The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
Compiled and edited by Lord Owen ap MorganArmory Precedents: [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [H] [I] [K] [L] [M] [O] [P] [R] [S] [T] [V] [W]
Name Precedents: [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I] [J] [L] [M] [N] [O] [P] [R] [S] [T] [U] [W]
The excerpts contained herein are quoted from Laurel's letters as originally written with the following exceptions:
(1)Text enclosed in square brackets [] is the editor's. This has been used to include additional information or clarification, to condense certain passages and in a few circumstances to provide what seemed to be necessary corrections where the original text was obviously either incomplete or inconsistent with the apparent intent. Please note, however, that in the case of any disagreement between these precedents and the source documents, the source should be assumed to be correct until Laurel states otherwise. I have not altered in any way certain decisions in which I believe that Laurel has made errors in stating the facts; for better or worse, those are part of the official record and body of precedent. Square brackets in the source text have been replaced with curly braces {}.
(2)Minor corrections to spelling and grammar are unmarked.
(3)Some formatting has been standardized (e.g. to place all submitted names and blazons in italics rather than quotes, boldface, etc.)
Full decisions are not always quoted. Text omitted either before or after quoted material is not indicated; text omitted within quoted material is indicated by ellipsis (...).
There are two major differences between these precedents and previous compilations. First, I have organized the precedents into three main categories: Administrative, Armory and Name Precedents. Topics are arranged alphabetically within each category, and precedents are arranged in reverse chronological order by letter and in consecutive order within letters. Second, I have chosen to include many of the details of the decisions quoted as precedents. The context in which a decision is made has a significant effect on the extent of the application of the resulting precedent. It seemed more convenient to include those contexts here (when they seemed relevant) instead of requiring readers to look up the original documents (which are a matter of public record but may not be easily available.)
For identification purposes, each entry includes a code referring to the source text from which it was taken. These codes are generally along the lines of:
If errors are detected in this compilation, please inform me. (My current address is listed below; whether or not I continue to reside there I can be reached through that address.) If circumstances warrant, revised editions may appear later. Suggestions for changes to the format or other helpful criticism aimed at future volumes should be directed to whoever is designated by Laurel as my replacement, since I will not be doing the compilation of those (for reasons which have no relevance to the subject at hand.)
Owen ap Morgan
c/o Earl P. Jones
3825 Canterbury Dr.
Redding, CA 96002
While Laurel, and indeed, many on Laurel staff, have a great deal of respect for the expertise it took to create the emblazon in color on the submissions forms for this item (and the badge, just below) on the computer, the Administrative Handbook, General Procedures for Submissions, C.1.d., requires that "The emblazon of any armory [must] be depicted in a size adequate for complete [rendition] of details of the armory and for equitable application of the "across the field test". In general, this means that the field for an escutcheon should be approximately six inches in height and five inches wide at its [widest] point...." The emblazons on the forms submitted were considerably smaller [than] this, though large enough that it was not felt that this alone was sufficient reason for return in this case. Having now reminded everyone of the necessity for adequately sized emblazons, however, we will expect that such forms in the future will adhere to the guidelines set forth in the Administrative Handbook. [4/94, p.13]
As the Laurel office is unable to consider alternate submissions, we were unable to register the documentable change they said they would accept. [1/94, p.18]
Furthermore, the conflicts cited in the prior return remain. (Indeed, the issue of the conflicts was not even addressed by the submitter, so even had the College accepted his style argument, this would have had to be returned.) [12b/93, p.10]
The evidence for support submitted with the device does not meet the requirements of the administrative handbook. Though it was signed by three quarters of the officers, it was also dated February 29, 1992. We need more timely evidence of support. [12b/93, p.14]
I find myself disturbed by what seems to be an increasing amount of commentary which is both dated and mailed well after the deadline for that commentary ... This situation cannot continue. ... As a consequence, I am going to have to be fairly strict on this. PRIMARY COMMENTARY MAILED OUT AFTER THE ANNOUNCED DEADLINE FOR THAT COMMENTARY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE LAUREL MEETING. REBUTTAL COMMENTARY MAILED OUT AFTER THE ANNOUNCED DEADLINE FOR THAT COMMENTARY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE LAUREL MEETING. ... As the flip side of this particular coin, LoIs must be postmarked before the end of the month to be considered as having been produced in that month. ... In the cases of both LoCs and LoIs, I will be checking not only the postmarks on the letters and packets I receive, but what the commenting members of the College have to say about when an LoI/LoC was mailed and/or received. I am sorry to have to get nasty about this my first month in office, but it's a situation which is getting out of hand and cannot be allowed to continue in fairness to ALL the members of the College of Arms. [11/93]
[Returning John Quest.] Conflicts with Jonny Quest. (Yes, I know he's a cartoon character. He is also, based on the commentary and reactions among those attending the Laurel meeting, apparently sufficiently well-known to meet Baron Bruce's guidelines for conflict with cartoon characters. See Cover Letter of 5 December 1992, p. 2). The discussion in the LoI regarding the different derivations of John and Jonny are not really to the point. A significant percentage of people hearing the name John Quest will immediately think of the cartoon character (even the "non-herald" attending the Laurel meeting cited the cartoon character immediately upon hearing the name, with no other background or hints). [5/94, p.19]
[Registering a standard representation of Saint Agatha.] The College has registered standard depictions of saints before (the most recent being St. George slaying a dragon), and this has not been seen as "reserving to a person the use of the standard depiction of this saint". [6/94, p.4]
[Returning a badge for the Ember Herald.] There is a long-standing policy that badges for subsidiary offices which have a higher-level equivalent will not be registered. The subsidiary offices are to use the badge registered for the higher-level office. [6/94, p.15]
[Returning Lauretta da Stellafessa.] Stellafessa was given as Italian for Rivenstar. However, the grandfather clause (RfS II.5.) does not apply to translations ("only the actual name element from the originally registered submission is covered by this permission"), and neither "stellafessa" nor "rivenstar" would be likely to be acceptable on its own without reference to the name of the Barony in which she resides. [6/94, p.15]
[Returning Ryuugatani, Shire of.] There was a fair amount of commentary with the belief that a Japanese place-name does not appear to fall within the defined scope of the Society, which is pre-17th Century Western culture (RfS I.1. See also "Scope of the Society: Period and Culture" in the Organizational Handbook, pp. 74-75). "Its domain includes Europe and areas that had contact with Europe during this period." (RfS I.1.) It was noted that while there was clearly some contact in very late period between Europe and Japan, and evidence that some few Japanese actually visited Europe, the contact between Europe and Japan was not great enough to justify a Japanese place-name in pre-17th C. Europe. [6/94, p.17]
[Returning {Fieldless} A cloudless natural rainbow in the shape of a crescent inverted and overall a phoenix head of flames, proper.] While the grandfather clause (RfS VII.8.) applies to originally registered elements and motifs, it does not then allow registration of different charges similarly treated. In this case, a phoenix of flames is grandfathered to the submitter, but not a phoenix' head, which is considered an entirely different charge. [4/94, p.16]
The Grandfather Clause has been held before to apply to armory changes where the new armory has identical conflicts to the previously registered armory. [2/94, p.15]
No documentation was presented for the byname beyond a statement that it is the name of the submitter's household. ... Despite a few registrations of the byname from several years ago, we are unwilling to extend the grandfather clause beyond immediate family members. [2/94, p.17]
I was distressed to see the number of names submissions whose sole documentation consisted of the bald assertion that "{X} is found in Hanks & Hodges {Surnames/Given Names} on page {x}". Except in a few cases, there were not even any accompanying photocopies of the appropriate pages. This situation is not acceptable. While Hanks and Hodges' works may be a great place to start in searching for name documentation, they are NOT the place to end that search. Very few of the entries have dates of any kind. There are many modern forms included in the entries. There are even, as there are in many general works of this kind, some errors, sometimes quite glaring. For all of these reasons, Hanks and Hodges' books are not acceptable as adequate documentation or support for an SCA name. They are especially not acceptable as the only documentation or support for an SCA name. [12a/93c]
[A major revision to the rules for names, RFS X.4.j and the Administrative Handbook. In order to preserve the formatting, the full text appears as Appendix A.] [4/94c, pp.2-12]
The subtext of RfS X.4.d is revised in part to update the example given therein ("Or, three bulls' heads gules" differs from "Or, two bulls' heads sable and another gules", but not from "Or, two bulls' heads gules and another sable") to reflect the precedent set in the September 6, 1990 Cover Letter to the effect that tincture, type, and posture changes to the basemost of three charges arranged two and one are worth a CD, though at most one CD can be obtained even for multiple changes to this charge. As a consequence, and following Lord Palimpsest's wording, such example is revised to read:
The title Dame is now available as an alternate to Mistress for any female members of the Laurels, Pelicans, or Chivalry who wishes to use it. It had previously been reserved for female knights, but since every female knight so far has preferred to use Sir, it was felt that this strict a limitation was no longer necessary. [6/94c, p.2]
[Returning Argent, a windmill, sails in cross, within a bordure embattled azure.] The sails of the windmill are effectively invisible here, even on the large emblazon. As a consequence, not only is the primary charge unidentifiable (itself grounds for return), but there are several conflicts [with towers]. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Azure, a Doric colonnaded portico within a laurel wreath argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a house argent, and a number of others, Azure, a (temple, church, etc.) argent. In each case there is only once CD for the addition of the laurel wreath. As several commenters if we do not give a CD between even radically different types of ships, we should not do so among various types of buildings. Further, the type of [the] "house" is completely unspecified. As we do not grant a CD between a generic bird and any other specific bird, we cannot see granting difference between a generic house (building) and any other type of house (building). [4/94, p.16]
[Returning Vert, a pedestalled sundial, and on a chief argent three quatrefoils slipped and leaved vert.] Conflict with ... Vert, a castle argent portalled and masoned sable, on a chief argent three oak leaves vert. There are simply not enough outline or visual differences between this sundial and a tower, or between the tertiary oak leaves and the quatrefoils, to get the necessary two Clear Differences. [I.e. neither difference is substantial.] [3/94, p.20]
[Returning Per fess embattled azure and argent masoned sable, conjoined in cross elongated to base, four double-bitted axes counterchanged argent and azure, hafted proper.] The blazon does not really adequately describe the emblazon, and all of the suggestions to fix it were not much better (see RfS VII.7.b., Reconstruction Requirement). The clear difficulty of creating an adequate blazon serves to underscore the non-period style of the device. [6/94, p.14]
Additionally, the head and fletching of the arrow are drawn too small, which alone has been grounds for return in the past. [12a/93, p.21]
As emblazoned, the [great wave] in base could be better blazoned, and is more recognizable, as a base wavy crested, which is not a [registerable] charge. [2/94, p.17]
As a rule of thumb, a point (or base) should take up approximately 1/5 of the shield. [12a/93, p.8]
[Returning Quarterly gules and argent, a boar's head couped close proper within a bordure Or.] Though blazoned as "proper" and emblazoned as "brown", there does not seem to be a default "proper" for boars (and therefore, boar's heads); there appears to be a wide variation in the coloration of those found in nature. [6/94, p.14]
[Registering a Scottish terrier.] The dog is grandfathered to him ... . It is apparently not a period breed, not being recorded before 1879. [3/94, p.2]
[Registering Vert, on a lozenge argent, a cat sejant guardant sable.] Versus ... Vert, on a lozenge between in chief two trefoils slipped argent, a gryphon sejant sable, there is clearly a CD for the removal of the trefoils, and in this case we can see granting the second for the change to the type only of the tertiaries per X.4.j.ii, given the significant change in outline which the eagle's head and wings make to the outline of the critter. [3/94, p.3]
[Registering {Fieldless} An elephant contourny proper.] Blazoned as argent in the LoI, the elephant is clearly colored light grey with argent tusks on the large emblazon sheet. While this is certainly the equivalent of argent in terms of contrast, and should be so considered for contrast or conflict purposes, we believe that elephants have a "widely understood default proper coloration". [3/94, p.5]
[Registering Vair, a panther rampant guardant gules spotted argent incensed proper.] Versus ... Argent, a leopard rampant gules, there is a CD for the field, and, as leopards and panthers were considered to be different beasts in late period, a second CD for the type of critter. [3/94, p.10]
[Registering a marmot.] The critter was blazoned in the LoI as a gopher, but that name is a 19th century borrowing. We have, therefore, substituted the Old World rodent which is almost identical in build. [3/94, p.11]
A stag "proper" would seem to be a dark brown (see, e.g., James Parker, A Glossary of Terms as Used in Heraldry, 1982, pp. 197-198, where all of the stags "proper" are on metal fields). [1/94, p.8]
[Returning Pean, a lion couchant contourny Or.] Conflict with ... Per fess argent and vert, a catamount ... couchant sinister proper. There is only one CD for the changes to the field [implying that a catamount proper is effectively Or]. [1/94, p.14]
[Registering Gules, a sea-swallow migrant between three quatrefoils argent.] Clear of ... Gules, an eagle displayed argent. There is a CD for the addition of the secondary charges, and another for the difference in type of bird. (Blazoned on the LoI as a "tern", that term is post-period, dating to 1678, and it was felt that [a] sea-swallow would be more likely to be drawn with the forked tail, thus helping the difference from an eagle. This difference is probably necessary here, since we do not grant difference between an eagle and a generic "bird".) [6/94, p.5]
[Returning Per pale argent and sable, two rooks rising respectant counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and sable, two hawks striking respectant counterchanged, all within a bordure gules. There is only one CD for the bordure. The postures of the birds were very nearly identical, with minor changes to the head position being the only noticeable difference. [5/94, p.14]
[Returning Argent, a peacock in its pride vert.] Conflicts with ... Argent, a peacock in its pride proper, a bordure invected purpure; ... Argent, three peacocks in pride proper; and ... Argent, a peacock passant regardant bendwise proper. As noted by Laurel in the LOAR of October 1992, p. 29, "peacocks have green bodies". [5/94, p.15]
[Returning Gules, a swan naiant and on a chief argent three roses gules.] Conflict ... with ... Gules, a swan naiant, wings elevated, and on a chief argent three trefoil knots gules. There is a CD for the change to the type of tertiary ... , but the change in wing position is insufficient for the necessary second. [5/94, p.19]
[Returning Sable, an eagle stooping and in base a bow and sword in saltire argent.] The device is clear of ... Sable, an eagle volant argent, with CDs for the posture of the eagle and the addition of the charges in base. [The device was returned for slot-machine arrangement.] [3/94, p.15]
[Returning Sable, a swan naiant argent and a demi-sun issuant from sinister chief Or.] Conflict with ... Sable, a swan close argent ducally gorged and chained Or and with ... Sable, a swan close within a bordure engrailed Or. In each case there is one CD, for addition of the peripheral charge or for the change to its type, respectively [implying that there is no CD between the postures naiant and close]. [2/94, p.16]
[Returning Per bend vert and sable, in bend sinister a gull close proper and a wheel Or.] Submitted as argent on the LoI, the gull is actually proper; that is to say, with white with dark grey wings. As a consequence, the wings disappear against the color field, making identifiability of the bird very problematical. [3/94, p.19]
[S]everal commenters had [a problem] with a "brown duck proper, headed sable". [2/94, p.18]
The owl here is not really displayed but rather striking affronty, a posture which has been grounds for return in the past. [2/94, p.19]
[Returning Purpure, a bird close, a bordure rayonny argent.] Conflict with ... Purpure, a heron close supporting in dexter upraised talon a rose argent barbed and seeded proper. There is one CD for the addition of the bordure but as a generic "bird", this could legitimately be drawn as nearly any kind of bird, and we cannot in good conscience grant a second CD for type. [1/94, p.13]
"The College of Arms will no longer register flora and fauna in their natural 'proper' tinctures if to do so they require the Linnaean genus and species. Proper is allowed for natural flora and fauna where there is a widely understood default coloration for the charge so specified." (Cover Letter, May 1991, p. 2). Given the number of times the various commenters asked the question in the commentary received on this item, it is obvious that a peregrine falcon does not have a "widely-understood" proper tincture. As a consequence, we are having to return this. [1/94, p.14]
The punch was blazoned in the LoI as a "trussel", a coin-stamping die whose name is dated to 1473 in the OED, but, especially given that it is here a small held charge, we believe that "punch" is the more accessible term. [5/94, p.1]
There was some discussion regarding how to blazon this posture (kneeling on one knee). We have adopted the term "genuant" which is used in Papworth. [3/94, p.7]
Blazoned in the LoI as a bull's skull, the primary was not emblazoned with any skull-like details, but appeared to simply be a bull's head. [2/94, p.13]
Laurel counted no less than six different suggestions at a reblazon. This variety alone tends to point out the possible non-period style of the [cross of two thornvines wavy]. [2/94, p.18]
The charges on the chief are not really arranged in a manner which lends itself to easy blazon, thus pointing out its probable non-period style. Were he to place the three charges in fess rather then enhancing the central charge (and reblazon the "drinking horns inverted" as simply a "pair of bull's horns"), this would probably be registerable. [2/94, p.18]
The blazon here, while marginally better than the one in the LoI, still does not adequately describe the outer group of comets: they are disposed in orle, but they are oriented in annulo, and as a result neither blazon is entirely satisfactory. [2/94, p.20]
Blazoned in the LoI as "a coiled match argent, flamed proper", we have deleted the flaming as an artistic detail of the same order as orbing, arming, and languing, and because someone unfamiliar with the charge may have drawn it with a lot more flames. [1/94, p.2]
Blazoned on the LoI as a compass star, the arms of the primary charge are all the same length. We have therefore reblazoned it [as a "mullet of eight points"] to match the emblazon. [1/94, p.10]
We blazon the type of pawprints for the same reason that we blazon specific types of sword; it may not grant any heraldic difference, but there are sufficient differences in the various types to warrant mentioning in the blazon. [1/94, p.10]
[Registering Vert, in pale a roundel and an eagle displayed within a bordure Or.] On the large emblazon it was more obvious that the roundel and the eagle are two equal-sized charges, so the registered blazon is better than Vert, an eagle displayed and in chief a roundel.... (It was also clear from the large emblazon that the bird is an eagle, not a {smooth-feathered} falcon.) [1/94, p.11]
The field division was blazoned as schneckenweise in the LoI. It was felt, however, that the registered blazon [Per pall inverted arrondy ...] adequately reproduces the emblazon. [12b/93, p.7]
There is no reasonable way to blazon the nowing of the serpents here; none of the standard heraldic depictions of nowing seem to apply to this case. [12b/93, p.10]
The primary charge is not a "chevron inverted grady", and no one could come up with an adequate blazon for it. ("Grady" is a term which modifies "embattled"; it is not found as a separate line of division in and of itself.) [12b/93, p.13]
A bend fusily is a bend of "fusils conjoined". See, e.g., "A Return for First Principles: II -- Lozenge and Fusil", Roger F. Pye, Coat of Arms VII (50): 60-62. [12a/93, p.13]
[Returning Argent, on a cross between in chief two estoiles azure in base an estoile argent, a bordure counterchanged.] No documentation has been found for counterchanging a bordure over an ordinary. That, combined with the unusual arrangement of the estoiles, is sufficient grounds for return. [3/94, p.20]
[Returning Per pale argent and gules, a dragon gules and a natural tiger argent marked sable combattant, a bordure counterchanged.] This submission has the clear appearance of impaled arms, which the counterchanged bordure does not in the least diminish. [2/94, p.19]
[Returning Azure, ... a bordure lozengy azure and Or.] The bordure is very odd. As colored on the large emblazon, there is a row of blue demi-lozenges along the chief portion of the azure field, and the bordure and field blend into each other. [1/94, p.14]
[Returning Sable, a bend argent, overall a key, wards to sinister, within a laurel wreath Or.] The device ... also appears to conflict with ... Sable, a bend argent. The overall charges are effectively a single group, worth only one CD for their addition. [6/94, p.13]
[Returning {Fieldless} An annulet of rope nowed in base gules surmounted by a sword and a quill pen crossed in saltire argent.] Additionally, this proposal consists of three dissimilar charges in a single group, and thus falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [6/94, p.14]
The emblazon is more properly blazoned as Azure, a chevron Or between in chief six trees and in base in pale a tree and a cat passant argent. As such this conflicts with ... Azure, a chevron Or, with only one CD for the addition of the secondaries. Were this redrawn with the trees all the same size as a semy, and the cat obviously larger as a secondary charge in base, it would be clear of the conflicts cited here. [2/94, p.20]
[Sable, a baton sinister couped gules fimbriated between in bend an oak sprig Or and a boar passant argent] falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. It has three charges of nearly equal visual weight in a single group, with the "primary" baton having the same visual "presence" on the field as the "secondary" charges. As a consequence, the charges appear to be a single group of primaries rather than a primary charge between two secondaries. [2/94, p.21]
[Returning Argent, a saltire vert, overall within a mascle a cross crosslet sable.] Conflict with ... Argent, a saltire vert. There is only one CD for the addition of the group of overall charges. [1/94, p.17]
[Registering Per bend ... a {charge} and three more in bend ... .] We did not believe that the precedent barring the use of two different sizes of the same charge as a semy and as the primary charge was applicable here. The feeling was that in this case there is a single group of charges drawn to adequately fill the space available for them. [12a/93, p.4]
[Returning Per chevron sable and vert, three mullets of nine points, one and two, and a hulk Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron sable and vert, in chevron enhanced three compass stars elongated to base and in base a wolf's head cabossed argent. There is a CD for changing the tincture of all the charges, but the only way to grant the second would be to count the change to type and tincture of the bottom most charge separately from the tincture change to the charges in chief. It was not felt that such a "point count" was reasonable here, especially given that the charges have the appearance of a single group of primary charges rather than that of, say, a primary charge and a secondary group of charges. [12a/93, p.18]
It was the consensus among many of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that X.2 should apply between chevrons and chevrons inverted. [4/94, p.6]
While a number of commenters noted that all of the chevrons couched they could find were used without secondary or tertiary charges, given the widespread use of secondary and tertiary charges with both chevrons and chevrons inverted, their combined use [with a chevron couched] did not seem to us to be more than a single "weirdness". [2/94, p.14]
[Returning Checky argent and sable, a chief engrailed gules.] Conflict with ... Checky argent and sable. A chief is not a primary charge and so X.1 can not be invoked here, as a consequence there is only once CD for the addition for the peripheral charge. [4/94, p.19]
Not even the large emblazon was clearly either a chief urdy or a field per fess urdy. It needs to be redrawn as one or the other. [1/94, p.17]
[Returning {Fieldless} An annulet of rope nowed in base gules surmounted by a sword and a quill pen crossed in saltire argent.] Additionally, this proposal consists of three dissimilar charges in a single group, and thus falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [6/94, p.14]
[Returning Per fess embattled sable and azure, on a demi-plate issuant from the line of division a double-bitted axe gules, and in base seven mullets of four points in annulo Or.] The device is right at the edge of the complexity limits of VIII.1.a. That, combined with its very modern "feel" [is grounds for return]. [5/94, p.20]
[A bow sable and a shepherd's crook bendwise vert, fretted with an arrow bendwise sinister inverted sable, flighted vert] ... has every appearance of being three different charges (bow, arrow, and crook) in a single group. As such, this falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [2/94, p.16]
[Returning Barry wavy azure and argent, two dragons combattant gules maintaining between them a sword inverted, all within a laurel wreath Or.] Conflict with ... Barry wavy and per pale azure and argent, two wyverns combattant gules. There is a CD for the addition of the laurel wreath, but the complexity of the two fields makes it difficult to warrant granting a second for the per pale line of [the latter]. [2/94, p.20]
[Sable, a baton sinister couped gules fimbriated between in bend an oak sprig Or and a boar passant argent] falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. It has three charges of nearly equal visual weight in a single group, with the "primary" baton having the same visual "presence" on the field as the "secondary" charges. As a consequence, the charges appear to be a single group of primaries rather than a primary charge between two secondaries. [2/94, p.21]
[Returning Sable, on a pale between two mullets argent a pine tree eradicated proper, on a chief argent three reremice sable.] With five types of charge in four tinctures, this exceeds the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. While it is true that armory exceeding this "rule of thumb" has been registered on rare occasions, these exceptions have only been made for particularly elegant proposals. [Note the fourth tincture is the brown of the tree trunk, a detail which counts no difference for conflict.] [1/94, p.16]
[Returning Sable, a tower per pale Or and azure, a bordure argent.] Unfortunately, even on the large emblazon, the tower was not recognizable as such because of the lack of contrast between its azure half and the field. Even though the charge is technically neutral, and could therefore be displayed on any tincture field, identifiability must be maintained. Here, it is not. [5/94, p.16]
[Returning Per bend vert and sable, in bend sinister, a gull close proper and a wheel Or.] Submitted as argent on the LoI, the gull is actually proper; that is to say, with white with dark grey wings. As a consequence, the wings disappear against the color field, making identifiability of the bird very problematical. [3/94, p.19]
[Registering Per pale argent and lozengy argent and purpure, three domestic cats rampant contourny sable.] Some commenters felt that the contrast between the cats and the field on the sinister half of the shield was too poor to allow ready identification. In cases such as this, where all three charges are identical, the poorer contrast to sinister does not seem to bar registration. [12b/93, p.5]
The style of "an X sable, marked vert" was accepted in the registration of this submitter's badge in the LoAR of 9 May 1993, where it was noted that "[t]he markings on the badger are considered artistic license, worth no difference.... The markings aren't considered a violation of the Rule of Contrast, any more than A brock's head per pale vert and sable would break contrast." [12b/93, p.5]
While technically a neutral charge on the sable field, the mullet [of eight points gyronny azure and Or] was unidentifiable as such at any distance. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance." (RfS VIII.2.) The overwhelming visual image was that of a Maltese cross at an unusual angle on the sable field, with its identifiability as a mullet of eight points completely lost. [12b/93, p.13]
The evidence submitted with this appeal goes beyond the bounds of "regional style". Of the forty-eight pieces of armory cited to support this submission, three were from Austria, one from England, twenty-five from the Holy Roman Empire, twelve from Hungary, five from Italy, and two from Portugal. Clearly, then, we are discussing a practice which surpasses the bounds of a single "regional" style.
It was noted that the Rule of Contrast, as codified in VIII.2.b. of the Rules for Submissions, is one of our most inviolate, and that exceptions should only be made to it with due and extremely careful consideration. On the other hand, it is equally true that the Rule of Contrast is our rule, and that just as we chose to adopt it we are equally free to chose to allow exceptions to it, under circumstances of our choosing.
In this case, I believe that the evidence presented adequately demonstrates through multiple period examples that vert trimounts were used on azure fields across Europe. As a consequence, and as you will note in the attached LoAR, we are registering [the device].
The next question, of course, is that having now made one exception to the Rule of Contrast, what are the standards for future possible exceptions? I believe the standards proposed by Master Bruce in his thoughts on this submission are the ones to be applied to submissions requesting an exception to any of our Rules in the future.
[Returning Gules, on a pile Or an eagle displayed sable, overall a laurel wreath counterchanged.] By current precedent, a laurel wreath is considered too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary. [6/94, p.13]
[Returning Per bend sinister embattled argent and azure, a ship counterchanged.] Additionally, most of the commenters found the outline of the ship to be too badly broken up by the counterchanging over the complex line of division to be readily identifiable, which itself is a separate grounds for return. [5/94, p.14]
[Returning Barry wavy argent and azure, an escallop inverted counterchanged, on a chief azure two mullets of four points Or.] This is an excessive use of counterchanging. Period style would have the field or the primary as barry, not both. [RFS VIII.3 specifically says complex divided fields may obscure charges counterchanged.] Such appears to be the case here. [5/94, p.16]
[Returning Argent, on a pile sable a Maltese Cross argent, a bordure counterchanged.] We need documentation for the motif of counter-changing a bordure over a pile before we can register this. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Per saltire azure and argent, a butterfly counterchanged between in pale two bezants all within a bordure invected sable.] The butterfly is extremely hard to identify counterchanged on the field, so much so that we are compelled to return this because of unidentifiability. (See RfS VII.7.a., which states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") [3/94, p.19]
[Returning Argent, on a cross between in chief two estoiles azure in base an estoile argent, a bordure counterchanged.] No documentation has been found for counterchanging a bordure over an ordinary. That, combined with the unusual arrangement of the estoiles, is sufficient grounds for return. [3/94, p.20]
[Registering Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two eagles displayed counterchanged.] Versus ... Per bend sable and argent, two eagles displayed, wings inverted, counterchanged, there is a CD for the change to the field and another for position on the field. This is not as easy to see as a change for, say, posture, but still exists. Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the birds cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in [the latter] they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field. [1/94, p.1]
[Returning Sable, in pale a compass star and three bars wavy couped argent.] The badge also conflicts with ... Sable, three bars wavy argent, and with ... Gules, three bars wavy argent and in chief a mullet of six points of the second. Against [the second] there is a CD for the addition of the charge in chief, and against [the third] for the tincture of the field [implying that there is no CD for couping the bars in this case]. [2/94, p.23]
[Returning Azure, a cross patonce between four roses, a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a cross flory between four bear's heads couped argent muzzled gules within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change to the type of secondary charges [and nothing for patonce vs. flory]. [5/94, p.16]
The star-cross is a modern invention and not a period charge. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Gules, a latin cross throughout parted and fretted argent interlaced with an annulet Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross voided argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the annulet. [Implying there is no CD between a cross voided and one parted and fretted.] [3/94, p.15]
[Returning a cross maltese gyronny sable and gules.] While the argument that a Maltese cross is "four arms joined at a single point" is interesting, the visual reality is that it is seen as a single charge (a cross), and thus is seen as gyronny, not as four different charges each divided along a pale or fess line. The rules are quite clear that gyronny of two colors is not registerable. [3/94, p.17]
[Returning Per fess sable and argent, a cross botonny Or charged with a rose gules, barbed and seeded proper.] In keeping with the commentary and subsequent December 1993 return of the badge of Anton Tremayne, the weight of commentary was that this conflicts with ... Gules, a cross bottony voided Or, with one CD for the change to the field but without the necessary second for the change to type only of the tertiary. [3/94, p.17]
[Returning Gules, a patriarchal cross bottony throughout Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross botonny Or. There may be a CD for the change to the type of cross, but there cannot be sufficient difference between [them]. [2/94, p.13; though listed among the acceptances this was intended as a return and corrected in Laurel's letter of April 12, 1994.]
[Returning Quarterly checky sable and argent and argent, a cross of two thornvines wavy vert.] There are a couple of problems with the primary charge. One is the difficulty of blazon. Laurel counted no less than six different suggestions at a reblazon. This variety alone tends to point out the possible non-period style of the charge. And as several commenters noted, because of both its thinness and waviness, the primary charge tends to disappear along the lines of partition of the field, making immediate identification a little problematical. Finally, it conflicts with ... Or, a cross raguly vert and with ... Argent, a cross slipped vert. In each case there is one CD for the change to the field, but nothing for the very minor visual differences to the type of cross. [2/94, p.18]
The submitter's argument that a Maltese star cross is but one step from a recognized period charge, a Maltese cross, is interesting but not particularly compelling. The fact remains that six armed crosses are not a period charge. [12b/93, p.10]
The weight of the commentary was that a cross botonny is not a simple enough primary charge for X.4.j.ii. to apply. [12b/93, p.12]
[Registering {field}, an equal-armed Celtic cross flory Or.] Versus ... {Fieldless} An equal-armed Celtic cross Or, there are CDs for fielded versus fieldless and for flory versus potent. [12a/93, p.12]
As the [key cross] is not an ordinary or "similarly simple" geometric design, X.4.j.ii. cannot apply to the change in type only of the tertiary charge. [12a/93, p.20]
[Registering Argent, two serpents nowed in a Bourchier knot palewise vert, a bordure counter-compony sable and argent.] Versus ... Argent, a Bourchier knot vert, there are CDs for adding the bordure and for the orientation of the knot. [6/94, p.2]
[Registering Lozengy Or and vert, a griffin segreant maintaining a trefoil within a bordure sable.] Versus ... Checky argent and gules, a griffin sejant, forepaw raised, within a border sable, there are CDs for the changes to the field and for posture of the monster. (While sejant erect and rampant have been declared insufficiently different to qualify for a CD, sejant is sufficiently different -- the angle of the monster's body, that one forepaw (at least) is much farther down, and the noticable changes to the hindquarters all add up to sufficient difference from to allow a CD between the two postures. [6/94, p.4]
[Registering Gules, a sea-swallow migrant between three quatrefoils argent.] Clear of ... Gules, an eagle displayed argent. There is a CD for the addition of the secondary charges, and another for the difference in type of bird. (Blazoned on the LoI as a "tern", that term is post-period, dating to 1678, and it was felt that sea-swallow would be more likely to be drawn with the forked tail, thus helping the difference from an eagle. This difference is probably necessary here, since we do not grant difference between an eagle and a generic "bird".) [6/94, p.5]
[Returning Or, a wingless wyvern statant gules.] Conflict with ... Or, a dragon gules. The only difference is for the removal of the wings. [6/94, p.14]
[Returning Purpure, a mullet of eight interlocking mascles within a bordure Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron vert and gules, a mullet of eight points voided within a bordure Or. There is a CD for the field, but the differences to the "mullets" are not sufficient for the necessary second. [6/94, p.15]
[Returning Per fess gules and azure, a fess dancetty flory Or.] Conflict with ... Azure, a fess dancetty the two upper points fleur-de-lys Or. While there is a CD for the change to the field, the addition of complex changes to an already complex line of division on only the bottom are not sufficient for the necessary second. [6/94, p.17]
[Registering {Fieldless} On a maple leaf Or a cross formy sable.] Versus ... Sable, on an oak leaf Or a battle-axe sable. there are CDs for fieldless vs. fielded and for maple leaf vs. oak leaf. The two leaves are not so visually similar as to warrant granting no difference between them. [5/94, p.9]
[Returning Per pale argent and sable, two rooks rising respectant counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and sable, two hawks striking respectant counterchanged, all within a bordure gules. There is only one CD for the bordure. The postures of the birds were very nearly identical, with minor changes to the head position being the only noticeable difference. [5/94, p.14]
[Returning Azure, a cross patonce between four roses, a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a cross flory between four bear's heads couped argent muzzled gules within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change to the type of secondary charges [and nothing for patonce vs. flory]. [5/94, p.16]
[Returning Sable, a sun and on a chief Or, in pale a sword reversed and a sword sable.] Conflict with ... Sable, a mullet of four greater and four lesser points, on a chief Or a spear fesswise sable. There is a CD for the changes to type and number of tertiary charges, but per the precedent set in the LoAR of April 1993, p. 12, nothing for the change between a sun and a compass star ... . [5/94, p.19]
[Returning Azure, a pile inverted ployé argent ermined azure between two cups Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron sable and ermine, in chief two cups covered Or. There is only one CD for the changes to the field, as we have traditionally not granted difference between per chevron, chapé and a pile inverted. [5/94, p.19]
[Returning Gules, a swan naiant and on a chief argent three roses gules.] Conflict ... with ... Gules, a swan naiant, wings elevated, and on a chief argent three trefoil knots gules. There is a CD for the change to the type of tertiary ... , but the change in wing position is insufficient for the necessary second. [5/94, p.19]
[Returning {Fieldless} A lymphad gules sail set argent.] Conflict with ... Or a galley, sails furled and oars in action, gules, flags azure; ... A ship; ... Argent, a boat gules, and ... Or, a boat gules. In each case, there is one CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for ... the sail. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning {Fieldless} A fire arrow Or enflamed proper.] Numerous conflicts ... with {Field}, an arrow Or. In each case there is only one CD for fieldlessness [and nothing for the enflaming]. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning Azure, a goat's head couped within a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, two rams heads in bend sinister erased and respectant within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change in number of primary charges [and nothing for type]. [5/94, p.21]
[A significant revision of RFS X.4.j. For the full, formatted text see Appendix A.] [4/94c, pp.9-10]
[Registering Vert, three apples Or and a chief ermine.] Versus ... Vert, three acorns Or, and ... Vert, three pineapples Or, there are CDs for type of primary charge and addition of the chief. One commenter noted that Papworth put pineapples and apples together, but Parker (p. 462) makes it clear that "pineapples" are what we generally call "pine cones", which are not only visually different enough for a CD, but mundane default puts them stem to base, adding to the visual differences. [4/94, p.14]
[Returning Azure, a Doric colonnaded portico within a laurel wreath argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a house argent, and a number of others, Azure, a (temple, church, etc.) argent. In each case there is only once CD for the addition of the laurel wreath. As several commenters if we do not give a CD between even radically different types of ships, we should not do so among various types of buildings. Further, the type of [the] "house" is completely unspecified. As we do not grant a CD between a generic bird and any other specific bird, we cannot see granting difference between a generic house (building) and any other type of house (building). [4/94, p.16]
[Returning {Fieldless} A Catherine wheel azure.] Conflict with ... A wheel, and with ... Dark, a wheel light. In each case there is a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for the tincture [or type] of the wheels. [4/94, p.16]
[Returning Azure, a German panther rampant contourny argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a panther rampant argent, crowned Or. There is but one CD, for the orientation of the monster. [Implying no CD between types of panther.] [4/94, p.17]
[Returning Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Prior Laurel precedent (December 1993 LoAR, p. 12) does not grant a CD between oak leaves and holly leaves. As a consequence this is being returned for the use of two different but heraldically similar charges on a single device. [4/94, p.18]
[Returning Or, a slip and on a chief vert three gouttes Or.] Blazoned on the LoI as "an olive slip", there was nothing even on the large emblazon to denote that this was an olive slip as opposed to any other kind (even a sprig of laurel would have been an adequate blazon). As a consequence, this conflicts with ... Or, a sprig of three linden leaves and on a chief vert a cavendish knot Or. There is CD for the multiple changes to the tertiaries, but we cannot in good conscience see another for the change to number of leaves on the sprig. [4/94, p.19]
[Returning {Fieldless} A cross gurgity reversed, interlaced with an annulet argent.] The style of the badge, with its interlaced charges, appears modern rather than period in style. There is also a conflict with ... Azure, a Catherine wheel argent. ... [T]he difference to only the number of "arms" of the "wheel" is insufficient for [a CD]. [4/94, p.21]
[Registering {Fieldless} In pale two triangles, points to center, conjoined gules.] This is clear of ... An hourglass gules, with CDs for fieldlessness and for differences to the charge (removing the frame). [3/94, p.6]
[Registering Vair, a panther rampant guardant gules spotted argent incensed proper.] Versus ... Argent, a leopard rampant gules, there is a CD for the field, and, as leopards and panthers were considered to be different beasts in late period, a second CD for the type of critter. [3/94, p.10]
[Registering Argent, on a pale gules a wolf sejant affronty argent overall a laurel wreath vert.] Versus ... Argent, on a pale gules a griffin segreant argent, overall a laurel wreath counterchanged, there is a CD for changing the tincture of the laurel wreath and a CD for changing both the type and posture of the tertiary. [3/94, p.11]
[Registering Per chevron sable and Or, two Maltese crosses and a griffin counterchanged.] Versus ... Per chevron sable and Or, in chief three crosses patty of the second, there are CDs for changing the arrangement (three in chief to 2 and 1) and for changing the type and tincture of the bottom-most charge. [3/94, p.12]
[Returning Gules, a latin cross throughout parted and fretted argent interlaced with an annulet Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross voided argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the annulet. [Implying there is no CD between a cross voided and one parted and fretted.] [3/94, p.15]
In each case, the enarching of the bend is only an artistic variant and counts for nothing. [3/94, p.15]
[Returning Sable, a compass star elongated gules, fimbriated argent, overall a lion's head cabossed Or ... .] [T]here is a conflict with ... Sable, a sun gules fimbriated Or, surmounted by a panther's head erased reversed Or. There is a possible CD for the changes to the overall charge, but no more than that, as by current precedent there is not a CD between a compass star and a sun [and nothing for the tincture of the fimbriation]. [3/94, p.15]
[Returning Gules, an axe and in chief three drinking horns Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a broad axe argent, the handle sable, the blade turned to dexter. There is one CD for the addition of the charges in chief but nothing for the change of tincture to the haft only. [3/94, p.16]
[Returning Argent, a tree eradicated gules between flaunches counter ermine.] Conflict with ... Argent, an oak branch eradicated gules, with one CD for the addition of the flaunches, but by prior precedent nothing for the difference between a branch and a tree. [3/94, p.17]
[Returning Azure, in sinister chief a cross parted and fretted, in dexter base a mermaid argent, tailed and crined, maintaining an estoile Or.] Conflict with ... Azure, a cross double-parted argent. There is one CD for the addition of the mermaid but nothing for the enhancement of the cross to sinister chief or for the fretting at its cross point. [3/94, p.18]
[Returning Vert, a German panther rampant Or breathing flames gules, maintaining a fleur-de-lis argent.] Conflict with ... Per chevron rayonny erminois and sable, in base a panther rampant Or, incensed proper. There is a CD for the change to the field, but since the move ... is forced, nothing for position on the field, nor can we see granting a CD between continental and insular panthers. [3/94, p.19]
[T]here is a CD for ... the differences between a spider and an ant. While we would probably not grant sufficient difference between the two, when they are used as the primary charge, a CD can be granted. [2/94, p.6]
[Returning Argent, a panther sejant, the dexter forepaw raised, sable spotted of various tinctures incensed proper, in chief five decrescents sable.] Visual conflict with ... Argent, a panther sejant erect pean armed and issuing flames form the mouth and ears gules, orbed azure. While there is enough technical difference between the two, with a CD for the addition of the secondary group and another for the change to tincture of the primary, the visual reality is that of a CD for the addition of the decrescents and "somebody's done something strange to the spots on the cat". [2/94, p.16]
[Returning {Fieldless} A dragon's head couped sable.] Conflict with ... Paly argent and gules, a drakkar prow sable ... . There is ... nothing for difference in type of the charge. [2/94, p.16]
[Returning Azure, two harps and a wolf sejant erect guardant argent.] Conflict with ... Azure a wolf rampant argent. And with ... Azure a wolf salient argent. This was the subject of a lively debate at the Laurel meeting, as well as in the commentary. In the end, the basic philosophical position of subsuming changes to posture, orientation, type, etc. under changes to number (e.g., Azure, two lions combattant Or conflicts with Azure, a lion rampant Or, with one CD for adding the second lion, but nothing for then changing its orientation) required this to be seen as a conflict, too, with a CD for changing the number of charges, but nothing for then changing their type as well. [2/94, p.16]
[Returning Sable, a swan naiant argent and a demi-sun issuant from sinister chief Or.] Conflict with ... Sable, a swan close argent ducally gorged and chained Or and with ... Sable, a swan close within a bordure engrailed Or. In each case there is one CD, for addition of the peripheral charge or for the change to its type, respectively [implying that there is no CD between the postures naiant and close]. [2/94, p.16]
[Returning Quarterly checky sable and argent and argent, a cross of two thornvines wavy vert.] Finally, it conflicts with ... Or, a cross raguly vert and with ... Argent, a cross slipped vert. In each case there is one CD for the change to the field, but nothing for the very minor visual differences to the type of cross. [2/94, p.18]
[Returning Azure, on a cloud argent, a horseshoe inverted sable.] Conflict with ... Azure, a Boreas affronty argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the tertiary, and even that is minimal because it lies where the "face" of [the] Boreas is. [2/94, p.18]
As noted in the LoAR of 17 October 1993, p. 17, there is not a CD between a snowflake and an escarbuncle. [2/94, p.19]
[Returning Or, a hunting horn reversed gules, stringed azure, and a chief checky argent and gules.] Conflict with ... Or, a buglehorn stringed and virolled gules. There is only one CD, for the addition of the chief [implying that there is no CD for reversing the horn]. [2/94, p.20]
[Returning Barry wavy azure and argent, two dragons combattant gules maintaining between them a sword inverted, all within a laurel wreath Or.] Conflict with ... Barry wavy and per pale azure and argent, two wyverns combattant gules. There is a CD for the addition of the laurel wreath, but the complexity of the two fields makes it difficult to warrant granting a second for the per pale line of [the latter]. [2/94, p.20]
[E]narching of [bars] is a period artistic convention to represent the curvature of the shield [and so not worth a CD]. [2/94, p.20]
[Returning Sable, in pale a compass star and three bars wavy couped argent.] The badge also conflicts with ... Sable, three bars wavy argent, and with ... Gules, three bars wavy argent and in chief a mullet of six points of the second. Against [the second] there is a CD for the addition of the charge in chief, and against [the third] for the tincture of the field [implying that there is no CD for couping the bars in this case]. [2/94, p.23]
[Registering Per bend sable and vert, a griffin couchant argent.] Versus ... Azure, an Assyrian griffin couchant gazing to chief wings displayed argent, there is a CD for the change to the field, and Laurel precedent (LoAR of 17 June 1990, p. 1) grants another for posture in the difference between wings addorsed and wings displayed. [1/94, p.1]
[Registering Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two eagles displayed counterchanged.] Versus ... Per bend sable and argent, two eagles displayed, wings inverted, counterchanged, there is a CD for the change to the field and another for position on the field. This is not as easy to see as a change for, say, posture, but still exists. Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the birds cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in [the latter] they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field. [1/94, p.1]
[Returning Purpure, a bird close, a bordure rayonny argent.] Conflict with ... Purpure, a heron close supporting in dexter upraised talon a rose argent barbed and seeded proper. There is one CD for the addition of the bordure but as a generic "bird", this could legitimately be drawn as nearly any kind of bird, and we cannot in good conscience grant a second CD for type. [1/94, p.13]
[Returning Azure mullety Or, a vol argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, two wings conjoined argent enflamed between in annulo six mullets of six points Or. In this case there are no CDs for the number or type or arrangement of the mullets and nothing for the enflaming of the wings. [1/94, p.15]
[Returning Azure, a wolf's fang within a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure a shark's tooth point downwards proper. There is only one CD for the addition of the bordure. [1/94, p.16]
[Returning {field} a bear rampant contourny gules.] Conflict with ... Or, a bear legged of an eagle's legs rampant to sinister gules. There is one CD, for the changes to the field, but the difference in the legs only is insufficient for the second. [12b/93, p.10]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a heart argent a seadragon rampant gules.] Conflict with ... Argent, a wyvern passant gules. There is only one CD for the posture of the monster. Several commenters submitted evidence that heart shapes were used as a medium, albeit only occasionally, for heraldic display in period. See, e.g., Ottfried Neubecker, Heraldry, Sources, Symbols and Meaning, page 76. [12b/93, p.12]
[Returning {Fieldless} Three holly leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, fructed gules.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three oak leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, surmounted by an acorn Or. There is a CD for the fieldless difference, but given their similarity in outline, the difference in the type of leaves was insufficient to grant the second. [12b/93, p.12]
[Registering Or, on an eagle displayed sable an inescutcheon argent all within a bordure purpure semy of crosses formy argent.] Versus ... Or, on an eagle displayed sable within a bordure gules charged with eight cinquefoils argent a mullet of the second, there is a CD for the change to the tincture of the bordure. While the mullet ... cannot be "of the second" (which would make it sable on sable), this does leave its actual tincture in question. It has been our rule in cases where there is a question to give our submitters the benefit of the doubt. As a consequence this has a second CD for type and tincture of the charge on the eagle. [12a/93, p.1]
[Registering {field}, an equal-armed Celtic cross flory Or.] Versus ... {Fieldless} An equal-armed Celtic cross Or, there are CDs for fielded versus fieldless and for flory versus potent. [12a/93, p.12]
[Returning {Fieldless} A tri-mount couped Or.] Conflict with ... Sable, a two-peaked mountain couped Or, capped argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness but nothing for the artistic variation of the mountain. [12a/93, p.15]
[Returning {field} three iris blossoms sable, slipped and leaved vert, conjoined at the bases.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three irises in fess argent slipped, conjoined and leaved vert. There is a CD for fielded versus fieldless but nothing for the change to the tincture of the blossoms only. [12a/93, p.15]
[Returning Azure, in pale a heart distilling gouttes d'Or and a stag's skull caboshed argent within a bordure embattled Or.] The device conflicts with ... Vert, a heart Or between the attires of a stag's head cabossed argent, attired, within a bordure embattled Or. There is only one CD for the tincture of the field. The gouttes, the tincture of the horns, and the difference between a stag's skull cabossed and a stag's head cabossed are insufficient for the necessary CD. [12a/93, p.16]
[Returning Azure, a dragon segreant breathing flames within a bordure embattled argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a dragon argent. There is one CD for the addition of the bordure, but the default posture of a dragon is segreant, and the flames (which should be drawn a little smaller here) are not sufficient for the necessary second CD. [12a/93, p.17]
[Returning Per chevron sable and vert, three mullets of nine points, one and two, and a hulk Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron sable and vert, in chevron enhanced three compass stars elongated to base and in base a wolf's head cabossed argent. There is a CD for changing the tincture of all the charges, but the only way to grant the second would be to count the change to type and tincture of the bottom most charge separately from the tincture change to the charges in chief. It was not felt that such a "point count" was reasonable here, especially given that the charges have the appearance of a single group of primary charges rather than that of, say, a primary charge and a secondary group of charges. [12a/93, p.18]
There is one CD for the changes to the field but nothing for the difference between rampant and sejant erect guardant. [12a/93, p.18]
[Returning Per pale azure and vert, three swords conjoined in pall throughout between three mullets argent.] Conflict with ... Gules, three swords in pairle hilts inward argent between a fleur-de-lys in chief and a mullet in each flank of the last. There is a CD for the change to the field; however, the change to the type only of one in the group of three secondary charges was sufficient to grant the second CD. (The precedent that several commenters wanted to apply here does not. Propounded in the Cover Letter of September 6, 1990, p. 2, that precedent states:
[Returning Sable, papelonny argent, an alphyn passant Or.] Visual conflict with ... Vert a heraldic tiger passant Or mane and tuft of the tail argent. There is clearly a CD for the changes to the field, but the visual similarities of the primary charges, combined with the lack of a clear heraldic difference in period, is too strong to grant the necessary second CD. [12a/93, p.18]
Conflict with ... Gules a phoenix Or issuant from flames argent. There is a clear CD for the addition of the bordure but the change to the tincture of the flames, which here constitute no more than one third of the charge, is insufficient for the second necessary CD. [12a/93, p.19]
[Returning Argent, a centipede coiled, head to center, sable.] Conflict with mon illustrated in Matsuya, 109. Though that one is counterchanged and reversed from the one submitted here, there is no difference for reversing the tinctures in "tinctureless" mon nor for reversing the direction of the spiral. [12a/93, p.20]
Conflict with ... Azure, an estoile argent, and with ... Gyronny argent and sable an estoile of seven points argent fimbriated sable. In each case there is a CD for fieldless versus fielded but nothing for the addition or change in tincture of the fimbriation. [12a/93, p.20]
[Returning Vert, issuant from a castle argent, a demi-griffin rampant and in chief three mullets Or.] The device appears to conflict with ... Vert, a tower argent. There is a CD for the addition of the mullets in chief, but nothing for the difference between a castle and a tower, and the demi-griffin here is drawn so small as to be the visual equivalent as a maintained charge. [12a/93, p.22]
Conflict with ... Sable, a sun eclipsed Or. Normally we would be willing to grant a CD between the default six-armed estoile and a sun, but the addition of the tertiary roundel here leaves us with a nearly overwhelming visual similarity. As a consequence, there is only one CD for fieldless versus fielded, and nothing for the type of primary charge nor the tincture of the tertiary roundel. [12a/93, p.22]
[Returning Vert, a pitcher, flames issuant from the mouth, argent.] Conflict with ... Vert, a flower pot argent with gillyflowers issuant gules, leaved vert. There is a CD for the change to the type of primary, but insufficient difference for X.2 to apply. [6/94, p.13]
[Returning Or, a wingless wyvern statant gules.] Conflict with ... Or, a dragon gules. The only difference is for the removal of the wings. [6/94, p.14]
[Returning Sable, on a chevron between three horses rampant argent, three oak leaves vert.] Conflict with ... Sable, on a chevron argent, three trefoils slipped vert. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but the consensus among the commenters was that there was not the substantial difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the necessary second for the change to type of the tertiaries. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Vert, a heron-headed torque argent.] Conflict with ... Vert, an annulet argent. As in earlier returns of other armory in 1991 and 1992, there is only one CD between a torque and an annulet [not substantial difference]. Additionally, some commenters question whether any artifacts with this type of head have ever been found. [5/94, p.20]
It was the consensus among many of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that X.2 should apply between chevrons and chevrons inverted. [4/94, p.6]
[Returning Per bend sinister argent and azure, a lotus blossom in profile and a moose statant contourny counterchanged.] To quote the prior return in the September 1992 LoAR, page 42, "there is a CD for type of primary charges, but because both armories contain a cup-shape flower in dexter chief, we cannot grant sufficient difference of charge per rule X.2" (emphasis added). While there is certainly a CD between the two types of flower, there is not "substantial difference", which is what the application of X.2. requires. As a consequence, the prior conflict must stand, because the type of all of the group of charges is [not] "substantially changed". [4/94, p.16]
[Returning Per pale sable and argent, a fret counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per pale sable and argent, two double-bitted axes in saltire, fretted with a mascle counterchanged. There is only one CD [not substantial difference] for the changes to the group of primary charges. [4/94, p.18]
[Registering Vert, on a lozenge argent, a cat sejant guardant sable.] Versus ... Vert, on a lozenge between in chief two trefoils slipped argent, a gryphon sejant sable, there is clearly a CD for the removal of the trefoils, and in this case we can see granting the second for the change to the type only of the tertiaries per X.4.j.ii, given the significant change in outline which the eagle's head and wings make to the outline of the critter. [3/94, p.3]
[Returning Per fess argent and gules, a seawolf counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per fess argent and gules, a sea-unicorn counterchanged. There is clearly a CD for the change to type of the primary charge; however, though we can see applying X.2 to unicorns and wolves, when they both have fish-tails, the differences between them are lessened to such a point that we do not believe X.2 can reasonably be applied. [3/94, p.15]
[Returning Per fess sable and argent, a cross botonny Or charged with a rose gules, barbed and seeded proper.] In keeping with the commentary and subsequent December 1993 return of the badge of Anton Tremayne, the weight of commentary was that this conflicts with ... Gules, a cross bottony voided Or, with one CD for the change to the field but without the necessary second for the change to type only of the tertiary. [3/94, p.17]
[Returning Vert, a pedestalled sundial, and on a chief argent three quatrefoils slipped and leaved vert.] Conflict with ... Vert, a castle argent portalled and masoned sable, on a chief argent three oak leaves vert. There are simply not enough outline or visual differences between this sundial and a tower, or between the tertiary oak leaves and the quatrefoils, to get the necessary two Clear Differences. [I.e. neither difference is substantial.] [3/94, p.20]
[Returning Argent, a serpent glissant palewise sable between flaunches gules.] Conflict with ... Argent, a wingless sea-dragon between two flaunches gules. Though there may be sufficient technical difference, and though there is clearly a CD between [the] serpent and [the] sea-dragon, the visual resemblances between the two lizards are too great to grant sufficient difference here. [3/94, p.20]
[I]t was the opinion of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that there is sufficient difference between a sun in its splendor and a leopard's head jessant-de-lys [as tertiaries] to apply X.4.j.ii. for the second CD. [2/94, p.5]
[T]here is a CD for ... the differences between a spider and an ant. While we would probably not grant sufficient difference between the two, when they are used as the primary charge, a CD can be granted. [2/94, p.6]
[Returning Gules, a patriarchal cross bottony throughout Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross botonny Or. There may be a CD for the change to the type of cross, but there cannot be sufficient difference between [them]. [2/94, p.13]
[Returning Or, on a fess sable between three roses azure, three spur rowels Or.] Conflict with ... Or, on a fess sable, three estoiles of the first. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but though the change in type between spur rowels/mullets and estoiles is generally worth a CD, they lack the substantial difference in type necessary to apply X.4.j.ii., which is needed here for the second CD. [2/94, p.17]
As this could equally well be blazoned (as Papworth has done with similar designs), Sable an inescutcheon argent charged with an eagle sable all within a bordure argent semy of lozenges sable, it conflicts with ... Sable an escutcheon argent within a bordure of the last charged with billets of the first. There is one CD for the addition of the tertiary eagle, but because this is not simple armory as defined in RfS X.4.j.2., there is nothing for changing the type only of the tertiary charges on the bordure. [1/94, p.14]
[Returning On a tankard azure a billet Or.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} On a beaker azure a dolphin hauriant Or. There is one CD for the fieldless difference, but the modest changes in type of primary are insufficient for the second, and X.4.j.ii. does not apply to the difference in type of tertiary charges here. [1/94, p.14]
[Returning Gules, on a flame Or a mullet gules, a chief embattled Or.] Conflict with ... Gules on a sun Or a cross of St. Anthony gules a chief embattled Or. There is one CD for the change to type of the primary charge, but not a second for the change to type only of the tertiaries [implying that there is not substantial or X.2 difference between a flame and a sun]. [1/94, p.16]
[Returning {field} on a key cross throughout argent a county coronet gules.] Conflict with ... Per bend sinister gules and argent, in dexter chief a key cross nowy pierced argent. There is a CD for the field, but the change in position of the cross [in the latter] device is forced by the field. As the cross here is not an ordinary or "similarly simple" geometric design, X.4.j.ii. cannot apply to the change in type only of the tertiary charge. [12a/93, p.20]
[Returning Per pale argent and purpure, in pale a Viking tent arch and a unicorn statant counterchanged.] The College has not previously registered a "Viking tent arch" as a charge. As a consequence, this registration ... would be the "defining instance", and we need some documentation for it: either that it appeared in period armory in this form or that it is a period artifact and that this is its standard or typical form. [5/94, p.17]
[Returning Or, on a fess sable between three roses azure, three spur rowels Or.] Conflict with ... Or, on a fess sable, three estoiles of the first. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but though the change in type between spur rowels/mullets and estoiles is generally worth a CD, they lack the substantial difference in type necessary to apply X.4.j.ii., which is needed here for the second CD. [2/94, p.17]
Conflict with ... Sable, a sun eclipsed Or. Normally we would be willing to grant a CD between the default six-armed estoile and a sun, but the addition of the tertiary roundel here leaves us with a nearly overwhelming visual similarity. As a consequence, there is only one CD for fieldless versus fielded, and nothing for the type of primary charge nor the tincture of the tertiary roundel. [12a/93, p.22]
[Returning Or,in chief on a fess couped sable a fleur-de-lis Or and in base a horse salient [sic].] No one was able to find any period exemplars of fesses either couped or enhanced so far to chief. Without further documentation we are unable to register this motif. [3/94, p.14]
[Registering {Fieldless} A comet fesswise argent.] Clear of ... Azure, a comet fesswise, a dexter point and a sinister point argent. The two points ... not being contiguous, [the latter] cannot accurately be reblazoned as Azure, chapé, and thus leave only one CD for fieldlessness. As it stands, there are CDs for fieldlessness and for removing the peripheral charges (the points). [6/94, p.6]
[Returning Per pale sable and argent, five roundels in saltire counterchanged, a chief gyronny argent and sable.] We would expect that in a chief gyronny that the gyrons would issue from the corners of the chief as opposed to the unusual drawing style used here [with the lines at evenly spaced angles, so that the diagonals met the top and bottom well in from the edges]. [5/94, p.16]
[Returning Azure, a pile inverted ployé argent ermined azure between two cups Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron sable and ermine, in chief two cups covered Or. There is only one CD for the changes to the field, as we have traditionally not granted difference between per chevron, chapé and a pile inverted. [5/94, p.19]
[Returning Plumetty argent and vert, a sledgehammer and overall a single horned anvil reversed sable.] The plumetty field treatment here [the pieces being long, vertical shafts with the tips in chief and curled over; similar to an illustration in Friar's A Dictionary of Heraldry, p.159] does not appear to be a valid period variant. [4/94, p.19]
Master Bruce, in the Cover Letter of 18 September 1992, had a page-long discussion of fields per bend {sinister} bevilled: the version here matches none of the attested forms, but is the inversion of the accep le form found in Legh's Accidence of Armory. At the very least, this would have to be returned for redrawing. However, it was additionally noted that allowing per bend bevilled fields (which normally appeared without charges) to be charged might be considered if the charges were in a balanced arrangement. Unlike charges on each side of a bevilled line do not appear to meet this criterion. [2/94, p.19]
[Returning Barry wavy azure and argent, two dragons combattant gules maintaining between them a sword inverted, all within a laurel wreath Or.] Conflict with ... Barry wavy and per pale azure and argent, two wyverns combattant gules. There is a CD for the addition of the laurel wreath, but the complexity of the two fields makes it difficult to warrant granting a second for the per pale line of [the latter]. [2/94, p.20]
Not even the large emblazon was clearly either a chief urdy or a field per fess urdy. It needs to be redrawn as one or the other. [1/94, p.17]
The field division was blazoned as schneckenweise in the LoI. It was felt, however, that the registered blazon [Per pall inverted arrondy ...] adequately reproduces the emblazon. [12b/93, p.7]
[Registering a field Per fess azure and per pale purpure and Or.] The field division, though somewhat unusual, is sufficiently attested to in period German armory to permit its registration here. [12a/93, p.5]
[Returning a field Per chevron rayonny paly, barry, bendy, bendy sinister Or and sable and gules.] The line of division is not rayonny, but rather alternately indented and a sort of wavy double-crested. The upper portion of the field is far too complex and follows no period exemplars of which we are aware. {One commenter suggested "checky Campbell".} Any one of these would normally be sufficient cause for return. [12a/93, p.21]
[Returning Sable masoned, on a pile argent masoned sable between two hawks' heads erased respectant argent, a hawk striking to sinister gules.] The device lacks the symmetry and balance of period style heraldry, which lack the counterchanging of the field treatment over the primary charge only serves to reinforce. In fact, it reminded more than one commenter (and most of those at the Laurel meeting) of "a bird caught against the wall by a searchlight". A number of commenters questioned the propriety of counterchanging a field treatment over a charge in this manner. Certainly no one was able to find any period exemplars of such, bringing into question the propriety of such a counterchange. [4/94, p.17]
[Returning {Fieldless} A fire arrow Or enflamed proper.] Numerous conflicts ... with {Field}, an arrow Or. In each case there is only one CD for fieldlessness [and nothing for the enflaming]. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning Gules, on a flame the blade of a sword Or, winged argent, a bordure Or semy of roses sable.] The sword loses its identifiability against the "flames" of the same tincture. (One commenter noted its resemblance to a chain saw.) Were the flames drawn larger (and less regularly) and made proper to increase the contrast, this would probably accep le. [2/94, p.17]
Without evidence that ordinaries of flame were used in period armory, or that such are compatible with period armory, we will not register ordinaries of flames. [2/94, p.22]
[Returning Gules, on a flame Or a mullet gules, a chief embattled Or.] Conflict with ... Gules on a sun Or a cross of St. Anthony gules a chief embattled Or. There is one CD for the change to type of the primary charge, but not a second for the change to type only of the tertiaries [implying that there is not substantial or X.2 difference between a flame and a sun]. [1/94, p.16]
Though blazoned as "enflamed argent and azure", the flames were drawn on the large emblazon as "azure, fimbriated argent". We have disallowed fimbriated flames for quite some time. [12a/93, p.15]
[Returning Or, a double rose azure and argent pierced by a sword bendwise sable all within a bordure azure.] Though blazoned as a double rose, the primary is emblazoned as a "rose argent, fimbriated azure"; roses are too complex a charge to fimbriate. [6/94, p.15]
[U]nless there is significant commentary or compelling argument to the contrary, I propose to ban, after the July 1994 Laurel meeting, the further registration of garden roses and rosebuds as charges SCA armory on the grounds that they are not a charge used in period, that the "tea rose" depicted as garden roses in SCA armorial submissions was not a period rose, and that there is an accep le similar charge, the standard heraldic rose, which could be used to similar effect. An additional argument made against garden rosebuds is that we do not register baby fauna; why then should we register baby flora? [3/94c]
Daisies proper are defined as argent, seeded Or. [1/94, p.6]
[Returning {field} three iris blossoms sable, slipped and leaved vert, conjoined at the bases.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three irises in fess argent slipped, conjoined and leaved vert. There is a CD for fielded versus fieldless but nothing for the change to the tincture of the blossoms only. [12a/93, p.15]
The strewn charges are not roses. Indeed, not all of them are five petaled, some having six or seven, and in one case, eight petals. They need to be redrawn as heraldic roses. [12a/93, p.19]
[Returning {Fieldless} A demi-stag argent, armed and unguled, issuant from a rose Or.] The rose as drawn is in trian aspect and extremely difficult to recognize. As a consequence, it loses its identifiability as a rose. {The most common comment was that the stag appeared to be wearing a tutu.} [12a/93, p.22]
[Returning Per pale sable and argent, a fret counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per pale sable and argent, two double-bitted axes in saltire, fretted with a mascle counterchanged. There is only one CD for the changes to the group of primary charges. [4/94, p.18]
[Registering Vert, three apples Or and a chief ermine.] Versus ... Vert, three acorns Or, and ... Vert, three pineapples Or, there are CDs for type of primary charge and addition of the chief. One commenter noted that Papworth put pineapples and apples together, but Parker (p. 462) makes it clear that "pineapples" are what we generally call "pine cones", which are not only visually different enough for a CD, but mundane default puts them stem to base, adding to the visual differences. [4/94, p.14]
[Returning Gules, a chevron embattled potent between two reremice displayed and a tyger rampant Or.] The embattled line of division of the chevron is so badly broken up by the fur that while one can tell readily that "something" is going on there, it takes a little time to determine just exactly what. The complex line of division is simply not "readily identifiable", and ready identification is one of the hallmarks of period style heraldry. [5/94, p.21]
The chief as drawn is not ermine charged with three gouttes de larmes, but rather is "argent, charged alternately with ermine spots sable and gouttes de larmes". If he would redraw the chief with more and smaller ermine spots so that it truly appeared to be ermine (e.g., two rows of spots), it would correct this problem. [1/94, p.16]
[Returning Quarterly gules and argent, a boar's head couped close proper within a bordure Or.] Though blazoned as "proper" and emblazoned as "brown", there does not seem to be a default "proper" for boars (and therefore, boar's heads); there appears to be a wide variation in the coloration of those found in nature. [6/94, p.14]
[Returning Azure, a goat's head couped within a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, two rams heads in bend sinister erased and respectant within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change in number of primary charges [and nothing for type]. [5/94, p.21]
[Registering Vert, on a fess between three eagle's heads erased contourny Or, three fleurs-de-lys sable.] The [secondary] charges were submitted as griffin's heads, but they lack the large ears which distinguishes the griffin's head from the eagle's. [4/94, p.10]
[I]t was the opinion of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that there is sufficient difference between a sun in its splendor and a leopard's head jessant-de-lys [as tertiaries] to apply X.4.j.ii. for the second CD. [2/94, p.5]
Blazoned in the LoI as a bull's skull, the primary was not emblazoned with any skull-like details, but appeared to simply be a bull's head. [2/94, p.13]
[Returning {Fieldless} A dragon's head couped sable.] Conflict with ... Paly argent and gules, a drakkar prow sable. There is ... nothing for difference in type of the charge. [2/94, p.16]
[Returning Azure, in pale a heart distilling gouttes d'Or and a stag's skull caboshed argent within a bordure embattled Or.] The device conflicts with ... Vert, a heart Or between the attires of a stag's head cabossed argent, attired, within a bordure embattled Or. There is only one CD for the tincture of the field. The gouttes, the tincture of the horns, and the difference between a stag's skull cabossed and a stag's head cabossed are insufficient for the necessary CD. [12a/93, p.16]
As this could as easily (and not incorrectly) be blazoned {Fieldless} A heart sable fimbriated Or, this still conflicts with ... Argent a heart sable ... . In addition, as a heart is demonstrably a standard shape for the display of armory in period, this also conflicts with ... Gules a bordure Or, ... Sable a bordure argent, and ... Sable a bordure Or, a label gules. In each case there is only one CD for the change to the field, to the tincture of the bordure, or for removing the label, respectively. [1/94, p.15]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a heart argent a seadragon rampant gules.] Conflict with ... Argent, a wyvern passant gules. There is only one CD for the posture of the monster. Several commenters submitted evidence that heart shapes were used as a medium, albeit only occasionally, for heraldic display in period. See, e.g., Ottfried Neubecker, Heraldry, Sources, Symbols and Meaning, page 76. [12b/93, p.12]
[Returning Gules, two lion-headed serpents nowed in a Wake knot respectant within a bordure Or.] The "extra twist" that each of the serpents have outside the knot renders the identifiability of the knot somewhat problematical. Were the submitter to place the heads on the ends where the tails are now (and vice versa), and straighten out the knot into a more regular Wake knot shape, this should be registrable. As it is, it is being returned for redrawing. [6/94, p.12]
[Returning Per chevron azure and gules, a dragon salient argent, maintaining in its sinister forepaw an egg Or.] The posture of the dragon is ambiguous, being closer to passant bendwise than segreant or salient. As a consequence of this ambiguity, there are several possible conflicts, most no ly ... Azure, a dragon argent. If redrawn with a proper segreant or salient, these conflicts should be clear, with CDs for the changes to the field and for posture of the monster. [6/94, p.13]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a dove volant, wings addorsed, vert the Arabic words "al-'izz wa'l-baqa wa'l-zafar bi-il-a'da" argent.] The "charge" here is not really heraldry, and cannot be dealt with under heraldry's conventions. And with the "corrective" outline added, it is no longer anything that can be documented from Arabic, Persian or Turkish sources. Most of the commenters could not identify the charge as a dove without the blazon, as is required by RfS VII.7.a. The identifiability problem adds to the stylistic problems the calligraphy represents. The writing here isn't really on the dove; it is the dove. And, finally, as has been noted by Laurels before, the fact that an artistic motif can be found in period (and calligraphic animals in Arabic script are found in late period) does not necessarily make such motif accep le for registration as heraldry. [6/94, p.17]
There is a noted problem with the identifiability of the [columbine] flower as drawn. ... Were the submitter to copy the one in the Pictorial Dictionary, with slip and leaf, and without some of the petals at a 90° angle to the others as in the current submission, these changes would probably be sufficient to make the flower adequately identifiable for registration. [5/94, p.14]
[Returning Per bend sinister embattled argent and azure, a ship counterchanged.] Additionally, most of the commenters found the outline of the ship to be too badly broken up by the counterchanging over the complex line of division to be readily identifiable, which itself is a separate grounds for return. [5/94, p.14]
[Returning Per pale sable and Or, a cross formy throughout gules and overall a double-headed eagle-winged wyvern double-queued displayed per pale Or and sable.] The cross is somewhere between a plain Latin cross throughout and a Latin cross formy throughout. As such, it is ambiguous, and needs to be redrawn as one or the other. The overall charge also has problems of ambiguity. The use of eagle's wings make it nearly impossible to distinguish from a double-headed eagle, except the double-queued tail is clearly not a bird's. As this kind of ambiguity is precisely the kind of thing that heraldry seeks to avoid, it should be drawn more clearly as either an eagle or a wyvern. [5/94, p.17]
[Returning Argent, a windmill, sails in cross, within a bordure embattled azure.] The sails of the windmill are effectively invisible here, even on the large emblazon. As a consequence, not only is the primary charge unidentifiable (itself grounds for return), but there are several conflicts [with towers]. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Purpure, a Maltese cross argent surmounted by a Star of David Or, and in chief a dove volant to sinister argent.] The star overlying the cross in this manner is visually confusing and obscures the identity of both charges. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Ermine, a rose proper between three gouttes de larmes, a bordure gules.] The use of gouttes intermingled with ermine spots of about the same size is visually confusing, as, as one commenter noted, the "gouttes get lost among the ermine spots". As they are necessary to clear a conflict with ... Ermine, a rose gules, they must be visually prominent, and they are not here. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning a broadsword inverted quillioned with a holly sprig.] The use of foliage as part of another object creates serious identifiability problems. We need documentation of this sort of motif in period armory before we may register this. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Sable, a compass star elongated gules, fimbriated argent, overall a lion's head cabossed Or ... .] The lion's head is too small; it is just barely overall, which has been reason for return in the past. Another problem is that the "compass star" is drawn almost as a mullet of eight points elongated to base, rather than as a true compass star, compounding the identifiability problem. [3/94, p.15]
The "passion nails" were unidentifiable as such, looking more like oddly-shaped lozenges or modern kites. This is being returned for redrawing. [3/94, p.16]
[Returning Or, a beacon sable flamed gules atop a mount vert, a bordure vert semy of oak leaves Or.] The mount has zero contrast with the bordure, making the base of the device very confusing visually. As with the November 1992 return of a device with an argent gore and an ermine bordure, "The lack of contrast between the [base] and the bordure causes them to blend together, reducing the identifiability of both." (LoAR 11/92, p. 15). Here, the identifiability of the bordure is not lost quite so badly, but the identifiability of the mount is so severely diminished as to be visually confusing. [3/94, p.16]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a sheaf of five lightning bolts Or a pine tree couped proper.] This does not meet the requirements for fieldless badges consisting of one charge surmounting another. The area of intersection is not small and the tree effectively obscures the identification of the lightning bolts. [3/94, p.17]
[Returning Per saltire azure and argent, a butterfly counterchanged between in pale two bezants all within a bordure invected sable.] The butterfly is extremely hard to identify counterchanged on the field, so much so that we are compelled to return this because of unidentifiability. (See RfS VII.7.a., which states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") [3/94, p.19]
[Registration of "a mask of comedy and a mask of tragedy joined in bend", implicitly overturning the instruction from the March 1993 LOAR, p.19, "to separate the charges, not have them overlap".] [2/94, p.3]
[Returning Gules, on a flame the blade of a sword Or, winged argent, a bordure Or semy of roses sable.] The sword loses its identifiability against the "flames" of the same tincture. (One commenter noted its resemblance to a chain saw.) Were the flames drawn larger (and less regularly) and made proper to increase the contrast, this would probably accep le. [2/94, p.17]
[B]ecause of both its thinness and waviness, the [cross of two thornvines wavy] tends to disappear along the lines of partition of the field, making immediate identification a little problematical. [2/94, p.18]
The primary charge [a compass star chief point flory] is halfway between a compass star and a compass rose. As a consequence, its identifiability is problematical. [2/94, p.21]
[Returning Azure, ... a bordure lozengy azure and Or.] The bordure is very odd. As colored on the large emblazon, there is a row of blue demi-lozenges along the chief portion of the azure field, and the bordure and field blend into each other. [1/94, p.14]
While there are many period examples of animate charges barry or paly of two tinctures, no one could find any precedent for a gyronny treatment. As it stands, the tinctures are not really divided evenly around the charge and the gyronny treatment tends to badly confuse its identifiability. [1/94, p.15]
The pinecone is substantially unrecognizable as rendered, appearing here only as a pointed cartouche with cross-hatching. [1/94, p.15]
The chief as drawn is not ermine charged with three gouttes de larmes, but rather is "argent, charged alternately with ermine spots sable and gouttes de larmes". If he would redraw the chief with more and smaller ermine spots so that it truly appeared to be ermine (e.g., two rows of spots), it would correct this problem. [1/94, p.16]
Not even the large emblazon was clearly either a chief urdy or a field per fess urdy. It needs to be redrawn as one or the other. [1/94, p.17]
While technically a neutral charge on the sable field, the mullet [of eight points gyronny azure and Or] was unidentifiable as such at any distance. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance." (RfS VIII.2.) The overwhelming visual image was that of a Maltese cross at an unusual angle on the sable field, with its identifiability as a mullet of eight points completely lost. [12b/93, p.13]
The dragon's gambe in this posture [couped appaumy, maintaining a charge] is extremely difficult to identify. This has been cause for return before (see, e.g., the LoAR of June 1993, p. 21). [12b/93, p.14]
[Returning {Fieldless} A demi-stag argent, armed and unguled, issuant from a rose Or.] The rose as drawn is in trian aspect and extremely difficult to recognize. As a consequence, it loses its identifiability as a rose. {The most common comment was that the stag appeared to be wearing a tutu.} [12a/93, p.22]
This is being returned for redrawing. The chief is far too small. The ram's head is not really couped, nor is it erased. Additionally, as drawn, identifiability is a problem. Several commenters (and those attendees at the Laurel meeting) thought it was a rabbit's head before reading the blazon. [12a/93, p.23]
[Returning Per saltire azure and argent, a butterfly counterchanged between in pale two bezants all within a bordure invected sable.] The butterfly is extremely hard to identify counterchanged on the field, so much so that we are compelled to return this because of unidentifiability. (See RfS VII.7.a., which states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") [3/94, p.19]
[T]here is a CD for ... the differences between a spider and an ant. While we would probably not grant sufficient difference between the two, when they are used as the primary charge, a CD can be granted. [2/94, p.6]
[Registering Argent, two serpents nowed in a Bourchier knot palewise vert, a bordure counter-compony sable and argent.] Versus ... Argent, a Bourchier knot vert, there are CDs for adding the bordure and for the orientation of the knot. [6/94, p.2]
[Returning Gules, two lion-headed serpents nowed in a Wake knot respectant within a bordure Or.] The "extra twist" that each of the serpents have outside the knot renders the identifiability of the knot somewhat problematical. Were the submitter to place the heads on the ends where the tails are now (and vice versa), and straighten out the knot into a more regular Wake knot shape, this should be registrable. As it is, it is being returned for redrawing. [6/94, p.12]
[Registering {Fieldless} On a maple leaf Or a cross formy sable.] Versus ... Sable, on an oak leaf Or a battle-axe sable. there are CDs for fieldless vs. fielded and for maple leaf vs. oak leaf. The two leaves are not so visually similar as to warrant granting no difference between them. [5/94, p.9]
[Returning Sable, on a chevron between three horses rampant argent, three oak leaves vert.] Conflict with ... Sable, on a chevron argent, three trefoils slipped vert. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but the consensus among the commenters was that there was not the substantial difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the necessary second for the change to type of the tertiaries. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Prior Laurel precedent (December 1993 LoAR, p. 12) does not grant a CD between oak leaves and holly leaves. As a consequence this is being returned for the use of two different but heraldically similar charges on a single device. [4/94, p.18]
[Returning Argent, a domino mask of leaves vert within a bordure vert semy of mullets argent.] The primary charge is not really recognizable nor have we seen period exemplars of items such as this constructed of leaves. [4/94, p.19]
[Returning Vert, a pedestalled sundial, and on a chief argent three quatrefoils slipped and leaved vert.] Conflict with ... Vert, a castle argent portalled and masoned sable, on a chief argent three oak leaves vert. There are simply not enough outline or visual differences between this sundial and a tower, or between the tertiary oak leaves and the quatrefoils, to get the necessary two Clear Differences. [I.e. neither difference is substantial.] [3/94, p.20]
[Returning {Fieldless} Three holly leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, fructed gules.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three oak leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, surmounted by an acorn Or. There is a CD for the fieldless difference, but given their similarity in outline, the difference in the type of leaves was insufficient to grant the second. [12b/93, p.12]
[Returning {Fieldless} A Norse sun cross per pale indented Or and gules.] Additionally, ... precedent still disallows armory consisting of a single letter or abstract symbol. [4/94, p.15]
[Returning Per fess gules and azure, a fess dancetty flory Or.] Conflict with ... Azure, a fess dancetty the two upper points fleur-de-lys Or. While there is a CD for the change to the field, the addition of complex changes to an already complex line of division on only the bottom are not sufficient for the necessary second. [6/94, p.17]
[Returning Barry wavy vert and argent, a sea-unicorn contourny azure.] The field needs to be drawn more clearly and boldly wavy; even the large emblazon was more like irregularly "ripply". [5/94, p.17]
[Returning Gules, a chevron embattled potent between two reremice displayed and a tyger rampant Or.] The embattled line of division of the chevron is so badly broken up by the fur that while one can tell readily that "something" is going on there, it takes a little time to determine just exactly what. The complex line of division is simply not "readily identifiable", and ready identification is one of the hallmarks of period style heraldry. [5/94, p.21]
[Returning Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Additionally the bend is drawn halfway between wavy and wavy bretessed. It needs to be redrawn with a proper wavy. [4/94, p.18]
As a general rule, for a complex line of division to be sufficiently "big and bold", along a fess line this most frequently means three "bumps"; along a pale or bend line perhaps as many as five. [12a/93, p.17]
[Registering a standard representation of Saint Agatha.] The College has registered standard depictions of saints before (the most recent being St. George slaying a dragon), and this has not been seen as "reserving to a person the use of the standard depiction of this saint". [6/94, p.4]
[Registering {Fieldless} A comet fesswise argent.] Clear of ... Azure, a comet fesswise, a dexter point and a sinister point argent. The two points ... not being contiguous, [the latter] cannot accurately be reblazoned as Azure, chapé, and thus leave only one CD for fieldlessness. As it stands, there are CDs for fieldlessness and for removing the peripheral charges (the points). [6/94, p.6]
[Returning Vert, a pitcher, flames issuant from the mouth, argent.] Conflict with ... Vert, a flower pot argent with gillyflowers issuant gules, leaved vert. There is a CD for the change to the type of primary, but insufficient difference for X.2 to apply. [6/94, p.13]
[Registering Argent, a pall flory sable between three roses proper, a chief gules.] The presence of a pall patonce dated to 1441 in Papworth ... lends support to this treatment of a pall. [5/94, p.4]
A harp proper is, like all other wooden charges, brown. [5/94, p.10]
[Returning Per chevron vert and azure, two fleurs-de-lys and a standing balance, on a bordure Or, three thorn vines entwined in orle vert.] As noted by one commenter, "The stuff on the bordure is unaccep ly thin-lined and looks like knotwork." We have had a long-standing ban on the registration of knotwork. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Per pale argent and sable, two dragon's tails conjoined in annulo and in chief a viking tent arch, all counterchanged.] A number of commenters also had difficulty identifying the charge in base. Most thought it some kind of torque. And as Green Crown noted: "This rendering of a dragon's tail was declared unregisterable in the August 1992 LOAR (p.27); conjoining two of them only makes things worse." [5/94, p.20]
[Returning Vert, a heron-headed torque argent.] Conflict with ... Vert, an annulet argent. As in earlier returns of other armory in 1991 and 1992, there is only one CD between a torque and an annulet [not substantial difference]. Additionally, some commenters question whether any artifacts with this type of head have ever been found. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning {Fieldless} A lymphad gules sail set argent.] Conflict with ... Or a galley, sails furled and oars in action, gules, flags azure; ... A ship; ... Argent, a boat gules, and ... Or, a boat gules. In each case, there is one CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for ... the sail. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning Or, on a mountain purpure a rose Or.] As noted in the LoAR of September 1993, p. 10, "mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to occupy no more than the lower portion of the field". As in the emblazon here the mountain is sufficiently high so as to immediately be thought of as a per chevron field by most of the commenters and everyone at the Laurel meeting, there are multiple conflicts with "[Field], a rose Or". This needs at the very least to be redrawn so it is identifiable as a mountain rather than a field division. [4/94, p.18]
[Returning Argent, a domino mask of leaves vert within a bordure vert semy of mullets argent.] The primary charge is not really recognizable nor have we seen period exemplars of items such as this constructed of leaves. [4/94, p.19]
[Returning Azure, on a fess Or between three caltraps argent a brown feather proper.] The consensus of the commentary was that a "brown feather proper" is not an appropriate use of a non-heraldic tincture for a charge. Laurel precedent concurs. "The wing was blazoned on the letter of intent and the forms as proper and is in fact brown so it cannot be reblazoned in any heraldic tincture. If there had been any method of determining what sort of wing this was intended to be, we would have pended this for appropriate commentary and conflict-checking. However, the depiction of the wing is such that ... it was exceedingly unclear what type of wing this should be." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 31 December 1989, p. 25) We believe this to be equally true of feathers. [4/94, p.20]
Unless there is significant commentary or compelling argument to the contrary, I propose to ban, after the July 1994 Laurel meeting, the further registration of snowflakes as charges SCA armory on the grounds that they are not a charge used in period and that there is an accep le similar charge, the escarbuncle, which could be used to the same effect. [3/94c]
[Registering {Fieldless} In pale two triangles, points to center, conjoined gules.] This is clear of ... An hourglass gules, with CDs for fieldlessness and for differences to the charge (removing the frame). [3/94, p.6]
The "passion nails" were unidentifiable as such, looking more like oddly-shaped lozenges or modern kites. This is being returned for redrawing. [3/94, p.16]
[Returning Gules, an axe and in chief three drinking horns Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a broad axe argent, the handle sable, the blade turned to dexter. There is one CD for the addition of the charges in chief but nothing for the change of tincture to the haft only. [3/94, p.16]
[Registration of "a mask of comedy and a mask of tragedy joined in bend", implicitly overturning the instruction from the March 1993 LOAR, p.19, "to separate the charges, not have them overlap".] [2/94, p.3]
The primary charge is neither a classic "triskele" or "triskelion pometty", both of which are shown in the Pictorial Dictionary. As something halfway between the two, we are returning this for consultation with the submitter and redrawing as one or the other. [2/94, p.16]
As emblazoned, the [great wave] in base could be better blazoned, and is more recognizable, as a base wavy crested, which is not a [registerable] charge. [2/94, p.17]
[Returning Azure, on a cloud argent, a horseshoe inverted sable.] Conflict with ... Azure, a Boreas affronty argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the tertiary, and even that is minimal because it lies where the "face" of [the] Boreas is. [2/94, p.18]
[C]onjoined eighth notes are a post-period form of music notation. [2/94, p.18]
As noted in the LoAR of 17 October 1993, p. 17, there is not a CD between a snowflake and an escarbuncle. [2/94, p.19]
[Returning Or, a hunting horn reversed gules, stringed azure, and a chief checky argent and gules.] Conflict with ... Or, a buglehorn stringed and virolled gules. There is only one CD, for the addition of the chief [implying that there is no CD for reversing the horn]. [2/94, p.20]
The use of lightning bolts as charges in and of themselves is an SCA innovation, the use of a lightning bolt in annulo is therefore [two] steps from period practice. This is farther then we are willing to go. [2/94, p.22]
[Registering a "drakkar prow".] In its prior submission, Lord Laurel indicated that the charge would be accep le if submitted in a standard heraldic tincture. The submitters have done so. [1/94, p.4]
We blazon the type of pawprints for the same reason that we blazon specific types of sword; it may not grant any heraldic difference, but there are sufficient differences in the various types to warrant mentioning in the blazon. [1/94, p.10]
[Returning On a tankard azure a billet Or.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} On a beaker azure a dolphin hauriant Or. There is one CD for the fieldless difference, but the modest changes in type of primary are insufficient for the second, and X.4.j.ii. does not apply to the difference in type of tertiary charges here. [1/94, p.14]
The pinecone is substantially unrecognizable as rendered, appearing here only as a pointed cartouche with cross-hatching. [1/94, p.15]
[Returning Azure, a wolf's fang within a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure a shark's tooth point downwards proper. There is only one CD for the addition of the bordure. [1/94, p.16]
"Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts, in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and not in conjunction." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 4/92, p. 19) No documentation was presented to contradict this precedent. As a consequence, the precedent disallowing the use of dexter and/or sinister points remains in place. [12b/93, p.10]
[Returning "a triskelion of scythes".] Lord Laurel deeply appreciates the amount of thought and consideration which went into this appeal and its ensuing discussion. However, the evidence presented by the commenters on this issue indicate that indeed a "significant segment of the Society" (see RfS I.2.), consisting of both heralds and non-heralds, sees the primary charge of this submission and immediately identifies it with the symbol "strongly associated" with the Afrikaaner Weerstandsbeweging, a white supremacist group whose members and symbols have been photographed for and published in a number of news magazines with worldwide publication. Given this association by a significant segment of heralds and non-heralds from a wide range of geographical locations, Laurel cannot in good conscience give this motif the Society's "seal of approval" by registering it. [12b/93, p.10]
[Returning {Fieldless} A tri-mount couped Or.] Conflict with ... Sable, a two-peaked mountain couped Or, capped argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness but nothing for the artistic variation of the mountain. [12a/93, p.15]
This is being returned for redrawing of the secondaries. Mamluke rosettes, as defined for SCA heraldry, and as found on period artifacts, have only six arms. [12a/93, p.16]
Additionally, we have the problem that an "arbor" is not a defined heraldic charge. [12a/93, p.17]
The badge, as drawn, is not a fireball, but a pellet between four separate flames. [12a/93, p.19]
[Returning Or, a wingless wyvern statant gules.] Conflict with ... Or, a dragon gules. The only difference is for the removal of the wings. [6/94, p.14]
[Returning Or, three wolves passant regardant conjoined by the tail in pall within an annulet gules.] There were no period exemplars of either beasts conjoined at the tails or for this type of rotational symmetry to which any of the commenters could point. All of the tricorporate beasts we could find had a single head; conjoining at the tails does not appear to be period style. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Per pale vert and argent, two Oriental dragons combattant counterchanged within a bordure sable.] The dragons are not combattant; indeed, no one was able to come up with a good blazon for their posture here ("combattant demi-tergiant"? "combattant displayed aversant"?). As a consequence, we are unable to register them. [5/94, p.18]
[Registering Per pale sable and gules, a Norse Jelling beast argent within a bordure Or.] For better or worse, the currently defined, already-registered Norse beasts continue to be accep le. As the Jelling beast is one of those, we did not feel that we could reasonably deny it here. [4/94, p.14]
[Returning Azure, a German panther rampant contourny argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a panther rampant argent, crowned Or. There is but one CD, for the orientation of the monster. [Implying no CD between types of panther.] [4/94, p.17]
[Returning Azure, a bogbeast rampant, within a bordure embattled argent, semy of clusters of berries sable.] As was noted in the January 1993 [LOAR, p.2], the bogbeast is grandfathered