Armory Precedents of the SCA College of Arms

The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth

This is a collection of armory precedents from the tenure of Dame Elsbeth Anne Roth as Laurel Queen of Arms from June 1999 through July 2001. The choice of what was included was the editor's. I have chosen to include some items not generally considered "precedents" as they simply reapply existing precedents. This has been done to (hopefully) make it easier to find a relevant ruling to support things that "everyone knows" – such as the fact that there is not a CD between passant and statant. The official – and complete – rulings appear in the relevant LoARs and Cover Letters.

I have tried to follow the categories established in previous precedents. In general, if there are two or more precedents dealing with the same heraldic charge (or field division), these are placed in their own category. All of the items in the miscellaneous categories (e.g., CHARGE – Miscellaneous) are listed in the index. If you don't find an expected category in the Table of Contents, check the index.

The category CHARGE – Miscellaneous is arranged alphabetically by charge. The category Visual Comparison has rulings related to a specific piece of armory and the entries are alphabetical based on the owner of the armory. Other categories are arranged in reverse chronological order.

The texts listed are taken directly from Letters of Acceptance and Return (LoAR), or from the accompanying cover letters (CL). Ellipses (...) are used to indicate deleted text. The source of the text is cited at the end in square parentheses, by submitter’s name, date of the LoAR, and the location within the LoAR. Since so many people are using the electronic versions of the LoAR page numbers are not included. Instead the location is indicated as either acceptances (A) or returns (R) and the kingdom. Those texts excepted from a cover letter are cited by the date of the cover letter and "CL". Editorial comments are in italics within square brackets.

The following heralds are referred to by title: Argent Snail (Jaelle of Armida), Clarion (Zenobia Naphtali), Batonvert (Zenobia Naphtali), and Brachet (Frederick of Holland).

I wish to thank Jaelle of Armida for her help in proof-reading these pages.

In service,
Jeanne Marie Lacroix
Crescent Principal Herald
mka Martha L. Ranc

Table of Contents (Armory)

ADMINISTRATIVE
ANNULET
ARCHITECTURE
ARRANGEMENT
ARROW
AUGMENTATIONS
BEAST -- Antelope and Yale
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
BEAST -- Ferret
BEAST -- Horse and Zebra
BEAST -- Miscellaneous
BEAST -- Reremouse
BEND and BEND SINISTER
BIRD -- Chicken
BIRD -- Eagle
BIRD -- Falcon
BIRD -- Hawk
BIRD -- Miscellaneous
BIRD -- Owl
BIRD -- Precedent on Difference
BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Swan
BORDURE
CARD PIQUE
CASTLE and TOWER
CHALICE and CUP
CHARGE -- Miscellaneous see the index for a list of charges included in this category
CHARGE -- Overall
CHARGE -- Peripheral
CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved
CHARGE GROUP
CHESS PIECE
CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED
CHIEF
COMPASS ROSE
COMPASS STAR and SUN
COMPLEXITY
CONTRAST
CORONET
COTISES
COUNTERCHANGING
CRESCENT
CROSS
DOCUMENTATION
DOLPHIN and WHALE
ESCARBUNCLE
ESTOILE
FESS
FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
FIELD DIVISION -- Chaussé
FIELD DIVISION -- Checky
FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny
FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pale
FIELD PRIMARY
FIELD TREATMENT -- Honeycomb
FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned
FIELD TREATMENT -- Semy see SEMY
FIELDLESS
FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES
FISH
FLAMES and FIRE
FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Thistle
FOIL
FOOTPRINT
FRET and FRETTY
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
GUILLOTINE
HAMMER
HEAD
HEART and SEEBLATT
IDENTIFIABILITY
INSECT
KNOTS
LAMP and LANTERN
LEAF
LINES of DIVISION -- Bevilled
LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled
LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Potenty
LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
MACE
MON
MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
MONSTER -- Griffin
MONSTER -- Mantyger
MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
MONSTER -- Phoenix
MONSTER -- Pithon
MONSTER -- Sea
MULLET
MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
ORIENTATION
ORLE
PALL
PAWPRINT
PILE and PILE INVERTED
PLANT
POSITION
POSTURE
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
PROPER
RECONSTRUCTIBILITY
REPTILE -- Miscellaneous
REPTILE -- Serpent
ROUNDEL
SALTIRE
SCHNECKE
SEEBLATT see HEART and SEEBLATT
SEMY
SHIP
STAFF
STYLE
SUN see COMPASS STAR and SUN
SUNBURST
SWORD
SYMBOL
TIERCE see CHARGE -- Peripheral
TINCTURE
TREE
VISUAL COMPARISON
WEIRDNESS
WINGED OBJECTS
WREATH
X.2 Rule Change
ZULE
INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE

This was submitted on a badge form as mon. We no longer distinguish mon from devices and generally require that they also be submitted on device forms. We could have registered this as a badge but decided to be generous and allow the submitter what he requested as the difference is purely administrative. [Eric of Eisental, 08/99, A-East]

[Rules Change -- change of examples in the rule] XI.1. Reserved Charges - Armory that contains elements reserved to or required of certain ranks, positions, or territorial entities, inside or outside the Society, is considered presumptuous. Symbols reserved or required solely inside the Society may only be registered to those entitled to the status associated with those symbols.

Examples of such elements include the field Azure, semy-de-lys Or, which is restricted to French royalty; a laurel wreath, required for official Society branches; the knight's annulet of chain, etc. Lists of these charges can be found in the glossary. Some elements, like the French royal field, are always restricted. Others are limited to specific segments of the Society. For example, individuals may not place laurel wreaths on their armory, while only those who are royal peers may use the insignia of those ranks. [10/99, CL]

The Administrative Handbook does limit joint registration to a "couple" but does not define the term (and the term is used very loosely, i.e., the rules do not specifically say that badges and household names can be registered by more than one individual, they just indicate how the name or badge should be referenced when registered by a couple). A couple does not require that the two people be of different sex, and as we do not inquire as to the exact relationship in general we do not do so here. We do, however, intend to alter the Administrative Handbook to be clearer on the issue and to allow registration of joint badge by any two (but no more than two) individuals. [Yin Mei Li and Marie Lorraine de Montclair, 01/00, R-Artemisia]

While we will allow more than one badge to be associated with a single order or household, we do not allow a single badge to be associated with more than one item. [Middle Kingdom, 02/00, R-Middle]

[Gules, a bear passant sable between three mullets of six points Or] The submitter asked that this be registered under RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions. She included numerous examples of sable charges on gules from different areas of Europe. While there was enough evidence given to support Gules, a bear passant sable (which conflicts with Berlin, Argent, a bear passant sable), the only examples the submitter presented of a low contrast charge between high contrast secondaries the central charge was an ordinary. As ordinaries have a different level of complexity from an animate charge, we cannot consider their examples as sufficient. None of the examples present showed the case Gules, <an animate charge> sable between <charges> Or (or argent). The Documented Exceptions rule is by nature very conservative; one needs multiple examples of very similar patterns to allow extrapolations. Therefore, we must return the device. [Ursula Georges, 03/00, R-An Tir] [Ed.: Berlin's bear is actually rampant - "Gules, a bear passant sable" was registered to her 02/01, A-An Tir.]

There is another issue to consider with this badge: whether it is sufficiently different from his real world crest, A demi-lion rampant Argent gorged of a coronet of four fleurs-de-lis (one and two halves visible) Azure holding between his paws an escutcheon Gules. The Administrative Handbook (III.A.9) states No name or device will be registered to a submitter if it is identical to a name or device used by the submitter for purposes of identification outside of a Society context. This includes legal names, common use names, armory, trademarks and other items registered with mundane authorities that serve to identify an individual or group...Any change that causes a blazonable difference between mundane and Society arms is sufficient to allow registration by Laurel. A crest falls into the other items category so this badge must have a blazonable difference to be registered. David of Moffat argued that it differed in two ways: that the coronet on his badge is a default coronet of three points and thus different from the coronet of fleurs-de-lys, and that his badge had a demi-lion erased, while the reasonable assumption for a crest is that the demi-lion is couped. While it has been true that the default coronet is a simple coronet of three points, we have for a while now been allowing the blazon coronet to be used with any period depiction of a coronet that is not otherwise reserved, e.g. a coronet could not be drawn as an embattled coronet unless the owner of the armory was a Count or Countess. Thus the difference between a coronet and a coronet of four fleurs-de-lys is not sufficient to make two pieces are armory non-identical. There is, however, a blazonable difference between a coronet of three points and a coronet of four fleurs-de-lys so we have increased the difference between the badge and crest by explicitly blazoning the type of crown.

As for the erasing of the demi-lion, the evidence provided was convincing that a demi-beast issuant from the torse would not normally be drawn as erased, thus the erasing of the lion is also a blazonable difference. Therefore, if there were no conflict, this badge would be (barely) sufficiently different from David of Moffat's real-world crest to allow registration. [David of Moffat, 04/00, R-An Tir]

... it is possible to avoid a style problem by reblazoning, that only holds if the alternate blazon is equally valid. The relative sizes of the three portions of the field, the rarity of period examples combining chiefs and plain bases, and the space between the lozenges and the the [sic] sides of the shield make the alternate blazon highly unlikely and thus not a valid blazon. [Sabine du Bourbonnais, 05/00, R-Lochac]

This badge was submitted on a device form instead of a badge form. Badges must be submitted on the badge form, although the submitter is free to display it on any shape she desires. [Maredudd Angharad ferch Gwenhyfar, 10/00, R-Outlands] [Ed.: Returned for this reason alone]

[Badge for the Wyvernwood Pursuivant] ... current Administrative policy forbids the registration of badges to local offices when a kingdom or corporate office already has a badge. Therefore we cannot register a badge to a local pursuivant. [Wyvernwoode, Barony of, 10/00, R-Trimaris] [Ed.: Also returned for conflict]

[protection of provincial arms] The Administrative Handbook specifies that the arms of a nation are by definition sufficiently significant to protect. In addition, Laurel has registered provincial arms, with the following statement:

Therefore we are registering as important non-SCA heraldry provincial arms. At this time the arms being registered are those of the provinces of Canada. If similar coats from other nations are brought to our attention on a letter of intent we will likely register those as well. This ruling applies only to coats of arms of analogous regions: not to designs which happen to have an armorial appearance, and not to the arms of smaller regions than provinces. (Cover Letter, 1/98)

Until this time, this standard had been used only to protect the arms of the states of the United States of America and the provinces of Canada. These entities were considered important enough to protect for two reasons, one explicit and one implicit. The explicit reason was that they were arms, as opposed to flags, belonging to quasi-sovereign entities with powers often reserved to nations; the implicit reason was that these entities are highly familiar to most members of the Society. We are, therefore, making the second condition explicit and requiring that sub-national entities and their arms be important or familiar to most members of the Society for their arms to be protected. [12/00, CL] [Ed: For complete discussion see the Cover Letter]

[Gyronny arrondy Or and gules, in canton a laurel wreath sable] Conflict with the Order of the Laurel, (Tinctureless) A laurel wreath. As the order's badge is tinctureless and fieldless, there is not a CD for position, nor is there any CD's for tincture.

There was some discussion as to whether these could be called clear via RfS X.3 Required Charges Transparent. That rule, however, only allows armory with required charges to be considered "simple armory" for the purposes of X.2. As both pieces of armory are already simple, this rule does not apply. A reasonable extension of this rule would be to allow armory consisting of only required charges to be considered field primary, which was presumably the intent of the commenters. That extension, however, would be a rules change and thus needs to be considered as such. In any case, RfS X.3 only applies when both pieces of armory have required charges, and the laurel wreath is not a required charge for the Order of the Laurel. [Vargavik, Shire of, 04/01, R-Lochac]

ANNULET

There is one CD for the field but nothing for involved serpent vs. annulet. [Alexander le Browere, 07/99, R-Atenveldt]

[Azure, a sun within an orle argent] The device is clear of ... Azure, an estoile of eight rays within an annulet and a bordure all argent. Even though an orle looks like an annulet on a round field, they are nonetheless separate charges: if this were drawn on the standard shield shape the difference would be given automatically and it is unfair to penalize the drawing when it is forced to be circular by administrative requirements. [Taliesin de Morlet, 03/01, R-Caid] [returned for a different conflict]

[a serpent involved in annulo vs. a torque] There is a CD for ... changing the type of the primary charge. [Alexander le Browere, 07/01, A-Atenveldt]

ARCHITECTURE

There is a CD between a wall throughout and a castle. While the usual rule of thumb is that there is no CD for a non-ordinary for the same non-ordinary throughout, a wall acts effectively as a fess embattled. [Brian Brock, 07/99, A-Atenveldt]

While a castle is not significantly different from either a tower or a bridge, there is little history of identification between a tower and bridge, unlike that between a tower and a castle. Neither is there a strong visual similarity between a tower and a bridge as there is between a castle and a bridge. Thus we find that there is a CD between a tower and bridge. [Michael Gillean of Blackwater Keep, 08/99, A-Æthemearc]

ARRANGEMENT

[Per saltire argent and gules, two axes argent] The device technically conflicts with ... Quarterly Or and sable, in bend sinister two double-bitted axes argent. There is one CD for the changes to the field. Under current precedent the arrangement of the axes is a forced change and not worth a CD. [Berowelf fon Haholtesheime, 07/99, R-Middle]

The two annulets are neither conjoined nor interlaced, but are slightly overlapping, which blurs the distinction between the two and is not, as far as we know, period practice. [Larisa Andriushkina zhena Ivanova doch, 09/99, R-An Tir]

[Gules, two serpents volute about each other, heads to center fesswise, argent and Or.] No documentation was provided showing examples of two serpents being combined in this manner (two interleaved spirals). Furthermore, the emblazon is not reproducible from this blazon (it is unclear which serpent is argent and which is Or), nor could anyone come up with a better one. [Malcolm MacAdaim, 02/00, R-Meridies]

[Per bend sinister azure and argent, two horse's heads issuant from the line of division counterchanged] The device motif is currently registerable; it follows a pattern found in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, using linden leaves, and Palimpsest has found a 15th century example of a similar motif using wolf heads. [Hildegard von Garmisch, 04/00, A-Middle]

[Azure, a chevron argent between in dexter chief a sun in his splendor and in base three aspen leaves Or] The use of a single charge in dexter chief and three charges in base creates a very unbalanced appearance; however, as this is the only oddity in this device, we have decided that it is barely registerable. [Talore MacConlae, 07/00, A-Outlands]

[in chevron five compass stars elongated palewise] To quote Clarion: "It is standard SCA and mundane practice to put charges 'in <ordinary>.'" Thus, this does not fall afoul of the ban against charges in arch, nor that forbidding constellations. [Johann von Sternberg, 09/00, A-Ansteorra]

[Quarterly sable and gules, all semy of fraises Or] Conflict with ... Azure, six roses, two, two and two, Or. There is not a CD for number of primary charges, nor is there one for arrangement. [Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 09/00, R-Artemisia]

[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part of an arrangement in annulo. [Eiríkr Þorvaldson, 10/00, R-Artemisia]

[Three birds close conjoined in annulo] These birds are not conjoined in annulo, they are connected by the legs. As such, this depiction is not blazonable. We would need evidence that this motif is a reasonable heraldic depiction as well as a valid blazon for it in order to register it. [Bran Trefonin, 11/00, R-Atlantia]

[Azure, in canton a mullet of four points, a bordure argent] Conflict with Ariel of Alon, Azure, two compass stars argent and a sword argent, hilted gules, winged Or, a bordure argent. As neither a compass star nor a mullet of four points are period charges, and they differ only by the addition of the lesser points, there is not a CD between a mullet of four points and a compass star. There is also not a CD for arrangement on the field, because William's mullet occupies the same space as one of Ariel's compass stars. Therefore there is only a single CD for changing the number of primary charges. [William Killian, 01/01, R-Ansteorra]

ARROW

[three arrows couped below the fletching Or] The demi-arrows are not identifiable. Most commenters were unable to determine what the charge was from its emblazon. It is unclear if it is possible to draw the lower half of an arrow in an identifiable way. Thus the device violates RfS VI7.a, "Identification Requirement - Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance... Elements not used in period armory may be defined and accepted for Society use if they are readily distinguishable from elements that are already in use..." Before we will register this charge we need to see a clearly identifiable depiction and would like to see evidence that using just the lower half of an inanimate charge is consistent with period practice. [Justinus Fletcher, 02/01, R-Meridies]

... there is a CD between a spear and an arrow. [Angus Kerr, 06/01, A-East]

[Azure, a chevron and in chief two ram's heads erased respectant argent] Conflict with... Azure, a chevron and in chief two sheaves of arrows argent. A sheaf is considered a single charge, therefore there is only a single CD for changing the type of the secondary charges. [Murchad inn digri, 06/01, R-Meridies]

AUGMENTATIONS

Augmentations are required to by themselves be free of conflict, as noted in the October 1998 LoAR (James Eldon of York, Kingdom of the Outlands). [Welfengau, Canton of, 10/99, R-Ealdormere]

[Sable, an annulet argent] Conflict with ... Sable, an annulet surmounted by three dragon's claws in pall conjoined at the tips argent between, as an augmentation, in fess two bezants and in pale in annulo an Oriental dragon passant to sinister and another passant inverted Or. The base armory is still protected, even with the augmentation, so there is only a single CD for the deletion of the overall charge group. [Cainneach mac Asgaill, 04/00, R-Artemisia]

[change to base device plus addition of augmentation]... as we protect both the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, a device change and an augmentation must be submitted as two separate actions. [Galen of Bristol, 10/00, R-Ansteorra]

[Sable mullety of four chapé wavy Or, in chief two compass stars azure, as an augmentation, on a chalice Or, a laurel wreath vert] The shire requested this as a device change plus an augmentation; however, as can be seen by the blazon above, the augmentation is the charged chalice, therefore the device change must be to Sable mullety chapé wavy, in chief two compass stars azure. As armory with augmentations can be displayed without the augmentation, the device change is to a device without a laurel wreath, which by Administrative Handbook II.D.2, is required for all branches. [Riviere Constelle, Shire of, 01/01, R-Middle]

[rules change] VIII.7. Augmentations of Honor – An augmentation of honor must be compatible with period armorial style.

An augmentation is an honor bestowed by the crown, taking the form of an addition or alteration to the honoree's device. While the right to an augmentation is bestowed by the crown, its form is subject to the normal registration process. The augmentation must itself follow the armory rules; if it has the appearance of being independent armory, for example a charged escutcheon or canton, then it is independently subject to the normal rules of armorial conflict. The augmentation may, however, on a case by case basis break the rules in relation to the original armory. For example, Sable, on a chief argent a lion passant maintaining, in augmentation, an escutcheon gules charged with a cross throughout argent is acceptable even though it breaks RfS VIII.1.c.ii., Layer Limit. Gules, a lion argent, and in augmentation a canton argent charged with a tower Or is not acceptable, as the augmentation internally breaks RfS VIII.2., Armorial Contrast. Since an augmentation is an earned honor, it may in some cases violate RfS XI.3. Marshaling or RfS XI.4. Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor. Arms in their augmented form are subject to the normal rules of conflict.

[06/01, CL]

[rules change] XI.4. Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor – Armory that uses charges in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense or an unearned augmentation of honor is considered presumptuous.

Period and modern heraldic practice asserts a claim to land or property by surmounting an individual's usual armory with a display of armory associated with that claim. Such arms of pretense are placed on an escutcheon. Similarly, an augmentation of honor often, though not necessarily, takes the form of an independent coat placed on an escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a single escutcheon may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a single tincture. For example, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an escutcheon sable charged with a roundel argent has the appearance of being arms of pretense or an augmentation. Or, in saltire five escutcheons sable each charged with three roundels argent does not have this appearance, as it has multiple escutcheons, as so is acceptable. The exception to the restrictions of this rule is when the submitter is entitled to an augmentation as described in RfS VIII.7. Augmentations of Honor.

[06/01, CL]

BEAST -- Antelope and Yale

[A yale passant argent spotted gules] Conflict with ... An antelope statant argent. By the precedent set in August 1991 LoAR (p. 21, s.n. Jervisa Wainwright), there is not a CD between an antelope and a yale, and by the precedent set in November 1995 (p. 13, s.n. Ciarán Dubh Ó Tuathail), the spots on a yale can be drawn or left off at the artist's discretion and thus do not generate difference. [Marguerite des Baux, 06/00, R-Calontir]

... there is a CD between a yale and a goat. Current evidence indicates that there is no period connection between a yale and a goat; rather, there seems to be a period connection between a yale and an antelope. [Elizabeth Braidwood, 09/00, A-An Tir]

BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger

[Ermine, a wingless gryphon rampant contourny within a bordure sable] We are registering this submission despite its similarity to Helmut zu Jülich, Quarterly gules and Or, a lion rampant contourny within a bordure sable. The language of the prior return, dated May 1998, strongly implied that a redraw was all that was needed to clear the conflict, and the submitter has done this. We leave open the question as to whether a wingless griffin and a lion rampant should be considered significantly different in the future. [William Geoffrey the Rogue, 07/99, A-An Tir]

The man-tyger is a period charge dating to 1529, therefore by X.4.e there is a significant difference between this charge and a cat. [David Drzislav, 07/99, A-Atenveldt]

The stripes on the colored emblazon were simply line drawings that were not colored in, thus they are not present enough to blazon, but present enough to keep the charge a natural tiger. [Pao Hu Tso, 09/99, A-Atenveldt]

... we will continue to blazon natural dolphins as natural dolphins. However, we will not give a CD between the two types of dolphins although we do between heraldic and natural tigers. [11/99, CL]

[a cat sejant argent striped sable] Conflict with ... a snow leopard sejant argent, spotted sable, and ... a striped silver tabby cat sejant guardant proper. There is no difference given for the change in the markings ... [Aodhnait Máire Siobhàn ní Nuanáin, 01/00, R-Artemisia]

[Per bend azure and vert, a winged Bengal tiger passant argent striped sable] Conflict with ... A winged cat passant, forepaw extended, wings elevated and addorsed, argent and with ... Per pale Or and gules, a winged lion statant argent. There is not a CD for the addition of the stripes to the tiger, therefore there is only a single CD for the change or addition of the field. [Ceara inghean Leogháin, 04/00, R-Meridies]

[(Fieldless) A demi-lion rampant erased argent gorged of a coronet of three points azure and maintaining an escutcheon gules] Conflict with Roger de Bremble, Per pale sable and gules, issuant from a torse argent and sable a demi-lion erect argent, grasping in its dexter paw a sprig of bramble vert, fimbriated argent. There is a CD for fieldlessness (of David's badge) and there is not a CD for the change of the maintained charges. There is also not a CD for the addition of the coronet to David's badge, a demi-lion is large enough that such a change is insignificant as it would be for a whole beast. Finally, the torse in Roger's badge is not significant enough to count as a co-primary.

There is another issue to consider with this badge: whether it is sufficiently different from his real world crest ... the evidence provided was convincing that a demi-beast issuant from the torse would not normally be drawn as erased, thus the erasing of the lion is also a blazonable difference. [David of Moffat, 04/00, R-An Tir]

The primary charge is a misdrawn mantyger. A mantyger has a human head, while this is a lion's head with a human face. Therefore, it conflicts with Belgium, Sable, a lion rampant Or, and various others of the form <Field>, a lion rampant Or. [Aeron Aschennen of Clan MacKenzie, 05/00,R-Ansteorra]

BEAST -- Deer

There is no difference between a reindeer and a stag ... [Kowacz Myklos, 05/00, R-Ansteorra]

[Vert, two stags combattant argent] This is clear of ... Vert, two zebras combattant argent, striped sable. While there is not a CD for removing the stripes, zebras and stags are substantially different; therefore, the device is clear by RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. [Magnus Tindal, 05/01, A-Atlantia]

BEAST -- Dog and Wolf

[a wolf sejant ululant vs. a dog rampant] There is only a single CD for the posture of the canine. [Uilleag Ó Conmhaic, 01/00, R-Meridies]

Collies as a breed originated after the 16th century, therefore they may not be used as a charge. [Aubrée Symonne de Ver, 03/00, R-Meridies]

Some months ago, I asked the College for their opinions on whether precedent should be overturned to give significant difference between a greyhound and a wolf (and more specifically, a greyhound's head and a wolf's head). The standard of RfS X.4.e, Type Changes, is that when comparing two charges both of which were used in period heraldry, we consider them significantly different if they were "considered to be separate" in period. Evidence was presented, which none disputed, that greyhounds and wolves were both period charges. However, responses substantially opposed the change, and therefore the precedent that all canines conflict will remain in place.

However, much of the commentary focused more broadly on issues of identifiability of these and other canines. Batonvert suggested that collars were an important identifier for dogs, but Argent Snail pointed out that in various period rolls of arms one finds more dogs without collars than with. Moreover, Argent Snail pointed out that in one blazon in the Dictionary of British Arms, there was confusion as to whether a specific depiction was intended to be a dog or a wolf. Others were concerned about how we would treat the various breeds of dogs that were not known in period heraldry, particularly those that blur the distinctions between the two. These concerns, while not unimportant, are outside the scope of the issue at question.

Just as we give significant difference between, for example, falcons and swans (when in postures period for falcons and swans), while giving no difference between either and a generic bird, we could easily for canines define a few types (wolf/fox, greyhound, and talbot, for example) each of which is significantly different from one another and a residual category (everything else) which is not significantly different from any of them. Such a plan would allow for a clear precedent regarding both depictions that blurred distinctions (they could be blazoned as generic dogs) and depictions of breeds that are not one of these charges (they would be treated as generic dogs for purposes of conflict). There is, however, insufficient support in the College so no such plan will be implemented at this time. [06/01, CL]

BEAST -- Ferret

Ferrets have pointed faces, do not have a prominent breastbone, and have their neck entering the back of their head rather than the bottom. [Donatien Delaborde, 10/99, R-Ansteorra]

[Gules, a ferret statant argent] The device is also in conflict with the badge for Brittany, An ermine passant argent marked sable. There is only a CD for fieldlessness. [Alycie Stirling, 04/00, R-Lochac]

Blazoned on the LoI as ferrets, the creatures on the emblazon do not have ferret's tails, which are narrow with a tuft at the end. Instead, these creatures have the thick fuzzy tail of the weasel. As there is an artistic if not heraldic difference, we have changed the blazon to match the emblazon. [Donatien Delaborde, 10/00, A-Ansteorra]

[two ferrets combattant] The beasts were not drawn as ferrets, lacking both the thin tail and the elongated body. The device would thus be returned for redrawing except if drawn properly, it would be in conflict with ... Vert, an otter sejant erect Or. There is a CD for the number of primary charges, but nothing for the change in posture. [Robert de Bere, 10/00, R-Atenveldt]

BEAST -- Horse and Zebra

[a zebra argent marked sable vs. a horse argent] There is... nothing for the stripes on the zebra. [Red Lórien of Oak River, 03/00, R-Caid]

[Vert, a horse rampant contourny argent crined Or] Conflict with ... Vert, two zebras combattant argent, striped sable. By precedent "there is...nothing for the stripes on the zebra. (Elsbeth Anne Roth, LoAR March 2000, p 12), so there is only a single CD for number of primary charges. [Alail Horsefriend, 03/01, R-West]

BEAST -- Miscellaneous

[An aardvark] For purposes of registration, coastal sub-Saharan flora and fauna are considered the same as New World flora and fauna: they are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable. [Jamie Snawberd of Ross, 08/99, A-Caid]

There is a CD ... for the difference between a wolverine and a mink. [John the Idiota, 12/00, A-Atenveldt]

[A boar statant sable crined gules] Conflict with ... Per bend lozengy vert and argent and Or, a boar passant sable. There is not a CD for changing tincture of the ridge of fur along the top of the boar, so there is only a single CD for fieldlessness. [Rycharde de Northewode, 03/01, R-An Tir]

[an ibex proper] Ibexes are primarily brown in color... [Magnus mac Gregor Campbell, 07/01, R-Meridies]

BEAST -- Reremouse

[a reremouse dormant dependent from an annulet] The bat was not dormant, but was rather in its natural sleeping posture. We know of no examples of this posture in period heraldic depictions of bats, and for good reason: this posture eliminates any identifiable aspects of the bat. Therefore the device violates VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction: ... Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures ... and VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. [Aindrea Gille Eoghainn, 08/00, R-Atlantia]

[five reremice in annulo] While oriental bats were registered once, in 1988, we have since become more restrictive on the use of Eastern charges. However, because the charges are recognizable as bats, we are registering this badge without specifying the type of bat. [Cassandre Nicole Loustaunau, 03/01, A-Caid]

BEND and BEND SINISTER

[...a scarp enhanced]... we do not register overly enhanced ordinaries, barring evidence of their use in period, as they are inherantly unbalanced. [Lachlann Wick of Brindle Myre, 11/99, R-Caid]

[a bend sinister enhanced] The bend sinister is far too enhanced to be registerable, barring evidence of the use of this motif in period armory. This motif has been reason for return for many years, for example see September 1992 LoAR (p. 37, s.n. Keridwen of Caermarthen). [Dougal of Landewednak, 06/00, R-Lochac]

[a scarpe vert and a scarpe azure] The use of two colors in the scarpes constitutes a weirdness, but it is the only one. [Théophile de Jonchere, 07/00, A-Atenveldt]

[a bend sinister bevilled] The bend is not bevilled; the lower half must be raised relative to the upper half rather than dropped. [Remy le Chat, 02/01, R-Meridies]

[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty] Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... [Ihone MacEogan of Bannockburn, 04/01, R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: Returned for another conflict]

... as a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend sinister indented. [Elvegast, Canton of, 04/01, R-Atlantia]

BIRD -- Chicken
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

[a peacock close] This is clear of Helena of Heathcote, Argent, a heathcock passant to sinister within a bordure purpure. ... as heathcocks and peacocks are both period charges and Helena's heathcock is both chicken-like in appearance and has the distinct upright tail, a second CD for the type of bird. [Dominique Michelle le Vasseur, 09/00, A-Ansteorra]

There is a CD for ... the difference in type between a chicken and a falcon. [Galienne la Bourgoingne, 06/01, A-East]

[a hen close vs a Celtic hawk statant] ...there is a CD for ... the type of bird. [Sabine de Provence, 07/01, A-An Tir]

[a hen close vs a raven speaking] ... there is a CD for ... the type of bird. [Sabine de Provence, 07/01, A-An Tir]

BIRD -- Eagle
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

[two double-headed eagles vs. two falons displayed] There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between the secondary charges. [Geoffrey de la Dale, 09/99, R-Artemisia]

[an eagle displayed vs. a mockingbird displayed] While it is true that birds do not always conflict with other birds, only eagles were displayed in period. Therefore there is not a CD for change in type. [Arnaud de Gournay of Dragonsley, 10/99, R-Ansteorra]

[a raven displayed vs. an eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different birds in period, only eagles were ever displayed. Therefore there is not a CD for type. [Robert le Raven MacLeod, 11/99, R-Artemisia]

There is not a CD between generic birds displayed or migrant and an eagle displayed.... [Elizabeth of Roxbury Mill, 02/01, R-Meridies]

By current precedent, there is not a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed. [Anders Botman, 03/01, R-East]

BIRD -- Falcon

[two double-headed eagles vs. two falons displayed] There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between the secondary charges. [Geoffrey de la Dale, 09/99, R-Artemisia]

[a falcon rising wings addorsed vs. an owl striking]. I am hereby overturning the precedent declaring that "raptors are raptors". Falcons and owls were different charges in period and have differing outlines; therefore we are allowing a CD (although not substantial difference) between them. For a fuller discussion, see the cover letter. [see BIRD -- Precedent on Difference] [Wojciech Bobrowski, 01/00, A-Atlantia]

[a martlet vs. a falcon close] By recent precedent (see the January 2000 cover letter) [see BIRD -- Precedent on Difference], two birds which were heraldically distinct in period are a CD apart when shown in period postures. Falcons and martlets were distinct charges in period and both devices show the birds in their default postures. [Andrew of Doune Castle, 04/00, A-Artemisia]

... there is a CD for type between a falcon rising and a swan rousant, there are two CDs for number and type of primary charges, as well as a third for the difference in posture (wings addorsed vs. wings displayed) between the two birds. [Cecilia Kandzierzawa , 02/01, A-Atenveldt]

Furthermore, swans and falcons, while significantly different, are not substantially different therefore we cannot call the two pieces of armory clear by RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. [Anthony of Beaumaris, 05/01, R-Meridies]

There is a CD for ... the difference in type between a chicken and a falcon. [Galienne la Bourgoingne, 06/01, A-East]

BIRD -- Hawk
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

[hawks displayed vs. swallows migrant] ... a second [CD] for change in type of the primary charge. The swallows have a very pronounced forked tail, which makes them visually quite distinct from hawks. [Rayya al-Kurtubiyya, 06/00, A-Ansteorra]

As rising is a reasonable posture for both ravens and hawk, we would normally give a CD for the change of type of the bird. [Grainne of Aileach, 02/01, R-Artemisia]

[a hen close vs a Celtic hawk statant] ...there is a CD for ... the type of bird. [Sabine de Provence, 07/01, A-An Tir]

BIRD -- Miscellaneous
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

I believe that in period some allowance was made in drawing a blazoned cant (although admittedly probably not this much). In this case, preserving the cant takes precedence over the exact details of the drawing. The submitter should be told, however, to make the charge on the sun more osprey-like and less eagle-like. [Damianus Petrolino, 06/99, A-Atlantia]

[a dove volant vs. a dove volant, wings addorsed] There is a CD for the ... posture of the bird, as the change in wing position is significant. [Sophia de Verdun, 10/99, A-Calontir]

There is a CD between a swallow and a duck [Francesca da Bari, 11/99, A-Artemisia]

There is a CD for ... the change in type between a raven and a dodo. [Raven Jäde vom Schwarzwald, 07/00, A-Atlantia]

[two penguins respectant proper] The penguins are unidentifiable. One of the reasons that they are unidentifiable is that they appear to be in a rampant posture; rampant is not an allowable posture for birds. [Adriana Lynette Noel, 11/00, R-Middle]

There is not a CD between generic birds displayed or migrant and an eagle displayed.... [Elizabeth of Roxbury Mill, 02/01, R-Meridies]

BIRD -- Owl
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

There is one CD for the difference between an owl and a harpy; however, there is not substantial difference. [Kazimira Suchenko, 08/00, R-East]

[Per chevron vert and sable, three owls argent] This is close but clear of Nicole de l'Havre des Chouettes Or, three barn owls [Tyto alba] affronty each perched upon an olive branch all proper. While there is not a CD between an owl close guardant and an owl close affronty, after examining the emblazon of Nicole's device, we decided that her owls were essentially argent winged brown. As we give a CD for changing the tincture of the wings, there is thus a CD for tincture as well as a CD for the change to the field. [Gaston Trévoux, 10/00, A-Atenveldt]

By current precedent, there is not a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed. [Anders Botman, 03/01, R-East]

[swan vs. snowy egret] There is ... nothing for the difference in type between the two birds. [Medb ingen Domnaill uí Somhairle, 07/01, R-Ansteorra]

BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

The question arose this month of how we count conflict between owls and eagles. Past precedent is clear on this point: they are only insignificantly different ("raptors is raptors"). For the most part we are overturning this precedent, based on rule X.4.e.

The standard in this rule is that when comparing two charges both of which were used in period heraldry, we consider them significantly different if they were "considered to be separate" in period. When considering owls in their default posture of close guardant it is difficult to construct an argument based on period evidence against granting this difference. The owl is found as a heraldic charge as early as 1308 (cited in Parker's Glossary p. 434) and in constant use ever since. Eagles displayed are found from earliest heraldry, and birds of the eagle/falcon/hawk family in the close posture date at least from the reign of Edward II (who died 1327). We have no reason to believe that there was ever any confusion between owls and the eagle/falcon/hawk family.

This raises the question of how the SCA's current interpretation arose. The likely answer is found in the precedents of the tenure of Bruce Draconarius. In the LoAR of 09/92 he considered an eagle displayed vs. an owl displayed, and wrote that "The owl and the eagle are both raptors, and the main difference between them - the head posture - is specifically worth no CDs per Rule X.4.h." This was reiterated on the 3/93 letter with "[There is not a CD]for type of raptor in similar postures." In both of these rulings the birds were displayed. That this was a general ruling is made clear on the letter of 08/93, considering an owl [close] affronty vs. an eagle displayed, he wrote "There's a CD for the change in the bird's posture, but nothing for its type: eagles and owls are both raptors, and the main heraldic difference — the head posture — is specifically worth no difference under the Rules (as well as having been subsumed into the rest of the posture change)."

Note that the earlier two submissions, of 09/92 and 3/93, involved owls displayed. This is unattested in period heraldry, where owls are invariably close guardant. The conflict rules make a rigid distinction between the type of a charge and its posture. This works well most of the time, but less so for birds, where the type and the posture are often closely connected. In particular, with vanishingly rare exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be visually similar to an eagle.

The dilemma is that, keeping the rules' rigid distinction between posture and type, either granting a difference for type between owls and eagle or not granting this difference creates undesirable effects. Granting it would encourage more owls displayed, which is certainly inauthentic style and is arguably visually over-generous. Not granting it discourages registration of owls even in their attested posture and is inconsistent with both the spirit and the letter of rule X.4.e. Laurel chose the former path as the lesser evil.

The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period, any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any bird in a displayed posture usuing the visual test of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a "weirdness". Henceforth owls, being distinct charges in period, are generally considered significantly different from other birds, but are subject to the preceding visual comparison if displayed. The end result of this is that there is still no difference granted for owls displayed vs. eagles displayed, but there now is a difference for type between owls close guardant and eagles/falcons/hawks close. In the future I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference. This also means that in the future I will be stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the defining attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as "a bird." [01/00, CL]

BIRD -- Raven
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

The posture striking affronty is not allowed as it is not known in period armory and is inherently three-dimensional. [Sarra the Gipsie, 03/00, R-Caid]

There is a CD for ... the change in type between a raven and a dodo. [Raven Jäde vom Schwarzwald, 07/00, A-Atlantia]

As rising is a reasonable posture for both ravens and hawk, we would normally give a CD for the change of type of the bird. [Grainne of Aileach, 02/01, R-Artemisia]

[a hen close vs a raven speaking] ... there is a CD for ... the type of bird. [Sabine de Provence, 07/01, A-An Tir]

BIRD -- Swan

[Per bend sinister gules and azure, a swan naiant contourny and a sun Or] Conflict with ... Per bend sinister gules and azure, two owls contourny Or. While there is a CD between a swan and an owl, there is not the substantial difference between the two birds needed for X.2 to hold. Therefore, there is but a single CD for a change of type of the primary charges. [Anne Mary Quinn, 11/00, R-An Tir]

[a swan rousant wings displayed vs a swan rousant sable] There is a CD for the position of the wings (addorsed for Frances, displayed for Isidora). [Isidora Ell'eva, 03/01, A-Caid]

[swan vs. snowy egret] There is ... nothing for the difference in type between the two birds. [Medb ingen Domnaill uí Somhairle, 07/01, R-Ansteorra]

BORDURE

[Argent, a wyvern erect sable winged and bellied azure within a bordure per saltire counter-ermine and azure] This acceptance overturns the precedent dated April, 1992, which banned bordures per saltire of low contrast. While this is unattested in period heraldry, it is consistent with the types of extrapolation which SCA heraldry routinely makes. As such, it is a "weirdness", not a returnable offense. [Melyssande Dunn, 07/99, A-An Tir]

[Gyronny argent and gules, on a plate ...] ... just as we do not allow a compony bordure to share a tincture with the field, the consensus was to not allow a roundel to share a tincture with a gyronny field, as the number of divisions is not high enough to ensure identifiability. [Sarah MacGregor, 08/00, R-Meridies]

[on a bordure three fir trees] ... although placing three charges on a bordure is not grounds for returns, it is highly unusual in period armory. [Phillida Parker, 06/01, R-Ealdormere]

CARD PIQUE

There is no difference between an aspen leaf and a card pique inverted, as there is no evidence that the charges were considered different in period (in particular, there is no evidence that the aspen leaf was used as a charge in period), and visually the two charges are almost identical. [Aislynn Crystyn, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]

... there is enough difference between a seablatt and a card pique for there to be a CD for changing the type of the primary charge [Tamlyn of Wyntersea, 02/01, A-An Tir]

CASTLE and TOWER

[(Fieldless) On a tower sable masoned Or, a lion's head argent] Conflict with Frederic of the West Tower, Argent, a tower sable, on its base a cross patonce voided argent. Upon examining the emblazon for Frederic, it is clear that the cross is argent, so there is only the CD for fieldlessness. [Implying no CD for the masoning.] [Thomas of Calais, 06/99, R-Atlantia] [Registered on appeal 07/00 with a CD for changing type and position of the tertiaries.]

[Per pale argent and sable, an athanor enflamed counterchanged] ... we would prefer that the athanor be drawn in the usual flat style and not in three dimensions. Furthermore in this depiction, the athanor was not distinguishable from a tower; in all previous registrations, the athanor had a retort atop it, which immediately identified it as an alchemical tool. We are not certain if the athanor requires the retort, but it is definitely a helpful aid. If a retort is not added ... then there will not be a CD between the athanor and a tower ... [Ealdormere, Kingdom of, 10/99, R-Ealdormere]

[Three towers conjoined in pall, bases to center, ...] The towers were not conjoined in a standard fashion (with the bases slightly touching), but instead were each touching a large central area. As they also lacked internal detailing, the overall effect looked more like a pall (nowy) couped, the ends embattled. While it is not clear that the charge is inherently unidentifiable, this depiction is definitely unidentifiable, requiring at least a redraw. [Stephen macThomas, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]

CHALICE and CUP

[Pily bendy sinister azure and Or, a chalice gules] Conflict with ... Quarterly Or and argent, a cup gules. There is only one CD, for the change to the field. [Implying no CD between a chalice and a cup] [Citadel of the Southern Pass, Barony of the, 10/99, R-Outlands]

[(Fieldless) A covered cup argent] Conflict with ... Vert, a chalice argent containing flames Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness, but the flames are not large enough to count for difference. [Implying no difference between a covered cup and a chalice] [Kiena Munro, 11/99, R-Outlands]

[(Fieldless) A chalice purpure] Conflict with ... Or, a goblet purpure, jeweled proper. The jewels contribute no difference so there is only a single CD for fieldlessness. [Arn Hold, Barony of, 01/00, R-Artemisia]

[Gules, a two-handled tankard Or within an annulet argent] Conflict with ... Gules, a tankard of beer Or, headed argent. There is a CD for adding the secondary charge, but nothing for adding the second handle nor for the removal of the head. [James Dexter, 07/01, R-Calontir]

CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
This section is arranged alphabetically by charge. A complete list of the charges appears in the index.

[Azure, an amphora Or] This device is in conflict with ... Sable, an ink flask Or. A comparison of emblazons shows that the charges are virtually identical. [Natasha Orionova Zateeva, 10/99, R-An Tir]

[Azure, on a pale between two towers Or an artist's brush and a reed pen inverted in saltire sable] The pen and the brush were difficult to tell apart, particularly as both were drawn as black silhouettes. Therefore, this must be returned for using two similar but non-identical charges on a device (the sword and dagger precedent). [Kayleigh von Brückenheim, 04/00, R-Atenveldt]

[An astrolabe erminois] An astrolabe has far too much internal detail to remain identifiable when tinctured in a fur. [Magnus von Lübeck, 11/00, R-Ansteorra]

[a hammer and an axe proper] The hammer and the axe were completely brown. An axe does not have a proper coloring, and a hammer proper is sable hafted of brown wood. In neither case are the heads brown. [Iain MacConmhaoil, 11/99, R-Artemisia]

There is a substantial difference between a beacon and a scaling ladder ... [John Trevor of Chinon, 06/00, A-Calontir]

A bell is not simple enough to void and thus not simple enough for X.4.j.ii to apply. [Azelin Cola of Wishford, 08/00, R-East]

[(Fieldless) A belt in annulo gules] The common use in the SCA of a red belt to denote a squire is nevertheless not a protected usage. Therefore this badge is not presumptuous. Furthermore, because badges are not regalia, the registration of this badge does not restrict anyone, squire or not, from wearing a red belt. [Herveus d'Ormonde, 04/01, A-Atlantia]

[(Fieldless) A wooden bucket proper.] This is close to Dorothea van der Zee, A wooden basket proper. Both buckets and baskets are found in period (for example, Pemberton, Argent three buckets sable, with various citations from 1470-1520 found in the DBA, and Milton Abbey, Sable three baskets argent with bread in them also from around 1500 and cited from the DBA). While there has been some cases where a modern herald was unable to determine if a charge was a bucket or a basket, there is no reason to believe that the charges were not distinct in period. Also, an examination of the emblazons shows that while the two charges look similar, there is sufficient visual difference between them (in overall shape as well as in details) to call them clear. [Morgan Catriona Bruce, 08/99, A-Atenveldt]

[caltrops vs. mullets] There is a CD for the change in the type of primary charges ... [Toen of Aston Tor, 07/01, A-Calontir]

[(Fieldless) A cauldron sable] Conflict with ... Or, a cauldron suspended from a tripod sable. The tripod is not significant enough to contribute difference. [Beinntheine, Shire of, 03/00, R-Meridies]

... the chamfron is a sufficiently difficult charge to identify that charging it makes it unidentifiable. [Flora Monswife, 11/99, R-Caid]

[Gules, a cubit arm sustaining a bow fesswise argent] By Laurel precedent (see the November 1994 LoAR, Cyril Bowman, pg. 12), the cubit arm/bow combination is disallowed by rule RfS VII.7.a "Identification Requirement" as it not sufficiently distinguishable from a cross bow. It is thus also in conflict with Triaria de la Rivière, Gules, a crossbow between four thistles in cross argent, with only a CD for the addition of secondary charges. [Robert of Hawthorne, 12/00, R-An Tir]

[Gules, a dextrochere Or semy of hearts gules, the hand cupped proper maintaining a plate] ... the hand was depicted edge on. This has been disallowed for arms (see the April 2000 LoAR, p. 18), and the standard references do not show this position for dextrocheres either. [Diana of Llanberis, 01/01, R-Outlands]

While dice were shown in perspective, the known period examples depicted them face forward, rather than edge forward. This minimizes the effect of perspective. Therefore, we must return this device for redrawing. [Arcturius Aleator, 04/00, R-Atlantia]

[three closed fetterlocks Or] This is clear of Berengaria de Hainault, Azure, three stirrups Or, leathered argent. There is a CD for changing the field, and the leather straps in Berengaria's device are substantial enough to provide a second CD between the stirrups and fetterlocks. [Mons von Goarshausen, 03/01, A-Caid]

Al-Jamal provided evidence that standard sources (Parker, Elvin, and Franklyn and Tanner) define fireballs and grenades as identical charges or, at most, minor artistic variants of one another. [Brian Killian the Red, 08/99, R-Atlantia] [Ed.: There is no CD between the two.]

There is not a CD between a dexter hand and a sinister hand... [Aaron MacGregor, 10/00, R-Ansteorra]

[a horned helmet vs. a helm] There is one CD for number of helms, and nothing for type of helm. [Úlfr Skallagrímsson, 10/99, R-Meridies]

[an hourglass purpure framed Or vs. an hourglass Or] ... the inside of an hourglass is at least half the charge. [Carlos Juan Ramiro, 12/99, A-Atlantia]

This is the defining instance of a jewelers saw; therefore, the item must be documented as a period artifact and evidence must be given showing that this emblazon matches period forms. The only documentation given for this artifact dates to the 18th century, well out of our period. [William of Ravenscroft, 06/00, R-Atenveldt]

The lightning flash has been a disallowed change since August 1983 barring any evidence that such a depiction was used in period. We currently allow a lightning bolt. This is a thin line with arrows at both ends, with a square zigzag pattern (like the edge of an embattled ordinary.) However, even the lightning bolt was not found in period except as part of a thunderbolt, a more complex charged used in classical Roman insignia. We recommend that the submitter use a thunderbolt. [Roiberd Mor Barra, 05/00, R-Drachenwald]

[Gules, a pale wreathed argent and azure winged Or] No evidence has been presented, nor was any found, that ordinaries can be winged. We could not reblazon this as a vol with a pale overall, as the wings clearly originate at the edge of the pale. [Marcus Caecilius Existimator, 12/00, R-Artemisia]

... there is substantial difference between a pear and a pinecone, making them clear by RfS X.2 Difference of Primary Charge. [Christofano Vecchione, 05/01, A-Æthelmearc]

[a pretzel] This is clear of ... Vert, a triquetra Or. After comparing emblazons, we decided that there is substantial difference between a triquetra and a pretzel. This is also clear of Stafford (important non-SCA badge), (Tinctureless) A Stafford knot. There is one CD for the fieldlessness of the tinctureless badge, and after consideration, we feel that there is significant, although not substantial, difference between a Stafford knot and this depiction of a pretzel, as the pretzel is knotted differently from a Stafford knot. [Edmund Lambert of Tregelles, 04/01, A-Æthelmearc]

[in pale a fleam inverted and a roundel] ... the combination of the fleam inverted and the roundel creates the appearance of a single charge — a question mark — instead of two separate charges. [Dafydd Ó Nuallain, 11/99, R-East]

The rainbow depicted is not a standard rainbow proper, having only three bands instead of four. Furthermore, rainbows without clouds are unattested in period armory. Either problem may be grounds for return, but the combination of both definitely is. [Phillida Parker, 06/01, R-Ealdormere]

[Sable, in pale a sunburst Or issuant from clouds and a prickspur fesswise reversed argent] Conflict with ... Sable, a spur fesswise reversed argent, with only one CD for the addition of the sunburst. [Bohemond Guiscard, 06/01, R-Atlantia]

[Three thorns in pall inverted] The thorns were unidentifiable. Because we know of no instances of thorns being used as solitary charges we do not know if it is possible to have identifiable thorns without the context of a plant. [Yin Mei Li and Marie Lorraine de Montclair, 01/00, R-Artemisia]

[an eagle-headed torc vs. a torque]. ...there is nothing [no CD] for the opening decoration. [Brandric of Rhydderich Hael, 10/99, R-Æthelmearc]

[A torse wreathed of sable, gules, and argent] While we have no examples of a torse of more than two tinctures as a heraldic charge, all the commentary agrees that such objects were known in period. The rules explicitly allow items known in period to be used as charges, and we also use charges that were only found in crests in period. Since there is good contrast between two of the three divisions of the torse, it does not violate the rules of tincture. [Serena Gethin, 05/00, A-Ansteorra]

... as this would be the defining use of the charge, we would like to see evidence that this depiction of a waterwheel is a reasonable one for use in armory. [Conz von Talstadt, 10/99, R-Ealdormere]

[...a wolf tooth issuant from chief and another issuant from base...] We know of no examples of wolf's teeth issuant from anywhere but from dexter or sinister, nor do we have any examples of them being used singly. We must therefore return the device pending documentation of this use of wolf's teeth. [Temur Arslan, 02/00, R-Atenveldt]

The only registrations of a xonecuilli were to John the Idiota in 1978 and again by him in 1982. It is listed in the Pictorial Dictionary as an Aztec artistic motif. We no longer register artistic motifs even from European sources without evidence that they are compatible with heraldry. Therefore we declare that the xonecuilli is no longer registerable barring evidence that it is compatible with medieval heraldic style. [Anita de Challis, 02/00, R-Atenveldt]

CHARGE -- Overall

The relative size of the charges is unimportant here; the lion is an overall charge while the swords are entirely on the field, therefore they must be in two groups. [Andrew Talbot, 07/99, A-Ansteorra]

[... a tierce sable, overall a winged rabbit ...] There is long standing precedent against having charges overlie a peripheral charge. "It was ruled some five years ago that flaunches should not be surmounted by charges (Wilhelm von Schlüssel, April, 1983) and we see no reason to reverse that ruling." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 23 April 1988, p. 16). Barring evidence that such was done in period, we see no reason to overturn this precedent. We also see no reason to classify a tierce as a field division barring solid evidence that period heralds considered them as such. [Andrés Miguel Rodriguez de la Rosa, 07/99, R-Caid]

The lion is not charged on the maple leaf but is barely overall. Barely overall charges have been ruled unacceptable for a long time and for fieldless badges overall charges must have very little overlap with the charge it surmounts. Either way we must return this badge. [Tanglwyst de Holloway, 09/99, R-Artemisia]

[Per bend sinister purpure and vert, a cow rampant ermine rising from flames proper] This device is returned for having a charge partially overall another charge; the cow was drawn half on the flames and half off. A cow rising from flames would be like a phoenix; i.e. a demi-cow issuant from flames. (It is also a discouraged charge, as I know of no examples of anything besides phoenixes being treated this way.) Furthermore, the flames were drawn as fimbriated, which has not been allowed for some time. [Frederich Holstein der Tollhase, 09/99, R-Middle]

[a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]

[(Fieldless) A sprig of honeysuckle gules slipped and leaved vert within and conjoined to a torse wreathed argent and vert] The base of the sprig slightly overlaps the torse; this has long since been grounds for return. The charges should either touch without overlapping, or the sprig should be entirely on the torse. [Cassandra of the Western Green, 04/00, R-Middle]

By precedent (January 1990 LoAR, pg. 12, s.n. Edward Ashwell of the Crossbow), placing charges directly on overall charges does not violate RfS VIII.1.c, Armorial depth. [Adelicia Brabant, 05/00, A-Ansteorra]

[a bend sinister argent, overall a bull's skull argent] A complex overall charge must not share the same tincture as the ordinary it is surmounting. [Olaf Blodhøx, 05/00, R-Middle]

[Or chaussé purpure, overall two stags combattant proper] The chaussé line of division, along with chapé and vetu , are different from other lines of divisions in that the outer portions never contained charges in period. Thus we can also not allow charges that overlap the outer portions. [Rurik Brattahildski, 05/00, R-Middle]

The tree is not within and conjoined to the annulet; it is slightly overall. This type of "slightly overall" charge has long been a cause for return. [Gyldenholt, Barony of, 06/00, R-Caid]

[A sword inverted argent, entwined overall by a rose purpure, slipped and leaved vert] As drawn, the rose is barely overall. This kind of overall charge has been disallowed for some time. If drawn with a standard entwined rose, it is in conflict with Barbara Fitzhugh de Brandhard, Azure, a sword inverted proper entwined widdershins of a poppy proper. Traditionally, entwined charges are treated like maintained charges unless both charges have equal visual weight. Therefore there is not a CD for the change to the flower. [Kisaiya Zingara, 12/00, R-Atlantial]

[A cross clechy sable, the crossbar draped of a cloth argent] No evidence was given, nor could the College provide any, that draping a cloth over a cross was a motif found in period heraldry. Furthermore, the particular form of draping obscures enough of the cross that it is equivalent to the type of overall charges that have been disallowed for many years (see the cover letter for the November 1992 LoAR, pg. 3). Any future submission should document the particular depiction to period, preferably in heraldry. Moreover, it should limit the amount of overlap so that both charges are clearly identifiable. [Basil von Köln, 03/01, R-Caid]

CHARGE -- Peripheral
see also BORDURE and CHIEF

[Sable, a saltire between in pale two roses Or, flaunches ermine] This is being returned because the flaunches are too small. They should extend to the corners of the device. This may not be possible with saltires, despite the example from Glovers Ordinary of Mosylton, Argent, three pallets azure over all two square flaunches or flanks gules. The difference is that Mosylton's device is also blazoned with the pallets between the flaunches and it may be virtually indistinguishable from Paly argent and azure, two flanks gules. Therefore we would like to see examples of flaunches used with saltires, bends or bends sinister before we are likely to register the combination. [Karsten Werner, 10/99, R-Atlantia]

[Argent, a horse rampant sable and a tierce gules] Conflict with ... Argent, a horse salient sable upon a base embattled gules. The line of division is considered part of the charge by rule X.4.e, Type Changes, so there is only a single CD for changing the type of the peripheral charges. [Guillaine Rosalind de Gaulle, 06/00, R-East]

CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved

[Per pale gules and argent, six roses counterchanged.] This is returned for using the restricted charge, the Tudor rose. The two roses that lie on the line of division are per pale argent and gules, which is one form of the Tudor rose. [Rouland Blackwell, 08/99, R-Ansteorra]

[a Kendal flower proper] The Kendal flower, when proper, is a six petaled rose of alternating argent and gules petals. This makes it a variant of a Tudor rose, as the Tudors combined white and red roses in various manners. Tudor roses are restricted charges and cannot be registered. [Juliana Kendal, 01/00, R-An Tir]

[a bordure embattled azure semy-de-lys Or] The device uses azure semy-de-lys Or on a charge, which is forbidden as it appears to be a claim to have an augmentation from France: The period examples are so numerous that I feel I must uphold the Society's ban on gold fleurs-de-lys on blue backgrounds — and make it explicit. Neither France Ancient (Azure semy-de-lys Or) nor France Modern (Azure, three fleurs-de-lys Or) may be used in SCA heraldry, either as the field (or part thereof) or on a charge. To do so constitutes a claim to connection to French royalty, prohibited under Rule XI.1. (July 1992 LoAR, p.23, s.n. Raoul de Chenonceaux) [Reinhard Lowenkop, 06/00, R-Trimaris]

[An Oriental dragon] The badge uses the restricted charge a five-toed Oriental dragon. The charge cannot be used in the Society because it was used only by Emperors of China. [Michael of the Mace, 09/00, R-Meridies]

[Or, a gurges purpure within a belt sable] Armory using a charge within a belt strap is restricted as such motifs were used as a standard form of badge display in Scottish armory. There is a precedent going back some eight years banning the use of the 'Badge within a strap' since this is a standard form of display for Scottish badges: the chief uses the plain badge and the clansmen use the badge within a strap. Therefore, we have on several occasions returned or pended submissions to allow them to be considered without the strap. In this case, dropping the strap would not be adequate to resolve this problem since conflicts then arise. (January 1990 LoAR, p. 20) [Pol MacNeill, 12/00, R-Meridies]

CHARGE GROUP

[...on a chevron between three hearts argent three hearts sable] There is no problem with having the same type of charge as both secondaries and tertiaries. Submissions are only returned if the same type of charge is used as primary and secondary charges. [Coilin Cruaidhchridheach, 09/99, A-Artemisia]

[Per pall sable, vert and argent, in pale two swords crossed in saltire argent and a cat's paw print counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per fess embattled vert and argent, in pale two swords in saltire and a compass star counterchanged. There is one CD for the changes to the field, but none for change in type and tincture for only one of three of the primary charges (as they are not arranged two and one). [Roger de Kymberle, 09/99, R-Atlantia]

[Per chevron sable and azure, a pall inverted argent between two mullets each within and conjoined to a decrescent Or and a unicorn's head couped contourny argent] The device uses three different charges in the same group of secondary charges and therefore violates RfS VIII.1.a, Armorial Simplicity. [Godric the Gallant, 11/99, R-Meridies]

[Per bend sinister sable and azure, a bend sinister argent between a mullet within and conjoined to a decrescent Or and a unicorn rampant contourny argent] The device uses three different charges in the same group of secondary charges and therefore violates RfS VIII.1.a, Armorial Simplicity. [Gwendolyn of the Isle of Wight, 11/99, R-Meridies]

[Per chevron argent and purpure, two cows statant respectant sable, and in base a carpenter's square, point to chief, and a hammer in saltire Or] The device uses three different charges in the same group of primary charges and therefore violates RfS VIII.1.a, Armorial Simplicity. [Lorcan Mac Colla, 11/99, R-Outlands]

[Or, in pale a horse's head contourny issuant from a heart voided sable] This is clear of Suzanna Jewell, Or, on a heart sable a lozenge Or. There is a CD for the number of primary charges and a second for substantially changing the type of the tertiaries on the hearts; clause b of X.4.j.ii applies to different coprimaries when they are the only charges on the field. [Sean of Lions Gate, 12/99, A-An Tir]

[Per bend sinister argent crusily sable and Or crescenty... sable] Current precedent disallows two different sets of strewn charges directly on the field. In this case, however, the device would be acceptable (if not particularly authentic) if there were three of each type of charge on the field. We see no reason to make a distinction between three and an unnumbered set of strewn charges when there is, as here, a well defined boundary between the two groups of charges, such that either set of charges could be dropped without requiring the other set to fill the field. [William Xanthos, 02/00, A-Atenveldt]

[a roundel between and conjoined in fess to an increscent and a decrescent] ... conjoining the roundel and the crescents severely reduces their identifiability ("The conjoining of the increscent, roundel and decrescent are distinctly non-period. While we will reluctantly register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them unidentifiable as well as non-period. (Jaella of Armida, LoAR September 1997, p. 23)"). [Mivanou merch Deicyn Maur, 03/00, R-Caid]

Clarion (now Batonvert - see below) noted that our current use of the term entwined (or its equivalents) does not indicated whether the surrounding charge is large enough to be considered co-primary or so small it should be considered a maintained charge (or something in between). I do not want to use the word sustained with entwined charges, as neither is sustaining the other, but I am open to suggestions on a way to make the distinction clear in blazon. Until then, entwined charges are generally considered co-primary, but not universally. [07/00, CL]

[... sustaining a banner quarterly sable and gules, seme of fraises Or] ... we do not allow a depiction of heraldic display which conflicts with registered armory... [Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 09/00, R-Artemisia]

[an octofoil within eight octofoils in annulo] Size is not the only thing that determines a primary charge. We were unable to devise a way to describe arrangement of the charges in a way that did not imply that they were a primary charge surrounded by a secondary group. Such arrangements cannot use the same type of charge. The problem could be solved by arranging them in a diamond (1,2,3,2, and 1) or in a square (3,3, and 3). [Yin Mei Li, 09/00, R-Artemisia]

[Purpure, a chevron couched from dexter interlaced with a chevron couched from sinister Or between two arrows, overall an arrow inverted argent] This violates the ban on depictions of the same charge in two different sizes on the field. As drawn, it is unclear if the arrows on the sides are intended to be secondaries or overall charges. [Ásta Þorvaldsdóttir, 02/01, R-Atenveldt]

[Or, an artist's brush and a reed pen inverted in saltire sable ...] The new submission does not solve the problem from the previous submission. There are still two similar but non-identical charges on the device (the pen and the brush), a practice which has been prohibited for some time. Making them primary charges does not change the problem. [Kayleigh von Brückenheim, 02/01, R-Atenveldt]

[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent] This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent, with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge groups. [Avery Westfall, 03/01, A-An Tir]

[Per chevron throughout azure and argent, two chalices and a ship counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per chevron azure and argent, two chalices argent and a cluster of grapes, slipped and leaved, proper. The precedent that allows changes to the bottommost of three charges arranged two and one explicitly limits the amount of difference to one CD; therefore there is only a single CD for multiple changes to the bottom third of the device. [Ginevra da Cunha, 03/01, R-Caid]

[Argent, a bridge throughout embattled sable masoned argent issuant from a ford proper, in chief a raven's head erased sable within a laurel wreath vert] Examination of the emblazon shows that the bridge is the primary charge with the raven's head and laurel wreath as secondaries and the ford as a peripheral ordinary. Therefore the device has three charge groups, none of which have three different types of charges, and therefore does not violate the rule of thumb in RfS VIII.1.a, Armorial Simplicity, forbidding three or more types of charges in a single group. [Ravensweir, Shire of, 05/01, A-An Tir]

CHESS PIECE

[A zule vs. a chess rook] ... there is a CD for type of primary... [Endless Hills, Barony of, 08/99, A-Æthelmearc]

The Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry states that the standard modern depiction of chess pawns, as seen here, was not found in period. Therefore this must be redrawn using a period form of chess pawn. [Fionn Ua Néill, 01/00, R-An Tir]

CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED

"The chevron [inverted] should not intersect the corners of the chief" (Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR 7 July 1986, p. 6). The device needs to be redrawn with the ordinary issuing from the sides of the shield. [Aastasia Gutane, 10/99, R-East]

A chevron rompú is too complex a charge to fimbriate. [Seth of Newcastle, 10/99, R-Meridies]

There is one CD for the difference between a chevron rompu and a chevron fracted. [Theodora of Trebizond, 02/00, A-Artemisia]

[a chevron ployé vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. [implying no CD for ployé vs. plain] [Adriana Kavanaugh¸04/00, R-Atenveldt]

[a chevron throughout raguly on the upper edge] Conflict with ... Azure, a chevron embattled argent. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but nothing for the difference between a chevron embattled and a chevron raguly on the upper edge nor for the difference between a chevron and a chevron throughout. [Thome le Lent, 05/00, R-Drachenwald]

CHIEF

[a chief triangular] The chief descends below the per fess line. This is far too low for a chief triangular, but still far to high for a pile, even without the vol beneath it. [Natalya Berkutova Voronina, 11/99, R-Meridies]

[a chief indented] The device was blazoned as having three triangles issuant from chief. This style of indentation can be found in period (for example Lowell of Balumbye (Lindsay of the Mount, pl. 107)), but it was blazoned as either indented or three piles. As current scholarship believes that such chiefs were originally indented with deep indentations, we decided to blazon it as indented and leave the depth to artistic license. [Galiana fitz William, 07/00, A-Outlands]

There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary charges, but as the position of the chief is part of its type, there is not a second CD for changing the position of the secondary charges. [Cristina Robertsdottir, 07/01, R-Calontir]

COMPASS ROSE

Inverting a compass rose is registerable, but a weirdness. [Tane Verloren, 05/00, A-Ansteorra]

There is no difference given between a compass rose and a compass star within an annulet. [Stephen macThomas, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]

COMPASS STAR and SUN
see also MULLET

[Azure, a talbot's head erased argent within a bordure rayonny Or] Conflict with ... Azure, a wolf's head couped argent vorant of a sun and in chief a laurel wreath Or. The emblazon shows that the sun is not large enough to be significant... [Steafan mac Thamhais, 08/99, R-Ansteorra]

[(Fieldless) On a compass star gules a cross botonny argent] The badge conflicts with ... Argent upon a sun gules a dexter hand apaumy couped argent. There is only the CD for fieldlessness. [Implying no CD between a sun and a compass star and that suns/compass stars are not simple enough for X4.j(ii) to give a CD for type-only change of the tertiaries] [Dun Carraig, Barony of, 10/99, R-Atlantia]

[suns vs. mullets]... as suns and mullets are not substantially [different], there is nothing for changing the type only of the tertiaries. [Ursella of Rowantree, 11/99, R-Caid]

[a compass star pierced] After much thought, we decided that piercing is worth a CD when drawn large enough to be equivalent to adding a tertiary charge, as it is done here; i.e. when it is clearly visible and takes up much of the space available to it. [Sebastian of Dragon's Mist, 12/99, A-An Tir]

[(Fieldless) A compass star elongated to base pierced quarterly Or and argent] Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet, it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or spur rowel. [Eridana Ambra Dragotta, 01/00, R-Caid]

[Gules, a sunburst Or issuant from clouds argent within a bordure Or] Conflict with ... Gules, a demi-sun in splendor Or issuant from a cloud argent. There is only one CD for adding the bordure. [Catalina Oro Sol, 03/00, R-Caid]

[Quarterly sable and gules, on a compass star argent a wolf's head cabossed sable vomiting flames proper] Conflict with ... On a mullet of ten points argent a pheon sable, [and] Per pale azure and gules, on a sun argent an estoile of eight rays sable, and ... Quarterly sable and gules, on a sun argent a two headed eagle sable, a label argent. In the first two cases, there is only one CD for the changes to the field. In the third, there is a CD for the addition of the label. In none of these cases is there a CD for the changes to the tertiary charges or a CD for the type of the primary charge. [Derek Fallon Rathbourn, 05/00, R-Ansteorra]

[(Fieldless) A sun per bend sinister bevelled fesswise gules and Or] The line of division is grandfathered to the submitter, however the badge still conflicts with ...A mullet of five greater and five lesser points distilling gouttes. There is a CD for fieldlessness but nothing for tincture nor for the difference between a sun a a mullet of five greater and five lesser points. [Kragon of Land's End, 05/00, R-Outlands]

A compass star cannot be pierced on a fieldless badge. The precedent was set in January 2000:

Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet, it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or spur rowel. [Stephen macThomas, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]

There is no difference given between a compass rose and a compass star within an annulet. [Stephen macThomas, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]

[Per saltire azure and gules, a compass star pierced within a bordure Or] While we are blazoning this as pierced, this does not mean that we will allow compass stars to be pierced on fieldless badges. In this case, it is simply shorthand for on a compass star a roundel per saltire azure and gules. [Alwyn of Kittisford, 07/00, A-Outlands]

There is a CD between suns and estoiles but not the substantial difference needed for X.2 (Difference of Primary Charges) to apply. [Geneviève de la Loire, 07/00, R-Atlantia]

[Quarterly gules and sable, on a sun Or a wheel proper] Conflict with the badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or (Kriemhild of Stonecroft), Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between a mullet of nine points and a sun, and nothing for changing the type only the tertiary charges. An examination of Kriemhild's emblazon shows that the head is primarily brown. [Ive Rathbourn, 08/00, R-Ansteorra]

[mullets of six points vs compass stars] Current policy is to not grant different between mullets of six or more points... [Martin Diaz, 08/00, R-East]

[a sun vs. a mullet of five greater and five lesser points] By current precedent there is not a CD between a sun and a mullet of ten points... [Thorgrim Ketilsson, 09/00, R-Meridies]

[a sun in splendor gules eclipsed Or] The Pictorial Dictionary says that one of the valid depictions of a sun eclipsed is a sun where the entire inner circle is a different tincture. [Irial Féasruadh ó hIarnáin, 11/00, A-West]

There is not a CD between a compass star and a sun... [Taliesin de Morlet, 03/01, R-Caid]

By prior precedent there is not a CD between a compass star and a mullet of four points, nor is there a CD between a compass star and a riven star... [Artemisia da Quieto d'Arzenta, 04/01, R-Lochac]

As with other forms of eclipsing, a sun eclipsed of a moon in her plenitude is registerable (as the equivalent to on a sun a moon in her plenitude) but a discouraged practice. [Geneviève de Saint-Cirq-Lapopie, 06/01, R-Atenveldt] [Returned for other reasons]

... a sun and a mullet (of any number of points) are not substantially different; therefore we cannot call the two devices clear by RfS X.2 Difference of Primary Charge. [Alatheia Fenwick Campbell, 06/01, R-East]

[Vert, a sun argent eclipsed sable] The device has a number of conflicts including ... Per pale azure and gules, on a sun argent an estoile of eight rays sable. A sun eclipsed is considered equivalent to a sun charged with a roundel, so there is a CD for the field, but not a CD for changing only the type of the tertiary charge. [Galienne la Bourgoingne, 06/01, R-East]

[a compass star pierced vs a compass star] This is clear ... and a second [CD] for the addition of the piercing, which is large enough to be equivalent to a tertiary charge. [Eric of Clan Smith, 07/01, A-An Tir]

[a sun in splendor argent] The device is in conflict with ... Gyronny argent and sable, an estoile of seven points argent fimbriated sable. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for this difference between a seven-rayed estoile and a sun, and nothing for the removal of the fimbriation. [Catalina de Navarra, 07/01, R-Middle]

COMPLEXITY
see also Style

[Azure, on a bend between a quill pen bendwise sinister and an open book Or, a monkey dormant palewise gules, a bordure Or] This is being returned for identifiability and complexity problems. The placement of the monkey dormant fesswise on the bend makes it too small to be identifiable. In addition, the design is unbalanced, and given that its complexity count is eight, this is enough to push it over the edge. [Wolfram von Aalst, 07/99, R-Atlantia]

[Gules, on a bend sinister argent between a sun in his splendor and an increscent Or, three mullets sable within a bordure argent mulletty sable.] This has a complexity count of nine. "While it is true that armory exceeding this ‘rule of thumb' has been registered on rare occasions, these exceptions have only been made for particularly elegant proposals" (Da'ud ibn Auda, January 1994 LoAR, p. 16). "Particularly elegant" generally means that otherwise it is typical of a style of complex period armory, such as Tudor armory. With the use of dissimilar secondary charges and a bend sinister, this is not "particularly elegant". [Cicilia Deldanza, 11/99, R-Artemisia]

[Per bend sinister sable and azure, in bend a roundel between and conjoined in fess to an increscent and a decrescent and a sun Or] There are three different types of primary charges on the field (roundel, crescent, and sun), violating the complexity rule of thumb in RfS VIII.I.a. Furthermore conjoining the roundel and the crescents severely reduces their identifiability ("The conjoining of the increscent, roundel and decrescent are distinctly non-period. While we will reluctantly register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them unidentifiable as well as non-period. (Jaella of Armida, LoAR September 1997, p. 23)"). [Mivanou merch Deicyn Maur, 03/00, R-Caid]

CONTRAST

[Argent, a wyvern erect sable winged and bellied azure within a bordure per saltire counter-ermine and azure] This acceptance overturns the precedent dated April, 1992, which banned bordures pe