and distinct from any other charge or group of charges (the exception being where the semy and the other charge(s) are the same)." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).

[Three mullets in bend between a book and a sheaf of arrows ] "The device is visually confusing: were all of the charges the same, it would be blazoned simply as five mullets. As it is, in spite of blazoning the mullets in bend as primary charges, it looks like slot-machine heraldry, having three types of charge in a standard heraldic arrangement (in saltire), for which reason we are returning it." (LoAR 11/90 p.14).

[Gules, three piles in point Or, overall a centaur passant sable... ] "While this is a technical violation of VIII.2.b.i. regarding the necessity of overall charges having good contrast with the field rather than the charges they overlie, the fact that the overall charge was primarily on the piles led us to [believe] that in this case such technical violation would be permissible. This is not to be taken as a general precedent for violating VIII.2.b.i." (LoAR 12/90 p.9).

[Azure, within the horns of an increscent a <charge> argent ] "Conflict with...Azure a <charge> argent. There is only one CVD, for addition of the crescent. In the case...cited in the LoI, the sizes of the two charges were so disparate that the crescent overwhelmed the <central charge> and was visually the primary charge. Here, the size differential is such that the eye does not necessarily make the immediate evaluation that the crescent is the primary. In such a case, the charge at the visual center of the field will normally be so considered." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).

[A unicorn argent and a dragon Or combattant] "Conflict with...a dragon rampant...Or...there is only one CVD for the addition of the unicorn" [This implies that adding a second charge to result in two combattant beasts/monsters is only one CVD as opposed to change in number + change in arrangement/half change in type/ etc.] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).

[Sable, two <charges> argent and in base a three-towered castle Or ] "Clear of...Sable, a castle triple-towered Or, because the visual reality of this device is that the <charges> a clearly the primary charges here, with a diminutive castle in base." (LoAR 4/91 p.4).

[A mongoose and increscent in pale] "Conflict with <a single increscent>. There is one CVD for the addition of the mongoose." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).

[A sword bendwise sinister between dissimilar secondaries] "Because the sword does not visually dominate the field, this exceeds the complexity limits of VIII.1.a in using three different types of charge in what is visually the same 'group'." (LoAR 4/91 p.12).

[A sea-dragon and a label] "Clear of... a sea-dragon erect within a saltire parted and fretted argent. As Morgan's could just as well (or perhaps better) be blazoned Azure, a sea-dragon erect between two bendlets and two bendlets sinister fretted argent, we see two CVDs for changing the type and number of the secondaries." (LoAR 6/91 p.2).

[Two dolphins respectant environing an estoile] "Although the dolphins were blazoned as the primary charge, standard blazon practice would put the estoile first. (This is clearer if you think of adding an annulet... instead of the two dolphins.) Thus this is in conflict with...an estoile... with only one CVD for the addition of the dolphins." (LoAR 6/91 p.21).

"It is poor style to use two similar but non-identical charges in a a single group. For example, using a sword and two poinards in a sheaf... has been cause for return in the past. The use of two different types of gauntlets is likewise impermissible." (LoAR 7/91 p.21).

"The use of two similar but non-identical charges in a group has been cause for return many times in the past. A scroll is one kind of book and a book is another." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).

"Changing the tincture of the topmost of three charges one and two is insufficient for [a CVD]" (LoAR 8/91 p.18).

[A quill pen and a rapier crossed in saltire, and overall a compass star] "[This] is a single group of three dissimilar charges, which violates RFS VIII.1.a." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).

[An owl passant brandishing an axe palewise] "The axe in this submission, nearly the length of the primary charge, is significant enough to contribute to difference." (LoAR 9/91 p.11).

[Three charges, one and two] "There is... [a CVD] for changing both the type and tincture of one [the topmost] of the group of three primary charges." [Note this expands the ruling on the CL 9/6/90 p.2, which only discusses the bottommost of three charges, two and one] (LoAR 10/91 p.6).

[In bend a teasel slipped and leaved Or and a flax flower slipped and leaved argent ] "The use of two different types of plants in different orientations [one was somewhat out of the palewise true in the emblazon, although wasn't reflected in the blazon] and different tinctures is not period style. Prior Laurel precedent has indicated that we should not use two different kinds of charges of the same general type in a single charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).

[Sable, a fess argent, overall a <charge> within an orle or rope counterchanged ] "Only the fact that the orle is considered a peripheral charge and thus not part of the same group as the <charge> prevents this from conflict with ...Sable a fess argent, by X4c." (LoAR 1/92 p.1).

[On a spiderweb, a spider between three <charges> vs. a spiderweb ] "Spiderwebs are throughout by default and thus there cannot be a CD for 'throughoutness' here. A spiderweb is not like any of the other field treatments, in that no part of it reflects the same pattern as the whole. In this way it much more closely resembles a gurges, which is a charge. Thus, there is only one CD... for the addition of the overall charges." [Note: this implies that all overall charges are one group] (LoAR 2/92 p.20).

[Azure, on a bend between six <secondary charges> bendwise in bend, a <tertiary charge> palewise ] "No evidence was presented that this style of device follows any Period exemplars. Normal practice both in Period and since would have been for the tertiary to follow the line of the bend and the secondaries to be palewise. To deliberately reverse the normal defaults for both the secondaries and the tertiary gives this a very post-Period look." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).

[<field> a rose and on a gore a rose] "The use of two different sizes of the same charge (the primary and the tertiary) has been grounds for return in the past, as they make it harder to identify just what is going on on the field, belonging as they do to two different charge groups." [the main reason for return was non-period ermining on both primary and peripheral charge] (LoAR 3/92 p.15).

"Just as one should not have a charge overlying a chief or flaunches, a charge overlying a base is not registrable." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).

[A mermaid between three sealions] "This device barely avoids having to be returned for the use of two similar but different charges in the same group. It would be helpful if the client would draw the mermaid larger." (LoAR 6/92 p.5).

[In pale a dolphin embowed and a shark embowed to base contourny ] "The use of two very similar but different charges in the same group here is not Period style and is in fact not registerable by prior Laurel precedent (see, e.g., LoAR of 30 April 1989, p.6)." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).

CHEVRON

[Chevronels, drawn and blazoned 'enarched' in LoI, blazoned simply as chevronels in LoAR ] "The enarching of the chevronels is artistic. The 'chevron enarched' as shown in Parker has a normal straight chevron with an arch conjoined to the bottom edge, very much different from those here." (LoAR 11/91 p.1).

CHIEF

[A field-only device, per fess with a complex line of division ] "The SCA has long considered a per fess field division to be different from a field and a chief. It is Laurel's position...that our own traditions have to be considered as well as period mundane precedent in considering armory for registration." (LoAR 8/90 p.5).

"The field is not really chauss‚; it is not per chevron inverted, it is not a pile, it is not a chief triangular; being somewhere between all of these, we really don't know what it is. Chauss‚ issues from the corners of the chief and would touch the base point of the shield; per chevron inverted would issue from the sides of the field (rather than the chief corners); a pile would issue from farther in on the chief (rather [than] from the corners) and would almost touch the base point of the shield and would not have room for a charge beneath it; and a chief triangular would not descend the field nearly so far as the one here does. Please have them choose one and reemblazon it properly." [The device was returned for this problem alone] (LoAR 10/90 p.21).

[On a chief a demi-sun issuant from the line of division throughout ] "A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same tincture as the field." (CL 11/30/90 p.1).

COMPLEXITY

[A chief charged with a <charge> between a decrescent and an increscent ] "The chief is poor style, and borders on 'slot machine heraldry'. Only the fact that the two outside charges are crescent variants keeps it from going beyond the pale of the permissible." (LoAR 7/90 p.10).

"The use of two types of alternating charges on a bordure is very poor style." [one of a number of anomalies leading to a return] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).

[A fess between a set of dissimilar secondaries and a nebuly bordure ] "This is too complex. It is right at the Rule of Thumb limit for charge types and tinctures, and the complex line of division on the bordure pushes it over the line of unacceptability." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).

[Per chevron Or and per pale sable and vert, two bunches of grapes purpure and a Jerusalem cross argent ] "While this is technically within the Rule of Thumb for charge types and tinctures, dividing part of a divided field with a different line of division pushes it over the edge of acceptable period style." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).

"The badge has the problem of using two different types of the same charge (pawprints) which has been disallowed for some time (although usually we see this problem with different types of swords)." [the badge was returned for this reason alone] (LoAR 12/90 p.17).

[A complex device using mascles and a double tressure] "With four types of charges and four tinctures, tis is right at the upper limit of the rule of thumb for complexity. Given that most of the charges are then 'voided', the thin-line aspects of this device are enough to push it over the edge into unacceptability." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).

"Placing two different charges in different tinctures on an ordinary is extremely poor style, and may be sufficient cause in and of itself for return." [The device was returned for this reason, conflict, and a general appearance of slot-machine heraldry] (LoAR 1/91 p.26).

[Per pale argent and sable, a <charge> counterchanged on a bordure per pale azure and argent an orle of lozenges conjoined counterchanged argent and gules] "The bordure with its counterchanging of different tinctures pushes at the limits of acceptable style." [The device was registered] (LoAR 2/91 p.3).

[Azure, a bend sinister erminois between two open books bendwise sinister argent and on a chief Or three fireballs proper ] "Although this technically exceeds the rule of thumb as outlined in VIII.1.a., it holds together so extremely well visually through the use of identical charges on each side of the bend and identical charges on the chief that it may be registered." (LoAR 2/91 p.13). [Argent, three piles in point gules, overall an estoile, all within a bordure sable charged with the words 'honesto', 'dignidad', and 'vertud' between three crosses crosslet fitchy, points to center, argent] "While (marginally) simpler than the previous submission, this is still too complex. The rule of thumb outlined in RfS VIII.1.a is simply that, a rule of thumb. Some devices may be too complex by that rule of thumb and yet because of their visual unity be simple enough to register. Others may be 'simple enough' by that rule and still be visually too complex. This particular submission falls within the parameters of the rule of thumb only because the three different words on the bordure are treated as a single type of charge...

In the end, any armory submitted for registration by the College of Arms must be judged by SCA standards, not British, Scottish, French, German, Polish, Russian, Saracenic, or Japanese. This must be so because we do not register British, Scottish, etc. armory - we cannot. That is left by law to the Colleges of Arms of those respective nations. We are the Society for Creative Anachronism, and what we register is SCA heraldry, what we use and display is SCA heraldry, and what we have to use to determine appropriateness are SCA standards. Visually, this submission is still too complex." (LoAR 2/91 p.21).

"Proper is not a tincture - it is heraldic shorthand. The badgers' heads are argent, marked sable. That's two tinctures. While vair may be listed in the glossary under tinctures, the fact that it is a neutral fur is because it consists of both a metal and a color. Its visual complexity is such that it looks like two tinctures." [a 'complexity count' was made on the above premises] (LoAR 4/91 p.15).

[Two winged lions dormant respectant and a winged lion sejant affronty wings displayed, two and one ] "Several commenters felt that the mirrored orientation of the two lions in chief created a 'de facto' case of slot machine heraldry. While Laurel is personally sympathetic with this position, orienting charges this way has not been cause for return in the past." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).

[A dance overall a griffin segreant queue forché counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the complex overall charge over the complex primary may be considered too much because it breaks up the outline of both charges to an excessive degree." (Device returned for this and administrative reasons.) (LoAR 7/91 p.19).

"The use of two similar but non-identical charges in a group has been cause for return many times in the past. A scroll is one kind of book and a book is another." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).

"Counterchanging complex charges over an ordinary has been cause for return at times in the past. Were the mullet [of four greater and eight lesser points] truly overall [on the chevron throughout], that would very likely be the case here." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).

[A quill pen and a rapier crossed in saltire, and overall a compass star] "[This] is a single group of three dissimilar charges, which violates RFS VIII.1.a." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).

[Per fess azure and argent, on a pale bretessed counterchanged in chief a mullet sable, all within a bordure counter-compony sable and Or ] "Though just within the guidelines of the rule of thumb for complexity, this is awfully busy." (LoAR 12/91 p.15).

[A falcon, in chief a comet fesswise, in base two barrulets engrailed and invected ] "Given that all of the charges have what amounts to the same visual 'weight', this is effectively 'slot machine heraldry', with three different types of charge in a standard heraldic arrangement." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).

[On a bend between a crescent bendwise sinister and a natural seahorse bendwise three trefoils palewise ] "The device is right at the very limits of the rule of thumb for complexity with four tinctures and four types of charge. That, in combination with the nonstandard posture of any of the charges (with the sole exception of the bend) pushes it over the edge of acceptability." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).

[Checky argent and sable, an apple tree fructed proper and on a chief Or three apples gules ] "While this is technically over the rule of thumb for complexity with three types of charge and six tinctures (including the brown and vert of the tree), it holds together so well visually that we do not believe it exceeds the spirit of that rule." (LoAR 1/92 p.13).

[On a sun eclipsed a <charge>] "Because this is effectively '{Fieldless} on a sun... a [roundel] charged with a <charge>', the <charge> is effectively a quaternary charge, and therefore exceeds our layering limits." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).

[Per pale sable and argent, a <beast> between three decrescents and in chief a tower all counterchanged ] "This is just within the limits of complexity for counterchanging. It would be ever so much better without the tower." (LoAR 2/92 p.11).

[Argent, a pantheon salient purpure, estoilly Or, between in fess two crescents gules, within a bordure purpure semy-de-lys Or ] "Although this pushes the complexity limits of VIII.1.a, it holds together well enough visually to be allowable here. It would, though, be much better without the crescents." (LoAR 3/92 p.2).

[Argent, goutty gules, a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper, and on a chief engrailed gules a falchion reversed proper ] "Although a number of commenters noted that the number of types of charges plus tinctures exceeds the rule of thumb complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a., at least one of those tinctures (vert) comes from a part of the primary normally left to artistic license. In fact, the device holds together visually far better than many with complexity 'counts' of only 6 or 7, and hence certainly follows the spirit of the rule of thumb." (LoAR 3/92 p.9).

[Per pall inverted vert, argent and purpure, in chief two chevronels counterchanged and in base a rose between four crescents in cross argent. ] "Despite a rule of thumb 'complexity count' of 'only' six (with three types of charge and three tinctures), this device is extremely complex. It does not appear to follow any period style of armory that any of the commenters could find. The counterchanging in chief, along with the unusual field division, places it beyond acceptable style." (LoAR 3/92 p.11).

[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged fimbriated argent ] "If I may quote Lord Batonvert: 'This looks to be acceptable, by both SCA and period standards. A recent case (LoAR of Nov. 91, p.23) had a field party sable and gules, with a crescent counterchanged and fimbriated; that case was returned for (among other reasons) fimbriation of a non-ordinary. [This] submission does use an ordinary, for which there are period examples - notably the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550), Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent.

This is about the limit of complexity we should accept for this sort of motif; but it should be acceptable.'

Lord Laurel would note that he believes that this is at the limits of complexity we should accept for this motif, but given period examples of the motif and the College's allowance for the fimbriation of ordinaries, this proposal is registrable." (LoAR 4/92 p.2).

[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).

[Vert, two stags rampant addorsed argent and in chief a water bouget, on a chief Or a bar embattled to base sable] "This is at the very edge of acceptable complexity." (LoAR 5/92 p.3).

"The opinion of the commenting heralds was unanimous that a maunch is too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).

[Per chevron raguly Or and sable a raven displayed head to sinister counterchanged ] "On the device, the bird is probably just identifiable enough, but this is probably the absolute limit for counterchanging a complex charge over a complex line of division." (LoAR 6/92 p.9).

COMPONY

"The precedents disallowing compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field are all fairly clear, the discussion during the Rules revision seemed in general to support the ban, and most of the examples cited by Brigantia in support of this submission relate to royal armory and are few enough that they may probably be considered exceptions ot the general rule. As stated by several of my precdecessors, we try to follow the general rule, not the exception. The reasons for the original ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field, viz., visual confusion, appear to be more compelling than the reasons for allowing such bordures. The ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field stands." (LoAR 8/90 p.16).

CONTRAST

"The natural rainbow proper has extremely poor contrast with the sable field, enough so that its identifiability is significantly reduced." [returned for this and other reasons] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).

[Per chevron nebuly gules and purpure, three charges 2 and 1, not overlying the line of division ] "The complex line of division of the field was almost entirely unidentifiable at any range because of the extremely poor contrast between gules and purpure. This is a color combination which should be avoided when using a complex line of division." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).

[Per pale gules and Or a morningstar and a flanged mace in saltire sable... ] "The morningstar loses its identifiability against the low-contrast portion of the field. Were the two charges in saltire identical, this would be less problematic, but as it stands the eye expects both charges to be maces." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 2/91 p.18).

[Gyronny sable and argent, a saltire of chains vert] "The contrast between the vert chain and the sable portions of the field are marginal but because of the symmetry and high contrast against the argent portions of the field this is (just) registerable." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).

[Sable, a saltire dovetailed gyronny purpure and argent] "There are two problems with this device. One is that the combination of a dovetailed line on a gyronny saltire is pretty clearly post-Period style... The second problem is RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. The purpure portions of the saltire, with its complex line of division, fade so badly into the sable field that the identification of the primary charge is lost." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).

"Just as you may not have a compony bordure that shares a tincture with the field, neither may you have a plain bordure which shares the tincture with a gyronny field as here." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).

[Per chevron nebuly sable and purpure, in base a <charge> argent ] "The complex line of division on the large emblazon was impossible to define at any distance. The very best we could tell was that it was not a plain line of division. RFS VIII.3 requires that all armorial elements be identifiable. The complex line of division here is not." (LoAR 3/92 p.14).

COTISES

[a charged bend sinister cotised] "Versus [a charged bend cotised] there is a CVD for the orientation of the primary and another for the orientation of the secondaries (the cotises)." (LoAR 10/90 p.6).

"It should be noted that cotises follow the line of the ordinary they flank by default. When they do not (for example, a fess wavy cotised plain), it must be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).

"Several commenters questioned whether there was any documentation for cotising multiple ordinaries. Without such documentation we are hesitant to introduce yet another post-Period practice into SCA heraldry." [The device, with two chevronels cotised, was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 8/91 p.20).

[A pile cotised] "The cotisses should meet in base" (LoAR 2/92 p.9).

COUNTERCHANGING

[Per chevron gules and Or, upon a sun a laurel wreath all counterchanged, within a bordure... ] "The charges here are on the very edge of unidentifiability because of the counterchanging. Only the clarity of the laurel wreath in this design kept it from going beyond the bounds." (LoAR 7/90 p.1).

[A double-bitted axe lying on a per pale counterchanged field ] "There was some discussion regarding whether the axe fell under the ban on a long skinny charge counterchanged along its long axis. It was the consensus of the meeting...that the axe was clearly identifiable as an axe even though the haft was counterchanged." (LoAR 8/90 p.8).

[A dance overall a griffin segreant queue forché counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the complex overall charge over the complex primary may be considered too much because it breaks up the outline of both charges to an excessive degree." [Device returned for this and administrative reasons.] (LoAR 7/91 p.19).

[An ermine field, a Celtic uncial T counterchanged] "Additionally, the counterchanging of the ermine spots over the edges of the charge significantly reduces its identifiability." [Returned primarily for use of a single letter or abstract symbol.] (LoAR 8/91 p.24).

[Bendy sinister of eight,a sword bendwise inverted counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the sword on the field renders its identifiability extremely problematical. The silhouette is so broken up by the counterchanging across the bendy field that it becomes extremely difficult to identify, defeating one of the basic principles of period-style heraldry, quick identification." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).

[Per pale argent and azure, on a cross a lion rampant maintaining a sword, overall a bordure embattled counterchanged ] "The device is counterchanged within an inch of its life. Though only of two tinctures, the entire device is broken up into 19 pieces (the bordure into ten, the field into four, the cross into two and the lion and sword into three). And much of this counterchanging is across a complex line of division. The overall effect is simply too much." [The device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).

[Per bend sable and gules, a crescent bendwise counterchanged, fimbriated argent ] "There are a couple of problems with this proposal. First, for some time now the College has been drawing closer and closer to mundane armorial practices of only allowing ordinaries to be fimbriated. Second, fimbriating a crescent which is counterchanged of the (low contrast) field across the line of division becomes confusing visually, which the non-standard (though acceptable) orientation of the crescent only exacerbates. This proposal is, as Lord Dragon noted, 'basically thin line heraldry with some confusing counterchanging going on in the background.' " [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).

[Quarterly, an increscent within four mullets of four points in cross counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the primary and secondary charges is excessive, and reduces their identifiability to an unacceptable degree." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).

"Counterchanging the bordure over the flaunches is not good style." [The badge was registered] (LoAR 1/92 p.3).

[A bend sinister, overall a lion rampant guardant contourny within a bordure fleury counterchanged ] "Counterchanging an animate charge over an ordinary greatly diminishes its identifiability. That in conjunction with the counterchanging of the complex bordure is simply too much." [The device was returned] (LoAR 1/92 p.14).

[Per pale, a saltire engrailed counterchanged debruised by a <charge> between in pale two <other charges> Or ] "The counterchanging, hidden as it is by the <charges> makes it difficult to recognize quickly what is going on with the field and saltire in this device. However, we felt that it was just within acceptable limits." (LoAR 2/92 p.13).

[Quarterly... a mascle counterchanged] "The device is right at the very edge of acceptability, being highly reminiscent of a modern 'op art' style." (LoAR 2/92 p.15).

"Counterchanging a semy over an ordinary appears to be modern and not Period style." (LoAR 2/92 p.23).

[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged fimbriated argent ] "If I may quote Lord Batonvert: 'This looks to be acceptable, by both SCA and period standards. A recent case (LoAR of Nov. 91, p.23) had a field party sable and gules, with a crescent counterchanged and fimbriated; that case was returned for (among other reasons) fimbriation of a non-ordinary. [This] submission does use an ordinary, for which there are period examples - notably the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550),Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent.

This is about the limit of complexity we should accept for this sort of motif; but it should be acceptable.'

[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).

[Per pale and per chevron argent and azure, on an eagle displayed a kleestengeln counterchanged sable and argent... ] "The counterchanging of the eagle breaks up the outline to such an extent that identifiability becomes problematical. We believe the counterchanging here to be excessive per RfS VIII.3." (LoAR 4/92 p.16).

"The opinion of the commenting heralds was unanimous that a maunch is too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).

COUPED/THROUGHOUT

"There is no difference between [an ordinary] and [the same ordinary] couped on fieldless armory." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).

[A cat's head couped sable as only charge] "Conflicts with... <different field> a lion's head erased sable...there is only one CVD, for the changes to the field." [implies no difference for cat to lion, or for couping vs. erasing] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).

"There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a lozenge or lozenge throughout." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).

[A fret vert within a bordure gules] "Conflict...with... a fret couped [vert] within a bordure sable, with but a single CVD...for...changing [the bordure's] tincture." [implying that couping the fret isn't sufficient for a CVD] (LoAR 2/91 p.21).

CREST

[<field>, in base a <charge>, vs. the same <charge> used as a crest (cited from Fairbairn's Crests) ] "There is one CVD, for fielded vs. fieldless, but nothing can be granted against a fieldless badge (which is what we have treated crests as) for position on the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.13 - overruled CL 3/21/91 p.1).

[Boar's heads resting on torses as charges] "The fact that each boar's head rests on a torse makes each one a crest [and thus unregisterable, quoting Master Wilhelm LoAR 26 May 1983 p.19]." (LoAR 1/91 p.26).

"It has been decided that we will NOT check for conflicts against mundane crests. The reasons for this are (not necessarily in order of importance): although the English College of Arms registers crests, and the SCA has in the past treated them like fieldless badges, they are a 'limited use' type of badge (they are not used to identify retainers and property, but are most often seen in an achievement of arms, along with the coat of arms, supporters, etc.); given that identical or nearly identical crests are registered to apparently unrelated families (eleven different families have a Saracen's head for a crest, for example), they do not appear to be a strong mark of specific or familial identity or cognizance (the intent of the conflict rules is to avoid identity. Where there is no apparent strong correlation between a crest and identity, the need to avoid that identity is greatly reduced - conflict checking does not need to occur where the chance for presumption does not exist); there was a reasonably strong consensus among the commenters that while we might consider checking fieldless badges against crests, there was no reason to think that fielded armory ought to conflict (and it might be noted that all of the pended items on this issue were fielded armory), and Laurel does not believe that complicating the rules with a special class of conflict checking is worth the possible benefit that might come from doing so." (CL 3/21/91 p.1)

CRESCENT

CROSS

"A cross clechy is a CVD from a cross flory." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).

[Cross pointed vs. cross moline] "There is a CVD for type of cross, but with all the good will we could muster, we could not find sufficient difference between these two crosses." [That is, X.2 does not apply between moline and pointed] (LoAR 8/90 p.15).

[Three latin crosses clechy, as primary charges] "Several possible conflicts were cited by a number of commenters, noting primarily that clechy is a later term and that this would conflict with a number of '(field), three crosses formy/paty argent.' It was the consensus of the meeting that the combination of the pointed ends of the cross combined with the longer lower arm was sufficient for a CVD here." (LoAR 9/90 p.1).

"The tertiary was blazoned in the LoI as 'a cross resarcelly', which term is not very well defined in the standard heraldic texts, so we have modified the blazon to the closest acceptable form [a cross moline voided]." (LoAR 9/90 p.6).

[A cross of four anchors, as only charge on the device] "Most of the commenters, and Laurel, have no serious problem applying the provisions of X.2 to very different types of crosses. Indeed, applying this standard, we can see this submission clear of [same field, a cross crosslet of the same tincture]. However, we believe that the standards to be applied in X.2 are somewhat stronger than those applied to obtain a CVD between charges. As a consequence, we cannot in good conscience call this clear of [same field, a cross potent of the same tincture] (we see one CVD for the change to type of cross) or [different field, a cross of Calatrava of the same tincture] (with one CVD for the change to the field, but less than a CVD for the change to the type of cross)." (LoAR 9/90 p.16).

"Evidence was presented that period heralds saw no difference between crosses and crosses fitched, nor did the modification of the bottommost limb of four appear to give adequate visual difference to grant a CVD." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).

"[There is] not enough difference between a maltese cross and a cross patonce for [a CVD]." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).

[A tau cross double-crossed, potent at the foot] "[Conflict with] a double-cross (Doppelkreuz)...(it is a Latin cross double-crossed). While we can see granting a CVD with no problem, we do not believe that X.2 can apply in this case." (LoAR 2/91 p.22).

[On a gyronny field, quatrefoils in annulo vs. crusilly counterchanged ] "There is a CVD for the type of charge and a CVD for their arrangement on the field. [The crusilly] is definitely a seme, with crosses overlying the lines of division and cut off by the edge of the shield." (LoAR 5/91 p.7).

[Quarterly gules and argent, in bend two <As> argent and in bend sinister two <Bs> vert, overall a cross sable ] "Given that crosses overall were not infrequently used in marshalled arms in period, this has every appearance of the marshalled arms of [Gules, an <A> argent, and Argent, a vert]." [The submission was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 11/91 p.16).

[A cross couped gules irradiated Or] "The badge conflicts with the insignia of the International Red Cross, not by our rules, but by theirs. As stated in Corpora Appendix A, 'the Society recognizes the absolute precedence of law issued by civil authorities over any of its internal rules.' International treaty severely restricts the use of a cross couped gules, and this takes precedence over any of the Rules for Submission, including those for difference, of the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).

[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).

"A cross crosslet and a cross bottony are only artistic variations of the same charge, and were used interchangeably in period, so no difference may be granted between them." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).

[A Celtic cross] "Conflict with... {fieldless} an equal armed Celtic cross... There is one CD for fieldlessness, but that is all." [implying equal-arming is worth no difference from standard latinate] (LoAR 5/92 p.23).

"The use of a cross couped gules should probably no longer be allowed in SCA heraldry because of the international treaties and federal law which protect that charge and restrict its use to the International Red Cross (and as a trademark to those who were using it before those treaties went into effect.)" (LoAR 5/92 p.25).

CROWN

"As noted on the cover letter of December 2, 1984, and the LoAR of December 15, 1985, 'There is no 'standard' viscomital coronet, either as a physical entity or an heraldic convention.' Viscounts and Viscountesses may use the default heraldic coronet (a crown indented of three points) if they so choose." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).

CUP

"A goblet is not a simple geometric charge under X.4.j.ii." (LoAR 7/91 p.20).

"[There is a CD] for the change to type of charge (tankard to cup)." (LoAR 1/92 p.4).

DEFAULT

"Cobras have their hoods expanded by default." (LoAR 8/90 p.7).

"Walls appear to be throughout, masoned, and embattled by default." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).

"In the SCA, thistles are slipped and leaved by default." (LoAR 11/90 p.11).

"Though the [charges] were blazoned in the LoI as three and two, this should be the normal distribution of five objects around a bend or bendwise objects(s)." (LoAR 2/91 p.14).

"It should be noted that cotises follow the line of the ordinary they flank by default. When they do not (for example, a fess wavy cotised plain), it must be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).

[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).

"Sewing needles are point to base by SCA default." (LoAR 2/92 p.5)

"Three is the default for the number of objects (besides wheat) in a sheaf." (LoAR 2/92 p.14).

DIFFERENCE - Armory

"No difference can be granted for the difference between standard mullets and mullets of seven points: they do not appear to have been considered as separate charges in period, nor are they different enough in outline to be so considered by the College." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).

"There is no difference between [an ordinary] and [the same ordinary] couped on fieldless armory." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).

"[There is not a CVD] between a rivenstar and a standard compass star." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).

"Argent, ermined gules, is a CVD from ermine." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).

"A cross clechy is a CVD from a cross flory." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).

[Spiral trumpet vs. a hunting horn] "...there is a CVD for the type of horn; here, circular vs. crescent-shaped." (LoAR 7/90 p.8).

[Five eagle's heads vs. three griffin's heads] "There is only