The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
Compiled and edited by Rouland CarreArmory Precedents by Letter
A B C D E
F G H I-J K
L M N O P-Q
R S T-V W-Z
Name Precedents by Letter
A-B C D E
F G
H I J-K L
M N O
P-Q R S-V
W-Z
Introduction
This work contains rulings of precedential relevance from the latter part of the second tenure of Master Da’ud ibn Auda as Laurel King of Arms of the Society for Creative Anachronism, covering the period from July, 1994 through the end of his tenure in June, 1996. During the second half of this time, from June, 1995 through June, 1996, Master Talan Gwynek served as Pelican King of Arms. As Pelican he made rulings on names and name issues. While Master Da’ud had the final authority, the name precedents from this period were written by Master Talan. The selection of material for this collection is my own, and with dreary inevitability it must disclaimed that this is not an official publication of the Society for Creative Anachronism nor its College of Arms. For the official texts of registrations and returns the reader is directed to the original documents.
I have tried to maintain a format consistent with previous collections of precedents. In particular, I have retained the practice of my immediate predecessor in dividing name and armory rulings into their own separate sections. I have retained the practice of my last two predecessors in including the name attached to the submission, rather than the older practice of citing by letter and page number alone. The subdivisions are my own, consistent as much as possible with those of the Ordinary and of previous compilations as is practicable.
There are two innovations in this compilation. All rules changes have been collected in Appendix A. (They are for the most part not included in the body.) Appendix B is included in recognition of the unique circumstances surrounding the implementation of the Modest Proposal. In addition to the initial implementation list, there were a significant number of rulings on non-SCA armory proposed for registration in the SCA. There is precedential interest in which were or were not registered, so this is given as Appendix B. Readers interested in the initial implementation list itself are directed to the original document.
The texts listed are taken directly from Letters of Acceptance and Return (LoAR), or in a few cases from the accompanying cover letters (CL). Text in [square brackets] is mine, providing editorial comment, summaries of omitted text, or replacing specific charges or names with more generally applicable versions. In those rare instances where Laurel used square brackets in the original text I have replaced them with {round brackets}. I use ellipses (...) to indicate deleted text, except at the beginning or end of an excerpt where deleted text is left unmarked. Minor corrections to spelling or grammar are left unmarked, as are my own contributions of such errors. The source of the text is cited at the end in round parentheses, by submitter's name, date of the LoAR, and page number of the LoAR. Those texts excepted from a cover letter are cited by “CL” and the date of the cover letter.
There are several instances where members of the College of Arms are mentioned by their heraldic title. The individuals holding these titles during this period are:
Green Crown: Owen ap Morgan
Palimpsest (Talan Gwynek before June 1996, Rouland Carre thereafter)
Baron Bruce: Baron Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, former Laurel King of Arms
Pelican: Talan Gwynek
Ensign: Cateline de la Mor
Harpy: Tangwystl verch Morgant Glasfryn
Black Dove: Colm Dubh
Silver Crescent: Allison MacDermot
Albion: Juhana Maununpoika Kivisuo
I wish to thank those who have helped me in this endeavor, in particular Da’ud ibn Auda and Zenobia Naphtali for their constructive advice.
In service,
Rouland Carre
Palimpsest Herald of Arms
mka Richard R. Hershberger
A B C D E F G H I-J K L M N O P-Q R S T-V W-Z
A-B C D E F G H I J-K L M N O P-Q R S-V W-Z
APPENDIX B: NON-SCA ARMORY
ARMORY REGISTERED
ARMORY NOT REGISTERED
[a wine amphora vs various charges] There
was general agreement that there is a CD between a wine amphora and a goblet,
cup, tankard, and ink flask, the only potential conflicts that could be
found. (Lina Hen, 5/95 p. 2)
[returning "a quadruply-towered Eastern castle"] No one could create an adequate blazon for the primary charge, and it does not appear to follow any specific architectural type that could be blazoned. An "Eastern castle" does not appear in any of the general reference books of heraldic charges Laurel was able to consult, nor has it been registered before in the SCA. Laurel would note that the castle does not appear to match any middle eastern or Indian architecture he has seen in his studies of those areas (though he remembers seeing a not too dissimilar edifice in one of the early Sinbad movies.) As a consequence, this must be returned because the primary charge cannot be reconstructed from the blazon (as required by RfS VII.7.b), nor can it be readily identified from its appearance alone (as required by RfS VII.7.a). (Fucha de la Rua, 8/95 p. 19)
Though no columns fracted have been registered before, this seems a reasonable extension of the already-registered sword fracted. (Shimshon Aryeh ben Avraham, 11/95 p. 9)
[registering a bridge of three
arches throughout...the streams transfluent gules] This motif of water
flowing through the arches of a bridge, though unusual in the SCA, is both
period and more common in mundane heraldry (Grímr Víthfari,
5/96 p. 6)
An unfletched arrow is visually
and heraldically indistinguishable from a lance (Trimaris, Kingdom of,
2/96 p. 21)
[an armillary sphere vs an astrolabe or a sphere] There is in each case a CD (at least) for the change in type. (Brian Caradoc Walsh, 9/94 p. 11)
The difference between this astrolabe
(which is missing its chart, the back plate) and an armillary sphere, which
amounts to another round thing with openwork tracery, is insufficient to
grant [a CD]. (Malcolm of Fife, 6/95 p. 26)
The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the Dragon Principal Herald is ... troublesome for a couple of reasons. One is that we have not previously allowed armory, even as an augmentation, to be an identical version of the armory of a group or office, whether or not a letter of permission to conflict existed. (See, e.g., the discussion of the proposed augmentation for Jan w Orzeldom, LoAR April 1992, p. 17: "There is also some question whether an individual or a group can grant the right to their undifferenced arms for use by someone else. The use of letters of permission to conflict (which is what Laurel considers the petition by the members of the Barony of Bjornsborg to be) in the College has always been to allow a reduced standard of difference, not to allow the use of arms undifferenced. It is Laurel's belief that the only way the use of arms registered to one party may be granted undifferenced to another is to transfer those arms, with the appropriate letters signed by both parties transferring the arms and accepting them.") (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
...it was a period practice for
the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal
arms. This does not appear to apply to
former holders of the office,
but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to
be a claim to be the current Dragon Principal Herald, which does then fall
afoul of our rules against the claim to "status or powers the submitter
does not possess" (RfS XI). (Fiona Averylle
of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
[registering a reremouse inverted] While the inversion of the bat is unusual, it remains (even at a distance) identifiable... Because of the bird-like nature of the bat, we believe that it should be allowed a posture which is not so very different from "migrant to base", which posture has not been disallowed under the ban on "inverted creatures" noted in the September 1993 LoAR. [The badge was registered.] (Devora Risee de Apors, 9/94 p. 5)
[returning a bat close inverted] The bat is not at all identifiable in this posture. (Kiera Nighthawk, 9/94 p. 18)
[a panther rampant guardant argent spotted sable incensed gules vs. a lion rampant argent] There is a CD for type for the difference between the cats, but that is all. [I.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference.] (Ulfhethinn the Bold, 8/94 p. 15)
[a snow leopard spotted vs various unspotted cats] [There is a CD] for the addition of the spots (effectively a semy, and worth the same CD as any addition of a tertiary charge or tertiary charge group). (Marke von Mainz, 5/95 p. 2)
[a lion passant vs a cat
s'elongeant] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated the overwhelming
similarity of the postures of the two cats. (Anthony Navarre, 4/96 p. 18)
[a hare vs a rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attires argent] [There is a CD] for the removal of the attires, which a comparison of the emblazons showed to be the visual equivalent of removing wings, for which we also grant a CD. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, 5/95 p. 9)
[an otter couchant vs a ferret statant guardant] It is extremely hard to tell the difference between statant and couchant on very short-legged critters like otters and ferrets; so much so that a visual comparison of the emblazons showed very little difference between them. [No CD was given.] (Iain MacDhugal Cameron of Ben Liath, 5/95 p. 10)
A cameleopard, or giraffe, proper
is Or marked brown/tan; as such, it lacks sufficient contrast against
the argent field. (Ceridwen Alianora McInnes, 6/95 p. 21)
The bear was blazoned as statant displayed in the LoI, but there was a consensus among the commenters that displayed is an avian posture inappropriate for beasts (as, for example, rampant is a quadrupedal posture inappropriate for birds). [It was blazoned as statant erect affronty] (Grimhun Hroth, 7/95 p. 1)
[returning a sloth pendent] RfS
VIII.4.c. notes that "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable
charges may not be registered. Excessively natural designs include those
that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures, ..." The sloth here
appears to be simply a photocopy of a drawing of the natural animal. It
is certainly in no heraldic posture, even inverted, and no one was able
to suggest either (1) a blazonable posture for it, or (2) that this would
be the default posture for a sloth. (Sven
Örfendur, 10/95 p. 18)
[a mouse vs a gopher] [There is] nothing
for type between two rodents. (Roisin Rhys, 11/95 p. 15)
[a hornless goat's head vs a mountain goat's head] There is a clear point for...the addition of the very prominent horns. (Tinoran's charge is a mountain goat, drawn with horns nearly as long as a gazelle's, and not a mountain sheep with the circular "Princess Leia bun" circular horns, which would not have as great a visual impact). (Lucia del Mar, 2/96 p. 14)
[a stag vs an ibex] There [is]
a CD between a stag and an ibex, though X.2., Sufficient Difference, [does]
not apply between the two. (Declan de Burgo, 6/96 p. 6)
[registering a zebra proper] Though several commenters recommended blazoning the charge here as argent, striped sable, it seems that this is a "widely understood default coloration" and is therefore permissible to blazon as proper. (Sarmasia Lakadaimoniote, 5/95 p. 3)
[a zebra proper vs a horse argent] [There
is a CD] for the addition of the stripes, which are
easily equivalent to the addition of a tertiary charge, which is given
a CD in the Rules for Submissions. (Sarmasia Lakadaimoniote, 5/95
p. 3)
Though blazoned as a dove on the LoI, the bird here has none of the distinguishing features of a dove. There is a CD for the field but nothing for type of primary charge between a generic bird and any other specific bird. (Anna of Eichenwald, 8/94 p. 14)
The Japanese crane displayed in annulo was returned for being not identifiable some time ago, having more in common with roundels and crescents than European renditions of birds. (Patrick Donovan of Warwick, 9/94 p. 16)
[a peacock vert vs a peacock proper] Conflict with...only one CD for the addition of the [secondary charge]. (As noted before, a peacock proper has a vert body). [I.e. there is no CD for tincture.] (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 12)
[a bird striking vs a bird rising, wings elevated and displayed] ...there is a CD ...for the dramatic change in the posture and orientation of the bird's wings (elevated and addorsed vs displayed). (Sasha Dmitrievich Dozortsev, 12/94 p. 4)
[corbies close respectant vs doves respectant] The difference in type of bird is insufficient for [a CD]. (Ástrídr Oddsdóttir, 12/94 p. 12)
[a falcon dexter wing expanded and inverted vs an eagle rising, wings displayed] Particularly when applied to the primary charge, "close, dexter wing expanded and inverted" is a significant outline change from "rising, wings displayed". (Friedrich der Falkner, 1/95 p. 5)
[returning Per pale gules and sable, an eagle checky Or and gules] The checky Or and gules eagle is completely unidentifiable on the gules portion of the field. While we have allowed checky ordinaries to share a tincture with the field, their simple outline makes it obvious what they are and identifiability is not lost. Here, because of the complex outline of the charge, that is not the case. (Rolland von Fries, 1/95 p. 13)
Regarding the potential conflict with Knowles (Papworth, p. 310), Azure, a hawk seizing a partridge argent on a chief of the last three bolts of the first, there is a CD for the changes to the tertiaries, and because we are unable to find any definition of the posture "seizing", which could as well be similar to striking (which would be a CD from rising) as trussing (which would not), we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt here. (Mairghread Sgoilear, 4/95 p. 6)
[a goose displayed vs an eagle displayed] The goose displayed is insufficiently different from an eagle displayed to grant a CD. (Thosheim, Canton of, 5/95 p. 12)
[a parrot vs a falcon] Though X.4.e. would normally grant a CD for difference between charges considered different in period, the bird here is drawn so that it appears to be more falcon-like than parrot-like, making this a visual conflict. (Aleksandr the Traveller, 6/95 p. 25)
[geese enraged vs martlets] There is a CD for the change in posture (enraged has the wings expansed, and bodies in more of a "rising" posture), and another, given the clearly separate heraldic identity of the two birds in period, for type of bird. (Ceri of Caermarthen, 9/95 p. 4)
[a bird rising wings displayed vs a bird displayed] [There is a CD] for the posture of the primary charge; rising is basically bendwise while displayed has the body clearly palewise. (Lucia Ottavia da Siena, 9/95 p. 14)
[returning a red-tail hawk proper] Though under the new precedent for animals proper, we could have registered this had it been emblazoned as brown or even, presumably, brown with red tail feathers, the bird on the submission forms was quite clearly drawn as a red-tailed hawk in light phase proper. (According to the sources we checked, the red-tailed hawk also has a "dark phase".) This is exactly the type of "Linnaean heraldry" that has been banned for some time now, for the reason that one would have to consult a specialized non-heraldic source (in this case, a book on North American birds) to adequately reproduce the emblazon from a blazon. RfS VIII.4.c. notes that "[Proper] is not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other elaborate description) would be required to get it right." Such is the case here. (Hachille de Remiercourt, 12/95 p. 18)
A bird passant, that is to
say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close.
(Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
[a bear rampant contourny sustaining a halberd] Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as Green Crown noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny handle will always have difficulty matching the visual weight of other charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about the same as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. (Wynn of Naevehjem, 9/94 p. 9)
The commentary is in, with a clear majority of commenters in favor of adopting Baron Bruce's proposal that we continue to accept garden roses in SCA armory, but simply blazon them as roses. As a consequence, we will immediately and henceforth blazon a rose, whether the default heraldic rose or the garden rose, as a rose. (CL 11/94)
The swords were originally blazoned as "three swords in triangle". The problem with that blazon, however, is that it leaves one wondering where to stop (in estoile, in mullet of six points, in fleam, in lion rampant?). The blazon as modified and registered seems the most appropriate. [It was blazoned as a triangle of three swords] (Leon von Schrecken, 11/94 p. 10)
The rule of thumb which has been applied recently in attempting to determine whether a charge was relatively small (and therefore maintained, and too small to count for a CD) or relatively large (sustained, and large enough to count for a CD), is whether if the two charges were separated they would be seen as a primary charge and a secondary charge or as a set of two primary charges. (Winifred Corbet de Wynterwood, 12/94 p. 3)
[Per chevron, a chevron and in base a <charge>] Though, as a number of commenters noted, the field division and chevron were drawn higher on the field than normal, in a design like this the chevron will normally be enhanced. It is not necessary to blazon the fact. (Andrew of Cork, 12/94 p. 5)
[registering the blazon a phoenix rousant wings addorsed] The phoenix is not truly "rising", a posture which for phoenices is the equivalent of "displayed". We have modified the blazon to better match the emblazon. (Battle Rock, Canton of, 2/95 p. 9)
Though blazoned in the LoI as a ducal coronet, the coronet here does not match the SCA ducal coronet, which consists of a band decorated solely with four strawberry leaves. As there appears to be no blazon adequate to recreate the specific form here, we are blazoning it simply as a coronet. (Anton Tremayne, 4/95 p. 2)
Blazoned in the LoI as a Maltese cross, the primary charge does not have the arms meeting in the center at a point, one of the defining characteristics of a Maltese cross. [It was registered as a cross formy swallowtailed] (Ranulf Throckmorton, 5/95 p. 9)
The bear was blazoned as statant displayed in the LoI, but there was a consensus among the commenters that displayed is an avian posture inappropriate for beasts (as, for example, rampant is a quadrupedal posture inappropriate for birds). [It was blazoned as statant erect affronty] (Grimhun Hroth, 7/95 p. 1)
The cross was blazoned in the LoI as recercely; this term appears to be an ambiguous one and should not be used in SCA blazon, much as we no longer use forceny, and for the same underlying reason: its ambiguity. "English heraldic writers seem, however, to have made two words, recercele and sarcelly, and have implied that they are of different origin and meaning; but there is no agreement as to what those meanings were. The French heralds seem equally at fault." (Parker, p. 494). Given this confusion among heraldists, the terms should be avoided in SCA blazon. (Merrick Xavier, 9/95 p. 3)
Blazoned in the LoI and drawn on the emblazon as "four-lobed" roses, evidence was presented that the number of petals on roses was not blazoned in period, whether of four petals or more, and so we have blazoned these simply as "roses". As a consequence, we will no longer make a distinction among roses based on the number of petals. As with garden roses, a "rose is a rose", whether of five, six, or four petals. (Eleanor de Broke, 10/95 p. 4)
A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close. (Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
We have decided to bring the SCA back in line with real world heraldry, at least in one area. Spurs will be palewise, rowel to chief by default. Prior registrations of spurs in the former SCA default in the A&O will be corrected to "fesswise in profile, rowel to sinister". (Harrys Rob of Wamphray, 2/96 p. 2)
[returning a bow reversed sustained by a sinister cubit
arm] The cubit/bow combination is insufficiently distinguishable from
a crossbow. (Cyril Bowman, 11/94 p. 12)
Buckets have not previously been
registered in the SCA. As the defining instance, we normally require extra
documentation for a new charge. Fortunately, Parker, p. 79, and Elvin,
pl. 39, document something very close to what is drawn here as a bucket.
These are, indeed, quite identifiable as buckets, and the term itself
is period. Given that buckets may be made from wood, leather, and metal,
we have determined that the default bucket is the wooden one; leather or
metal buckets must be so specified. (Marcan O Brien, 10/95 p. 12)
[a candle enflamed vs. a candle and candlestick flammant] A visual check of the files indicates that [the] candlestick is the vertical type and therefore insufficient to grant a CD, leaving us with only the fieldless difference. (Thecla Doria of Andritsaena, 8/94 p. 15)
[considering ...two swords each
surmounted by a tankard argent...] The tankards, being of the same
tincture as the swords, tend to become confused with them visually, making
identifiability problematical. (See RfS VII.7.a.) That being the case,
they cannot truly count as the addition of another group of charges, but
are as a modification to the swords. (Dafydd ap Morgan ap Gwydion, 2/96
p. 20)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head]
There is...nothing for single-headed chess knight versus horse's head.
(Jonathan Thorne, 9/94 p. 18)
Column see Architecture
[a compass rose vs a compass star] [There
is a CD] for the difference between a compass rose
with its prominent annulet and a compass star. (Northshield, Principality
of, 9/95 p. 15)
[returning Per bend sinister argent and checky bendwise argent and gules, a bend sinister Or...] The field here, being half metal and half color and metal, is not a neutral field, but is 75% metal. Thus, the bend sinister is in violation of RfS VIII.2.a. and VIII.2.b.i. (Elrich the Wanderer, 4/95 p. 9)
A cameleopard, or giraffe, proper is Or marked brown/tan; as such, it lacks sufficient contrast against the argent field. (Ceridwen Alianora McInnes, 6/95 p. 21)
[returning Quarterly argent and
argent semy of fir trees] "Semy should cover a defined area,
not part of a field. The effect here is visually confusing and unbalanced."
[Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR 10 Mar 85, p.14] That is the case here. It is
impossible to tell where the argent ends and the argent with semy begins,
making the device visually confusing and unbalanced. (Sophia de Forest,
2/96 p. 19)
As noted by several commenters, there is no defined viscomital coronet, "either as a physical entity or an heraldic convention." As noted in the return of Lucan von Drachenklaue (LoAR November 1991), "Viscounts and Viscountesses may use the default heraldic coronet (a crown indented of three points) if they so choose." ...we are returning this for redrawing. (Morgan fitz Arthur de Grey, 8/94 p. 17)
Though blazoned in the LoI as a
ducal
coronet, the coronet here does not match the SCA ducal coronet, which
consists of a band decorated solely with four strawberry leaves. As there
appears to be no blazon adequate to recreate the specific form here, we
are blazoning it simply as a coronet. (Anton Tremayne, 4/95 p. 2
Like any other charge which is longer than it is wide,
crampons are palewise by default. (Vladimir Zinonovich, 10/94 p. 4)
[registering a crescent fimbriated] Though legal, the fimbriation of the crescent is not very good style. (Tigranes of Bezabde, 2/95 p. 5)
...the "increscent double enarched"
is not a period charge and cannot be reliably reproduced from the blazon.
The most recent registration (of only two) in the Armorial and Ordinary
was decade ago. As has been noted by many who held this office before,
we are not bound by the mistakes of the past. We need documentation for
the use of this charge before we register it. (Sarasi Candrah, 6/95
p. 23)
[a Canterbury cross vs a cross potent quadrate ] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross (straight arms vs. formy, plus the markedly rounded ends vs. straight) (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[Canterbury cross vs a cross patty] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross. (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[a crosses patonce vs a cross patty] There [is a CD] for changing...the type...of the charge(s). (Elwyn Tenways, 1/95 p. 2)
[a cross formy vs a Bowen cross] ... Thus this is clear by application of X.2 for significant change of type of the primary charges. [editor's note: Laurel apparently meant that there is a substantial difference between these charges] (Grimbaldus Bacon, 5/95 p. 7)
Blazoned in the LoI as a Maltese cross, the primary charge does not have the arms meeting in the center at a point, one of the defining characteristics of a Maltese cross. [It was registered as a cross formy swallowtailed] (Ranulf Throckmorton, 5/95 p. 9)
[a patriarchal cross vs a cross of Toulouse] There is one CD for the change to the type of cross, but the "voiding" of the cross of Toulouse is a part of its definition and is not the addition of a tertiary charge. (John of Blackhawk, 8/95 p. 22)
The cross was blazoned in the LoI as recercely; this term appears to be an ambiguous one and should not be used in SCA blazon, much as we no longer use forceny, and for the same underlying reason: its ambiguity. "English heraldic writers seem, however, to have made two words, recercele and sarcelly, and have implied that they are of different origin and meaning; but there is no agreement as to what those meanings were. The French heralds seem equally at fault." (Parker, p. 494). Given this confusion among heraldists, the terms should be avoided in SCA blazon. (Merrick Xavier, 9/95 p. 3)
[registering a cross potent engrailed] Some commenters questioned the use of a complex line on an already complex cross. There is sufficient support for such a treatment from period and post-period non-SCA arms (e.g., Peshale, Argent, a cross flory engrailed sable; Cottez, Argent, a cross moline engrailed sable; Peshall, Argent, a cross patty throughout engrailed sable, (these arms also appear to exist with the cross not throughout); Coley, Argent, a cross patty throughout wavy sable; and Cotter, Argent, a cross sarcelly engrailed sable). (Ghislaine d'Auxerre, 10/95 p. 9)
Fitching a cross is not worth [a CD]. (Wolfger of Rheinfelden, 11/95 p. 15)
[a fret vs a Bowen cross]A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
[returning a Jerusalem cross fimbriated] It is Laurel's belief that a cross potent, the central cross in a cross of Jerusalem, falls into the same "too complex to fimbriate" category as roses and suns. Even were that not felt to be the case, however, the amount of fimbriation, of both the cross potent and the four surrounding crosses couped, is excessive and sufficient grounds for return in and of itself. (Sebastian Blacke, 12/95 p. 22)
X.2 [does] not apply between a Latin cross and a cross patonce. (Lloyd of Penrose, 2/96 p. 20)
[a cross of four lozenges vs a cross couped vs a Maltese cross] In each case there is a clear CD for the change to type of cross, but they are not sufficiently different for X.2. to apply here. To quote from the results of Palimpsest's research into what types of changes to a cross constitute a single cadency step (as opposed to sufficient difference): "The closest [analogues to the current submission] I have found are the various arms of Banester (spelled variously as Banester, Banaster, and Banastre) in Papworth pp. 606-607. In all cases with an argent field and a sable cross are crosses plain, flory, of four fusils, humetty pointed, patonce, patty, and sarcelly. All but the first two are explicitly period, the first two having no date given. If nothing else this shows a wide variety of cross changes used to show cadency. In particular this includes the cross of four fusils, equivalent to that submitted here. Various other doublets between various crosses can be found, but these are the most relevant I have found." Based on this research, it would appear that the type of change from a cross couped or a Maltese cross to a cross of four lozenges is but a single cadency step; sufficient for a Clear Difference, but insufficient to apply X.2. for sufficient difference. (Ariane de Brie, 4/96 p. 15)
Sufficient documentation having been received ... for the use of the Cross of Santiago as a period charge and in this form, we are happy to register such cross here and in the future. (Diego Sanchez Montoya de Cordoba, 5/96 p. 15)
[a cross moline vs an ankh] There is X.2. (Sufficient Difference) difference between these two crosses; the ends of the three lower arms have been changed significantly, and the looped chiefmost arm create an outline so different from a cross moline that it was felt that if X.2. difference can apply to crosses at all (and we believe it does), it should apply to these two. (Ursula of Kyleahin, 6/96 p. 8)
A cross estoile is a post-period
charge; combining it with an annulet to create a "Celtic cross estoile"
makes it two steps from period style. This second step is one step further
than the College is normally willing to go. (Aonghus Cu, 6/96 p.
10)
[a tankard vs a chalice] [There is a CD]
for
the very visible difference between a tankard and a chalice with its long
stem and unique outline. (Brigid O'Farrell of Beckery, 9/95 p. 7)
[a delf vs a cushion] There [is a CD] for type of primary (the softer lines and tassels at each corner are fairly conspicuous on [the proposed conflict's] device). [The device was returned for a different conflict.] (Tibor of Rock Valley, 2/95 p. 12) ARMORY PRECEDENTS
[a delf vs a cushion] There [is a CD] for type of primary
(the softer lines and tassels at each corner are fairly conspicuous on
[the proposed conflict's] device). [The device was returned for a different
conflict.] (Tibor of Rock Valley, 2/95 p. 12)
[a candle enflamed vs a candle and candlestick flammant] A visual check of the files indicates that [the] candlestick is the vertical type and therefore insufficient to grant a CD, leaving us with only the fieldless difference. (Thecla Doria of Andritsaena, 8/94 p. 15)
[a tree blasted and eradicated vs. a tree eradicated] As has been noted before, in period trees were often drawn with branches each ending in a single leaf, which is not sufficiently different from a tree blasted to allow us to grant a CD between them. (Ælfwine Akeworthe, 8/94 p. 18)
[a spider inverted vs a spider] Inverting a spider is visually akin to reversing a ship; the charges are sufficiently symmetrical that inversion/reversal is not a Clear Difference. (Richenza von Schwerin, 10/94 p. 18)
[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change to the type of wings is too slight to count for [a CD]. [I.e. there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature.] (Onuphrius Dru Overende, 1/95 p. 14)
[urdy vs wavy] Urdy is not a CD from wavy. [Editor's note: this is inconsistant with earlier precedent. As no mention of this is made it is unclear if the intent is to overturn prior rulings or if this is an aberation.] (Irina Francesca degli Schiavoni, 2/95 p. 12)
[an otter couchant vs a ferret statant guardant] It is extremely hard to tell the difference between statant and couchant on very short-legged critters like otters and ferrets; so much so that a visual comparison of the emblazons showed very little difference between them. [No CD was given.] (Iain MacDhugal Cameron of Ben Liath, 5/95 p. 10)
[a goose displayed vs an eagle displayed] The goose displayed is insufficiently different from an eagle displayed to grant a CD. (Thosheim, Canton of, 5/95 p. 12)
[a salamander...enflamed vs a natural chameleon] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated that the two lizards are in identical postures and that the differences between them were all in the same categories as those considered to be too minor to grant a CD. (Balian de Brionne, 5/95 p. 14)
[Gyronny purpure and argent, a compass star elongated to base, a bordure counterchanged vs Gyronny of six purpure and argent, a mullet of six points azure within a bordure counterchanged.] There is a CD for the tincture of the primary charge, but there are no other countable differences between the two devices. [Editor's note: thus implying no significant difference between gyronny and gyronny of six, nor between a compass star elongated to base and a mullet of six points] (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[a compass star vs a mullet of four points] The overwhelming visual similarities between a mullet of four points and a mullet of four greater and four lesser points/compass star, both of which are non-period charges, mandates against granting a ... CD for this relatively minor difference. (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[a parrot vs a falcon] Though X.4.e. would normally grant a CD for difference between charges considered different in period, the bird here is drawn so that it appears to be more falcon-like than parrot-like, making this a visual conflict. (Aleksandr the Traveller, 6/95 p. 25)
[an astrolabe vs an armillary sphere] The difference between this astrolabe (which is missing its chart, the back plate) and an armillary sphere, which amounts to another round thing with openwork tracery, is insufficient to grant [a CD]. (Malcolm of Fife, 6/95 p. 26)
[an estoile of five rays vs an estoile of eight rays] The difference between the number of rays of one non-standard variant of a charge and another non-standard variant of the same charge is insufficient for [a CD]. (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 6/95 p. 29)
[a shark vs a catfish] We have not generally granted a difference between types of natural fish. (Agilwulf the Loud, 8/95 p. 17)
[a frauenadler displayed argent armed and crined Or vs a harpy displayed...proper] The harpy... is mostly argent with a "flesh-colored" upper torso, effectively also argent and, even if considered as Or, far less than one-half the charge (which would be necessary to allow a CD for tincture). [I.e. there is no CD for either type or tincture] (Aralyn Ermintrude of the Falling Waters, 8/95 p. 19)
[a stag's head cabossed argent vs a stag's head cabossed argent, orbed and attired of flames proper, resting on its head a chalice Or] The change of tincture of the attires is insufficient for [a CD], and the chalice is no more prominent than any other maintained charge. (Cynnwr of Glyndwr, 9/95 p. 23)
[mullets of seven points vs estoiles of eight rays] The differences between eight pointed mullets and seven rayed estoiles was insufficient for [a CD]. (Calum Mac Dhaibhidh, 9/95 p. 26)
[a Catherine's wheel vs a cog wheel] A visual comparison showed that the only difference between the two wheels is the shape of the "bumps" on the outer edge. [No difference was given.] (Adelicia Gilwell, 10/95 p. 15)
[a yale sable vs a yale sable platy] Given that the presence of plates on yales appear to be left to the artist's discretion and not necessarily blazoned, it seems that their presence, or disappearance, is not countable in terms of difference. (Ciarán Dubh Ó Tuathail, 11/95 p. 13)
Fitching a cross is not worth [a CD]. (Wolfger of Rheinfelden, 11/95 p. 15)
We do not grant difference for mullets of four points versus compass stars. (Ramon the Chronologer, 11/95 p. 16)
[a Bourchier knot vs a Wake knot] A visual comparison of the two blazons showed that the two knots are too similar to grant [a CD]. (Arwyn of Leicester, 12/95 p. 20)
[a sea-frauenadler vs a winged merman vs a winged mermaid displayed] In each case there is... nothing for posture (which is identical) or for the minor differences among the types of the winged humanoid sea-monsters. (Ancellin Fitzalan of Newe Castle, 1/96 p. 22)
Wyverns and dragons are merely artistic variants of the same charge, just as mermaids and melusines are. (Owen ap Robert, 1/96 p. 28)
A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close. (Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
An unfletched arrow is visually and heraldically indistinguishable from a lance (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 2/96 p. 21)
[a lion passant vs a cat s'elongeant] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated the overwhelming similarity of the postures of the two cats. (Anthony Navarre, 4/96 p. 18)
[mullets vs mullets pierced] Current research seems to indicate that mullets and mullets pierced (or spur rowels) were used interchangeably in period. As a consequence, no difference is currently granted between them. (Agnes Daunce, 5/96 p. 20)
[a butterfly vs a butterfly inverted] Given the overall symmetry of a butterfly, the inversion here does not significantly change the outline, and no CD can be granted for inverting it. (Louise LaMotte, 5/96 p. 22)
[a fish vs a swordfish] There is [no difference]
for the type between a generic fish and a swordfish. (Yrsa kistill
Gunnarsdóttir, 5/96 p. 29)
[two charges in saltire vs one charge palewise] There are CDs for number and for orientation. Neither of the maces in this submission are palewise; hence, a CD may be allowed for orientation here. As noted in the LoAR of August 1992, p, 25, "Had none of the coneys in Daniel's device been in the same posture as Kineiland's coney, then we could indeed obtain a CD for posture as well as for number. But so long as one coney has no countable difference from Kineiland, then we can only grant a single CD for adding the other three coneys. The submitter might try putting his coneys in saltire, instead of in cross." (Middle Kingdom, 9/95 p. 14)
[Per chevron argent and sable, two towers and a horse rampant counterchanged vs Argent, upon a pile inverted throughout between two ravens sable a tower argent] [i.e. two {A's} and a {B} vs two {B's} and a {C}] Clear ..., because the type of each charge in the group has been substantially changed, even though each group contains a tower. RfS X.2. states that: "Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially changed." Laurel takes this to mean that the type of each charge must be substantially changed from its corresponding charge in the armory being compared, not that the type of every charge must be substantially changed from the type of every charge in the other armory. (There is no CD for the field, since we treat per chevron and a pile inverted as equivalent for purposes of difference.) (Tangwystl Tyriau Gleision, 12/95 p. 13)
[registering A sun Or charged with a fool's cap per pale
gules and vert] Versus Regula Alicia la Placida, On a mullet of eight
points Or another quarterly vert and gules, there is a CD for fieldlessness
and another for the change to the change of type and half of the tincture
of the tertiary charge. While each tertiary is half gules and half
vert, the arrangement of the tinctures is such that half of each tincture
has been reversed, which counts toward the necessary two changes for tertiary
charges on a complex charge. (Alaric the Fool, 3/96 p. 5)
[a lyre vs a harp] It was the consensus of the commenting heralds and those attending the Laurel meeting that there is (and should be) a CD between a lyre and a harp. [The submission was returned for a different reason.] (Wintermist, Shire of, 7/94 p. 10)
[a jester's cap vs a jester's hood] [There is a CD] for the difference between a jester's cap and a jester's hood; the latter has the fabric which would normally extend down over the shoulders and well onto the chest, with large dags, and a hole in the front for the face to show through. It was the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting that the difference was visually equivalent to the difference between a lion and a demi-lion, for which we also grant a CD. (Gautier d'Isigny-sur-Mer, 8/94 p. 3)
[a panther rampant guardant argent spotted sable incensed gules vs a lion rampant argent] There is a CD for type for the difference between the cats, but that is all. [I.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference.] (Ulfhethinn the Bold, 8/94 p. 15)
[wavy vs nebuly] There [is a CD] for the difference between nebuly and wavy. [Editor's note: this ruling is inconsistant with previous established practice. Since Laurel did not state that he intended to overrule past precedent this may be an aberation.] (Joscelyn Jentyl, 9/94 p. 3)
[a sword inverted vs a sword] [There is a CD] for inverting the primary charge [i.e. the sword]. (Shamus Odyll, 9/94 p. 7)
[a winged unicorn vs a pegasus] There is one CD... for the difference between a pegasus and a winged unicorn. (...If we are going to grant a difference between a unicorn and a horse, I cannot see that we can justify not granting one just because they both have added wings.) (Thorkell Bloodaxe of Gardar, 9/94 p. 8)
[an armillary sphere vs an astrolabe or a sphere] There is in each case a CD (at least) for the change in type. (Brian Caradoc Walsh, 9/94 p. 11)
[dandelion blossoms vs carnations] Conflict with [N]...with only the fieldless difference. (Suzanna the Herbalist, 9/94 p. 16)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head] There is...nothing for single-headed chess knight versus horse's head. (Jonathan Thorne, 9/94 p. 18)
[a peacock head vs various specific birds' heads] While we do not believe that there would be a CD between a peacock's head and a phoenix's head, as both have a significant and similarly shaped crest, the difference between a peacock's head and any other specific bird's head are the equivalent of the difference between an eagle's head and a griffin's head, for which we also grant a CD. (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 1)
[a Canterbury cross vs a cross potent quadrate] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross (straight arms vs. Formy, plus the markedly rounded ends vs. straight) (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[a Canterbury cross vs a cross patty] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross. (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[a seven-headed dragon vs a dragon] The change in number of heads, from one to seven, is the visual equivalent of adding wings; that it, worth a CD. While we do not normally grant a CD for change to the number of heads (e.g., eagles vs double-headed eagles), the difference between seven heads and one head is sufficiently remarkable that it should be worth such a difference on a primary charge.
[one orle vs two flaunches] There was some question whether there were CDs for both type (orle vs flaunches) and number (one vs two), as you cannot have a single flaunch. It is Laurel's opinion that there is indeed a CD for number here; while they may only come in pairs, there are quite clearly two of them, on opposite sides of the field. ... As a consequence, we believe we can reasonably grant a CD for flaunches being two charges, not one. (Oscar Einhard, 10/94 p. 10)
[a peacock vert vs a peacock proper] Conflict with [N] with only one CD for the addition of the [secondary charge]. (As noted before, a peacock proper has a vert body). [i.e. there is no CD for tincture.] (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 12)
[tiger's jambes argent marked sable vs lions gambs argent] The sable markings on the jambes here are insufficient for another [CD]. (Fearghus O'Shannon, 10/94 p. 13)
[a pawprint vs a cat's pawprint] We do not grant difference between types of pawprint. (Radbot Gunter, 10/94 p. 13)
[bull's horns vs buglehorns] There is only one CD, for the change in type of charge. [i.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference in type] (Weland Healfdene, 10/94 p. 14)
[a lily of the valley vs an iris] There is at best one CD, for the change in type of flower. [i.e. there may be a significant difference, but definitely not a substantial difference of type] (Thora Asbiornsdottir, 10/94 p. 14)
[lions heads gorged vs lions heads, in both cases as secondary charges around a chevron] While gorging may be worth a CD when the head is the primary charge, its visual impact is much reduced when occurring on secondaries, enough so that it was felt that it was not the equivalent of the addition of a group of tertiaries to the secondaries, but rather the equivalent of the addition of a maintained charge. (Iain Jameson of Kilronan, p. 17)
[an oar inverted vs an oar] There [is a CD] for inverting the primary (and only) charge. (Ardanroe, Shire of, 11/94 p. 4)
[a birch tree vs a tree blasted and eradicated] There are technically no CDs between the two devices. (Uma, Canton of, 11/94 p. 14)
[needles vs nails] The difference between nails and needles is not sufficiently large to grant a [CD]. (Siobhan Eliot, 11/94 p. 17)
[a bird striking vs a bird rising, wings elevated and displayed] ...there is a CD ...for the dramatic change in the posture and orientation of the bird's wings (elevated and addorsed vs displayed). (Sasha Dmitrievich Dozortsev, 12/94 p. 4)
[corbies close respectant vs doves respectant] The difference in type of bird is insufficient for [a CD]. (Ástrídr Oddsdóttir, 12/94 p. 12)
[crosses patonce vs a cross patty] There are CDs for changing both the type and number of the charge(s). (Elwyn Tenways, 1/95 p. 2)
[a falcon dexter wing expanded and inverted vs an eagle rising, wings displayed] Particularly when applied to the primary charge, "close, dexter wing expanded and inverted" is a significant outline change from "rising, wings displayed". (Friedrich der Falkner, 1/95 p. 5)
[a sword vs a sword inverted] There is a CD...for inverting the [sword]. (Dmitrii Volkovich, 1/95 p. 7)
[a pale between two <charges> vs a pale between in chief two <charges>] There [is a CD] for changing [the secondaries'] position on the field (from in chief to in fess). (Michael Philip de Vere, 2/95 p. 7)
[a Mugwort plant vert vs a slip of three leaves vert and an almond slip fructed proper and Rose-wort proper and St. John's wort proper] In each case there is ... nothing for either the type or tincture of the foliage. (Alysoun Beauchamp, 2/95 p. 11)
[a stump snagged vs a fracted stump] There is...nothing for the fracting of the stump. (William of Øland, 2/95 p. 11)
[urdy vs wavy] Urdy is not a CD from wavy. [Editor's note: this is inconsistant with earlier precedent. As no mention of this is made it is unclear if the intent is to overturn prior rulings or if this is an aberation.] (Irina Francesca degli Schiavoni, 2/95 p. 12)
[a delf vs a cushion] There [is a CD] for type of primary (the softer lines and tassels at each corner are fairly conspicuous on [the proposed conflict's] device). [The device was returned for a different conflict.] (Tibor of Rock Valley, 2/95 p. 12)
[a cross formy vs a Bowen cross] This is clear by application of X.2 for significant change of type of the primary charges. [editor's note: Laurel apparently meant that there is a substantial difference between these charges] (Grimbaldus Bacon, 5/95 p. 7)
[a hare vs a rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attires argent] [There is a CD] for the removal of the attires, which a comparison of the emblazons showed to be the visual equivalent of removing wings, for which we also grant a CD. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, 5/95 p. 9)
[a patriarchal cross vs a cross of Toulouse] There is one CD for the change to the type of cross, but the "voiding" of the cross of Toulouse is a part of its definition and is not the addition of a tertiary charge. (John of Blackhawk, 8/95 p. 22)
[geese vs martlets] There is a CD for the change in posture (enraged has the wings expansed, and bodies in more of a "rising" posture), and another, given the clearly separate heraldic identity of the two birds in period, for type of bird. (Ceri of Caermarthen, 9/95 p. 4)
[a tankard vs a chalice] [There is a CD] for the very visible difference between a tankard and a chalice with its long stem and unique outline. (Brigid O'Farrell of Beckery, 9/95 p. 7)
[a bird rising wings displayed vs a bird displayed] [There is a CD] for the posture of the primary charge; rising is basically bendwise while displayed has the body clearly palewise. (Lucia Ottavia da Siena, 9/95 p. 14)
[two charges in saltire vs one charge palewise] There are CDs for number and for orientation. Neither of the maces in this submission are palewise; hence, a CD may be allowed for orientation here. As noted in the LoAR of August 1992, p, 25, "Had none of the coneys in Daniel's device been in the same posture as Kineiland's coney, then we could indeed obtain a CD for posture as well as for number. But so long as one coney has no countable difference from Kineiland, then we can only grant a single CD for adding the other three coneys. The submitter might try putting his coneys in saltire, instead of in cross." (Middle Kingdom, 9/95 p. 14)
[a compass rose vs a compass star] [There is a CD] for the difference between a compass rose with its prominent annulet and a compass star. (Northshield, Principality of, 9/95 p. 15)
[a mascle vs a rustre] [There is a] CD for the difference between a mascle and a rustre. We have no evidence that mascles and rustres were considered interchangeable in period. (Daniel de Lincoln, 10/95 p. 4)
[mullety vs estoilly] [There is a CD] for the difference between mullets and estoiles. (Heather MakKinzie of Weir, 11/95 p. 6)
Laurel is at a loss to understand the comments of those who would have us refuse to grant a CD for orientation of a charge simply because it is registered without a field. The Rules for Submission were designed to have us apply a single standard to all armory; to do otherwise would be to return to a level of complexity in the Rules that we were trying to get away from when the current Rules were implemented. The Rules grant difference for the orientation of a charge: palewise is different from bendwise is different from fesswise, regardless of the shape of the field or even the presence of a field. (Atai Tetsuko, 12/95 p. 4)
[a rose vs a garden rosebud slipped and leaved] There are CDs for the field and for the type of charge. (Aonghus Lochlainn of Loch Fyne, 12/95 p. 11)
The créquier is sufficiently different from any other kind of tree to be considered a different charge, and its stylization is more than consistent enough for it to be unlikely to be mistaken for any other kind of tree. (Not to mention the fact that we regularly give a CD between radically different types of trees; for example, fir trees and oak trees.) All things considered, I have no problem granting at least a CD for a créquier versus any other tree. (Brian of the West, 1/96 p. 19)
There is a CD for...the difference between a saltire couped (with the normal "flat" ends) and a standard saltire throughout. (Kenric Bjarnarson, 2/96 p. 12)
Quatrefoils and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent charges in our period. (Stormvale, Shire of, 2/96 p. 12)
[a hornless goat's head vs a mountain goat's head] There is a clear point for... the addition of the very prominent horns. (Tinoran's charge is a mountain goat, drawn with horns nearly as long as a gazelle's, and not a mountain sheep with the circular "Princess Leia bun" circular horns, which would not have as great a visual impact). (Lucia del Mar, 2/96 p. 14)
[a nautilus shell vs an escallop] There[is a CD] for the type of the charge. (Atlantia, Kingdom of, 4/96 p. 2)
[a cross of four lozenges vs a cross couped vs a Maltese cross] In each case there is a clear CD for the change to type of cross, but they are not sufficiently different for X.2. to apply here. To quote from the results of Palimpsest's research into what types of changes to a cross constitute a single cadency step (as opposed to sufficient difference): "The closest [analogues to the current submission] I have found are the various arms of Banester (spelled variously as Banester, Banaster, and Banastre) in Papworth pp. 606-607. In all cases with an argent field and a sable cross are crosses plain, flory, of four fusils, humetty pointed, patonce, patty, and sarcelly. All but the first two are explicitly period, the first two having no date given. If nothing else this shows a wide variety of cross changes used to show cadency. In particular this includes the cross of four fusils, equivalent to that submitted here. Various other doublets between various crosses can be found, but these are the most relevant I have found." Based on this research, it would appear that the type of change from a cross couped or a Maltese cross to a cross of four lozenges is but a single cadency step; sufficient for a Clear Difference, but insufficient to apply X.2. for sufficient difference. (Ariane de Brie, 4/96 p. 15)
[a mammoth's skull affronty vs a ram's skull cabossed] There is clearly a CD between the two charges, but it was the consensus of the commentary, and those attending the Laurel meeting comparing the two emblazons, that sufficient difference (per RfS X.2.) between two skulls is does not exist. (Gamli Œðikollr, 5/96 p. 19)
There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges, but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting that RfS X.2. does not apply between them. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 20)
[a stag vs an ibex] There [is] a CD between a stag and an ibex, though X.2., Sufficient Difference, [does] not apply between the two. (Declan de Burgo, 6/96 p. 6)
[a cross formy vs a Bowen cross]This is clear by application of X.2 for significant change of type of the primary charges. [Editor's note: Laurel apparently meant that there is a substantial difference between these charges] (Grimbaldus Bacon, 5/95 p. 7)
[a seeblatt vs an escallop inverted] It was the general consensus after a visual comparison of the emblazons that there are ... sufficient differences between an escallop inverted and a seeblatt to apply X.2. between them. (Cynthia du Pré Argent, 7/95 p. 5)
[a fret vs a Bowen cross] A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
X.2 [does] not apply between a Latin cross and a cross patonce. (Lloyd of Penrose, 2/96 p. 20)
[wolf's heads erased vs unicorn's heads couped at the shoulder] X.2. applies to clear by substantial change to the type of all the charges. (Énán mac Fáeláin, 3/96 p. 3)
[a cross of four lozenges vs a cross couped vs a Maltese cross] In each case there is a clear CD for the change to type of cross, but they are not sufficiently different for X.2. to apply here. To quote from the results of Palimpsest's research into what types of changes to a cross constitute a single cadency step (as opposed to sufficient difference): "The closest [analogues to the current submission] I have found are the various arms of Banester (spelled variously as Banester, Banaster, and Banastre) in Papworth pp. 606-607. In all cases with an argent field and a sable cross are crosses plain, flory, of four fusils, humetty pointed, patonce, patty, and sarcelly. All but the first two are explicitly period, the first two having no date given. If nothing else this shows a wide variety of cross changes used to show cadency. In particular this includes the cross of four fusils, equivalent to that submitted here. Various other doublets between various crosses can be found, but these are the most relevant I have found." Based on this research, it would appear that the type of change from a cross couped or a Maltese cross to a cross of four lozenges is but a single cadency step; sufficient for a Clear Difference, but insufficient to apply X.2. for sufficient difference. (Ariane de Brie, 4/96 p. 15)
[a mammoth's skull affronty vs a ram's skull cabossed] There is clearly a CD between the two charges, but it was the consensus of the commentary, and those attending the Laurel meeting comparing the two emblazons, that sufficient difference (per RfS X.2.) between two skulls is does not exist. (Gamli Œðikollr, 5/96 p. 19)
There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges, but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting that RfS X.2. does not apply between them. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 20)
[a stag vs an ibex] There [is] a CD between a stag and an ibex, though X.2., Sufficient Difference, [does] not apply between the two. (Declan de Burgo, 6/96 p. 6)
[a cross moline vs an ankh] There is X.2. (Sufficient
Difference) difference between these two crosses; the ends of the three
lower arms have been changed significantly, and the looped chiefmost arm
create an outline so different from a cross moline that it was felt that
if X.2. difference can apply to crosses at all (and we believe it does),
it should apply to these two. (Ursula of Kyleahin, 6/96 p. 8)
[three otters statant in annulo vs six mice couchant in annulo and three cats couchant in annulo, each biting the tail of the cat previous] [vs the mice] No one...where the emblazons were compared could see granting another for either type or posture of the animals. [vs the cats] A visual comparison demonstrated insufficient difference in type or posture to overcome the vast visual similarities. (Miriam Engelke, 1/95 p. 13)
[returning Argent, within a vol an eagle's head erased gules] Visual conflict with ... Argent, a double-headed eagle displayed gules, and ... Argent, an eagle displayed gules crowned Or. While there is sufficient technical difference between them, the overwhelming visual similarities (here, that of an eagle with the tail and legs missing, as well as a little bit of the neck)... are simply too much to allow registration. (Wyll Hauk, 10/95 p. 15)
[A compass star issuant from each point a lightning bolt argent vs Purpure, an escarbuncle argent] There is a visual conflict... There is the fieldless CD, but it takes the eye too long to sort out the other differences between the two in all the "busy-ness" of the charges. (Achbar ibn Ali, 1/96 p. 22)
[Per bend Or and azure, a Celtic cross counterchanged vs Per pale azure and Or, a Celtic cross counterchanged] Visual conflict with [N]. While it is true that the line of division of both the field and the cross have been changed, in fact less than one-half of the tincture of the cross has actually been changed, and a visual comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated that in fact the only apparent change has been to the field. (Gregory of Saint Albans, 1/96 p. 23)
RfS X.5. states that "If the tinctures, shapes, or arrangement
of the charges in a submission create an overwhelming visual resemblance
to a piece of protected armory, the submission may be held to conflict
even if sufficient theoretical difference can be counted between them."
This "visual conflict" clause of the Rules runs only one way; we may find
that two devices look to similar, but not that they look too dissimilar
in spite of technical conflict. To do otherwise is to introduce a
very high level of subjectivity to the decision process, something the
College has worked very hard to get away from. (Edmund the Lame,
6/96 p. 12)
Buckets have not previously been registered in the SCA. As the defining instance, we normally require extra documentation for a new charge. Fortunately, Parker, p. 79, and Elvin, pl. 39, document something very close to what is drawn here as a bucket. These are, indeed, quite identifiable as buckets, and the term itself is period. Given that buckets may be made from wood, leather, and metal, we have determined that the default bucket is the wooden one; leather or metal buckets must be so specified. (Marcan O Brien, 10/95 p. 12)
Given only two prior SCA registrations, and the fact that the earliest documentary evidence outside the SCA for the charge dates from the last half of the Seventeenth Century, we feel that we need more support for the chevron disjoint as a period or at least SCA-compatible charge before we register it again. (Cecille Marie Gabryell Geneviève du Mont, 10/95 p. 16)
Though no columns fracted have been registered before, this seems a reasonable extension of the already-registered sword fracted. (Shimshon Aryeh ben Avraham, 11/95 p. 9)
[considering an owl's head jessant-de-lis] There
was ... some concern that we here we are getting too far from period practice.
(Period practice being leopard's head jessant-de-lys; one step from period
practice being other beast's heads; and two steps from period practice
being other types of heads, including birds' heads.) Given that we
have in recent years a number of different types of heads (including humanoid)
jessant of items other than a fleur-de-lis (including a complex cross),
Laurel does not feel that this submission is so far from SCA practice as
warrant a return on that ground. [The submission was returned for a different
reason.] (Eudoxia d'Antioche, 3/96 p. 11)
[a bend sinister argent estencely sable vs a bend sinister ermine] There [are] two more [CDs] for the difference between a bend sinister ermine (a single tincture) and a bend sinister argent estencely sable (a single tincture with a semy of charges). (Elfwyn of Osprey, 5/96 p. 10)
[a seeblatt vs an escallop inverted] ...it was the general consensus after a visual comparison of the emblazons that there are ... sufficient differences between an escallop inverted and a seeblatt to apply X.2. between them. (Cynthia du Pré Argent, 7/95 p. 5)
[a nautilus shell vs an escallop] There [is a CD]
for the type of the charge. (Atlantia, Kingdom of, 4/96 p. 2)
[registering the liturgical fan] The LoI presented documentation,
which was confirmed and added to by some of the commenters, that this particular
form of fan was used to "keep flies from the sacred elements during the
celebrations of the Christian mysteries." (Encyclopedia Brittanica,
11th ed., vol. X, p. 168) Their basic shape was round and on a handle,
as the fans here are (see illustration in margin), though they were often
of openwork and made of precious metals. (Regina from Adiantum, 5/96
p. 2)
[a patriarchal cross vs a cross of Toulouse] There is one CD for the change to the type of cross, but the "voiding" of the cross of Toulouse is a part of its definition and is not the addition of a tertiary charge. (John of Blackhawk, 8/95 p. 22)
[returning a Jerusalem cross fimbriated] It is Laurel's belief that a cross potent, the central cross in a cross of Jerusalem, falls into the same "too complex to fimbriate" category as roses and suns. Even were that not felt to be the case, however, the amount of fimbriation, of both the cross potent and the four surrounding crosses couped, is excessive and sufficient grounds for return in and of itself. (Sebastian Blacke, 12/95 p. 22)
[returning vetu fimbriated] Both SCA and mundane
heralds agree, and in fact the name itself (which means "vested") shows,
that vêtu is a field division, not a charge. That it was allowed
to be fimbriated in the earlier days of the SCA does not change this fact.
(Barre FitzRobert of York, 4/96 p. 12)
[returning whales' tails] The "whale's tails" are not particularly identifiable, as tails or as some kind of bird displayed. We doubt that they should be added to the collection of allowable "animal parts" as heraldic charges. (Katherine Lamond, 6/95 p. 22)
[a shark vs a catfish] We have not generally granted a difference between types of natural fish. (Agilwulf the Loud, 8/95 p. 17)
[a fish vs a swordfish] There is [no difference]
for the type between a generic fish and a swordfish. (Yrsa kistill
Gunnarsdóttir, 5/96 p. 29)
[The] flames are not proper, but rather Or with a {prominent} interior line of gules. This is being returned for redrawing with either flames proper or flames Or. (Rúadhán Súil-glas, 9/94 p. 14)
The conclusion reached from this research is that to be truly proper, flames should be effectively a neutral charge, approximately half Or and half gules, and should generally take one of the forms as exemplified in Figs. 1, 3 or 4 above, with the "tongues" of flame being alternately Or and gules (or gules and Or). The practice in the SCA of making flames red on the outside and yellow in the center (or vice versa) appears to be based on incorrect assumptions and should be discontinued. (CL 4/95)
[returning a fox rampant...its tail flames...] Charges or, as here, parts of a charge "of flames" do not appear to be period style and tend to create the kind of visual confusion which heraldry normally attempts to avoid. (Hannah Cameron, 5/95 p. 11)
[returning two boar spears in saltire surmounted by another palewise argent enflamed sable] The "enflaming" here is not, but is rather "a sheaf of three spears-shaped flame" charged with a sheaf of three spears. This is much too complex for a flame to be. It's identifiability suffers sufficiently that it becomes next to impossible to identify it as a flame. (Picture it without the spears on it; they tend to give it better definition.) The flames here act only as a very complex fimbriation, which has been previously disallowed. (Red Spears, Barony of, 5/95 p. 14)
The charge as emblazoned could be better blazoned as on a flame a lizard gules. However, such a blazon demonstrates the main problem with the emblazon; the primary charge is a large, irregular blob, and the identifiability of the creature on the flames is impossible at any distance because both it and the flames are the same tincture. (See RfS VII.7.a. "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." and VIII.2. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance.") Were it to be redrawn in a more standard depiction (with only 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of flame as a number of gouts of flame issuant from rather than completely surrounding the lizard), it would probably be acceptable. (Giulietta da Firenze, 4/96 p. 20)
A daisy proper is argent, seeded Or. (Ardena Wildflower, 9/94 p. 11)
[dandelion blossoms vs carnations] Conflict with...only the fieldless difference. (Suzanna the Herbalist, 9/94 p. 16)
[a lily of the valley vs an iris] There is at best one CD, for the change in type of flower. [i.e. there may be a significant difference, but definitely not a substantial difference of type] (Thora Asbiornsdottir, 10/94 p. 14)
According to the OED, orchids "vary greatly in appearance, being often remarkable for brilliancy of colour or grotesqueness of form, in some cases, resembling various insects and other animals." This being the case, there is very little chance that the blazon will accurately reflect and recreate the emblazon. We are having to return this because orchids seem to have no standard or standardized form. (Alexandra Stremouchova, 11/94 p. 14)
As orchids do not have a standard or defined shape, but
come in many different shapes, the emblazon cannot be adequately blazoned,
nor would any blazon we could think of adequately reproduce the emblazon.
As a consequence, this falls afoul of RfS VII.7.a. and b. (Identification
Requirement and Reconstruction Requirement). (Dmitiri Alexandrovich
Liadov, 11/95 p. 12)
The commentary is in, with a clear majority of commenters in favor of adopting Baron Bruce's proposal that we continue to accept garden roses in SCA armory, but simply blazon them as roses. As a consequence, we will immediately and henceforth blazon a rose, whether the default heraldic rose or the garden rose, as a rose. (CL 11/94)
Commentary was nearly as strong in favor of banning garden rosebuds from armory. Consequently, we will accept whatever garden rosebuds may be in LoIs issued before December 1994, but no further registrations of this charge will be made. (CL 11/94)
Blazoned in the LoI and drawn on the emblazon as "four-lobed" roses, evidence was presented that the number of petals on roses was not blazoned in period, whether of four petals or more, and so we have blazoned these simply as "roses". As a consequence, we will no longer make a distinction among roses based on the number of petals. As with garden roses, a "rose is a rose", whether of five, six, or four petals. (Eleanor de Broke, 10/95 p. 4)
[a rose vs a garden rosebud slipped and leaved] There are CDs for the field and for the type of charge. (Aonghus Lochlainn of Loch Fyne, 12/95 p. 11)
Quatrefoils and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent charges in our period. (Stormvale, Shire of, 2/96 p. 12)
Quatrefoils and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent charges in our period. (Stormvale, Shire of, 2/96 p. 12)
Armory Precedents
It was the consensus of the commentary that goutes are
voidable charges, per Baron Bruce's precedent. Thus, X.4.j.ii. applies
in granting a CD... (Austrechild von Mondsee, 1/95 p. 6)
Though it was argued that the Grandfather Clause should
apply here, because the submitter is the grandson of Taliesynne Nycheymwrh
yr Anghyfannedd, we are unwilling to extend that clause, heretofore limited
to members of the original registrant's immediate family, quite so far.
(Gwydion Siwrnaiydd ap Madog ap Taliesin Llan Rhyddlad, 4/95 p. 6)
There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges,
but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting that
RfS X.2. does not apply between them. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 2
[a jester's cap vs. a jester's hood] [There is a CD] for
the difference between a jester's cap and a jester's hood; the latter has
the fabric which would normally extend down over the shoulders and well
onto the chest, with large dags, and a hole in the front for the face to
show through. It was the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting
that the difference was visually equivalent to the difference between a
lion and a demi-lion, for which we also grant a CD. (Gautier d'Isigny-sur-Mer,
8/94 p. 3)
[a gorgon's head cabossed vs a maiden's head] There is a CD for ... type, in that a maiden's head also includes the shoulders and upper chest. This is sufficient to grant a CD from just a head. (Francesca Lucia d'Alberto dei Lorenzi, 7/94 p. 3)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head] There is...nothing for single-headed chess knight versus horse's head. (Jonathan Thorne, 9/94 p. 18)
[a peacock head vs various specific birds' heads] While we do not believe that there would be a CD between a peacock's head and a phoenix's head, as both have a significant and similarly shaped crest, the difference between a peacock's head and any other specific bird's head are the equivalent of the difference between an eagle's head and a griffin's head, for which we also grant a CD. (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 1)
[lions heads gorged vs lions heads, in both cases as secondary charges around a chevron] While gorging may be worth a CD when the head is the primary charge, its visual impact is much reduced when occurring on secondaries, enough so that it was felt that it was not the equivalent of the addition of a group of tertiaries to the secondaries, but rather the equivalent of the addition of a maintained charge. (Iain Jameson of Kilronan, p. 17)
[The charge] here is not a unicorn's head, but a unicornate horse's head. Unicornate horses (and by extension, their heads) have been disallowed for some years now. [The device was returned] (Jean de Chauliac, 2/95 p. 12)
[a stag's head cabossed argent vs a stag's head cabossed argent, orbed and attired of flames proper, resting on its head a chalice Or] The change of tincture of the attires is insufficient for [a CD], and the chalice is no more prominent than any other maintained charge. (Cynnwr of Glyndwr, 9/95 p. 23)
[wolf's heads erased vs unicorn's heads couped at the shoulder] X.2. applies to clear by substantial change to the type of all the charges. (Énán mac Fáeláin, 3/96 p. 3)
[considering an owl's head jessant-de-lis] There was ... some concern that we here we are getting too far from period practice. (Period practice being leopard's head jessant-de-lys; one step from period practice being other beast's heads; and two steps from period practice being other types of heads, including birds' heads.) Given that we have in recent years a number of different types of heads (including humanoid) jessant of items other than a fleur-de-lis (including a complex cross), Laurel does not feel that this submission is so far from SCA practice as warrant a return on that ground. [The submission was returned for a different reason.] (Eudoxia d'Antioche, 3/96 p. 11)
[returning Per fess azure and or, in pale a stag's head caboshed conjoined at the muzzle to another caboshed inverted counterchanged] The style here (a mirror image in pale) is extremely unusual; indeed, the inversion of the basemost charge and the conjoining of the two charges so confounds their identifiability that many commenters, before hearing the blazon, thought that they were a single charge: a tree blasted and eradicated counterchanged. As such, it clearly falls afoul of the identifiability requirements of RfS VII.7.a. ("Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance."). (Eoin Mac Cainnigh, 4/96 p. 15)
[a wolf's head attired of a ram's horns vs a wolf's head] There is a CD...for the addition of the very prominent ram's horns, which are here clearly the equivalent of gorging of a coronet which has previously been granted difference in the case of a head. "When considering a full beast or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR September 1993, p. 5) (Wolfram Faust, 5/96 p. 16)
[a mammoth's skull affronty vs a ram's skull cabossed]
There is clearly a CD between the two charges, but it was the consensus
of the commentary, and those attending the Laurel meeting comparing the
two emblazons, that sufficient difference (per RfS X.2.) between two skulls
is does not exist. (Gamli Œðikollr, 5/96 p. 19)
[returning on a heart two axes in saltire] ...RfS XI.4.
disallows having more than one charge on a shape which was used for the
display of armory. As a heart was such a shape, the presence of two
axes means we have to return this design. (Mary Black Axe, 2/95 p.
11)
[returning a Viking helm affronty] There were serious
identifiability problems with the charge in base. (See RfS VII.7.a.
"Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") The
"viking helm" is not a defined charge, and was not particularly identifiable
as any kind of a helm in this posture. (Except for ear pieces and
"affronty" posture, it is similar, but not sufficiently similar to be so
blazoned, to the Norman helm shown in the Pictorial Dictionary, 2d ed.,
#377b.) (Sigrid Tomasdottir, 4/96 p. 19)
[bull's horns vs buglehorns] There is only one CD, for the change in type of charge. [i.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference in type] (Weland Healfdene, 10/94 p. 14)
[returning a stag's attires proper] Brown is not the "proper" tincture for stag's attires. (Gaston Pogue, 6/95 p. 22)
[a hornless goat's head vs a mountain goat's head] There is a clear point for... the addition of the very prominent horns. (Tinoran's charge is a mountain goat, drawn with horns nearly as long as a gazelle's, and not a mountain sheep with the circular "Princess Leia bun" circular horns, which would not have as great a visual impact). (Lucia del Mar, 2/96 p. 14)
[a wolf's head attired of a ram's horns vs a wolf's head]
There is a CD ... for the addition of the very prominent ram's horns, which
are here clearly the equivalent of gorging of a coronet which has previously
been granted difference in the case of a head. "When considering
a full beast or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic
detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's head
gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and
treated as a tertiary charge." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR
September 1993, p. 5) (Wolfram Faust, 5/96 p. 16)
[returning a woman rampant] "Rampant" does not appear to be a human posture. ... Admittedly, there are a few registrations of such in the A&O, but the most recent appears to have been in 1985. (Robert Bedingfield of Lochmere, 1/95 p. 13)
[returning a dragon-tailed demi-woman] This...blurs the
distinctions between two existing period charges: the mermaid and the man-serpent.
... This charge fell into the same general category of "halfway between"
charges as unicornate horses... (Kriemhild Walther, 1/95 p. 14)
Identifiability & Reproducibility
The Japanese crane displayed in annulo was returned for being not identifiable some time ago, having more in common with roundels and crescents than European renditions of birds. (Patrick Donovan of Warwick, 9/94 p. 16)
[returning a spokeless Catherine wheel] The "spokeless Catherine wheel" is not really recognizable as such. Several commenters noted that it appeared to be " an annulet wavy-crested on the outer edge", which would fall afoul of the ban on the use of the wavy-crested line of division. (Catherine of Gordonhall, 9/94 p. 17)
[returning a bat close inverted] The bat is not at all identifiable in this posture. (Kiera Nighthawk, 9/94 p. 18)
[registering Per bend...on a roundel a horse rampant contourny, a bordure counterchanged.] The device is rather striking, but is also pushing at the limits of acceptable counterchanging. (Richard of Troll Fen, 11/94 p. 7)
[registering four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross] There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased...as to diminish the size seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9) It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots. (Middle, Kingdom of the, 11/94 p. 8)
[returning a bow reversed sustained by a sinister cubit arm] The cubit/bow combination is insufficiently distinguishable from a crossbow. (Cyril Bowman, 11/94 p. 12)
According to the OED, orchids "vary greatly in appearance, being often remarkable for brilliancy of colour or grotesqueness of form, in some cases, resembling various insects and other animals." This being the case, there is very little chance that the blazon will accurately reflect and recreate the emblazon. We are having to return this because orchids seem to have no standard or standardized form. (Alexandra Stremouchova, 11/94 p. 14)
[returning gyronny, a maltese cross between three roundels counterchanged] This is excessively counterchanged, falling afoul of RfS VIII.3. (Dunstan Dangar of Shaddowe Woode, 11/94 p. 15)
The lute is unidentifiable as such... Lutes, like dice and tambourines, must be drawn in slightly trian aspect to be identifiable, i.e. so that the angled pegbox is visible. [The device was returned.] Kat'ryna Andreyevna Koshkina, 12/94 p. 10)
[registering gyronny, a mortar and pestle counterchanged] Only the extreme simplicity of the design allows such complex counterchanging of this relatively asymmetrical charge. (Rivka bat Shaul, 1/95 p. 4)
[returning Per pale gules and sable, an eagle checky Or and gules] The checky Or and gules eagle is completely unidentifiable on the gules portion of the field. While we have allowed checky ordinaries to share a tincture with the field, their simple outline makes it obvious what they are and identifiability is not lost. Here, because of the complex outline of the charge, that is not the case. (Rolland von Fries, 1/95 p. 13)
[returning a dragon-tailed demi-woman] This...blurs the distinctions between two existing period charges: the mermaid and the man-serpent. ...this charge fell into the same general category of "halfway between" charges as unicornate horses... (Kriemhild Walther, 1/95 p. 14)
[returning a fox rampant...its tail flames...] Charges or, as here, parts of a charge "of flames" do not appear to be period style and tend to create the kind of visual confusion which heraldry normally attempts to avoid. (See, e.g., RfS VIII.3.: "Armorial Identifiability - Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability.") (Hannah Cameron, 5/95 p. 11)
[returning whales' tails] The "whale's tails" are not particularly identifiable, as tails or as some kind of bird displayed. We doubt that they should be added to the collection of allowable "animal parts" as heraldic charges. (Katherine Lamond, 6/95 p. 22)
[returning "a quadruply-towered Eastern castle"] No one could create an adequate blazon for the primary charge, and it does not appear to follow any specific architectural type that could be blazoned. An "Eastern castle" does not appear in any of the general reference books of heraldic charges Laurel was able to consult, nor has it been registered before in the SCA. Laurel would note that the castle does not appear to match any middle eastern or Indian architecture he has seen in his studies of those areas (though he remembers seeing a not too dissimilar edifice in one of the early Sinbad movies.) As a consequence, this must be returned because the primary charge cannot be reconstructed from the blazon (as required by RfS VII.7.b), nor can it be readily identified from its appearance alone (as required by RfS VII.7.a). (Fucha de la Rua, 8/95 p. 19)
[returning a Japanese stream] The primary charge is not blazonable in standard heraldic terminology, as required by RfS VII.7.b. (Kusunoki Yoshimoto, 9/95 p. 23)
The primary charge is not a chimera of any defined type, having the body of a wingless dragon with the head of a goat and the head of a lion on either side of a dragon's head and neck. It is certainly not a "Greek" chimera, which has the body and head of a lion, a dragon's tail, and a goat's head grafted to the small of the back. As a consequence, both recognizability and reproducibility as required by RfS. VII.7.a. and b. suffer too much to allow us to register this. (Ancelin Daverenge, 9/95 p. 25)
[returning Gyronny...three Maltese crosses counterchanged] It was the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting looking at the emblazon that the counterchanging of the three crosses on the gyronny field significantly reduces their ready identifiability and thus should be considered "excessive", per RfS VIII.3. ("Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability"). (Brice Jacob, 11/95 p. 13)
[returning Per fess azure and or, in pale a stag's head caboshed conjoined at the muzzle to another caboshed inverted counterchanged] The style here (a mirror image in pale) is extremely unusual; indeed, the inversion of the basemost charge and the conjoining of the two charges so confounds their identifiability that many commenters, before hearing the blazon, thought that they were a single charge: a tree blasted and eradicated counterchanged. As such, it clearly falls afoul of the identifiability requirements of RfS VII.7.a. ("Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance."). (Eoin Mac Cainnigh, 4/96 p. 15)
[returning a Viking helm affronty] There were serious identifiability problems with the charge in base. (See RfS VII.7.a. "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") The "viking helm" is not a defined charge, and was not particularly identifiable as any kind of a helm in this posture. (Except for ear pieces and "affronty" posture, it is similar, but not sufficiently similar to be so blazoned, to the Norman helm shown in the Pictorial Dictionary, 2d ed., #377b.) (Sigrid Tomasdottir, 4/96 p. 19)
[returning Per fess gyronny gules and Or issuant from the line of division and Or] The use of a gyronny half of a field which shares a tincture with the other half of the field, so that in this case an Or gyron is next to the Or half of the field, makes creates a severe identifiability problem; it is extremely difficult to figure out just what the field division/s is/are. RfS VII.7.a. requires that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." To do so here requires more time and effort than is consistent with the general principles of armorial identifiability. (Stefan Remnaia Palatka, 4/96 p. 19)
The charge as emblazoned could be better blazoned as on
a flame a lizard gules. However, such a blazon demonstrates the main
problem with the emblazon; the primary charge is a large, irregular blob,
and the identifiability of the creature on the flames is impossible at
any distance because both it and the flames are the same tincture.
(See RfS VII.7.a. "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance."
and VIII.2. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element
of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance.") Were it
to be redrawn in a more standard depiction (with only 1/2 to 1/3 the amount
of flame as a number of gouts of flame issuant from rather than completely
surrounding the lizard), it would probably be acceptable. (Giulietta
da Firenze, 4/96 p. 20)
[a spider inverted vs a spider] Inverting a spider is visually akin to reversing a ship; the charges are sufficiently symmetrical that inversion/reversal is not a Clear Difference. (Richenza von Schwerin, 10/94 p. 18)
[a butterfly vs a butterfly inverted] Given the
overall symmetry of a butterfly, the inversion here does not significantly
change the outline, and no CD can be granted for inverting it. (Louise
LaMotte, 5/96 p. 22)
[registering four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross] There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased...as to diminish the size seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9) It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots. (Middle, Kingdom of the, 11/94 p. 8)
[a fret vs a Bowen cross] A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
[a Bourchier knot vs a Wake knot] A visual comparison of the two blazons showed that the two knots are too similar to grant [a CD]. (Arwyn of Leicester, 12/95 p. 20)
The Fidelis knot, as an SCA invention with only two registrations to date (the 1980 defining instance and a 1993 registration), is not sufficiently well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to continue to register it in the future. (Amice Fayel, 3/96 p. 11)
The mascle knot is an SCA invention, with only two registrations,
and is unattested anywhere else. As such, it is not sufficiently
well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as
a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to
continue to register it in the future. (Madigan of Kandahar, 3/96
p. 12)
An unfletched arrow is visually and heraldically indistinguishable
from a lance (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 2/96 p. 21)
A laurel wreath is nearly circular in shape; the "wreath" here is simply two sprigs of laurel, which does not meet the requirement that branch arms have a laurel wreath as a significant part of them. [The device was returned.] (Castillos del Oro, Stronghold of Los, 6/95 p. 28)
The laurel wreath is emblazoned as "lying as on a bordure", which has been disallowed for some time now. Please let them know that laurel wreaths are nearly circular in shape, and cannot follow the line of a bordure or orle. [The device was returned.] (Brennisteinvatn, Shire of, 12/95 p. 21)
Laurel wreaths are by their very nature nearly circular
in form. The "wreath" here is little more than two sprigs crossed
in saltire, and such have been cause for return ere this. [The device was
returned.] (Kestrelkeep, Canton of, 3/96 p. 10)
[tiger's jambes argent marked sable vs lions gambs argent]
The sable markings on the jambes here are insufficient for another [CD].
(Fearghus O'Shannon, 10/94 p. 13)
[urdy vs wavy] Urdy is not a CD from wavy. (Irina Francesca degli Schiavoni, 2/95 p. 12)
[registering a chief indented crusilly long at the upper
points] Pelican has found support for the unusual line of division
on the chief in a somewhat similar design element in Randle Holme's Book
(15th c.): a coat blazonable as Ermine, a chief indented flory at the upper
points sable is attributed to Adame Dovynt of Sowthereychyre (Surrey).
We find the line of division of the chief here to be a reasonable extension
of that period line. (Paul de Gorey, 5/96 p. 5)
Armory Precedents
[registering Quarterly embattled... ] In spite of the line of division, this looks like quartered arms. It is also, however, specifically legal by our rules, in this case XI.3.a. (Sean O'Nolan, 9/94 p. 4)
By current standards, a roundel invected is not considered a "standard vehicle" for the display of armory, and thus this is not considered arms of pretense under RfS XI.4. (Myron Duxippus Draco, 9/94 p. 11)
[returning on a heart two axes in saltire] RfS XI.4. disallows having more than one charge on a shape which was used for the display of armory. As a heart was such a shape, the presence of two axes means we have to return this design. (Mary Black Axe, 2/95 p. 11)
...it was a period practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to apply to former holders of the office, but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a claim to be the current Dragon Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess" (RfS XI). (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
[returning Per pale sable and ermine, in canton a domestic
cat's face argent, a bordure counterchanged argent and sable.]
This falls afoul of RfS XI.3., which states that "Armory that appears to
marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous." The rule goes
on to note that such marshalled fields "may be used with identical charges
over the entire field, or with complex lines of partition or charges overall
that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry." The use of
a counterchanged bordure here is not used in the usual way of an overall
charge (indeed, bordures were, and are, used in a number of countries for
cadencing), and serves in no way to lessen the appearance of marshalling.
Indeed, the fact that the bordure is not counterchanged of the field only
serves to accent the appearance of the dimidiation of two independent coats,
Sable, in chief two cat's faces, a bordure argent and Ermine, a bordure
sable. (Yves le Chat Blanc, 6/96 p. 13)
[a mascle vs a rustre] [There is a] CD for the difference
between a mascle and a rustre. We have no evidence that mascles and
rustres were considered interchangeable in period. (Daniel de Lincoln,
10/95 p. 4)
The proposal lifting the restriction of the use of the
caduceus, rod of Aesculapius, and bowl of Hygeia to those with medical
credentials is affirmed. These charges are available for use by anyone
wishing to do so, regardless of their medical background, experience, or
credentials. (CL 10/95)
[registering a sea-pithon] There was some question as to whether the fish tail was sufficiently identifiable here. ...while we cannot see granting any difference at all between a pithon and a sea pithon because of the similarity of the fish and serpentine tails here, we saw no reason not to allow this variation here. (Windhaven, Shire of, 7/94 p. 5)
[a panther rampant guardant argent spotted sable incensed gules vs. a lion rampant argent] There is a CD for type for the difference between the cats, but that is all. [I.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference.] (Ulfhethinn the Bold, 8/94 p. 15)
[a winged unicorn vs a pegasus] There is one CD... for the difference between a pegasus and a winged unicorn. (...If we are going to grant a difference between a unicorn and a horse, I cannot see that we can justify not granting one just because they both have added wings.) (Thorkell Bloodaxe of Gardar, 9/94 p. 8)
[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change to the type of wings is too slight to count for the necessary second. [i.e. there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature.] (Onuphrius Dru Overende, 1/95 p. 14)
[a seven-headed dragon vs a dragon] The change in number of heads, from one to seven, is the visual equivalent of adding wings; that it, worth a CD. While we do not normally grant a CD for change to the number of heads (e.g., eagles vs double-headed eagles), the difference between seven heads and one head is sufficiently remarkable that it should be worth such a difference on a primary charge.
[registering the blazon a phoenix rousant wings addorsed] The phoenix is not truly "rising", a posture which for phoenices is the equivalent of "displayed". We have modified the blazon to better match the emblazon. (Battle Rock, Canton of, 2/95 p. 9)
[The charge] here is not a unicorn's head, but a unicornate horse's head. Unicornate horses (and by extension, their heads) have been disallowed for some years now. [The device was returned] (Jean de Chauliac, 2/95 p. 12)
[a hare vs a rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attires argent] [There is a CD] for the removal of the attires, which a comparison of the emblazons showed to be