Last Revised: 20 June 2010
These are the armory precedents from the second tenure of François la Flamme as Laurel Principal King of Arms (June 2004 LoAR to January 2005 LoAR). During this period armory rulings were made primarily by the Wreath King of Arms, Evan da Collaureo. Please verify all precedents you wish to use with the cited LoAR. Direct all comments to Aryanhwy merch Catmael.
These precedents are referenced by armory owner's name, the date of the Cover Letter (CL) or LoAR in month/year format (not the publication date), the action taken (A for acceptance, R for return, P for pend), and the kingdom where the action is listed under. Unless otherwise noted at the beginning of a section, the precedents are arranged in chronological order, from newest to oldest.
The following heralds are referred to by title: Ailis Lynne (Garnet), Alisoun MacCoul (Metron Ariston), Aryanhwy merch Catmael (Boke), Athenais Bryenissa (Black Pillar/Golden Pillar), Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal), Frederick of Holland (Brachet), Gwenllian ferch Maredudd (Bright Leaf), Jeanne Marie Lacroix (Crescent), Walraven van Nijmegen (Nebuly), Zenobia Naphtali (Black Stag).
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to Conflict
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Registration Limit
AMPHIBIAN
ANNULET
ARCHITECTURE
ARRANGEMENT
ARROW and ARROWHEAD
ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous
ARTISTIC LICENSE
AUGMENTATIONS
AXE
BEAST -- Antelope see BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
BEND and BEND SINISTER
BILLET
BIRD -- Cock and Hen
BIRD -- Corbie see BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Eagle
BIRD -- Falcon and Hawk
BIRD -- Generic
BIRD -- Miscellaneous
BIRD -- Peacock
BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Swan
BLAZON
BOOK and SCROLL
BORDURE
BUTTERFLY see ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous
CALTROP
CASTLE and TOWER
CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
CHARGE -- Overall
CHARGE -- Peripheral
CHARGE GROUP
CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED
CHIEF
COLLAR
COMPASS STAR and SUN
COMPLEXITY
CONFLICT
CONTRAST
COTISES
COUNTERCHANGING
CRESCENT
CROSS
DIFFERENCE -- Substantial
DOCUMENTATION
DOLPHIN see FISH and DOLPHIN
EMBLAZON
EMBLAZON -- Coloring Problems
ENFILE
ERMINE see FUR
ERMINE SPOT
FEATHER
FESS and BAR
FIELD TREATMENT -- Semy see SEMY
FIELD DIVISION -- Barry
FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé and Chaussé
FIELD DIVISION -- Checky and Party of Six
FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny
FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Fess
FIELD DIVISION -- Quarterly
FIELD PRIMARY ARMORY
FIELD TREATMENT -- Ermined see FUR
FIELDLESS and TINCTURELESS ARMORY
FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES
FISH and DOLPHIN
FLAMES and FIRE
FLAUNCH see TIERCE and FLAUNCH
FLEUR-DE-LYS
FLOWER -- Camellia see FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Lily
FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Thistle
FLOWER -- Trillium
FOIL
FORD see CHARGE -- Peripheral
FRET and FRETTY
FUR
GORE see CHARGE -- Peripheral
GOUTTE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
HAND and GAUNTLET
HEAD -- Beast
HEAD -- Bird
HEAD -- Human
HEAD -- Monster
HEART
HUMAN
IDENTIFIABILITY
KNOTS
LANCE see SWORDS and OTHER WEAPONS
LEAF
LINES of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Long
LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
LOZENGE
MAINTAINED see CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
MARSHALLING see PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
MONSTER -- Griffin
MONSTER -- Humanoid
MONSTER -- Merfolk
MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
MONSTER -- Pegasus
MONSTER -- Phoenix
MONSTER -- Pithon
MONSTER -- Sea
MONSTER -- Unicorn
MONSTER -- Winged
MOTH see ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous
MOUNT and MOUNTAIN
MULLET
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
NUMBER
OBTRUSIVE MODERNITY
ORIENTATION see POSTURE categories
ORLE see CHARGE -- Peripheral
PAWPRINT
PILE and PILE INVERTED
PLANT
POINT and POINT POINTED
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
PROPER
RELIGOUS SYMBOLISM
REPTILE -- Lizard
REPTILE -- Snake
RESERVED and RESTRICTED CHARGES
RfS X.4.j.ii
SCROLL see BOOK and SCROLL
SEEBLATT see LEAF
SEMY
SHELL
SLOT MACHINE
STEP FROM PERIOD PRACTICE (SFPP)
STYLE
SUN -- see COMPASS STAR and SUN
SUSTAINED see CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
SWORDS and OTHER WEAPONS
"SWORD AND DAGGER"
SYMBOL
TIERCE and FLAUNCH
TINCTURE
TOOL -- Eating
TOOL -- Textile
TREE
TREE BRANCH
TRIQUETRA
VISUAL COMPARISON
WEIRDNESS -- see STEP FROM PERIOD PRACTICE (SFPP)
WHEEL
WINGS and VOLS
WOLF'S TEETH
Unfortunately, this badge must be returned because no miniature emblazon for it appeared on the Letter of Intent, and no timely Letter of Correction was received. The Administrative Handbook, section V.B.2.e, states that "[a]n accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent." [Tir Rígh, Principality of, LoAR 01/2005, An Tir-R]
This device must be returned for administrative reasons. The forms on which it was submitted were not the standard, approved forms for the submitter's kingdom. In particular, the escutcheon on the forms measured only 3 3/4 inches by 4 3/4 inches, much smaller than the 5 inches by 6 inches specified in section IV.C.1.d of the Administrative Handbook. [Helena de Argentoune, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-R]
The escutcheon on the armory form was, in at least one dimension, smaller than the size specified in Administrative Handbook IV.C.1.d for submission forms by more than one-half inch, which is the usual variance allowed. However, Laurel has elected to use a more generous allowance until the current revisions to the standards for forms now under way are completed, and thus this armory can be registered. [Béoán Freborn, LoAR 12/2004, Lochac-A]
The roundel on the armory form was, in at least one dimension, smaller than the size specified in Administrative Handbook IV.C.1.d for submission forms by more than one-half inch, which is the usual variance allowed. However, Laurel has elected to use a more generous allowance until the current revisions to the standards for forms now under way are completed, and thus this armory can be registered. [Disa blat{o,}nn, LoAR 10/2004, Caid-A]
[...a pall wavy sable fimbriated...] On the full-size emblazon, the waves of the wavy pall are much too small and too numerous, which hinders identifiability...On the miniature emblazon there are fewer cycles (about half as many), so it was impossible for commentors to comment on this. Such discrepancies between the mini and the full-size emblazons are also independent cause for return per Administrative Handbook V.B.2.e, Miniature Emblazon: "An accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent." In this case, the miniature is not a sufficiently accurate representation of the full-size emblazon. [Michael de Multon, LoAR 10/2004, Meridies-R]
This branch's name was returned in March 2004. As of the September 2004 decision meetings the branch had not resubmitted a name. Since holding names cannot be formed for branches, there is no name to register this armory to, and thus it must be returned. [Litoris Longi, Lyceum, LoAR 09/2004, Caid-R]
The escutcheon on the armory form was, in at least one dimension, smaller than the size specified in Administrative Handbook IV.C.1.d for submission forms by more than one-half inch, which is the usual variance allowed. However, Laurel has elected to use a more generous allowance until the current revisions to the standards for forms now under way are completed, and thus this armory can be registered. [Johan de Foderingeye, LoAR 09/2004, Ealdormere-A]
The emblazon on the submitted form is far too small (3.125 x 4.4 inches); the form itself is not the standard approved form, and information is missing therefrom. [Ailionora inghean Ronain, LoAR 09/2004, East-R]
The badge submission was made on a form that (a) did not have the Society name of the submitter on it, and (b) had no space for a household/alternate name on it. This does not match the standard Meridian form, and as such must be administratively returned. [Artos Ancilis, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-R]
In addition, the emblazon on the form is too short, not nearly close enough to the standard height of six inches established in the Administrative Handbook. [Damiano Faust, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-R]
This submission was made on a form that (a) did not have the Society name of the submitter on it, and (b) had no space for a household/alternate name on it. This does not match the standard Meridian form, and as such must be administratively returned. [Luca Sacchetti, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-R]
This entry on the Letter of Intent violates Admin Handbook V.B.2.e, Miniature Emblazon: "An accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent." All elements of the design must be clearly distinguishable on the miniature emblazon in order to discern if its representation is sufficiently accurate. Such is not the case here. Commentary from the College was copious and unanimous that the quality of the miniature is so poor that it the line delineating the bordure is invisible, the charges around the edge are completely unidentifiable, and that the central charge was barely recognizable as a bird, much less what sort of bird it was. There is no evidence that a corrected miniature emblazon was ever sent out, so this must be returned. [Kyrstyan Makfaill, LoAR 09/2004, Middle-R]
This entry on the Letter of Intent violates Admin Handbook V.B.2.e, Miniature Emblazon: "An accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent." All elements of the design must be clearly distinguishable on the miniature emblazon in order to discern if its representation is sufficiently accurate. Such is not the case here. Commentary from the College was copious and unanimous that the quality of the miniature is so poor that the lines delineating the chief and base are invisible. To quote Metron Ariston: "Technically, this is grounds for return. As it is, this makes it impossible for us to determine if the depiction of the urdy is actually urdy or wavy or what and whether the it is feasible to use the alternate proposal of Argent, on a fess urdy between three roses gules, seeded argent, barbed vert, a dolphin naiant to sinister argent." There is no evidence that a corrected miniature emblazon was ever sent out, so this must be returned. [Pierre de Montereau, LoAR 09/2004, Middle-R]
In addition, this entry on the Letter of Intent violates Admin Handbook V.B.2.e, Miniature Emblazon: "An accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent." All elements of the design must be clearly distinguishable on the miniature emblazon in order to discern if its representation is sufficiently accurate. Such is not the case here. Commentary from the College was copious and unanimous that the quality of the miniature is so poor that the compass stars are either invisible or only appear as random dots. There being no evidence that a corrected miniature emblazon was ever sent out, this is a separate cause for return. [Shadowed Stars, Shire of, LoAR 09/2004, Middle-R]
A transfer conveys ownership. Only the owner of an item can transfer it to another. An active branch owns its branch name and armory. Therefore, the branch name and device in this transfer do not belong to Ansteorra and Ansteorra has no power to give them away. This is sufficient grounds for return. [Londinium ad Rubrum Flumen, Shire of, LoAR 08/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[Per chevron purpure and sable...] There was considerable confusion as to whether the miniature emblazon on the Letter of Intent was a per chevron line of division or a point pointed. It should be noted that the LoI's miniature does not match the miniature on the form itself. While the mini-emblazon on the LoI did not accurately represent the submission, the College thought to take the time to consider both possibilities, so it does not need to be pended for further consideration. However, submissions heralds should take care that the minatures match the forms, as the College's ability to anticipate different depictions cannot be relied upon. [Willewyn of Three Rivers, LoAR 08/2004, Calontir-A]
The two color copies of this form do not match. On one the field is clearly purpure (if a bit on the reddish side). On the other, the field is unmistakably azure. (This appears to be the result of color printing and color photocopying.) The discrepancy between the forms requires an administrative return, as a complete set of paperwork has not been received by Laurel. AH IV.C states "No submission, including any resubmission, appeal, change or release of a protected item, etc., shall be considered for registration until a complete set of paperwork is provided to the appropriate heraldic officer." This submission cannot be considered as it stands, and is likewise not eligible for the Grandfather Clause. [Margyt Withycombe, LoAR 08/2004, Middle-R]
[Device for the Tanist] Also, we no longer register independent devices for consorts and heirs. As announced in the December 2003 Cover Letter, the last month for registering such devices was July 2004. As this Letter of Intent was dated in April, it could not be considered until August, the month after the cutoff. [Middle, Kingdom of the, LoAR 08/2004, Middle-R]
The emblazon on the second copy of this form was too small. As this device involved only black and white and as a member of the Pennsic Consult Staff was kind enough to make a properly sized second copy, we are able to accept this submission. [Milesent Vibert, LOAR 08/2004, Middle-A]
Also, the emblazons on the forms were 4 inches wide and 4.7 inches tall, well short of the sizes specified in the Administrative Handbook. [Gregor von Keiserberg, LoAR 08/2004, Northshield-R]
The form on which this badge was submitted has a roundel whose diameter is considerably smaller than the 5 inches specified by the Administrative Handbook. This appears to be a result of overreduction of the form during photocopying. Please advise the submitter to use a properly sized form on any resubmission. [Ysabeau Marie d'Auvergne, LoAR 08/2004, Trimaris-R]
Furthermore, the emblazon form was too small, being 5.35 inches tall. [Elysant atten Oke, LoAR 08/2004, West-R]
The purpose of the petition is to show there is support for the submission by the populace of the group. The petition included with this device had nine signatures but no indication who were officers or what percentage of the populace this petition represented. In this case, we were able to find a list of the officers for the group which matches the names on the petition and will accept this petition as sufficent support for the submission. [Gryffyns Keep, Shire of, LoAR 07/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
The form is an apparent victim of too many rounds of photoreduction. AH IV.C.1.d says "The emblazon of any armory must be depicted in a size adequate for complete rendition of details of the armory and for equitable application of the 'across the field test.' In general, this means that the field for an escutcheon should be approximately six inches in height and five inches wide at its widest point..." While Laurel has decided to allow this particular form, it should be noted that forms reduced to less than ninety per cent of the standard size may not be accepted in the future. [Gryffyns Keep, Shire of, LoAR 07/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
The problem with the field division is not something the College would have been able to spot, as the miniature emblazon on the Letter of Intent had the field division issuing (more properly) from the sides of the shield. Admin Handbook V.b.2.e, Miniature Emblazons, states: "An accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the Letter of Intent." In this case, the miniature is not an accurate representation of the full-size emblazon. [Dmitrii syn Dmitrii Rostislavich, LoAR 07/2004, Ansteorra-R]
The purpose of the petition is to show there is support for the submission by the populace of the group. The petition included with this device had signatures but no indication who were officers or what percentage of the populace this petition represented. In this case, we were able to find a list of the officers for the group which matches the names on the petition and will accept this petition as sufficent support for the submission. [Rivers Run, Canton of, LoAR 07/2004, Ansteorra-A]
[...six daggers conjoined at the pommels points outwards proper...] There was a significant amount of discussion about the arrangement of the swords, and whether they were identifiable as such. They are, in fact, not identifiable. However, they are also identical to the swords on the previously returned submission, and their lack of identifiability was NOT given as a reason for return on that previous return (quoted here in full):
[Returning Azure, six daggers conjoined at the pommels points outwards proper within an orle Or] The device conflicts with Kilic ibn Sungur ibn al-Kazganci al-Turhani, Sable, a sheaf of five swords argent within an orle Or. There is one CD for changing the field. Normally, there would be a CD for changing the orientation of the swords, from points to chief to points outwards. However, the visual similarity between these two agglomerations of swords is too strong to give a second CD per RfS X.5. The fact that the hilts on Lachlan's armory are all in the center, and the ones in Kilic's armory are all in base, would give difference for sword posture if the emblazons were drawn correctly. However, in both of these emblazons, the sword hilts are visually insignificant. Thus, these two groups of swords appear to be groups of pointed sticks argent conjoined in the center (six and ten sticks, respectively). There is not enough visual difference between these two groups to consider the armory clear under X.5. [Aug 2003, Ret-Ealdormere, Lachlan MacLean]
So we cannot return this submission for that reason. We do, however, strongly suggest that the submitter draw the swords to be readily identifiable as such. [Lachlan Maclean, LoAR 07/2004, Ealdormere-A]
In addition, this submission was sent up on a form that was significantly different from the forms approved by Laurel. As such it would be returned administratively even if there had been no other problems with the device. [Anacletus McTerlach, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-R]
The shield on the form was also too short, far shorter than the 6-inch standard given in the Administrative Handbook. For any resubmission, please use a form with a properly sized escutcheon. [des Forges, Canton, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-R]
This submission was sent up on a form that was blatantly different from the forms approved by Laurel. As such it must be returned administratively. In addition, the shield on the device is too thin, far narrower than the 5-inch standard given in the Administrative Handbook. [Karin del Apelyard, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-R]
[Device (for the Prince)] Concern was raised in commentary about the eligibility of this submission for consideration despite the recent change in policy disallowing the registration of devices for consorts and heirs effective December 2003. Trimaris had a submission for the Prince returned in that same LoAR; Laurel specifically stated that Trimaris would be allowed to resubmit a device for the Prince because the original submission was initiated prior to the deadline. Had the original submission been registered, they would have been allowed to make changes to it later despite the ban; this appears to be why the Grandfather Clause was mentioned, but it isn't completely applicable in this case. Nevertheless, this submission is eligible for consideration. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-A]
The Admin Handbook (site) limits joint registration to two owners. As we are unable to determine which of the three names on the submission form this item should be jointly registered to it is being registered to the first name listed. If the submitters continue to wish this badge to be jointly registered they may submit an administrative request via the kingdom submissions process to add a second owner. [Antonio Giordano da Sicilia, LoAR 07/2004, West-A]
Submitted on the Letter of Intent as a request for reblazon, this emblazon does NOT match the one that is registered. Therefore, what has been submitted is a change of device, and such an action requires the usual fee to be paid to Laurel. The Atenveldt submissions herald was notified of this. Having been promised that the payment is on its way, we are registering it. [Birgir Bjarnarson, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[Ermine, on a chevron engrailed between three Maltese crosses gules, a rose Or.] The engrailings on the chevron are too many and too small to be registerable. This was a resubmission of a device most recently returned by Laurel in June 2003. That return was for a redraw, citing identifiability problems with the ermine spots and asking for fewer and larger engrailings on the chevron. While the issue with the ermine spots appears to have been successfully addressed, the chevron on this emblazon is identical to the one returned in June 2003. Since the submitter did not address all the issues raised in the previous return, this must be returned as well. [Genevieve de Calais, LoAR 06/2004, West-R]
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to conflict
[Per pale azure and argent, a tree blasted and eradicated, in chief three mullets of eight points counterchanged.] This device conflicts with Richenda de Jardin, Per pale azure and argent, a crequier counterchanged. Fortunately, Richenda has provided a letter of permission to conflict. This letter is necessary because, while there is a CD for adding the secondary mullets, there is no significant difference between a crequier and a tree blasted and eradicated. As Boar notes, there exists a precedent that a generic tree eradicated is not significantly different from a tree blasted and eradicated, since "there are period depictions of trees with only a few leaves" [Gabriela Silvana, 07/2000]. There is also a precedent giving a CD between a crequier and a default tree, but not a substantial difference "because early heraldic depictions of trees were sometimes drawn much like a crequier, with one large leaf at the end of each branch" [Lilias de Cheryngton, 12/2001]. However, the crequier is simply a stylization of a wild cherry tree (see Woodward, p. 318, along with Plate XXIX fig. 4 and p. 344 fig. 72 for a discussion). While it is a particular stylization, it falls within the expected range of depiction for trees in general. There is no reason to treat it differently from other trees, so it is not significantly different from a generic tree. [Mevanwy verch Gwion, LoAR 01/2005, An Tir-A]
[Sable, two swords inverted in saltire surmounted by a bear's head cabossed between two fleurs-de-lys in fess and another in base, all argent and in chief a label dovetailed Or.] The submitter has permission to conflict with Bryon l'Ours d'Argent de Bourgogne: Sable, two swords inverted in saltire surmounted by a bear's head cabossed between two fleurs-de-lys in fess and another in base, all argent. The depiction of the bear's head is also grandfathered to the submitter as it is identical to Bryon's. [Gerardus Christopherus de Burgondia, LoAR 07/2004, Atenveldt-A]
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Registration Limit
Administrative Handbook I.B states: "Individuals and other Society branches may register no more than four names and four pieces of armory." It could be argued that the registration of this device would require the release of one piece of registered armory because the submitter has three items and an augmentation currently registered. This raises the question of whether an augmentation counts toward the number of armory items that a person may have registered. We currently list both the un-augmented and the augmented version of armory as registered items which could, with the registration of this augmentation, require the release of one registered item. Since the augmentation is a mark of honor given by the Crown and is added to the registered armory, we will not count the registered augmentation toward the registration limit. The un-augmented item will continue to count toward the registration limit and must remain registered for the augmentation to be exempt from the count.
The submitter had requested that, if the augmentation was registered, that one of her badges be released because of the registration limit. Since the augmentation will not count toward the limit for peices [sic] of armory she has registered, we are not releasing the badge at this time. If the submitter still wishes to release the badge, we will release the badge on a future letter. [Kathryn of Iveragh, LoAR 11/2004, Outlands-A]
[(Fieldless) Three frogs sejant affronty conjoined in pall inverted vert.] The combination of the unusual posture and unusual arrangement of the frogs renders the design unidentifiable. [Ravenild Frogenhall, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Per bend sinister gules and sable, an annulet Or.] The badge conflicts with Vladimir Vitalievich Volkov: Per pale argent ermined purpure and purpure, an annulet Or. It also conflicts with Alexander le Browere: Per pale sable and vert, a serpent involved in annulo Or. In each case there is one CD for changing the field, but nothing for the difference between a serpent involved and an annulet:
[Returning Per pale sable and vert, a serpent involved in annulo Or] The device conflicts with Vladimir Vitalieich Volkov, Per pale argent ermined purpure and purpure an annulet Or. There is one CD for the field but nothing for involved serpent vs. annulet. [Jul 1999, Ret-Atenveldt, Alexander le Browere]
[Samuel Tosh McTier, LoAR 07/2004, Ealdormere-R]
[Sable, a bridge Or charged in chief with two annulets sable.] The badge conflicts with William of Hoghton: Sable, two towers joined by a bridge Or. There is one CD for adding the annulets. There is not a CD for type between a bridge and two towers joined by a bridge; many period and SCA depictions of bridges show two towers joined by some sort of crosspiece, often arched. [Aarnimetsä, Barony of, LoAR 10/2004, Drachenwald-R]
[Gules, five arrows in arch and a mount Or.] This device must be returned for using an arch of charges, a practice long forbidden in SCA heraldry. Precedent says:
It has been ruled that an arch of charges is not period heraldic style. The ruling was originally for an arch of stars : "Stars surrounding only part of a charge is fantasy art." [BoE, 28 Sept 84] It has since been extended to any charges "in arch" (Michaela de Romeny, October, 1992, pg. 30).
[Timothy of Shaftesbury, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-R]
[Per bend vert and azure, in bend sinister two horse's heads couped and addorsed argent.] This is clear of Lora Greymare: Per pale sable and vert, two horse's heads couped and addorsed argent. There is one CD for changes to the field, and another for arrangement of the horse's heads. The two horse's heads in Lora's armory are in fess; the two horse's heads in this submission are in bend sinister, and in neither case is the arrangement forced by the field, because both fields are all color. Black Stag points out that the two horse's heads addorsed could legitimately be placed in fess on this per bend field. Therefore, RfS X.4.g allows a second CD. [Gustav von Silberwald, LoAR 12/2004, Atlantia-A]
[Gules, a fret couped argent within an orle Or.] This is clear of Anézka z Rozmitála: Gules, in dexter chief a fret couped argent. There is...a second [CD] for changing the position of the fret. The presence of the orle does not force the primary charge to the center of the field; it is still possible to draw in dexter chief an X, an orle. [Gyles de Blair, LoAR 11/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
There is [no CD] for location on the field against a fieldless badge. [Aveline l'oisele, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[Checky of nine sable and argent, four crows migrant sable.] [This] conflicts with a badge of Egill von Stahl: Quarterly purpure and gules, in saltire an eagle displayed contourny Or between four eagles displayed contourny sable fimbriated Or...There is also no CD for arrangement, since Richard's birds are forced into their position by the field... [Richard Crowe, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[Gyronny gules and argent, eight roundels counterchanged.] This conflicts with the naval ensign of Japan: Gyronny of thirty-two gules and argent, a torteau. There is one CD for the number of roundels. There is no difference for the number of divisions of a gyronny field, nor is there any CD for adding four white and three red roundels, and the change of arrangement is subsumed under the change of number. [Samuel of Yorkshire, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Sable, four lozenges in cross Or.] This conflicts with Heinrich von Stuttgart: Per bend azure and checky Or and azure, a cross of four lozenges Or...Neither is there a CD for the minor change in arrangement of the lozenges:
[Four fleurs-de-lys conjoined in cross bases to center] Conflict with Katlin von Kappel, Per saltire sable and gules, four fleurs-de-lys bases to center Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness. The four fleurs-de-lys in Katlin's device are placed by default into the four sections of the per saltire field, which arranges the fleurs-de-lys in cross. The two groups of fleurs-de-lys are arranged identically except for the conjoining. We do not give difference for conjoining the charges, although it is necessary to specify the conjoining in the blazon. [Otelia d'Alsace, 08/02, R-Æthelmearc]
The same interpretation applies to lozenges as it does to fleurs-de-lys. Black Stag notes that a different result might be obtained if documentation had been supplied showing a cross of four lozenges as having an independent identity in period armory from four lozenges in cross, but none was supplied, and it does not appear to have had such an independent identity in period. Thus the small difference in the arrangement is not significant. [Mari Alexander, LoAR 10/2004, West-R]
[Vert, an orle of oak leaves Or.] This is clear of badges for the Canton of Glaslyn and the Barony of the Steppes: Sable, seme of oak leaves Or. There is one CD for changing the field. The second CD comes from arrangement of the charges. In the absence of other charges on the field, the difference in arrangement between in orle and simply strewn randomly on the field is obvious when both arrangements are drawn correctly. [Bengt Knutsson, LoAR 09/2004, Drachenwald-A]
[Or, in annulo five pheons points to center sable.] This conflicts with a badge of Kezia von Holzenhaus: Or, a cross of four pheons points to center sable within a bordure gules. (This badge has been reblazoned elsewhere in this LoAR.)...Neither is there a change in arrangement, as that change is solely caused by the change in number. RfS X.4.g states "Changing the relative positions of charges in any group placed directly on the field or overall is one clear difference, provided that change is not caused by other changes to the design" (emphasis added). A visual inspection of the two badges makes this obvious (commentary at the meeting was unanimous). [Olaf Skytja, LoAR 09/2004, Northshield-R]
[...a rose between three decrescents argent...] There was much discussion amongst Laurel Staff about whether we should, instead, reblazon this submission as ...in pall a rose...between three decrescents..., and pend this for further research by the College under this modified armorial interpretation. We noted that, based on the commentary, the College did not seem to have difficulty interpreting this emblazon as having a primary charge (rose) between three secondary charges (decresents). Laurel believes that, in period, a group of four charges in pall would be very rare or not found (unless the charges were on a pall or otherwise forced to that arrangement), even if the charges in pall were all of the same type. In a case where the central charge was a different type, the period interpretation would almost certainly be that the central charge of the different type would be a primary charge drawn small rather than a co-primary charge. Therefore Laurel has elected to approve this submission with an artist's note, rather than pending it. [Alana Urquhart, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-A]
[(Fieldless) A fleur-de-lys azure.] This conflicts with Elwyn of Snow Hill: Per chevron azure, ermined argent, and argent, in base a fleur-de-lis azure. There is one CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for placement of the fleur-de-lis against a fieldless badge; even against a fielded badge there would be nothing for placement, as Elwyn's fleur-de-lis was forced to base by the field. [Ysabeau Marie d'Auvergne, LoAR 08/2004, Trimaris-R]
[...six daggers conjoined at the pommels points outwards proper...] There was a significant amount of discussion about the arrangement of the swords, and whether they were identifiable as such. They are, in fact, not identifiable. However, they are also identical to the swords on the previously returned submission, and their lack of identifiability was NOT given as a reason for return on that previous return (quoted here in full):
[Returning Azure, six daggers conjoined at the pommels points outwards proper within an orle Or] The device conflicts with Kilic ibn Sungur ibn al-Kazganci al-Turhani, Sable, a sheaf of five swords argent within an orle Or. There is one CD for changing the field. Normally, there would be a CD for changing the orientation of the swords, from points to chief to points outwards. However, the visual similarity between these two agglomerations of swords is too strong to give a second CD per RfS X.5. The fact that the hilts on Lachlan's armory are all in the center, and the ones in Kilic's armory are all in base, would give difference for sword posture if the emblazons were drawn correctly. However, in both of these emblazons, the sword hilts are visually insignificant. Thus, these two groups of swords appear to be groups of pointed sticks argent conjoined in the center (six and ten sticks, respectively). There is not enough visual difference between these two groups to consider the armory clear under X.5. [Aug 2003, Ret-Ealdormere, Lachlan MacLean]
So we cannot return this submission for that reason. We do, however, strongly suggest that the submitter draw the swords to be readily identifiable as such. [Lachlan Maclean, LoAR 07/2004, Ealdormere-A]
[Per pall argent, counter-ermine, and vert, in chief a spinning wheel gules.] While the position of the spinning wheel in this case is forced to chief by the tinctures of the field, we have specifically blazoned the wheel's position at the request of the several scribes at the meeting. [Martha at Gore, LoAR 07/2004, An Tir-A]
[Quarterly argent and sable, in bend two cinquefoils gules.] This is clear of Christiana dello Falco: Quarterly sable and argent, in bend sinister, two roses proper. There is one CD for the field and one CD for the arrangement of the primary charges. There was some concern raised in commentary that the position of the charges was forced by the field, but in this case the change in arrangement is still worth a CD. To paraphrase Boke and Black/Golden Pillar (the latter is the same person with a title change in between comment dates): The placement of the roses or the foils in both this device and the proposed conflict is not forced, since the field is neutral and the charges could have appeared anywhere except wholly on the sable parts. This circumstance is sufficient to allow a CD for the change in arrangement. [Ysabella de Montrose, LoAR 07/2004, Lochac-A]
In an orle of charges the typical number of charges ranges from eight to sixteen. [Lorenzo Falconi, LoAR 06/2004, Ansteorra-A]
[Or, in annulo eight ladybugs tergiant in annulo gules, marked sable.] The ladybugs on this submission are placed head to tail. The question was raised if this was a blazonable arrangement. The following precedent is relevant:
In a charge group blazoned as An orle of [charges] in orle, the charges are arranged in orle and the postures of the charges tilt so that they follow each other. Thus, an orle of fish naiant would all be in the default naiant (fesswise) posture, but an orle of fish naiant in orle swim head to tail. [Olivia de Calais, 09/03, A-Ansteorra]
This concept is as applicable to charges in annulo as to charges in orle. We have thus used the superficially redundant blazon to indicate first the arrangement and second the relative postures of the charges. [Roxana Greenstreet, LoAR 06/2004, Atlantia-A]
[Gules, five arrows in arch and a mount Or.] This device must be returned for using an arch of charges, a practice long forbidden in SCA heraldry. Precedent says:
It has been ruled that an arch of charges is not period heraldic style. The ruling was originally for an arch of stars : "Stars surrounding only part of a charge is fantasy art." [BoE, 28 Sept 84] It has since been extended to any charges "in arch" (Michaela de Romeny, October, 1992, pg. 30).
[Timothy of Shaftesbury, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-R]
[...between three elfbolts argent.] There is one group of four primary charges on the full size emblazon, and we have reblazoned this accordingly. However, as drawn the elfbolts are not identifiable as such, per the following precedent:
The elfbolt is an SCA-invented charge referring to a stone-chipped arrowhead. The Pictorial Dictionary states that "prehistoric specimens found by the ancients were attributed to the Little People."
The College generally found that this artwork, which uses a smoothly rounded charge to depict the elfbolt, was not identifiable as the roughly chipped and angular SCA elfbolt. This is reason for return under RfS VII.7.a.
The College also questioned whether an elfbolt should continue to be registerable in the SCA, as it is an SCA-invented charge. The charge clearly was an artifact that was known in period, namely, old chipped arrowheads that could be found by period people. As a period artifact, a stone-chipped arrowhead may be registered if it is drawn identifiably. [Mar 2003, Ret-Meridies, Eckhart von Eschenbach]
The supposed elfbolts here have the same problem, and need to be redrawn to be recognizable as chipped stone arrowheads. [Flinthyll, Shire of, LoAR 09/2004, Calontir-R]
[Per fess wavy azure and Or, an increscent Or and a crab gules.] This armory does have the crab in its default position: "Spiders, turtles, crabs, etc., are all tergiant displayed by default." [Feb 1981, Acc-Atenveldt, Diana the Dreamweaver] [Alessandra Ruscello, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-A]
[Argent, a dragonfly bendwise vert between three Latin crosses purpure.] This is being returned for a redraw. As drawn, the dragonfly is not identifiable as such, and it is impossible to tell whether this is a single primary charge group or a single primary between secondaries. The emblazon should be redone with a more identifiable dragonfly (the wings should be together), and either with a larger dragonfly and smaller crosses or with all the charges as obvious co-primaries. [Gwennan Myngrudd, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
[Purpure, a butterfly bendwise sinister argent.] The device conflicts with Taira Shirou Kaoresato: Purpure, three moths in pall, heads to center, wings conjoined argent. There is one CD for adding the other two insects, but nothing for type between moth and butterfly, nor for arrangement between a group of one and a group of more than one. Since we do not give difference for a 180-degree rotation of a moth/butterfly, one of Taira's moths is in the same position as this butterfly; therefore there is not an independent difference for orientation in this case. [Savine de Cressy, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
[a dog's head couped collared argent.] Questions were raised in commentary about the tincture of the dog's collar. If the collar were of a contrasting tincture that had been inadvertently omitted from the blazon, that would yield a second CD for adding a tertiary charge. On the full-color emblazon, the collar is indeed argent, and as such it is effectively nothing more than an artistic variation of the argent head, worth no difference. [Rolant Richolf von dem Reyne, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
Administrative Handbook I.B states: "Individuals and other Society branches may register no more than four names and four pieces of armory." It could be argued that the registration of this device would require the release of one piece of registered armory because the submitter has three items and an augmentation currently registered. This raises the question of whether an augmentation counts toward the number of armory items that a person may have registered. We currently list both the un-augmented and the augmented version of armory as registered items which could, with the registration of this augmentation, require the release of one registered item. Since the augmentation is a mark of honor given by the Crown and is added to the registered armory, we will not count the registered augmentation toward the registration limit. The un-augmented item will continue to count toward the registration limit and must remain registered for the augmentation to be exempt from the count.
The submitter had requested that, if the augmentation was registered, that one of her badges be released because of the registration limit. Since the augmentation will not count toward the limit for peices [sic] of armory she has registered, we are not releasing the badge at this time. If the submitter still wishes to release the badge, we will release the badge on a future letter. [Kathryn of Iveragh, LoAR 11/2004, Outlands-A]
[Per pale azure and argent chapé ployé, two lymphads and a laurel wreath counterchanged, and for augmentation in chief on an escutcheon azure, four crescents argent conjoined in saltire points outward, within a bordure Or.] The augmentation is too small to be identifiable at any distance farther than two feet: the "field" looks sable and the crescents were blurred beyond recognition. Unfortunately, simply returning it for a redraw is not sufficient. Making the escutcheon larger would make it effectively a co-primary charge with the lymphads and laurel wreath, violating RfS VIII.1.a: "[T]hree or more types of charges should not be used in the same group" (the "slot machine" rule). While the addition of augmentations can be allowed to break rules in some cases, the violations we allow are grounded in period examples. Barring examples of period augmentations that result in three types of charges in the same group, this sort of augmentation cannot violate RfS VIII.1.a. We note as one possible suggestion that making the escutcheon an azure canton would eliminate the style problem. [Ildhafn, Barony of, LoAR 07/2004, Lochac-R]
[Azure, a double-bitted axe and a bordure argent.] This device does not conflict with Kingdom of Caid (Office of the Chancellor), Azure, a fasces within a bordure embattled argent. There is a CD for a bordure versus a bordure embattled and another for the change of type from axe to fasces, a composite charge made up of an axe surrounded by a bundle of sticks. [Christian Blood, LoAR 01/2005, Middle-A]
[Per pale gules and sable, a catamount rampant guardant Or...] Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a domestic cat, we have reblazoned the primary charge as a catamount to reflect its stylized depiction and its significant claws and whiskers, quite unlike the usual, more naturalistic depiction of a domestic cat. A similar depiction of a catamount or wild cat can be seen on p. 97 of Parker (s.n. cat). [Tomas Alvarez, LoAR 01/2005, An Tir-A]
[Per pale Or and azure, two lions combatant counterchanged.] This device conflicts with the Kingdom of the East, Per pale Or and azure, two tygers combattant counterchanged. By precedent, there is only significant, not substantial, difference for the change from tygers to lions:
[a lion vs. a continental panther] There is one CD, but not substantial difference, between a heraldic (as opposed to natural) panther and a lion, just as there is only one CD between a heraldic tyger and a lion per RfS X.4.e. [Jane Atwell, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]
[Andreas de Caunteton, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-R]
[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a gamelyon rampant to sinister argent.] It was suggested in commentary that, given the specific drawing of the charge, we could reblazon it as a bat-winged lion. If we treat the charge as a winged feline, however, the armory conflicts with the Barony of Windmaster's Hill (badge for the Order of the Tempest): Gules, a winged domestic cat salient to sinister and maintaining a sword palewise argent... As for type of the primary charge, the following precedent applies:
[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 [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)
As there is no CD for type of wings only between a bat-winged creature and a bird-winged creature of the same base type, there is no CD between Gamel's bat-winged cat and the registered bird-winged cat. This leavs just a single CD for the field, making it a conflict. [Gamel of Mottrum, LoAR 09/2004, Caid-R]
[Counter-ermine, a lion rampant to sinister Or, maintaining a sword argent in its dexter paw.] The device conflicts with Esteban de Asturias: Barry of twelve per pale azure and argent, a leopard salient to sinister coward Or. There is one CD for the field, but nothing for the maintained sword, and the type and posture of the primary charges are the same. [Ascelina de Tanet, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
[Per pale sable and vert, a catamount rampant contourny argent spotted sable within an orle argent.] The device conflicts with John Paul Blacklore: Gyronny of ten sable and Or, a lion rampant to sinister reguardant within an orle argent. There is one CD for the field, but the spots are part of the coloration of the naturalistic cat and not worth a CD. This follows existing precedent:
[Returning Per chevron ermine and sable, a lion's head erased argent] Conflict with the badge for Kasilda Kubasek, Gules, a natural leopard's head erased argent, spotted sable. There is a CD for the field but nothing for the forced change of position on the field. Nor is there a CD for markings on the head of Kasilda's leopard. [Feb 2000, Ret-Middle, Vladislav de Jaffa]
[Returning Per bend azure and vert, a winged Bengal tiger passant argent striped sable] Conflict with a badge for the Barony of Windmasters' Hill, A winged cat passant, forepaw extended, wings elevated and addorsed, argent and with a badge for Alain FitzWilliam l'Aileleon, 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. [Apr 2000, Ret-Meridies, Ceara inghean Leogháin]
[Returning Gules, a natural tiger couchant guardant contourny Or marked sable for multiple conflicts] There is no difference for changing the type of cat, or for the tincture change represented by the markings, which are less than half the charge. [Nov 2001, Ret-Meridies, Sheila Stuart]
[Sonja Ryzaja, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
[Per pale sable and vert, a catamount rampant contourny argent spotted sable within an orle argent.] This is clear of Arian Rose of Nairn, as reblazoned elwhere on this letter: Vert, a winged lion segreant to sinister, between its forepaws a rose, all within an orle argent. There is one CD for removing the wings from the lion, and one CD for removing the rose from the design. Arian's old blazon did not mention the wings on the lion, which led commentors to believe this was also a conflict. [Sonja Ryzaja, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
Blazoned on the LoI as a natural antelope's head... within two antelope's horns conjoined at base, natural antelopes vary widely with respect to their horns. These were, however, identified at the meeting as being of a specific type of antelope, so we have reblazoned the head and horns as those of an impala. An online search yielded good pictures with head and horns clearly matching the style on the emblazon, and a range map showing that impalas inhabit coastal areas of modern South Africa and Mozambique. Therefore, impalas (and body parts thereof) are registerable with a "weirdness." [Eadweard Boise the Wright, LoAR 09/2004, Calontir-A]
[...a stag statant head elevated argent.] This position of the head has been disallowed for any beasts except canines. 'While we allow wolves and foxes to be ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for return' (LoAR December 2000, quoted on LoAR February 2002, p. 2) [Chiere wreic Maredudd, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Sable, a mastiff statant and a bordure invected Or.] The device conflicts with Samal Kaan Uxmalil: Sable, a she-wolf statant reguardant within a bordure Or. There is one CD for the change of line of the bordure, but none for change of type between a wolf and a mastiff. [Gardien de Plessier, LoAR 12/2004, Calontir-R]
[Quarterly gules and purpure, three wolves "courant" in annulo argent.] Additionally, Crescent notes a conflict with Cuán MacDaige: Checky azure and Or, three mastiffs courant in annulo argent each gorged of a coronet gules. There is a CD for changes to the field but nothing for the type of canine and nothing for gorging an entire beast (as opposed to a beast's head). [Ulvar MacVanis, LoAR 10/2004, Lochac-R]
The wolves on the emblazon are an exact match for those in the following return:
The wolves are not clearly postured. They are in some posture between salient, courant and passant. Salient is a heraldically distinct posture from courant and passant. This submission must therefore be returned for violating RfS VII.7.b, which states, "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon." [Nov 2003, Ret-Meridies, Rúnólfr orðlokarr Úlfsson]
This submission likewise violates RfS VII.7.b and thus is returned for that reason. [Ulvar MacVanis, LoAR 10/2004, Lochac-R]
While the enfield appears in period, the only period examples we can find are supporters. As such it is impossible to tell whether enfields were considered different from canines in period as charges on the shield. With that in mind, we are left with visual differences; at least three-quarters of an enfield is canine, and the avian forelimbs often appear close to hands, as do those of canines in period heraldry. There is not enough visual difference to give a CD between canines and enfields, so the July 1992 precedent is hereby extended to give no CD even when the critters are not holding anything. This overturns the precedent from September 2003, which was solely based on implications from the July 1992 ruling. [Anacletus McTerlach, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-R]
[...a stag statant head elevated argent.] This position of the head has been disallowed for any beasts except canines. 'While we allow wolves and foxes to be ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for return' (LoAR December 2000, quoted on LoAR February 2002, p. 2) [Chiere wreic Maredudd, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Per pale azure and sable, a fox sejant and three points argent.] In addition, this conflicts with Caelan O Ruairc: Per pale azure and sable, a wolf sejant ululant between three decrescents argent. There is one CD, for changing the type of secondary charges (crescents to points), but that is all. There is no CD between a fox and a wolf. [Siôn MacDougall, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Per fess azure and vert, on a bend cotised between a bear passant and a heart Or, four gouts inverted palewise gules.] Furthermore, this device is overly complex. Several commenters argued that the complexity count of this device should include the bend and its cotises as separate charge types. This is not the case, given that period blazons often used the descriptions a bend cotised and a bend between two bendlets interchangeably to describe the same armory. [Orion Storm Bruin, LoAR 08/2004, Atenveldt-R]
Vert, on a bend bevilled Or between a cloud argent and a dog sejant erect contourny Or four dog's pawprints sable.] The device is being returned for non-period style. It has multiple weirdnesses or rarities: a charged bend bevilled, a bend bevilled (charged or not) between secondary charges, a complexity count of eight, and the use of pawprints. This is explained in the following precedents:
Even the documented per bend bevilled cannot, by Laurel precedent, be used with dissimilar charges. Legh, Accidences of Armory (1586), asserts that the field should not be charged at all. We have, as one step beyond period practice, allowed the field to be used with a single type of simple charge. The submitted device, however, would be at least two steps beyond period practice. [Béla Kós, 02/01, R-Outlands]
While none of these problems would, by itself, make the device returnable, the combination is not registerable. [Rebekah Anna Leah Wynterbourne, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[...a chevron inverted gules fimbriated argent charged with five beehives palewise Or.] It might be possible to view the charge combination in question as five beehives in chevron inverted between two chevronels inverted. However, the use of such a design anywhere other than the center of the shield is too far from period style to be registered. Precedent disallows the use of an ordinary abased and cotised (between two of its diminutives):
[a bend abased and cotised argent] No documentation was presented for ordinaries which are both abased and cotised. Abased ordinaries are so rare in period armory that this treatment appears to be too far a departure from period heraldic style to be acceptable without documentation. [Arabella Mackinnon, 06/03, R-Ansteorra]
If we are not going to allow an <ordinary> between two <same ordinaries> all abased (a period way to blazon an <ordinary> cotised, then neither should we allow <anything> between two ordinaries, all abased, which is the situation with this submission. [Voron Gregor'ev Tselomudrenni, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[(fieldless) On a billet fesswise Or three martlets azure.] According to current precedent, while charges that are also shapes of armorial display may be registered as fieldless badges when uncharged under certain other conditions, these same charges cannot be registered as fieldless badges when charged, since when charged they too closely resemble an independent display of armory. (This particular submission is effectively a display of "Or, [in fess] three martlets azure.") A billet fesswise is a shape of armorial display, and as such cannot be registered as a fieldless badge by itself when it is charged, as is the case here. [Nyilas Tiborch, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Barry gules and Or, a chicken sable.] This is clear of the badge of Sancha de Flores: (Fieldless) A cock sable, headed and queued gules. Only the body of Sancha's bird is sable, which amounts to only half of the charge. [Else Hünrvogt, LoAR 12/2004, West-A]
[...a hawk displayed head to sinister gules.] In addition, if the submitter decides to use the canting charge of a hawk in a future submission, we suggest that she place it in the default close posture and/or add the characteristic bells and jesses. As currently drawn, the hawk is indistinguishable from the heraldic eagle. [Gracia Rede de Hauke, LoAR 01/2005, Artemisia-R]
[Checky of nine sable and argent, four crows migrant sable.] [This] conflicts with a badge of Egill von Stahl: Quarterly purpure and gules, in saltire an eagle displayed contourny Or between four eagles displayed contourny sable fimbriated Or. There is a CD for the field. Egill's birds are in fact a single group of five birds in saltire. There is no CD for number between four and five, nor is there a CD for tincture for changing only one out of five charges. [Richard Crowe, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[Per fess vert and sable, on a plate an eagle rising, wings elevated and displayed, sable.]...This is also clear of Anne of the Golden Mantle: Vert, on a plate a swan naiant, couped on the fess line, sable. Again there is one CD for the field; to get the second CD one can apply either RfS X.4.j.i for changes to type and posture of the tertiary charge, or RfS X.4.j.ii for substantial change in type of the tertiary charge (per the November 2003 Cover Letter discussion on birds). [Anders Knudsen, LoAR 10/2004, Atlantia-A]
[...a hawk displayed head to sinister gules.] In addition, if the submitter decides to use the canting charge of a hawk in a future submission, we suggest that she place it in the default close posture and/or add the characteristic bells and jesses. As currently drawn, the hawk is indistinguishable from the heraldic eagle. [Gracia Rede de Hauke, LoAR 01/2005, Artemisia-R]
[Per bend sable and gules, a simurgh volant bendwise Or.] This device does not conflict with Reagan of the White Dawn, Per bend sinister azure and vert, a songbird migrant bendwise maintaining in its beak a flute bendwise sinister Or, or Reagan of the White Dawn, Azure, a songbird migrant bendwise, maintaining in its beak a fusa, Or. There is a CD for the field and another for the change of type between a songbird and a simurgh, which is a monster with a long, distinctive multi-part tail. [Helena de Argentoune, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-R]
The submitter requested that the ravens be blazoned passant. However, that is a variant of close, while these birds are quite clearly rising (which is a CD away). [Mathghamhain MacCionaoith, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[Per bend sable and gules, a simurgh volant bendwise Or.] This device does not conflict with Reagan of the White Dawn, Per bend sinister azure and vert, a songbird migrant bendwise maintaining in its beak a flute bendwise sinister Or, or Reagan of the White Dawn, Azure, a songbird migrant bendwise, maintaining in its beak a fusa, Or. There is a CD for the field and another for the change of type between a songbird and a simurgh, which is a monster with a long, distinctive multi-part tail. [Helena de Argentoune, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-R]
[Checky of nine sable and argent, four crows migrant sable.] [This] conflicts with a badge of Egill von Stahl: Quarterly purpure and gules, in saltire an eagle displayed contourny Or between four eagles displayed contourny sable fimbriated Or. There is a CD for the field. Egill's birds are in fact a single group of five birds in saltire. There is no CD for number between four and five, nor is there a CD for tincture for changing only one out of five charges. [Richard Crowe, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[Gules, a simurgh close within a bordure Or.] The device [sic] conflicts with Süleyman Khayám: Gules, a peacock statant close Or, eyed gules, collared and tethered argent in sinister chief to a mullet within the horns of an increscent Or... There is no CD for type of primary charge:
The simurgh is not visually distinct enough from a peacock to be worth difference. Since the simurgh is not a charge found in period heraldry, difference is determined on visual grounds only under RfS X.4.e. [May 2002, Ret-Outlands, Tavia of Persia]
[Diogenia Melanesi, LoAR 11/2004, Ealdormere-R]
[Per fess sable and argent, an open book argent and a raven sable charged on the wing with a Tau cross Or.] This device does not conflict with Ailléne Ravenstongue, Per fess sable and argent, in pale a moon in her complement argent and a raven sable perched atop and sustained by an oak branch fesswise proper. An examination of Ailléne's device (which has been reblazoned on the Middle section of this LoAR) shows that the branch is co-primary with the raven and the moon. There is thus a change of both the number of primary charges and the type of more than half the primary charge group as well as a CD for the addition of the tertiary. [Tómas Tóstason, LoAR 01/2005, Ansteorra-A]
[(Fieldless) A demi-raven displayed sable issuant from flames proper.] This item came up during a conflict check for another item on thie LoAR. It was originally registered November 1973 under the blazon (Fieldless) A raven rising out of flames proper. This blazon led commentors to believe that the raven was in the typical rising posture, with almost the entire bird visible including the legs (but perhaps not the feet). This is doubly inaccurate to the actual emblazon, which more closely matches the original proposed blazon on the form "A raven rising from flames in the manner of a phoenix" (emphasis added). Only the top half of the raven is truly visible, and its posture is displayed instead of rising.
The term "rising" has a different meaning for phoenixes than it does for ordinary birds. Of late we have even avoided the term for a phoenix if the situation seemed to call for it, since "issuant" and "emerging" carry the same meaning without carrying the ambiguity. We have reblazoned the badge to describe the emblazon in clearer and more accurate terms. [Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin, LoAR 12/2004, West-A]
The submitter requested that the ravens be blazoned passant. However, that is a variant of close, while these birds are quite clearly rising (which is a CD away). [Mathghamhain MacCionaoith, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[Per fess vert and sable, on a plate an eagle rising, wings elevated and displayed, sable.]...This is also clear of Anne of the Golden Mantle: Vert, on a plate a swan naiant, couped on the fess line, sable. Again there is one CD for the field; to get the second CD one can apply either RfS X.4.j.i for changes to type and posture of the tertiary charge, or RfS X.4.j.ii for substantial change in type of the tertiary charge (per the November 2003 Cover Letter discussion on birds). [Anders Knudsen, LoAR 10/2004, Atlantia-A]
[Per pale gules and azure, a crane's head couped argent.] This conflicts with Ealasaid nic Chlurain (Fieldless) A swan's head erased at the shoulders proper, maintaining a rose gules, barbed, slipped and leaved vert. There is one CD between these for fieldlessness. The difference between a swan's head and a crane's head is just in the beak, which is not significant enough for the required second CD.
This ruling does not contradict the existing difference given between swans and cranes as entire birds, discussed in detail in the Cover Letter to the November 2003 LoAR. Swans and cranes have very different appearances, are drawn consistently differently in period heraldry, and (per the November 2003 cover letter) may be eligible for substantial difference from each other. [Enoch Crandall mac Cranon, LoAR 08/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[Per pale gules and sable, a catamount rampant guardant Or...] Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a domestic cat, we have reblazoned the primary charge as a catamount to reflect its stylized depiction and its significant claws and whiskers, quite unlike the usual, more naturalistic depiction of a domestic cat. A similar depiction of a catamount or wild cat can be seen on p. 97 of Parker (s.n. cat). [Tomas Alvarez, LoAR 01/2005, An Tir-A]
This is the defining registration of a lucet, a tool for making cords. The submitter's documentation shows that this form of lucet, a rectangular tool with notches on the shorter ends made from the naturally notched end of a bovine nosebone, was found in period. We have blazoned it as a bone lucet to distinguish it from the lyre-shaped form commonly used in the SCA. [Freydis inn kyrra Alfarinsdottir, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-A]
Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a Chinese phoenix, the forms blazoned the charge as a simurgh, the usual SCA term for this type of monster. [Helena de Argentoune, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-A]
Three-spoked wheels are also a period artifact. Lincoln Cathedral in England has a genuine 14th-century mechanical clock, where all of the gear-toothed wheels appear to have four spokes, but all the smooth wheels have only three spokes. (The picture is quite clear.) Therefore we have no qualms at registering the strewn charges as three-spoked wheels. [Ailill mac Ferchair Uí Diarmata, LoAR 12/2004, East-A]
[Party of six pieces argent and azure, three cinquefoils azure.] Blazoned on the LoI as Per fess argent and azure, on a pale counterchanged between two cinquefoils pierced a cinquefoil pierced azure, the consensus of the College was that the device was better described as above. Research found no conflicts under either blazon. [Elen Benet, LoAR 01/2005, Lochac-A]
[Checky of nine sable and argent, four crows migrant sable.] The device is in technical conflict with Brian Drittar an Con: Sable, on a cross argent, a sinister hand couped at the wrist apaumy sable. The current submission can be blazoned Sable, on a cross quarter-pierced argent four crows migrant sable. Under this interpretation there is only one CD for cumulative changes on the cross, since the quarter-piercing is treated as a tertiary charge accompanying the four crows. [Richard Crowe, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
Various reference sources give rather different definitions for the term "dextochere," many of them not involving maunches at all. Therefore we will refrain from using the term in SCA blazon, as there is an alternate blazon which accurately describes the charge. [Gisele Flambeau, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Per chevron ployé throughout Or and sable, two roses gules slipped and leaved vert and an alquerques board Or.] Blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron ployé throughout Or and sable, an alquerques board Or and in chief two flowers gules slipped and leaved vert, we have reblazoned it to reflect the unmistakable impression of three co-primary charges. Under this interpretation, the device conflicts with Sine Ealasaid Leanora Kyntire: Per chevron Or and sable, two roses gules, barbed and seeded proper, and a cup Or. The only CD is for changing the type of the basemost charge from a cup to an alquerques board. [István Nyiregyhazi, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
While there is no CD between any number of frets (throughout) and fretty, the distinction between two frets and fretty is blazonable in this case. [Ellen of York, LoAR 09/2004, Atlantia-A]
The bordure was blazoned on the LoI as specifically having fifteen pellets. However, on the full size emblazon it has only 14. We have reblazoned it to just plain pelletty. [Leiff Haakonson, LoAR 09/2004, Northshield-A]
[...on a bordure argent in cross four oak leaves in orle vert.] The question was raised in commentary how to blazon the leaves. The following precedent is relevant:
In a charge group blazoned as An orle of [charges] in orle, the charges are arranged in orle and the postures of the charges tilt so that they follow each other. Thus, an orle of fish naiant would all be in the default naiant (fesswise) posture, but an orle of fish naiant in orle swim head to tail. [Olivia de Calais, 09/03, A-Ansteorra]
Charges on a bordure logically have similar properties to those in orle, so these leaves are accurately described as being in orle. [Aurelia Aurifaber, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-A]
[Azure, on a cross quarter-pierced Or four acorns bendwise gules, overall two swords in saltire argent.] Originally blazoned as Checky of nine traits azure and Or, two swords in saltire argent between four acorns bendwise gules, we have gone with the usual SCA blazon of the cross quarter-pierced, but note that this should also be categorized in the Ordinary as though this were a complex field. [Declan Mac Dockery, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-A]
[...a bordure wavy argent semy of oak leaves sable.] As drawn, the oak leaves on the bordure lack a consistently reproducible orientation, thus violating RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement. Consensus of the commentary was that the leaves are not in an explicitly blazonable orientation, nor are they "following the bordure", which would be considered an unblazoned variant of the default (palewise) orientation. [Marryn Blackgroves, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-R]
[(Fieldless) A castle fracted palewise gules.] This badge conflicts with Edwin FitzLloyd: Ermine, chaussé raguly vert, a tower gules. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for type between a tower and a castle. This was originally blazoned as a single-arched bridge, but as drawn this is far closer to a castle than a bridge. [Olaf Wulfbrandt, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-R]
[...two sinister wings ending in claws Or.] We are unclear how to blazon the charges in base, but it does not seem that the submitted blazon would generate something close enough to the depictions in this emblazon. [Dmitrii syn Dmitrii Rostislavich, LoAR 07/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[Vert, in fess an arrow between a drinking horn and a drinking horn reversed argent, a bordure Or semy of pheons sable.] In reblazoning this submission, we have decided to follow Metron Ariston's suggestion, and the orientation impled therein is hereby made explicit: the default orientation for a drinking horn is embowed to dexter (as well as bell to chief), as depicted in the Pictorial Dictionary (2d edition) #388. [Eneas Mac Concarrigy, LoAR 07/2004, Artemisia-A]
Originally blazoned as Sable, a wall issuant from base argent, masoned and portalled sable, in chief an A-frame plumb line between two pairs of compasses Or, as drawn the "wall" placed on the "field" is indistinguishable from a per fess field division and we have changed the blazon to reflect that. [Griffith Jenner, LoAR 07/2004, Atlantia-R]
[Per chevron Or and vert, three fox's heads erased sable and a lion Or.] While this arrangement could be more clearly blazoned Per chevron... in chief three... and in base a..., this is the default blazon for charges in this arrangement. [Anastasia MacEwan de Ravenna, LoAR 07/2004, Caid-A]
The crosses used in this device are identical in shape to that used in the submitter's badge, registered in November 2003: (Fieldless) A cross formy swallowtailed per pale gules and Or charged with a fleur-de-lys counterchanged. Thus we have used the same blazonry term to describe them. [Phineas Magollricke, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
The charges on the chief were blazoned as pots on the Letter of Intent. We have reblazoned them as cauldrons at Metron Ariston's suggestion "simply to ensure this depiction of the pots." [James MacCoag, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
The submitter requested that the ravens be blazoned passant. However, that is a variant of close, while these birds are quite clearly rising (which is a CD away). [Mathghamhain MacCionaoith, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[Checky Or and gules, on a fess purpure four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns Or.] As for the device, there are two independent causes for return here. First, each "check" of the field has a small dot at its center. These were present on both the miniature and full-size emblazons. We cannot blazon these dots and do not know why they are there at all. The Letter of Intent does not mention them, so redrawing the field without the dots would solve this problem. [Haroun al-Rashid the Toe Mangler, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Gules, a chalice Or and in chief a pair of hands argent.] This is clear of Harold of Pleasure, as reblazoned elsewhere on this LoAR: Gules, a dexter gauntlet fesswise proper holding a goblet Or . A possible conflict had been called against Harold because, under the old blazon, it was unclear whether the gauntlet was worth difference or not. A visual check of Harold's armory shows that the gauntlet and goblet are co-primaries, so there is a CD for number of primary charges and a CD for removing the secondary charges. [Ernst Nuss von Kitzengen, LoAR 06/2004, East-A]
[Per pale sable and vert, a catamount rampant contourny argent spotted sable within an orle argent.] The cat was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a panther, which is a heraldic monster and not a feline beast. We have reblazoned it as a catamount instead. [Sonja Ryzaja, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
[Or, on a pale argent fimbriated vert, a peacock feather proper.] A possible conflict was called with the Middle Kingdom's badge for the Order of the Dragon's Tooth: Or, on a pale vert three fangs palewise Or. If this submission were considered as Or, on a pale vert a pale argent charged with a peacock feather proper, so there is a single CD for aggregate changes to the tertiary charges, but under the alternate blazon the peacock feather would be a quaternary charge and thus not countable for difference.
Clarion and Owen led the argument that the above interpretation only applies to alternate blazons that could legally be registered. After consideration we agree in part. The following precedent is relevant:
There is a well-established rule that one cannot blazon one's way out of a conflict. As a general rule this is true, but it should not be taken to overrule period interpretation. For example, "Argent, a fess sable" could also be blazoned as "Sable, a chief and a base argent". We would not infer therefore that "Argent, on a fess sable three eagles argent" conflicts with "Sable, in fess three eagles argent" with only one CD for the removal of the peripheral charges. Not all possible blazons are equally plausible, and implausible blazons don't necessarily result in a conflict. [Apr 1998, Acc-Calontir, Brynhildr uppsaling Grimkelsdottir]
Reblazoning this submission as a pale charged with another pale charged with a feather would not be registerable (four layers). Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict. [ We feel it necessary to point out that when comparing items for conflict, registered armory gets greater protection than the new item under consideration. Therefore, we may consider already registered armory under alternate blazons that may have been legal in the past but are not legal today. However, that circumstance does not apply here. (See this month's Cover Letter under "From Wreath: Alternate Blazons and Conflicts" for details.) [Jaida of Golden Rivers, LoAR 06/2004, West-A]
From Wreath: Alternate Blazons and Conflicts
This month we registered ...on a pale argent fimbriated vert, a peacock feather proper despite a possible conflict with ...on a pale vert three fangs palewise Or. The argument was made that both pieces of armory could be considered as ...a pale vert charged with <stuff>. However, in order for the new submission to fit this interpretation, it would be blazoned as ...on a pale vert a pale argent charged with a peacock feather proper. That would be four layers, which is unregisterable. Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict.
However, there are other circumstances do exist where there is a conflict with already registered armory due to reblazoning the registered armory. Last month, for example, we returned ...on a compass star argent a Maltese cross azure... for conflict with ...within a sun throughout argent, eclipsed azure, a goshawk displayed argent, giving no CD between the two excerpted parts. In this case the already registered armory would today be blazoned as ...on a sun throughout argent, a roundel azure charged with a goshawk displayed argent, emphasizing that the goshawk can be considered a quaternary charge and thus ignored completely when checking for conflict.
The main difference between these two cases is that in the "no conflict" example it was the new armory to which the problematic reblazon applied, while in the "yes conflict" example it was the old armory that had the unregisterable reblazon. [CL 06/2004]
[Azure, on an open scroll fesswise argent two ostrich feathers in saltire vert.] This badge does not conflict with Yale University, Azure, an open book argent charged with Hebrew letters sable. This potential conflict depends on whether or not there is a significant difference between a book and a scroll. The only precedent that bears on the question is from July 1991, addressing what is now informally known as the sword-and-dagger rule: "The use of two similar but non-identical charges in a group has been cause for return many times in the past. A scroll is one kind of book and a book is another." This wording suggests an existing precedent, but none are in the collected precedents and none were found in a search of returns in earlier LoARs.
In any case, it is clear that under the current rules a scroll and a book are at least significantly different. They are both period charges. The scroll occurs in the arms of Sir Roger de Clarendon, natural son of Edward the Black Prince (Parker, p. 238). The book occurs in many coats, typically academic or ecclesiastical, including the arms of the University of Oxford (Parker, p. 71). There is no reason to suspect that the two charges were considered interchangeable, meeting the standard in RfS X.4.e. for signficantly different charge types. [Khalil ibn Yusuf al-Balansi, LoAR 01/2005, Middle-A]
[Per pale vert and sable, a tree blasted and eradicated within a bordure Or.] This device does not conflict with Betva a Bedwyn, Vert, a birch tree argent leaved Or, a bordure of knotwork argent. An examination of Betva's device (reblazoned on the Atenveldt section of this LoAR) shows that the bordure is not only argent, rather than Or as previosuly blazoned, but that it is actually made up of knotwork. [Saige of Lochmere, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-A]
[Azure, a double-bitted axe and a bordure argent.] This device does not conflict with Kingdom of Caid (Office of the Chancellor), Azure, a fasces within a bordure embattled argent. There is a CD for a bordure versus a bordure embattled and another for the change of type from axe to fasces, a composite charge made up of an axe surrounded by a bundle of sticks. [Christian Blood, LoAR 01/2005, Middle-A]
[Sable, two bars Or...a bordure gules.] The bordure violates the Rule of Tincture. This is not a divided field per the following precedent:
[Argent, two pallets gules overall a tree vert] This does not conflict with the important non-SCA arms of O'Connor Don ... Argent, a tree eradicated vert. Armory using three or more pallets is interchangeable with paly on visual grounds and on grounds of historical heraldic difference. Armory using two pallets is visually distinct from paly, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each other in period. This is therefore clear of O'Connor Don by RfS X.1 for adding a primary charge group (the pallets). [Floris van Montfort, 05/02, A-Drachenwald]
Likewise, armory using two bars is visually distinct from barry, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each other in period. Therefore, this must be considered as a sable field, and as such the gules bordure is color on color. [Marcus Blackaert, LoAR 09/2004, East-R]
[Or, a sheaf of arrows inverted sable within a bordure indented azure.] There are not enough indentations on the bordure. Eight indentations on a bordure looks too close to a mullet of eight points. This is especially true on a round shield shape but applies to other shield shapes as well. Thus identifiability is not sufficient, and there is a visual conflict with Paul of Sunriver (Azure, a compass-star Or). Were there half again as many indents, the close resemblance to a mullet would be greatly reduced, eliminating these problems. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Per pale azure and argent, a caltrop counterchanged.] The device conflicts with Richard Longstride: Per pale azure and argent, a mullet counterchanged. There would need to be substantial difference for these to be clear (via X.2), and two extensive precedent hunts yielded up decisions giving significant, but NOT substantial, difference. So X.2 does not apply. While there is a CD between the mullet and the caltrop, that is the only CD available. [Mylisant de Impinton, LoAR 11/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[Gules, a castle between three fishes argent.] This does not conflict with the (mundane) Kingdom of Valencia: Gules, a city argent...As the emblazon of the Valencia royal arms depicts "a city" with many buildings surrounded by a wall, the difference between a city and castle is enough for the second CD. [Willa of Mathom Trove, LoAR 12/2004, Trimaris-A]
[Azure, a castle triple-towered argent within a bordure Or semy of roses gules.] This conflicts with Cathal MacLean: Azure, a tower argent within a bordure Or crusilly plain sable. The only CD is for cumulative changes to the charges on the bordure. [ED: implying none for the number of towers on the castle.] [Alessandra de Burgos, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[Sable, a bridge Or charged in chief with two annulets sable.] The badge conflicts with William of Hoghton: Sable, two towers joined by a bridge Or. There is one CD for adding the annulets. There is not a CD for type between a bridge and two towers joined by a bridge; many period and SCA depictions of bridges show two towers joined by some sort of crosspiece, often arched. [Aarnimetsä, Barony of, LoAR 10/2004, Drachenwald-R]
[(Fieldless) A castle fracted palewise gules.] This badge conflicts with Edwin FitzLloyd: Ermine, chaussé raguly vert, a tower gules. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for type between a tower and a castle. This was originally blazoned as a single-arched bridge, but as drawn this is far closer to a castle than a bridge. [Olaf Wulfbrandt, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-R]
[...three towers conjoined in pall...] The center area in between the towers should not be colored in as if it were part of the towers. Doing so rendered the charge(s) unidentifiable. [Basil Faulke, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R]
[Per bend indented ermine and vert, a tower counterchanged.] This violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiablility, which states in part: "A complex divided field could obscure the identity of charges counterchanged." Consensus of commentary and those at the meeting agreed that this applies here. The complex line of division makes it too difficult to figure out what the charge is. Nebuly points out that part of the problem lies with the line of division mimicking the crenellations of the tower, so a plain (or possibly even a wavy) line of division could resolve the difficulty. [Amalric de Mannia, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
[Gules, a simurgh close within a bordure Or.] The device [sic] conflicts with Süleyman Khayám: Gules, a peacock statant close Or, eyed gules, collared and tethered argent in sinister chief to a mullet within the horns of an increscent Or...The "leashed" charges are effectively maintained and not worth difference, leaving this only one CD away. [Diogenia Melanesi, LoAR 11/2004, Ealdormere-R]
[Sable, issuant from a maunch a hand cupped Or maintaining a flame proper.] The device conflicts with a badge of Moriel Arenvaldsdochter of Raven's Fort: Per pale sable and vert, a maunch Or. There is one CD for the field. The flame, however, gives the overwhelming appearance of being maintained by the hand. Its separation from the hand is minimal, and the fact that the flame is drawn as disjoint tongues adds to the impression of maintenance. [Gisele Flambeau, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[(Fieldless) A bear rampant contourny sable maintaining a sun in it's splendor Or.] Furthermore, the size of the sun blurs the distinction between a sustained and a maintained charge. If the sun is drawn smaller so as to be a properly maintained charge, the badge will conflict with the Barony of Blackstone Mountain: (Fieldless) A bear rampant contourny sable. Any resubmission of this badge should, therefore, use a sun that is clearly co-primary with the bear. [Artos Ancilis, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-R]
[...two serpents erect glissant respectant argent maintaining in their mouths a laurel wreath Or.] This was originally blazoned as Gules, two serpents erect glissant respectant argent supporting in chief a laurel wreath Or upon its registration in June 1992. A possible conflict was called against it this month, which required clarification of whether the laurel wreath was a sustained (and therefore co-primary) charge, or a maintained charge not counting towards difference. A visual check of Eikdal's device makes it obvious that the laurel wreath is a maintained charge, and we have reblazoned it accordingly. [Eikdal, Shire of, LoAR 07/2004, Caid-A]
[(Fieldless) A bear passant Or.] This conflicts with Gunwaldt Gullbjørn: A bear passant regardant Or maintaining in his dexter forepaw a torch gules enflamed Or. There is a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for the change of head posture or removal of the maintained charge. [Erika Bjornsdottir, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Azure, seven square buckles three three and one Or.] This lovely device is returned for conflict with Mebd Liath, Azure, six round buckles Or, registered November 2004. RfS X.4.f gives no difference between the numbers six and higher and there are no CDs for the field nor for the tincture or arrangement of the charges. The only possible CD might come from a distinction between square and round buckles, an issue on which we decline to rule at this time. [Edward Little, LoAR 01/2005, An Tir-R]
[Gules, a compass rose and in base the capital letter 'S' argent.] This device conflicts with Alexandre sur la Mer, Azure, a compass rose argent. There is only one CD for changing the field tincture. While research suggests that period compass roses either did not indicate the cardinal directions or used their full Latin names, the addition of the relatively small "S" at the south point of the compass rose gives the overwhelming visual impression to the modern eye of a compass rose with a letter indicating the direction south. Therefore, there is no significant difference between this combination of compass rose and secondary "S" and a plain compass rose. [Simon Montgumery, LoAR 01/2005, Outlands-R]
[Per pale Or and gules, a stag's head caboshed counterchanged.] The device conflicts with Fredrich der Rothirsch: Per pale Or and gules, a stag's massacre surmounted by a heart per pale gules and Or. The only possible difference between these two must be for the primary charge(s). A visual inspection of Fredrich's device shows that the charge most closely resembles a stag's attires attached to a heart, with each attire having about the same visual weight as the heart. As such there is really only one CD between the two, not substantial enough difference to qualify for X.2. Owen and Bright Leaf opine that this is a classic example of conflict via RfS X.5, with Owen adding that this is what X.5 is really meant to address. [William Wisehart, LoAR 12/2004, Caid-R]
Many questions were raised in commentary about the identity of the strewn objects, originally (somewhat redundantly) blazoned on the Letter of Intent as triskeles arrondi within and conjoined to annulets. As drawn the charges were not identifiable as such. Indeed, it is unlikely that any drawing of these objects at the size of strewn charges could render them identifiable as what the LoI's blazon claimed they were. The question was raised whether compound charges were even registerable as strewn objects, as there seems to be no evidence of this pratice in period. [Ed.: The charges were reblazoned as three-spoked wheels.] [Ailill mac Ferchair Uí Diarmata, LoAR 12/2004, East-A]
[There is] a CD for type between an orle of chain and a plain orle. [Alheydis von Körckhingen, LoAR 11/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
Both columns and chess-rooks are period charges. Parker, p. 105, says that chess-rooks appear in the arms of Walsingham (temp. Edward II) and FitzSymon (temp. Edward I). Woodward, pp. 363-4, notes that columns appear in the arms of a number of families in various countries, including the well-known Roman family Colonna. Since there is no evidence that these two charges were used as a cadency step in period armory, it is appropriate that they be considered substantially different under RfS X.2. [Tir Rígh, Principality of, LoAR 11/2004, An Tir-R]
[...a leather bottell sable...] This is returned for a redraw. RfS VII.7.a requires that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." As drawn, this was not identifiable. This would be the defining example of a leather bottell in SCA armory, and the submitter provided excellent documentation for this period artifact and its use as a charge in (possibly post-period) heraldry. However, the examples from the documentation have considerably more detail and are slightly in trian aspect to ensure the charge's identifiability as a bottle. The submitter should keep that in mind if using a leather bottell as a charge in a resubmission. [Svein sutari svithanda, LoAR 11/2004, Calontir-R]
[Or, a pegasus rampant sable within a bordure pean.] The device does not conflict with the badge of Rinaldo of Blackhaven, registered in February of 1987 (via the Middle), Or, a pegasus salient sable ridden by a man in armour guardant vert, maintaining a sword sable...the addition of the rider is enough for the second CD. [Tamsin Kitto, LoAR 11/2004, Ealdormere-A]
[A bonnet azure.] This is returned for a redraw. As drawn, the bonnet has a modern shape. The documentation provided does not support the bonnet as drawn: the pictures show significantly taller and rounder edges as well as being more rounded on the top. [Stuart Martin MacDonald, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
The use of a bird's toe is a single step from period practice. [Thescorre, Barony of, LoAR 10/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
[...on a chief triangular Or three yak tails sable.] This is returned for identifiability and lack of documentation of the yak tails. The charges on the chief were not identifiable as yak tails; in addition there are no currently registered examples of yak tails, and the only prior registration of the charge (since released) was registered with a note to draw them more recognizable as yak tails. This should be redrawn so the yak tails recognizably match a documented form, and the documentation should be supplied. [Vladimir Davidovich, LoAR 10/2004, Atlantia-R]
[(Fieldless) In annulo eight triangles conjoined at point Or.] There are two issues with the identifiability of the charges on this device. Firstly, the proportion of each triangle is rather tall and thin when compared to the usual heraldic triangle. The heraldic triangle is normally depicted as equilateral which would prevent eight to be arranged in this manner. Secondly, the assemblage might be seen as some sort of a flower rather than a group of distinct conjoined charges. [Mairgret of Carrigart, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[...between two spouted pots reversed vert.] The documentation from von Volborth supports this style of pot. The documentation does not supply any clues as to a possible blazon, so we have gone with the submitted "spouted pot" as a plausible choice. [Roberto Valason, LoAR 09/2004, Ealdormere-A]
While the ancient crown bears a distinct resemblance to a ducal coronet, the submitter is in fact a Duke, having completed his second term as King of the East in October 1994. [Lucan von Drachenklaue, LoAR 09/2004, East-A]
[Vert, in fess an arrow between a drinking horn and a drinking horn reversed argent, a bordure Or semy of pheons sable.] In reblazoning this submission, we have decided to follow Metron Ariston's suggestion, and the orientation impled therein is hereby made explicit: the default orientation for a drinking horn is embowed to dexter (as well as bell to chief), as depicted in the Pictorial Dictionary (2d edition) #388. [Eneas Mac Concarrigy, LoAR 07/2004, Artemisia-A]
Originally blazoned as Sable, a wall issuant from base argent, masoned and portalled sable, in chief an A-frame plumb line between two pairs of compasses Or, as drawn the "wall" placed on the "field" is indistinguishable from a per fess field division and we have changed the blazon to reflect that. [Griffith Jenner, LoAR 07/2004, Atlantia-R]
Commentary raised the issue of whether the use of both a compass and an A-frame plumb line violates the "sword and dagger" rule. By precedent this rule applies when the field (or a charge on the field) is charged with two or more items between which there is (1) not a CD for type and (2) enough visual similarity to cause confusion, but not so much similarity as to be considered identical for heraldic purposes. RfS VIII.3 states in part that "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability." The "sword and dagger" principle illustrates one instance where confusion between two (or more) separate charges compromises their individual identifiability. Consensus in commentary and at the meeting indicates that this design does violate RfS VIII.3 by the "sword and dagger" rule.
The A-frame plumb line is a period artifact, and thus acceptable as a charge in SCA armory, but we have no evidence that it was used as a charge in period heraldry. If evidence of such use were presented, we could reconsider the degree of difference between A-frame plumb lines and compasses. [Griffith Jenner, LoAR 07/2004, Atlantia-R]
The charges on the chief were blazoned as pots on the Letter of Intent. We have reblazoned them as cauldrons at Metron Ariston's suggestion "simply to ensure this depiction of the pots." [James MacCoag, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[Per fess sable and argent, on a delf an early Norwegian kauna rune, all counterchanged.] The rune was originally blazoned on the Letter of Intent as simply a K-rune. However, the form of runes changes with place and time. The evidence presented indicates that this specific form of rune is local to early Norway, so we have adjusted the blazon such that the rune can be reconstructed with sufficient accuracy from the blazon. [Clef of Cividale, LoAR 06/2004, Calontir-A]
[Azure, three wolf's teeth issuant from base...]This position of the wolf's teeth (issuant from base) is a step from period practice but is only a single "weirdness." [Dexter of Dragon's Aerie, LoAR 06/2004, East-A]
[Per pale azure and sable, a fox sejant and three points argent.] We do not register armory using "[all] three points": "Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts, in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and not in conjunction." (LoAR April 1992 p.19) [Siôn MacDougall, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Per pale azure and sable, a fox sejant and three points argent.] In addition, this conflicts with Caelan O Ruairc: Per pale azure and sable, a wolf sejant ululant between three decrescents argent. There is one CD, for changing the type of secondary charges (crescents to points), but that is all. There is no CD between a fox and a wolf. [Siôn MacDougall, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
[(Fieldless) A peacock feather bendwise sinister proper surmounted and sustained by a Cornish chough proper.] This badge violates our policy regarding overall charges on fieldless badges and must be returned. Precedent states:
Fieldless badges may no longer use overall charges, except in cases where the overlap area is small; this is usually restricted to long, skinny charges such as a sword (LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93). As drawn..., the feather in this badge doesn't meet that standard" (Order of the Golden Feather (Principality of Artemisia), May, 1993, pg. 14).
[Tegan of Liskeard, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-R]
[Sable, two bars Or, "overall" a lion rampant argent...] In addition the lion is not truly overall, as its rear paws do not lie on the field. [Marcus Blackaert, LoAR 09/2004, East-R]
[(Fieldless) A Lacy knot vert surmounted by two arrows in saltire Or.] There is too much overlap between the arrows and the knot. This violates our current standards for fieldless badges, according to the precedent cited by Black Pillar:
[(Fieldless) An annulet sable overall a dragon segreant argent] The dragon has a high degree of overlap with the underlying annulet, which is not acceptable style for fieldless badges. Moreover, an overall charge should extend significantly past the outlines of the underlying charge, which is not the case in this armory. [Alden Drake, 04/03, R-Ansteorra]
In this particular submission, the identifiability of all the charges is seriously compromised. It was difficult to tell whether the underlying knot was a Lacy or Bowen knot, and it is far more difficult to identify the arrows than it should be. [Bertrand de Lacy, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[There is] a CD for type between an orle of chain and a plain orle. [Alheydis von Körckhingen, LoAR 11/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
[Gules, a fret couped argent within an orle Or.] This is clear of Anézka z Rozmitála: Gules, in dexter chief a fret couped argent. There is...a second [CD] for changing the position of the fret. The presence of the orle does not force the primary charge to the center of the field; it is still possible to draw in dexter chief an X, an orle. [Gyles de Blair, LoAR 11/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
The following precedent applies to the redraw: "Gores issue from the dexter chief corner and the base corner of the shield. As drawn, the gore issued from the side of the shield. This method of drawing a gore is reason for return in itself." [Mar 2004, Ret-Meridies, Gelis of Iron Mountain] [Safwah al-Zarqah al-Sabbiyah, LoAR 11/2004, Outlands-R]
The orle is correctly placed with respect to the chief, as noted by al-Jamal quoting precedent:
This is the correct placement of an orle with a chief: the orle runs parallel to the edge of the chief, and is not surmounted by it. See the arms of the Worshipful Company of Musicians, used by them c.1590. (Bromley & Child, Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London, p.180) [Aug 1992, Acc-Atenveldt, Guillaume de la Rapiere]
[Lachlan Maclean, LoAR 07/2004, Ealdormere-A]
...In addition, the ford should be drawn smaller and with wavy stripes of even width. [Lucien Philip de Bordeaux, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
[Per chevron sable and Or, two rapiers crossed in chevron Or and a hawk displayed head to sinister gules.] This device conflicts with Alasdair MacKenzie, Per chevron azure and Or, two swords in saltire Or and a lion rampant gules. There is a CD for changing the field, but no additional CD for changing the bottommost charge from lion to eagle. Precedent has explicitly ruled that the arrangement in question is not two and one and so cannot receive a CD for changing the bottommost charge:
[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].
[Gracia Rede de Hauke, LoAR 01/2005, Artemisia-R]
[Sable, three sinister gauntlets clenched in chevron and a mullet of eight points argent.] The device is returned for redrawing. As blazoned, the gauntlets and mullets should be a group of four co-primary charges. As drawn, the size of the mullet leaves it unclear as to whether it is the sole primary with the gauntlets secondary or one of a group of four co-equal charges. When redrawing, please advise the submitter to either draw the four charges approximately the same size or to make the mullet clearly the primary charge. [Caoimhghin MacAindriú, LoAR 01/2005, Drachenwald-R]
[Per pale sable and Or, a harp and an unstrung harp reversed counterchanged.] The lack of strings on only one of the harps is a weirdness but registerable. The motif barely does not fall afoul of the "sword and dagger" rule. [Allan Blackharp, LoAR 12/2004, Caid-A]
[Argent, two needles in saltire enfiling an annulet vert and three bendlets abased vert.] As drawn, the combination of bendlets abased and the needle-and-annulet combination is not period style. The emblazon gives rise to considerable confusion as to what is the primary charge. If the submitter wishes to depict Argent, three bendlets abased, in chief two needles in saltire enfiling an annulet vert, then the needle-and-annulet combination should be drawn smaller and more to chief. [Ana de Granada, LoAR 12/2004, Calontir-R]
[Checky of nine sable and argent, four crows migrant sable.] [This] conflicts with a badge of Egill von Stahl: Quarterly purpure and gules, in saltire an eagle displayed contourny Or between four eagles displayed contourny sable fimbriated Or. There is a CD for the field. Egill's birds are in fact a single group of five birds in saltire. There is no CD for number between four and five, nor is there a CD for tincture for changing only one out of five charges. [Richard Crowe, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[Per chevron argent and gules, in chief three escallops one and two gules and in base a Bowen cross argent.] The device conflicts with Thorfinn the Just: Per chevron argent and gules, two escallops and a tower counterchanged. There is one CD for the change of number of primary charges but nothing for changing fewer than half the charge group.
The change of type does not generate a CD because the change is to one out of four charges. This is in accordance with the precedent made explicit in the tenure of Fran{c,}ois Laurel and Zenobia Wreath:
[...] In addition, it should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the change from "considered" to "registered". The February 2003 ruling on Siridean's device applied type first (no type difference) and then number (removing four lions). If we were going from "considered" to "registered", we could arguably give a CD for changing from a lion and a castle to two lions (half the group has changed, and is entitled to a CD) and then give a CD for adding four lions, giving two CDs. But this is not the situation under consideration in this appeal.
In Siridean's case, the submitter is changing one of the lions into a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e.
After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply the change to the number by removing all but one of the lions and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions, leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.
After applying the change of type and then the change in number, the submitted armory has but a single CD from Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent cotised between six lions rampant Or. The device appeal is denied. [Siridean MacLachlan, 12/03,R-Calontir]
In this case, we start from Thorfinn's registered armory, and make the changes in such an order as to give the greatest protection to the registered armory. So first we add the extra escallop, generating one CD for change of number from three charges to four. Then we change the type of the charge in base; the change to one out of four charges yields no CD. [Hette Arnold, LoAR 12/2004, Calontir-R]
In addition, the difference in size between the two lymphads in chief and the one in base is so great that there was too much confusion as to how the bird and ships should be grouped together. As a result this violates the "Sword and Dagger" principle as applied to charges of the same type but of different size: one cannot use the same charge as both a primary and a secondary charge on the field in the same piece of armory. [Kate Wrenn, LoAR 12/2004, East-R]
[Per chevron gules and argent, a quatrefoil gules and in chevron three mullets of six points argent.] The device is being returned for a redraw. The charges on the field are of three different sizes, but the difference in size blurs the distinction between having a single charge group and a primary with secondaries. As the blazon from the form and the Letter of Intent indicates a desire for the quatrefoil to be the sole primary charge, that should be made significantly larger and a bit more centered on the shield (there's room for that to be done) and the mullets should be redrawn to be all the same size as the smaller one on the current emblazon. [Ia ingen Áeda, LoAR 12/2004, Northshield-R]
[Per chevron ployé throughout Or and sable, two roses gules slipped and leaved vert and an alquerques board Or.] Blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron ployé throughout Or and sable, an alquerques board Or and in chief two flowers gules slipped and leaved vert, we have reblazoned it to reflect the unmistakable impression of three co-primary charges. Under this interpretation, the device conflicts with Sine Ealasaid Leanora Kyntire: Per chevron Or and sable, two roses gules, barbed and seeded proper, and a cup Or. The only CD is for changing the type of the basemost charge from a cup to an alquerques board. [István Nyiregyhazi, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Per chevron Or and vert, two trefoils and a tyger statant counterchanged.] The device conflicts with Elvira the Invisible: Per chevron Or and vert, in chief three trefoils in fess and in base in saltire a viol surmounted by a bow, all counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the number of primary charges from four (or five) to three, but nothing for changing the type of the charge(s) in base since they constitute less than half of the charge group, and the already registered armory has more than three charges in the group.
It was suggested in commentary that since the submission has only three charges in the group, there could be a separate CD for changing the type of the bottommost of three charges two and one. However, the following precedent is directly applicable:
In addition, it should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the change from "considered" to "registered". [Siridean MacLachlan, 12/03, R-Calontir]
Thus in this instance, we count the change in type first, not worth a CD, and then the change in number, giving us a total of only one CD. [Mathew Underell de Warewic, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Per bend sinister vert and azure, a bend sinister cotised between a dragonfly and a natural dolphin naiant argent.] Precedent has long held that cotises are a separate charge group from other secondaries; therefore this does not violate the "slot-machine" ban. [Ragnhildr Sigtryggsdottir, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A]
[(Fieldless) A wolf's head cabossed vert.] This is clear of Wolfbrand of the Tiger's Paw as cited in the LoI. On Wolfbrand's device the sword is clearly co-primary, giving a second CD for number of primary charges in addition to one for the field. Wolfbrand's device has been reblazoned in the East Kingdom section of this letter. [Emily of Swordcliff, LoAR 08/2004, Middle-A]
[Or, two butterflies and a hand, a bordure azure.] The device conflicts with Katarina la Juste: Or, a butterfly within a bordure azure. The only CD is for adding charges (a butterfly and a hand) to the primary charge group. [Gavin of Schwarzloch, LoAR 07/2004, Drachenwald-R]
[Argent, a dragonfly bendwise vert between three Latin crosses purpure.] This is being returned for a redraw. As drawn, the dragonfly is not identifiable as such, and it is impossible to tell whether this is a single primary charge group or a single primary between secondaries. The emblazon should be redone with a more identifiable dragonfly (the wings should be together), and either with a larger dragonfly and smaller crosses or with all the charges as obvious co-primaries. [Gwennan Myngrudd, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
[Checky Or and gules, on a fess purpure four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns Or.] As for the device, there are two independent causes for return here...Second, the tertiary charges present a combination of identifiability problems and non-period style. As drawn, there is confusion about whether the four fleurs-de-lys form a cross of fleurs-de-lys. While they do not, it is very hard to tell, even from the full-size emblazon. Given that they do not form a cross, the charges on the fess give the appearance of "primary" and "secondary" tertiary charges groups on the fess. This has long been cause for return:
[... on a pale azure a salmon haurient embowed contourny in chief a compass star argent ...] It is not period style to have two different tertiary groups on the same underlying charge. The difference in scale between the salmon and the compass star makes the compass star appear to be in a subsidiary charge group to the salmon. There is precedent pertaining to this matter:
[returning A mullet Or charged with a fleur-de-lys florency between five daggers points outwards sable] None of the commenters could find a similar motif: a primary charged with a tertiary X and a group of five tertiary Y's. Barring documentation of such an arrangement of tertiary charges, we believe that the motif is not a period one and therefore unregistrable. [The submission was returned for this reason and for conflict.] (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95 p. 15)
(The device was returned for this reason and for redrawing the laurel wreath.) [Oct 2001, Ret-Drachenwald, Uma, Shire of]
For the current submission, if the charges on the fess were instead on a field, they would be ...four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns, obviously a primary charge group between secondaries. Thus this example follows the above precedents. If, instead, the charges on the fess were drawn as a cross of fleurs-de-lys, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns then there would be a single group of three charges on the fess, which would be registerable. (We would still have to check for conflict and other potential style problems with the redrawn armory.) [Haroun al-Rashid the Toe Mangler, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[a dog's head couped collared argent.] Questions were raised in commentary about the tincture of the dog's collar. If the collar were of a contrasting tincture that had been inadvertently omitted from the blazon, that would yield a second CD for adding a tertiary charge. On the full-color emblazon, the collar is indeed argent, and as such it is effectively nothing more than an artistic variation of the argent head, worth no difference. [Rolant Richolf von dem Reyne, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Erminois, in fess a fox's mask between two spears all within a bordure embattled sable.] As drawn, the spears are rather taller than the fox's head, and as such should be considered as co-primary with it. We have reblazoned the device accordingly. [Silvestro lo Nero, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[Sable, a chevron between three padlocks Or.] It was claimed that the padlocks should be considered the primary charges, with the chevron as an overall charge, based on an idea found in an article by Levin (Pedro de Alcazar) found on the Laurel website. This article purports that certain families used bends overall for cadency steps; the extension to include chevrons was asserted by the submitter. However, the citation from Levin is irrelevant: this chevron is neither a bend, nor overall. Furthermore, to quote Siren: "Even if we were to accept the analysis of a chevron as an overall charge, having an overall charge makes a device ineligible for X.2. In addition, as the old armory [Bran's] has three types of charge [directly on the field], the conflict cannot be cleared through X.2." No matter how this armory is analyzed, X.2 does not apply and there remains only one CD for changing the type of the charges surrounding the chevron. [Avelina Keyes, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
[Gules, a chalice Or and in chief a pair of hands argent.] This is clear of Harold of Pleasure, as reblazoned elsewhere on this LoAR: Gules, a dexter gauntlet fesswise proper holding a goblet Or . A possible conflict had been called against Harold because, under the old blazon, it was unclear whether the gauntlet was worth difference or not. A visual check of Harold's armory shows that the gauntlet and goblet are co-primaries, so there is a CD for number of primary charges and a CD for removing the secondary charges. [Ernst Nuss von Kitzengen, East-A, LoAR 06/2004]
[Purpure, two escarbuncles Or and a phoenix Or emerging from flames argent.] This is being returned for several problems, each of which is by itself cause for return: conflict, coloration, and unidentifiability. On the Letter of Intent this was blazoned as a phoenix... and in chief two escarbuncles. As drawn, the relative size of the charges makes them a single group of three primary charges. We have changed the blazon to reflect this. Under this interpretation, this conflicts with Desirata DuprÉ of Dragonsfire Tor: Purpure, three escarbuncles Or. The only CD is for the change to the bottommost charge of three (arranged two and one) on the field. (This is a reason for return all by itself.) [Ellyn Jourdain de Wentworth, LoAR 06/2004, Northshield-R]
[Or, between a chevron and a chevron inverted braced a bee purpure.] This device conflicts with the Order of the Purple Fret, Or, a fret purpure. While there may technically be several CDs between a fret and a chevron and a chevron inverted braced, the consensus of the meeting was that there is an overwhelming visual similarity as defined in RfS X.5 between the two pieces of armory, with the small secondary bee on Róise's device adding little difference. [Róisi MacCracken, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-R]
There is no difference for making the per chevron line ployé, much as there is no difference for making the charge of a chevron ployé: "[a chevron ployé vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. [implying no CD for ploy é vs. plain]" [Adriana Kavanaugh, 04/00, R-Atenveldt] [István Nyiregyhazi, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Gules, between a chevron and a chevron inverted two double-bitted axes in chevron argent.] The combination of a chevron with a chevron inverted in the same armory is a distinct step from period practice, but is only one "weirdness." [John Logan, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A]
Please advise the submitter to draw the braced chevrons with all the corresponding arms in parallel. [Odile Davignon, LoAR 07/2004, Caid-A]
[...a chevron inverted gules fimbriated argent charged with five beehives palewise Or.] It might be possible to view the charge combination in question as five beehives in chevron inverted between two chevronels inverted. However, the use of such a design anywhere other than the center of the shield is too far from period style to be registered. Precedent disallows the use of an ordinary abased and cotised (between two of its diminutives):
[a bend abased and cotised argent] No documentation was presented for ordinaries which are both abased and cotised. Abased ordinaries are so rare in period armory that this treatment appears to be too far a departure from period heraldic style to be acceptable without documentation. [Arabella Mackinnon, 06/03, R-Ansteorra]
If we are not going to allow an <ordinary> between two <same ordinaries> all abased (a period way to blazon an <ordinary> cotised, then neither should we allow <anything> between two ordinaries, all abased, which is the situation with this submission. [Voron Gregor'ev Tselomudrenni, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Sable, a chevron between three padlocks Or.] This conflicts with Bran Davidson of Clan Chattan: Sable, a chevron ployé between two tabors and a boar's head couped Or, with one CD for the change of types of secondary charges. There is no CD between an ordinary and an ordinary ployé by precedent [pile vs. pile ployé]: "There is no CD between ployé and straight edges" [Rickard of Gwyntarian, 10/01, R-Middle]. [Avelina Keyes, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
[Argent, a gurges azure surmounted by a carnation vert.] The device is being returned for a redraw. As drawn, the charge in the middle, while blazoned as a carnation, was indistinguishable between a lotus blossom affronty and a sun. It should be redrawn to be larger and with sufficient internal detailing to identify it as a flower. [Amalie zu dem Blumen, LoAR 12/2004, Atenveldt-R]
Eclipsing the sun has long been considered the equivalent of adding a tertiary charge...[Yaasamiin al-Raqqasa al-'Ala'iyiyya, LoAR 11/2004, Artemisia-R]
[a cross of lozenges vert compared to a compass star gules]...Quoth Metron Ariston: "By precedent a compass star and a mullet of four points have no difference and this strikingly resembles a mullet of four points visually. While there is a clear difference in tincture of the lozengy cross/mullet, if the sizes and positions are not very different then this may be a problem." Upon visual comparison of the emblazons [, everyone at the meeting agreed that this is a conflict. RfS X.4.e. states, "A charge not used in period armory will be considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different". Compass stars are not used in period armory. Therefore, difference can only be derived on visual grounds, and the visual difference between these two charges is significantly different. [Safwah al-Zarqah al-Sabbiyah, LoAR 11/2004, Outlands-R]
[Per pale Or and gules, a sun counterchanged.] This also conflicts with Ajax Thermopylokles: Per pale Or and gules, a Gorgon's head cabossed counterchanged...original return (September 2002) is relevant here, and we excerpt it here:
The particular stylization of the gorgon's head in Ajax' armory leads it to be visually very similar to a sun in splendor. The snakes are evenly arrayed radially about the gorgon's face, rather than just issuant from the top of the head as one might expect of a gorgon with snakes for hair. The gorgon's face is also very stylized, more like a mask than a face. Thus the face resembles the disk of a sun more than one might expect of a standard woman's face. Overall the visual similarity is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to call conflict under RfS X.5. In ordinary circumstances we would expect there to be X.2 difference between a variant of a human head and a sun.
The lack of a face here reduces the similarity, but the particular stylization of Ajax's design does not allow for X.2 to apply. While there may be a CD between them, that would still be only one CD. We decline to rule on whether a CD actually exists in this case. [Gabrielle Annora d'Outre Mer, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[comparing a mullet of six points vs. a compass star] There is ... [no CD] for type of the primary charge:
There is no type difference between the compass stars and the mullets of six points. Because of the unusual (and non-period) design of compass stars, with their four greater and four lesser points, they are considered as variants of both mullets of four points and mullets of eight points. There is no type difference between mullets of six points and mullets of eight points and, hence, no difference between mullets of six points and compass stars. [Brian Sigfridsson von Niedersachsen, 07/03, R-Atenveldt]
[Mara Sutherland, LoAR 10/2004, Meridies-R]
[in chief a sun counterchanged, in base a heart argent.] This is being returned for a redraw. The "sun" is little more than a roundel with small bumps around the edge, and should not be touching the top edge of the shield nor the center point of the field division. The heart could also stand to be drawn a bit bigger (mostly wider). [Alanna Goodheart, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
As drawn, this blurs the line between a per fess line of division and a chief. If this is intended to be a chief it needs to be narrower so as not to blur the distinction. [Hrafnhildr Mikaelsdóttir, LoAR 12/2004, Middle-R]
[Per fess indented azure and counter-ermine.] In addition, as drawn the line of division is too high, blurring the distinction between a per fess indented line of division and a chief indented. [Sancha da Sylva, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R]
The orle is correctly placed with respect to the chief, as noted by al-Jamal quoting precedent:
This is the correct placement of an orle with a chief: the orle runs parallel to the edge of the chief, and is not surmounted by it. See the arms of the Worshipful Company of Musicians, used by them c.1590. (Bromley & Child, Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London, p.180) [Aug 1992, Acc-Atenveldt, Guillaume de la Rapiere]
[Lachlan Maclean, LoAR 07/2004, Ealdormere-A]
[Quarterly gules and purpure, three wolves "courant" in annulo argent.] Additionally, Crescent notes a conflict with Cuán MacDaige: Checky azure and Or, three mastiffs courant in annulo argent each gorged of a coronet gules. There is a CD for changes to the field but nothing for the type of canine and nothing for gorging an entire beast (as opposed to a beast's head). [Ulvar MacVanis, LoAR 10/2004, Lochac-R]
[a dog's head couped collared argent.] Questions were raised in commentary about the tincture of the dog's collar. If the collar were of a contrasting tincture that had been inadvertently omitted from the blazon, that would yield a second CD for adding a tertiary charge. On the full-color emblazon, the collar is indeed argent, and as such it is effectively nothing more than an artistic variation of the argent head, worth no difference. [Rolant Richolf von dem Reyne, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Sable, a bend between two mullets of eight points Or] This conflicts with Grania Buchanan: Sable, on a bend between two suns Or three triquetras inverted palewise gules. There is one CD for adding the charges on the bend, but no difference for type between a sun and a mullet of eight points. [Matthew of Marinus, LoAR 10/2004, Atlantia-R]
[Per fess azure and vert, on a bend cotised between a bear passant and a heart Or, four gouts inverted palewise gules.] Furthermore, this device is overly complex. Several commenters argued that the complexity count of this device should include the bend and its cotises as separate charge types. This is not the case, given that period blazons often used the descriptions a bend cotised and a bend between two bendlets interchangeably to describe the same armory. But while the complexity count is only eight, that does not necessarily help, in accordance with precedent:
[Returning Per pale argent and vert, a thistle and a drawn bow reversed and nocked with an arrow counterchanged, on a chief gules three goblets Or] However, because the "complexity count" of types + tinctures is a rule of thumb, rather than a hard and fast rule, it doesn't strictly matter whether we decide that the number of tinctures and charges in the design adds to nine (counting the bow and the arrow separately) or eight (counting the bow and arrow together as a "bow and arrow") charge. Inspection of this armory shows that it has "crossed over the line" for allowable complexity, and must be returned. [Sep 2003, Ret-Caid, Brian McRay]
Likewise, in the present case it doesn't strictly matter whether we total the number of tinctures and charge types as nine (counting the cotises separate from the bend) or eight (counting bend and cotises as the same type). Inspection of the present submission shows that it too has "crossed over the line" and must be returned. [Orion Storm Bruin, LoAR 08/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Vert, on a bend bevilled Or between a cloud argent and a dog sejant erect contourny Or four dog's pawprints sable.] The device is being returned for non-period style. It has multiple weirdnesses or rarities: a charged bend bevilled, a bend bevilled (charged or not) between secondary charges, a complexity count of eight, and the use of pawprints. This is explained in the following precedents:
[Returning Gyronny of sixteen gules and argent, a windmill sable, a bordure vert bezanty] This device has multiple weirdnesses or rarities: a gyronny of sixteen with a central charge, a complexity count of eight, and identifiability problems with the primary charge. While none of these problems (with the possible exception of identifiability) would, by themselves, make the device returnable, the combination is fatal. [Jun 2000, Ret-Atlantia, Cadwan Galwiddoe of Redmarch]
While none of these problems would, by itself, make the device returnable, the combination is not registerable. [Rebekah Anna Leah Wynterbourne, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Per chevron argent and gules, in chief three escallops one and two gules and in base a Bowen cross argent.] The device conflicts with Thorfinn the Just: Per chevron argent and gules, two escallops and a tower counterchanged. There is one CD for the change of number of primary charges but nothing for changing fewer than half the charge group.
The change of type does not generate a CD because the change is to one out of four charges. This is in accordance with the precedent made explicit in the tenure of Fran{c,}ois Laurel and Zenobia Wreath:
[...] In addition, it should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the change from "considered" to "registered". The February 2003 ruling on Siridean's device applied type first (no type difference) and then number (removing four lions). If we were going from "considered" to "registered", we could arguably give a CD for changing from a lion and a castle to two lions (half the group has changed, and is entitled to a CD) and then give a CD for adding four lions, giving two CDs. But this is not the situation under consideration in this appeal.
In Siridean's case, the submitter is changing one of the lions into a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e.
After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply the change to the number by removing all but one of the lions and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions, leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.
After applying the change of type and then the change in number, the submitted armory has but a single CD from Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent cotised between six lions rampant Or. The device appeal is denied. [Siridean MacLachlan, 12/03,R-Calontir]
In this case, we start from Thorfinn's registered armory, and make the changes in such an order as to give the greatest protection to the registered armory. So first we add the extra escallop, generating one CD for change of number from three charges to four. Then we change the type of the charge in base; the change to one out of four charges yields no CD. [Hette Arnold, LoAR 12/2004, Calontir-R]
[Per chevron Or and vert, two trefoils and a tyger statant counterchanged.] The device conflicts with Elvira the Invisible: Per chevron Or and vert, in chief three trefoils in fess and in base in saltire a viol surmounted by a bow, all counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the number of primary charges from four (or five) to three, but nothing for changing the type of the charge(s) in base since they constitute less than half of the charge group, and the already registered armory has more than three charges in the group.
It was suggested in commentary that since the submission has only three charges in the group, there could be a separate CD for changing the type of the bottommost of three charges two and one. However, the following precedent is directly applicable:
In addition, it should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the change from "considered" to "registered". [Siridean MacLachlan, 12/03, R-Calontir]
Thus in this instance, we count the change in type first, not worth a CD, and then the change in number, giving us a total of only one CD. [Mathew Underell de Warewic, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Argent, on a pale between two swords inverted sable a sword inverted proper issuant from a tree stump Or.] This conflicts with Gregor Dow McGregor: Argent, on a pale between two roses slipped and leaved sable a rapier argent...The second CD must come from changes to the tertiary charges. RfS X.4.j.ii does not apply because the type of all the tertiary charges has not been substantially changed. Using X.4.j.i, there is a significant difference in number (between one and two charges) but nothing for the tincture or orientation of only one of the two charges, and X.4.j.i states that "Generally such changes must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually significant". The following precedent applies:
[Returning an appeal of Azure, a bend argent cotised between a lion rampant and a castle Or] The SCA has always had difficulty dealing with the situation when both the number and the type of a single charge group change. For a classic example, consider the hypothetical arms Azure, a lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant versus Azure, a unicorn argent. In both cases, you have a blue field with a white rampant unicorn. In the first, the unicorn is also accompanied by a gold lion rampant to sinister. The traditional SCA view is to give only one CD for removing the lion so that the two arms are in conflict. However, occasionally, someone tries to argue from a different perspective, namely, that we should give one CD for changing the number of the group (from two to one charge), another CD for changing the type of the group (from half unicorn, half lion to all unicorn), a third CD for changing the tincture of the group (from half Or, half argent, to all argent), and a fourth for changing the posture of the group (from half facing dexter and half facing sinister, to all facing dexter). This, of course, would make the arms well clear of conflict. This interpretation has been disallowed fairly consistently in precedent, although the issue continues to be raised occasionally. The most recent time this issue was addressed was in the LoAR of October 2003, which stated:
Jan van Antwerpen. Device. Quarterly argent and azure, two lymphads sails unfurled azure. Conflict with Lee Sharpeyes, Quarterly argent and azure, four dhows reversed counterchanged. As noted in the LoAR of July 2001, "There is ... nothing for the change in the type of ship, [or] for reversing a ship." There is one CD for removing the two argent ships, but no other difference may be obtained from this change. One cannot argue, as was done on the Letter of Intent, that "there is a CD for the number of charges, and a CD for changing color of half the primary charges." That is equivalent to saying that there is a CD for removing two of the charges, and another CD for the changing the tincture of the charges that have just been removed. The rules have been interpreted consistently for years, and the following discussion from the LoAR of July 1992 still applies:
One cannot get a CD for adding charges, then another CD for changing the charges just added. This has been an underlying principle of the last three sets of Rules: see the LoAR of 25 Aug 85, p.14, for a full discussion. The difference obtained for adding, say, a bordure engrailed ermine, is exactly the same as for adding a bordure Or. (One does not get a CD for adding the bordure, then a CD for changing its tincture, then another CD for making it engrailed.....)
In the 1985 LoAR cited in this return, Laurel noted:
We have held previously that the addition of a modified charge (such as a roundel engrailed ermine) contributes no more difference than adding an unmodified charge (e.g. a roundel gules). This gets us away from absurdities such as the following: to "Azure, a fleurdelys [sic] Or" we add two bars Or and a bordure argent. We engrail the bordure, change the bars from Or to argent, and then delete the bordure. Depending on how creative you are at counting, you could get anywhere from two to five points for the addition of a pair of silver stripes. Not bad for a couple of minutes' work ...
In addition, it should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the change from "considered" to "registered". The February 2003 ruling on Siridean's device applied type first (no type difference) and then number (removing four lions). If we were going from "considered" to "registered", we could arguably give a CD for changing from a lion and a castle to two lions (half the group has changed, and is entitled to a CD) and then give a CD for adding four lions, giving two CDs. But this is not the situation under consideration in this appeal.
In Siridean's case, the submitter is changing one of the lions into a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e.
After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply the change to the number by removing all but one of the lions and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions, leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.
After applying the change of type and then the change in number, the submitted armory has but a single CD from Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent cotised between six lions rampant Or. The device appeal is denied. [Dec 2003, Ret-Calontir, Siridean MacLachlan]
In this case, we start from Gregor's registered armory. We apply the changes in such a manner as to give that the greatest protection. First, we add the tree stump, which is a significant change in number, but not for tincture because we did not change the tincture of the entire tertiary group (and the tincture change was also dependent on adding the second charge). Then we invert the sword (and embed its tip in the tree stump), which is a change of orientation, but is not a significant difference because we have not changed the orientation of the entire tertiary charge group. Thus there is not a CD for changes to the charges on the pale, and the potential conflict (as cited in the Letter of Intent) stands. [Cedric fils de Guillaume, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-R]
[Sable, on a rose Or seeded and barbed vert, a dragon salient sable.] This is technically clear of Aziza al-Kashani: (Fieldless) A double rose Or, charged with a horse passant sable. There is one CD for the fieldlessness, and one for type and posture of the tertiary charge. [Adriana Maria Presley, LoAR 08/2004, Outlands-A]
[Or, on a pale argent fimbriated vert, a peacock feather proper.] A possible conflict was called with the Middle Kingdom's badge for the Order of the Dragon's Tooth: Or, on a pale vert three fangs palewise Or. If this submission were considered as Or, on a pale vert a pale argent charged with a peacock feather proper, so there is a single CD for aggregate changes to the tertiary charges, but under the alternate blazon the peacock feather would be a quaternary charge and thus not countable for difference.
Clarion and Owen led the argument that the above interpretation only applies to alternate blazons that could legally be registered. After consideration we agree in part. The following precedent is relevant:
There is a well-established rule that one cannot blazon one's way out of a conflict. As a general rule this is true, but it should not be taken to overrule period interpretation. For example, "Argent, a fess sable" could also be blazoned as "Sable, a chief and a base argent". We would not infer therefore that "Argent, on a fess sable three eagles argent" conflicts with "Sable, in fess three eagles argent" with only one CD for the removal of the peripheral charges. Not all possible blazons are equally plausible, and implausible blazons don't necessarily result in a conflict. [Apr 1998, Acc-Calontir, Brynhildr uppsaling Grimkelsdottir]
Reblazoning this submission as a pale charged with another pale charged with a feather would not be registerable (four layers). Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict. [ We feel it necessary to point out that when comparing items for conflict, registered armory gets greater protection than the new item under consideration. Therefore, we may consider already registered armory under alternate blazons that may have been legal in the past but are not legal today. However, that circumstance does not apply here. (See this month's Cover Letter under "From Wreath: Alternate Blazons and Conflicts" for details.) [Jaida of Golden Rivers, LoAR 06/2004, West-A]
From Wreath: Alternate Blazons and Conflicts
This month we registered ...on a pale argent fimbriated vert, a peacock feather proper despite a possible conflict with ...on a pale vert three fangs palewise Or. The argument was made that both pieces of armory could be considered as ...a pale vert charged with <stuff>. However, in order for the new submission to fit this interpretation, it would be blazoned as ...on a pale vert a pale argent charged with a peacock feather proper. That would be four layers, which is unregisterable. Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict.
However, there are other circumstances do exist where there is a conflict with already registered armory due to reblazoning the registered armory. Last month, for example, we returned ...on a compass star argent a Maltese cross azure... for conflict with ...within a sun throughout argent, eclipsed azure, a goshawk displayed argent, giving no CD between the two excerpted parts. In this case the already registered armory would today be blazoned as ...on a sun throughout argent, a roundel azure charged with a goshawk displayed argent, emphasizing that the goshawk can be considered a quaternary charge and thus ignored completely when checking for conflict.
The main difference between these two cases is that in the "no conflict" example it was the new armory to which the problematic reblazon applied, while in the "yes conflict" example it was the old armory that had the unregisterable reblazon. [CL 06/2004]
[Per chevron embattled sable and azure, a horse's head couped argent.] The device violates RfS VIII.3 by having a low-contrast complex line of division between azure and sable per precedent:
[Returning Per chevron wavy sable and azure, a decrescent, an increscent, and a sea-griffin argent] The contrast between the two halves of the field is so low that the line of division is not distinguishable. Past Laurels have returned extremely low-contrast lines of division even when there is not an overall charge (for an example, see the return of Isabel d'Avignon's device, June 1997 LoAR). [Oct 1999, Ret-Meridies, Anastasiia Novgorodskaia]
This submission's contrast is also so low as to render the line of division indistinguishable.
The device also violates VIII.3 by having a low-contrast complex line of division obscured by an overlying nonskinny charge: "[A] complex line of partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if most of the line is also covered by charges." The horse's head obscures too much of the line of division. [Cadeyrn ap Meirchion, LoAR 11/2004, Calontir-R]
[...issuing from a sword proper a flower Or two flowers gules and two flowers Or...]This is returned for a redrawing. The "flames" that are not attached to the sword are each of a single tincture; those that are gules break the Rule of Tincture. Objects that are enflamed should have small gouts of flames emerging from, but still touching, the object at random intervals. Each flame proper should generally consist of alternating bits of Or and gules. [Stephen Other, LoAR 10/2004, Artemisia-R]
[Sable, two bars Or...a bordure gules.] The bordure violates the Rule of Tincture. This is not a divided field per the following precedent:
[Argent, two pallets gules overall a tree vert] This does not conflict with the important non-SCA arms of O'Connor Don ... Argent, a tree eradicated vert. Armory using three or more pallets is interchangeable with paly on visual grounds and on grounds of historical heraldic difference. Armory using two pallets is visually distinct from paly, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each other in period. This is therefore clear of O'Connor Don by RfS X.1 for adding a primary charge group (the pallets). [Floris van Montfort, 05/02, A-Drachenwald]
Likewise, armory using two bars is visually distinct from barry, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each other in period. Therefore, this must be considered as a sable field, and as such the gules bordure is color on color. [Marcus Blackaert, LoAR 09/2004, East-R]
[Per fess indented azure and counter-ermine.] This has a low-contrast complex line of division using two colors. The following precedent is relevant:
[Returning Per chevron wavy sable and azure, a decrescent, an increscent, and a sea-griffin argent] The contrast between the two halves of the field is so low that the line of division is not distinguishable. Past Laurels have returned extremely low-contrast lines of division even when there is not an overall charge (for an example, see the return of Isabel d'Avignon's device, June 1997 LoAR). [Oct 1999, Ret-Meridies, Anastasiia Novgorodskaia]
Likewise, azure and counter-ermine do not have sufficient contrast to allow them to be used as the tinctures on either side of a divided field with a complex line of division, even when there is no overall charge. [Sancha da Sylva, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R]
[Or, a jester's face argent hooded gyronny of six vert and gules...] The jester's hood violates the rule of tincture, specifically RfS VIII.2.b.iv: "Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different tinctures must have good contrast between their parts." Vert and gules do not have good contrast, and gyronny (even gyronny of six) is "multiple parts" since it is neither two parts nor quarterly nor per saltire (the exceptions defined in RfS VIII.2.b.iii). [Mikael Godegamen, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Per bend sinister nebuly azure and sable, in bend a Norse sun cross argent and double rose argent and azure.] This has an unregisterable low-contrast complex line of division: "...Finally, we no longer allow combining azure and sable with a complex line of division." (Sep 1997, Returns, Trimaris, Tymm Colbert le Gard) This is one of the combinations that has been held to violate RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability, even without a charge overlying it. [Katerin ferch Gwenllian, LoAR 06/2004, Middle-R]
[Gules, a saltire and in chief an oak leaf fructed Or.] This is clear of Rhiannon Ansachd, Gules, a saltire cotised Or, as cited on the LoI. There are CDs for number and type of secondary charges. As period blazons give (for example) a bend between two cotises, the cotising on all sides of a multi-sided ordinary necessarily involves more than one secondary charge. [Marie of Doune, LoAR 09/2004, Atlantia-A]
[Per bend sinister vert and azure, a bend sinister cotised between a dragonfly and a natural dolphin naiant argent.] Precedent has long held that cotises are a separate charge group from other secondaries; therefore this does not violate the "slot-machine" ban. [Ragnhildr Sigtryggsdottir, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A]
[...a chevron inverted gules fimbriated argent charged with five beehives palewise Or.] It might be possible to view the charge combination in question as five beehives in chevron inverted between two chevronels inverted. However, the use of such a design anywhere other than the center of the shield is too far from period style to be registered. Precedent disallows the use of an ordinary abased and cotised (between two of its diminutives):
[a bend abased and cotised argent] No documentation was presented for ordinaries which are both abased and cotised. Abased ordinaries are so rare in period armory that this treatment appears to be too far a departure from period heraldic style to be acceptable without documentation. [Arabella Mackinnon, 06/03, R-Ansteorra]
If we are not going to allow an <ordinary> between two <same ordinaries> all abased (a period way to blazon an <ordinary> cotised, then neither should we allow <anything> between two ordinaries, all abased, which is the situation with this submission. [Voron Gregor'ev Tselomudrenni, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
When a field is divided into more than two parts (except for quarterly and per saltire field divisions), the counterchanging of multiple charges over that field's lines of division constitutes excessive counterchanging per the following precedent:
[Returning Paly of four argent and gules, three spur rowels counterchanged sable and argent] ...In general, complex counterchanging was not found in period armory, probably due to the lack of identifiability of the charges being counterchanged. This problem applies to this submission, which is in violation of RfS VIII.3. That rule states, in pertinent part, "Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by ... excessive counterchanging... or by being obscured by other elements of the design. A complex divided field could obscure the identity of charges counterchanged." The complex field obscures the identity of the counterchanged charges in this submission. If it could be shown that this sort of design was found in period armory, it might support this design to some extent, but no such documentation has been provided or found. As noted in the LoAR of October 2001, "In general, we would like to see documentation for any charge counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such as barry or gyronny." [Sep 2003, Reet-Atlantia, Davis de Rowell]
Subsequent discussion has made it clear that, even though the tincture of each charge in the above example is only divided into two parts, the fact that there are multiple charges so divided was enough to consider it excessive counterchanging. Neither the piercing of the spur rowels (each of a divided tincture) nor the use of a tincture different from the field was necessary to reach this conclusion; a hypothetical paly of four sable and Or, three roundels counterchanged would have likewise been considered as excessive counterchanging.
With that in mind, the aforementioned precedent applies as well to three roundels on a gyronny field as it does to three on a paly field. This submission therefore violates RfS VIII.3 and must be returned. If documentation were provided for the use of this motif in period, this design could be supported, but such documentation has been neither provided nor found. [Magdalene van den Velde, LoAR 09/2004, Artemisia-R]
[Argent, three bendlets azure each charged with a mullet of six points palewise Or, a bordure counterchanged.] Commentary from the College of Arms overwhelmingly indicated that this combination of multiple bends and bordure is excessive counterchanging. The following precedents are relevant:
It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules. and Argent, three bars gules. (Dictionary of British Arms, Volume 1, pp 59, 88; Foster, p.145) and the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distinction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference. [Dec 1997, Ret-Atlantia, Aron Nied{z'}wied{z'}]
[Bendy sinister vert and Or, a hawk striking contourny argent a bordure counterchanged] The commentary from the College of Arms overwhelmingly indicated that the combination of bendy sinister and bordure is excessive counterchanging. In general, we would like to see documentation for any charge counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such as barry or gyronny. [Tvorimir Danilov, 08/01, R-An Tir]
As three bends are equivalent to a bendy field and bordures cannot be counterchanged across a bendy field, couterchanging a bordure over three bends is excessive. Lacking documentation for counterchanging a bordure across three or more ordinaries in period armory, this must be returned. [Brian Sigfridsson von Niedersachsen, LoAR 08/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Per chevron inverted vert and Or a cross counterchanged.]This violates RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement, and VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. It is impossible to blazon this design such that "a competent heraldic artist can reproduce the armory solely from the blazon" (RfS VII.7.b), and neither the cross nor the field division is identifiable: "Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by [for example] being obscured by other elements of the design" (RfS VIII.3). To quote Nebuly: "The artistic effect devised by the submitter depends upon careful placement of the line of division..." and Brachet: "This violates "The drawing here totally obscures the identity of the primary charge (something that I would until now have thought impossible for a simple cross)."] Dirk van der Kruis, LoAR 07/2004, Northshield-R]
[Per pale azure and sable, a fox sejant and three points argent.] In addition, this conflicts with Caelan O Ruairc: Per pale azure and sable, a wolf sejant ululant between three decrescents argent. There is one CD, for changing the type of secondary charges (crescents to points), but that is all. There is no CD between a fox and a wolf. [Siôn MacDougall, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
[(Fieldless) A cross fleury purpure.] This badge conflicts with Oriana of Ely, (Fieldless) A cross of Calatrava purpure, registered November 2004. There is one CD for fieldlessness, but there is no significant difference between a cross fleury and a cross of Calatrava, which, according to the Pictoral Dictionary (s.n. cross), "was originally a highly ornamental form of the cross flory." [Girard le Bourguignon and Guenièvre de Monmarché, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-R]
The cross was not blazoned as reversed on the Letter of Intent, but the default "Orthodox" crosses all have the bottom crossbar bendwise sinister by default, and this one is the opposite. [Borek Vitalievich Volkov, LoAR 12/2004, Ansteorra-A]
[(Fieldless) A Russian Orthodox cross reversed Or.] This is clear of Cáemell NicEntaggart: Per bend sinister azure and Or maily azure, a cross of Lorraine Or. There is one CD for changes to the field. After consideration we have decided that there is a significant difference between a cross of Lorraine and a (Russian) Orthodox cross. The angled lower crossbar is a major defining characteristic of the Orthodox cross, and as such is just significant enough. [Borek Vitalievich Volkov, LoAR 12/2004, Ansteorra-A]
[Or, a cross of Santiago purpure, on a chief purpure three crescents Or.] The device conflicts with Sabina de Almería: Or, a cross flory, on a chief purpure three Janus heads argent. There is one CD for aggregate changes to the charges on the chief, but nothing for the change from cross fleury to a cross of Santiago: "[Per] the March 2001 LoAR, 'A cross patonce and a cross of Santiago are both considered artistic variants of a cross flory; therefore, there is no CD for a cross patonce versus a cross of Santiago' [Mar 2001, Ret-East, Caitlin Davies]. A cross fleury is even closer in depiction to a cross of Santiago than a cross patonce." [Aug 2001, Ret-Lochac, Cristoval Gitano] [Taran z Azov, LoAR 12/2004, Calontir-R]
[Checky of nine sable and argent, four crows migrant sable.] The device is in technical conflict with Brian Drittar an Con: Sable, on a cross argent, a sinister hand couped at the wrist apaumy sable. The current submission can be blazoned Sable, on a cross quarter-pierced argent four crows migrant sable. Under this interpretation there is only one CD for cumulative changes on the cross, since the quarter-piercing is treated as a tertiary charge accompanying the four crows. [Richard Crowe, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[a cross of lozenges vert compared to a compass star gules]...Quoth Metron Ariston: "By precedent a compass star and a mullet of four points have no difference and this strikingly resembles a mullet of four points visually. While there is a clear difference in tincture of the lozengy cross/mullet, if the sizes and positions are not very different then this may be a problem." Upon visual comparison of the emblazons [, everyone at the meeting agreed that this is a conflict. RfS X.4.e. states, "A charge not used in period armory will be considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different". Compass stars are not used in period armory. Therefore, difference can only be derived on visual grounds, and the visual difference between these two charges is significantly different. [Safwah al-Zarqah al-Sabbiyah, LoAR 11/2004, Outlands-R]
[Sable, four lozenges in cross Or.] This conflicts with Heinrich von Stuttgart: Per bend azure and checky Or and azure, a cross of four lozenges Or...Neither is there a CD for the minor change in arrangement of the lozenges:
[Four fleurs-de-lys conjoined in cross bases to center] Conflict with Katlin von Kappel, Per saltire sable and gules, four fleurs-de-lys bases to center Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness. The four fleurs-de-lys in Katlin's device are placed by default into the four sections of the per saltire field, which arranges the fleurs-de-lys in cross. The two groups of fleurs-de-lys are arranged identically except for the conjoining. We do not give difference for conjoining the charges, although it is necessary to specify the conjoining in the blazon. [Otelia d'Alsace, 08/02, R-Æthelmearc]
The same interpretation applies to lozenges as it does to fleurs-de-lys. Black Stag notes that a different result might be obtained if documentation had been supplied showing a cross of four lozenges as having an independent identity in period armory from four lozenges in cross, but none was supplied, and it does not appear to have had such an independent identity in period. Thus the small difference in the arrangement is not significant. [Mari Alexander, LoAR 10/2004, West-R]
[Per pale azure and argent, a Celtic cross counterchanged.] This conflicts with Katriona Silverswan: Per pale azure and argent, an ankh counterchanged. While there is a CD between ankhs and Celtic crosses, that is the only CD present, and the difference is not substantial enough to qualify for X.2, which is necessary to clear the conflict. The changes to the lower three arms between the two cross types are minimal, so visually the overall difference is not substantial. [Cellach Ferguson, LoAR 09/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[T]here is substantial enough difference between a cross patonce (fitchy) and a Bowen cross to get a CD for type only of tertiaries via RfS X.4.j.ii. [Uther the Small, LoAR 09/2004, Caid-A]
[Azure, on a cross quarter-pierced Or four acorns bendwise gules, overall two swords in saltire argent.] Originally blazoned as Checky of nine traits azure and Or, two swords in saltire argent between four acorns bendwise gules, we have gone with the usual SCA blazon of the cross quarter-pierced, but note that this should also be categorized in the Ordinary as though this were a complex field. [Declan Mac Dockery, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-A]
[...on a chief embattled argent three crosses clechy azure.] The question was raised at the meeting whether the crosses were clechy or patonce. As there is not a CD between these two types of cross, it is safe to go with clechy as submitted, though the submitter might be advised to draw the crosses more clearly. [Kieran Moncrieff of Dundee, LoAR 07/2004, An Tir-A]
[Per chevron inverted vert and Or a cross counterchanged.]This violates RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement, and VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. It is impossible to blazon this design such that "a competent heraldic artist can reproduce the armory solely from the blazon" (RfS VII.7.b), and neither the cross nor the field division is identifiable: "Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by [for example] being obscured by other elements of the design" (RfS VIII.3). To quote Nebuly: "The artistic effect devised by the submitter depends upon careful placement of the line of division..." and Brachet: "This violates "The drawing here totally obscures the identity of the primary charge (something that I would until now have thought impossible for a simple cross)."] Dirk van der Kruis, LoAR 07/2004, Northshield-R]
[a cross of four swords conjoined at the points] As drawn the swords are visually indistinguishable from a cross crosslet or bottony, and the submitted blazon on the LoI supports this interpretation...there is insufficient difference between the charges to get a...CD. [Fernando Miguel de Valencia, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
Crosses crosslet are not voidable, nor can they be fimbriated. (Any charge that may be voided may be fimbriated, and vice versa.) RfS VIII.3 states that "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design." Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme clarified this as Laurel:
We consider voiding to have the same visual weight as adding a tertiary charge --- i.e. Sable, a cross Or voided gules and Sable, a cross Or charged with another gules are interchangeable blazons, yielding the same emblazon. This view is supported by period heraldic treatises: e.g. Guillim's Display of Heraldrie, 1632, in discussing chevrons voided, says "if you say voided onely, it is ever understood that the field sheweth thorow the middle part of the charge voided. If the middle part of this chevron were of a different metall, colour, or furre from the Field, then should you Blazon it thus: A Chevron engrailed Or, surmounted of another, of such or such colour."We can use the equivalence between voiding and adding tertiaries to determine when voiding is acceptable: if the voided charge can be reblazoned as On a [charge], another --- that is, if the inner line and the outer line of the voided charge are geometrically similar --- then it's simple enough to void.
For instance, in the illustrations below, figure A could equally well be blazoned a delf voided or a delf charged with a delf; either blazon is correct for that picture. Figures B and C, on the other hand, are definitely a griffin's head voided and a griffin's head charged with another, respectively; the emblazons are quite dissimilar, and the inner line of figure B is not the shape of a griffin's head. The delf voided, then, is acceptable, but the griffin's head voided is not.
By this guideline, mullets, hearts and triangles are all simple enough to be voided or fimbriated. This is only a rule of thumb, of course, not an ironclad law, but it helps us decide a thorny question, it's consistent with how we (and some period heralds) view voiding, and it eliminates the need to collect reams of case law. I shall be employing it henceforth. [Nov 1992, Cover Letter]
Some later precedents deal directly with the issue of voiding or fimbriating complex crosses:
[Returning (Fieldless) A cross botonny gules charged with a crescent argent] The weight of the commentary was that a cross botonny is not a simple enough primary charge for X.4.j.ii. to apply, and that this submission is indeed in conflict with Pilkington (Papworth, p. 652), Argent, on a cross botonny gules another of the first, with one CD for fieldlessness but nothing for the change to the type only of what is effectively the tertiary. [Dec 1993, Ret-Atlantia, Anton Tremayne]
[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. [Dec 1995, Ret-Trimaris, Sebastian Blacke]
The typical implementation of Bruce's test for more than a decade has been informally called the "photoreduction test." Start with a picture of the charge and make a photocopy of it at 90% reduction. Cut the reduced copy out close to its outer edge all the way around. Now place it on top of the original picture. If the result looks like that charge voided, then that charge is voidable; otherwise it is not.
A cross crosslet does not pass the "photoreduction test," so voiding or fimbriating one violates RfS VIII.3. [Martin MacGregor, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Sable, on a pile inverted ployé between two groups of four ermine spots in cross bases to center Or four ermine spots in cross bases to center azure.] The charges were blazoned on the Letter of Intent as crosses of ermine spots, but that would require the ermine spots to be conjoined by their tops, rather than have the bottoms pointing to center as is shown on the form. We have reblazoned the armory accordingly. [Catherine de Northewoode, LoAR 06/2004, Outlands-A]
[Per pale Or and gules, a stag's head caboshed counterchanged.] The device conflicts with Fredrich der Rothirsch: Per pale Or and gules, a stag's massacre surmounted by a heart per pale gules and Or. The only possible difference between these two must be for the primary charge(s). A visual inspection of Fredrich's device shows that the charge most closely resembles a stag's attires attached to a heart, with each attire having about the same visual weight as the heart. As such there is really only one CD between the two, not substantial enough difference to qualify for X.2. Owen and Bright Leaf opine that this is a classic example of conflict via RfS X.5, with Owen adding that this is what X.5 is really meant to address. [William Wisehart, LoAR 12/2004, Caid-R]
Both columns and chess-rooks are period charges. Parker, p. 105, says that chess-rooks appear in the arms of Walsingham (temp. Edward II) and FitzSymon (temp. Edward I). Woodward, pp. 363-4, notes that columns appear in the arms of a number of families in various countries, including the well-known Roman family Colonna. Since there is no evidence that these two charges were used as a cadency step in period armory, it is appropriate that they be considered substantially different under RfS X.2. [Tir Rígh, Principality of, LoAR 11/2004, An Tir-R]
[Per pale azure and argent, a caltrop counterchanged.] The device conflicts with Richard Longstride: Per pale azure and argent, a mullet counterchanged. There would need to be substantial difference for these to be clear (via X.2), and two extensive precedent hunts yielded up decisions giving significant, but NOT substantial, difference. So X.2 does not apply. While there is a CD between the mullet and the caltrop, that is the only CD available. [Mylisant de Impinton, LoAR 11/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[Per pale Or and gules, a sun counterchanged.] This also conflicts with Ajax Thermopylokles: Per pale Or and gules, a Gorgon's head cabossed counterchanged...original return (September 2002) is relevant here, and we excerpt it here:
The particular stylization of the gorgon's head in Ajax' armory leads it to be visually very similar to a sun in splendor. The snakes are evenly arrayed radially about the gorgon's face, rather than just issuant from the top of the head as one might expect of a gorgon with snakes for hair. The gorgon's face is also very stylized, more like a mask than a face. Thus the face resembles the disk of a sun more than one might expect of a standard woman's face. Overall the visual similarity is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to call conflict under RfS X.5. In ordinary circumstances we would expect there to be X.2 difference between a variant of a human head and a sun.
The lack of a face here reduces the similarity, but the particular stylization of Ajax's design does not allow for X.2 to apply. While there may be a CD between them, that would still be only one CD. We decline to rule on whether a CD actually exists in this case. [Gabrielle Annora d'Outre Mer, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Per pale azure and argent, a Celtic cross counterchanged.] This conflicts with Katriona Silverswan: Per pale azure and argent, an ankh counterchanged. While there is a CD between ankhs and Celtic crosses, that is the only CD present, and the difference is not substantial enough to qualify for X.2, which is necessary to clear the conflict. The changes to the lower three arms between the two cross types are minimal, so visually the overall difference is not substantial. [Cellach Ferguson, LoAR 09/2004, Ansteorra-R]
The difference between a stag's head and a bull's head, both properly drawn, is substantial...[Uther the Small, LoAR, 09/2004, Caid-A]
[Sable, a chevron between three padlocks Or.] It was claimed that the padlocks should be considered the primary charges, with the chevron as an overall charge, based on an idea found in an article by Levin (Pedro de Alcazar) found on the Laurel website. This article purports that certain families used bends overall for cadency steps; the extension to include chevrons was asserted by the submitter. However, the citation from Levin is irrelevant: this chevron is neither a bend, nor overall. Furthermore, to quote Siren: "Even if we were to accept the analysis of a chevron as an overall charge, having an overall charge makes a device ineligible for X.2. In addition, as the old armory [Bran's] has three types of charge [directly on the field], the conflict cannot be cleared through X.2." No matter how this armory is analyzed, X.2 does not apply and there remains only one CD for changing the type of the charges surrounding the chevron. [Avelina Keyes, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
This is the defining registration of a lucet, a tool for making cords. The submitter's documentation shows that this form of lucet, a rectangular tool with notches on the shorter ends made from the naturally notched end of a bovine nosebone, was found in period. We have blazoned it as a bone lucet to distinguish it from the lyre-shaped form commonly used in the SCA. [Freydis inn kyrra Alfarinsdottir, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-A]
[...a leather bottell sable...] This is returned for a redraw. RfS VII.7.a requires that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." As drawn, this was not identifiable. This would be the defining example of a leather bottell in SCA armory, and the submitter provided excellent documentation for this period artifact and its use as a charge in (possibly post-period) heraldry. However, the examples from the documentation have considerably more detail and are slightly in trian aspect to ensure the charge's identifiability as a bottle. The submitter should keep that in mind if using a leather bottell as a charge in a resubmission. [Svein sutari svithanda, LoAR 11/2004, Calontir-R]
[A bonnet azure.] This is returned for a redraw. As drawn, the bonnet has a modern shape. The documentation provided does not support the bonnet as drawn: the pictures show significantly taller and rounder edges as well as being more rounded on the top. [Stuart Martin MacDonald, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[...on a chief triangular Or three yak tails sable.] This is returned for identifiability and lack of documentation of the yak tails. The charges on the chief were not identifiable as yak tails; in addition there are no currently registered examples of yak tails, and the only prior registration of the charge (since released) was registered with a note to draw them more recognizable as yak tails. This should be redrawn so the yak tails recognizably match a documented form, and the documentation should be supplied. [Vladimir Davidovich, LoAR 10/2004, Atlantia-R]
[Sable, four lozenges in cross Or.] This conflicts with Heinrich von Stuttgart: Per bend azure and checky Or and azure, a cross of four lozenges Or...Neither is there a CD for the minor change in arrangement of the lozenges:
[Four fleurs-de-lys conjoined in cross bases to center] Conflict with Katlin von Kappel, Per saltire sable and gules, four fleurs-de-lys bases to center Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness. The four fleurs-de-lys in Katlin's device are placed by default into the four sections of the per saltire field, which arranges the fleurs-de-lys in cross. The two groups of fleurs-de-lys are arranged identically except for the conjoining. We do not give difference for conjoining the charges, although it is necessary to specify the conjoining in the blazon. [Otelia d'Alsace, 08/02, R-Æthelmearc]
The same interpretation applies to lozenges as it does to fleurs-de-lys. Black Stag notes that a different result might be obtained if documentation had been supplied showing a cross of four lozenges as having an independent identity in period armory from four lozenges in cross, but none was supplied, and it does not appear to have had such an independent identity in period. Thus the small difference in the arrangement is not significant. [Mari Alexander, LoAR 10/2004, West-R]
[...between two spouted pots reversed vert.] The documentation from von Volborth supports this style of pot. The documentation does not supply any clues as to a possible blazon, so we have gone with the submitted "spouted pot" as a plausible choice. [Roberto Valason, LoAR 09/2004, Ealdormere-A]
[...a bend sinister sable between two quatrefoils counterchanged.] The flowers/foils are not identifiable as drawn in this submission. While blazoned as quatrefoils, we have no evidence of quatrefoil petals being drawn with either "seeding" or multiple lobes. In addition, nobody was able to identify this as any particular type of flower. Therefore this must be redrawn either as a recognizable quatrefoil or some other identifiable flower; if this flower can be identified, documentation needs to be provided for its visual appearance and its being known in period. [Veronica da Asola, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Azure, in fess three pallets wavy argent and a castle within a laurel wreath Or.] The device is being returned for a redraw. The emblazon does not depict a tierce [wavy] paly wavy azure and argent, as claimed by the blazon on the Letter of Intent. As three pallets wavy, it is difficult to tell what the primary charge(s) are; if we consider them all as co-primary (as suggested by the reblazon), this violates the "Slot-Machine" rule. If the branch wishes for a tierce wavy paly wavy, the (equal-width) stripes need to continue all the way to the dexter edge of the shield. [Marcaster, Shire of, LoAR 12/2004, Trimaris-R]
[...a rose between three decrescents argent...] The rose and decrescents are drawn the same size in this emblazon. Please advise the submitter to draw the central rose somewhat larger than the decrescents as befits a primary charge. [Alana Urquhart, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-R]
The group has only addressed one of the style issues raised in the previous return in November 2002, which read in part: "Please advise the submitters, on resubmission, to draw the laurel wreath so that it is round and has only a small gap, or no gap at all, between the tips of the branches." This laurel wreath is identical to that found on the previously returned emblazon; it needs to be redrawn according to the guidelines set forth in the previous return. [Nimenefeld, Canton of, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-R]
[Per chevron ermine and sable, a laurel wreath vert and a portcullis Or.] This must be returned for a redraw. On the full-size emblazon, the laurel wreath is drawn in a very "thin-line" fashion (with the equivalent of a green pen) and is not colored in. Against the overly large ermine spots it is not identifiable at any reasonable distance. (The wreath is almost invisible on the miniature emblazon.) The line of division should also come closer to bisecting the field area. If there were two properly drawn laurel wreaths in chief, the line of division could be drawn better and the laurel wreaths would fill the space properly. [Iron Gate, Canton of, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
In addition, the "cross" appears to be throughout here on three of the four arms. A cross of any type should either be throughout on all arms or not throughout on any of them. Any potential resubmissions using the "cross of swords" motif should keep that in mind. [Fernando Miguel de Valencia, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Checky Or and gules, on a fess purpure four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns Or.] As for the device, there are two independent causes for return here. First, each "check" of the field has a small dot at its center. These were present on both the miniature and full-size emblazons. We cannot blazon these dots and do not know why they are there at all. The Letter of Intent does not mention them, so redrawing the field without the dots would solve this problem. [Haroun al-Rashid the Toe Mangler, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Quarterly embattled azure and argent, in dexter chief three half-moon knives one and two proper, in sinister base a crane in its vigilance argent.] Please advise the submitter on the proper way to draw the center of a quarterly embattled field; the azure and argent quarters still need to come all together at a single point, even when the lines are embattled." [Michael le Crane, LoAR 06/2004, Calontir-A]
[Purpure, ...] This is being returned for several problems, each of which is by itself cause for return: conflict, coloration, and unidentifiability....The field needs to use heraldic tinctures, which is not the case here. The tincture of the field on the full-color emblazon is neither purpure nor gules. The tincture problem appears to be a result of the use of color printing, color photocopying, or both. (This problem is in itself reason for return.) [Ellyn Jourdain de Wentworth, LoAR 06/2004, Northshield-R]
[Ermine, on a chevron engrailed between three Maltese crosses gules, a rose Or.] The engrailings on the chevron are too many and too small to be registerable. This was a resubmission of a device most recently returned by Laurel in June 2003. That return was for a redraw, citing identifiability problems with the ermine spots and asking for fewer and larger engrailings on the chevron. While the issue with the ermine spots appears to have been successfully addressed, the chevron on this emblazon is identical to the one returned in June 2003. Since the submitter did not address all the issues raised in the previous return, this must be returned as well. [Genevieve de Calais, LoAR 06/2004, West-R]
EMBLAZON -- Coloring Problems
The full-size emblazon contained colors that had drastically shifted from their intended tinctures into shades that were halfway between blazonable tinctures. The supposedly vert quarters are either teal or aquamarine, and the supposedly gules quarters are a very orangey pink. This appears to be the result of using a set of markers that are not colorfast. [James Oleveir, LoAR 12/2004, Atlantia-R] The tincture of the field and the harps is halfway between purpure and azure, and as such cannot be registered. This appears to be the result of color photocopying; it should be noted that the color was beginning to flake off already at stress points. [Phillipa of Otterbourne, LoAR 12/2004, Middle-R] On the full color emblazon, the charges are orange, neither Or nor gules. [Keterlin von dem Drachen, LoAR 10/2004, An Tir-R] The coloration of the charges was halfway between azure and purpure, blurring the distinction between the tinctures. [Shadowed Stars, Shire of, LoAR 09/2004, Middle-R] The tincture of the wolf's head on the full size emblazon is neither sable nor any other distinct color; it appears to fall somewhere between black and reddish-brown. This appears to be the result of using a color printer and/or color photocopier. [Wulfric Ferreter, LoAR 09/2004, Northshield-R] The two color copies of this form do not match. On one the field is clearly purpure (if a bit on the reddish side). On the other, the field is unmistakably azure. (This appears to be the result of color printing and color photocopying.) The discrepancy between the forms requires an administrative return, as a complete set of paperwork has not been received by Laurel. AH IV.C states "No submission, including any resubmission, appeal, change or release of a protected item, etc., shall be considered for registration until a complete set of paperwork is provided to the appropriate heraldic officer." This submission cannot be considered as it stands, and is likewise not eligible for the Grandfather Clause. [Margyt Withycombe, LoAR 08/2004, Middle-R] [(Fieldless) A dragon sejant erect azure charged with a coronet Or and maintaining a Lombardic letter G sable.] The tincture of the dragon on the full size emblazon is halfway between blue and purple and cannot be accurately blazoned as either. This appears to be the direct result of color printing or photocopying; it should be notedthat the color was also starting to flake off already. [Gwynna Emrys, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-R] [(Fieldless) On a gauntlet aversant argent a Lombardic letter R azure crowned Or.] The tincture of the letter on the full size emblazon is halfway between blue and purple and cannot be accurately blazoned as either. This appears to be the direct result of color printing or photocopying; it should be notedthat the color was also starting to flake off already. [Raim y Hynnddyl, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-R] [...a pithon Or enfiled by a shepherd's crook argent...] This violates RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement, which states in part: "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon." Consensus of the commentary on this device was that the relationship of the pithon to the shepherd's crook in this design could not be adequately described by "enfiled" or any variation thereof, nor was anyone able to come up with a blazon that could ensure this depiction. [Cristina inghean Ruairc, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-R] [Per chevron argent and gules, a chevron sable between two torteaux between three ermine spots sable and a elephant's head cabossed Or.] There are not enough ermine spots on the field to consider this as having the tincture ermine. As a result, there are three types of secondary charge in a single group on the field (ermine spots, roundels, elephant head), in violation of RfS VIII.1.a: "[T]hree or more types of charges should not be used in the same group." [Matthias de Kent, LoAR 09/2004, East-R] [(Fieldless) A double-headed eagle per pale gules and Or ermined vert.] This is being returned for a redraw. As drawn, the ermine spots are so small as to be almost completely unrecognizable by themselves. When combined with the internal details on the eagle they disappear entirely. The ermine spots need to be considerably fewer and larger. [Gotfridus von Schwaben, LoAR 08/2004, Calontir-R] [Sable, on a pile inverted ployé between two groups of four ermine spots in cross bases to center Or four ermine spots in cross bases to center azure.] The charges were blazoned on the Letter of Intent as crosses of ermine spots, but that would require the ermine spots to be conjoined by their tops, rather than have the bottoms pointing to center as is shown on the form. We have reblazoned the armory accordingly. [Catherine de Northewoode, LoAR 06/2004, Outlands-A] [...on a saltire...a feather palewise] This violates RfS VII.7.a, which states in part: "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." As drawn, the feather was not identifiable as such. It may be possible that a redrawn feather in this position might be identifiable, but it may also be the case that there is intrinsic unidentifiability of the position. Making the feather bendwise or bendwise sinister (and concomitantly larger) would solve this problem if drawn in an identifiable manner. [Marsaili inghean Lachtnáin, LoAR 10/2004, East-R] [...on a fess wavy argent, a feather reversed sable.] Long skinny charges, when placed on stripes (such as fesses, chiefs and bends) change their orientation to follow the stripe without need to be blazoned as such. However, the part that would normally be to chief should rotate to be to dexter, so this feather is reversed. [Caitríona inghean ui Chionaodha, LoAR 09/2004, West-A] [Argent, a sun between a chief enarched and a base sable.] The question was raised whether this should be considered as Sable, on a fess argent a sun sable for purposes of conflict checking. The fact that the "fess" is enarched on one side only is a strong hint that this design does not involve a fess. [Sol Tizona, LoAR 07/2004, Northshield-A] [Sable, two bars Or...a bordure gules.] The bordure violates the Rule of Tincture. This is not a divided field per the following precedent: [Argent, two pallets gules overall a tree vert] This does not conflict with the important non-SCA arms of O'Connor Don ... Argent, a tree eradicated vert. Armory using three or more pallets is interchangeable with paly on visual grounds and on grounds of historical heraldic difference. Armory using two pallets is visually distinct from paly, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each other in period. This is therefore clear of O'Connor Don by RfS X.1 for adding a primary charge group (the pallets). [Floris van Montfort, 05/02, A-Drachenwald] Likewise, armory using two bars is visually distinct from barry, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each other in period. Therefore, this must be considered as a sable field, and as such the gules bordure is color on color. [Marcus Blackaert, LoAR 09/2004, East-R] FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé and Chaussé [Argent chaussé, a bear statant gules.] The device conflicts with Seén Ó Súilleabháin Beirre: Gules, on a pile argent a turtle purpure. Birna's device needs to be checked for conflict as if it were Gules, on a pile argent a bear statant gules per the following precedent among other examples: [re: Argent, chausse, a yale rampant and in chief a laurel wreath vert] Conflict with Nicholos of the Hill Folk, Vert, on a pile argent, a dragon rampant gules. As we do not give difference between a pile and chausse, there is only one CD for the changes to the tertiary charges." (LoAR April 2000). Considering Birna's device under this interpretation, and comparing it to Seán's device, there is only one CD for cumulative changes to the group of charges on the pile. [Birna rauð, LoAR 12/2004, East-R] [Per pale gules and azure chaussé, a bunch of grapes argent.] The device conflicts with Thomas Lyon of Braemar: Per bend sinister vert and sable, a bunch of grapes argent. The only CD is for the field. Piles do not issue from the top corners of the shield. As such, we have reblazoned it as a chaussé field division, the only possible way to blazon it while satisfying our style requirements. This, however, makes the bunch of grapes the primary charge, bringing it into conflict with Thomas. [Huguete de Saint Germain, LoAR 07/2004, Lochac-R] FIELD DIVISION -- Checky and Party of Six [Checky of nine sable and argent, four crows migrant sable.] The device is in technical conflict with Brian Drittar an Con: Sable, on a cross argent, a sinister hand couped at the wrist apaumy sable. The current submission can be blazoned Sable, on a cross quarter-pierced argent four crows migrant sable. Under this interpretation there is only one CD for cumulative changes on the cross, since the quarter-piercing is treated as a tertiary charge accompanying the four crows. [Richard Crowe, LoAR 11/2004, East-R] [Azure, on a cross quarter-pierced Or four acorns bendwise gules, overall two swords in saltire argent.] Originally blazoned as Checky of nine traits azure and Or, two swords in saltire argent between four acorns bendwise gules, we have gone with the usual SCA blazon of the cross quarter-pierced, but note that this should also be categorized in the Ordinary as though this were a complex field. [Declan Mac Dockery, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-A] [Gyronny arrondi argent and sable, a roundel within an orle Or] We have an example from an armorial of period Swedish devices showing a gyronny arrondi field similar to this, though standard SCA practice has appropriate lines of division issuing from the corners. [Garðr Gunnarsson, LoAR 10/2004, East-A] [Gyronny gules and argent, eight roundels counterchanged.] This conflicts with the naval ensign of Japan: Gyronny of thirty-two gules and argent, a torteau. There is one CD for the number of roundels. There is no difference for the number of divisions of a gyronny field, nor is there any CD for adding four white and three red roundels, and the change of arrangement is subsumed under the change of number. [Samuel of Yorkshire, LoAR 10/2004, East-R] FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted [Per chevron sable and argent...] The device is returned for redrawing. The per chevron division is both unacceptably enhanced and far too shallow. Please advise the submitter to redraw it as a standard per chevron field division. [Angharat verch Ioreword, LoAR 01/2005, Outlands-R] [Per chevron Or and purpure...] The putative field division is the lower quarter of a per saltire division, which has long been cause for return. If the submitter wishes for an honest per chevron division, the apex needs to be considerably higher. If the submitter wishes a point pointed, it needs to be considerably smaller and lower. [Aleksei Nikolai Rusianov, LoAR 12/2004, Calontir-R] [Per chevron vert and argent...] This is returned for a redraw: [Per chevron argent and azure, in chief a rose slipped and leaved fesswise and in base six gouttes three two and one, counterchanged] The device does not clearly use a per chevron line of division, nor does it use a point pointed. Because of this ambiguity this must be returned under RfS VII.7.a ... the per chevron line is drawn somewhat low on the field - it appears to have been drawn by using the form's guidelines for a per saltire division and drawing the bottom section of that field. [Duvessa of Movilla, 03/03, R-Middle] This armory has the same problem: the "per chevron" field division is really the bottom quarter of a per-saltire field division, which has not been registerable for quite some time. A per chevron should come close to bisecting the area of the field (dividing it into two equal pieces), and this does not come nearly close enough. [Boden Henebry, LoAR 11/2004, East-R] There is no difference for making the per chevron line ployé, much as there is no difference for making the charge of a chevron ployé: "[a chevron ployé vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. [implying no CD for ploy é vs. plain]" [Adriana Kavanaugh, 04/00, R-Atenveldt] [István Nyiregyhazi, LoAR 10/2004, East-R] [Per chevron dovetailed argent and azure...] The line of division is drawn too low; it is effectively the bottom quarter of a per saltire dovetailed division. This has been cause for return in the past: [Per chevron argent and azure, in chief a rose slipped and leaved fesswise and in base six gouttes three two and one, counterchanged] The device does not clearly use a per chevron line of division, nor does it use a point pointed. Because of this ambiguity this must be returned under RfS VII.7.a. Note that a per chevron line of division should appear to divide the field into two equal pieces. This emblazon does not give that appearance. One reason is that the per chevron line is drawn somewhat low on the field - it appears to have been drawn by using the form's guidelines for a per saltire division and drawing the bottom section of that field. In addition, the fact that the rose in chief is drawn as a small charge, with lots of field around it, implies that it is not a charge filling its half of an equally divided field. [Duvessa of Movilla, 03/03, R-Middle] A per chevron field division should effectively bisect the area of the field. This field, as drawn, does not do so, and thus must be returned. [Conrad Burnet, LoAR 09/2004, Lochac-R] [Per chevron enhanced purpure and vert...] The use of the per chevron enhanced field division is a step from period practice but appears to be the only one. [Nadirah al-Duriyyah, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A] [Per chevron azure and sable, a horse passant and a horseshoe inverted argent.] Please instruct the submitter to draw the line of division higher: as drawn this is barely acceptable. With a more standard passant for the horse, raising the line would be more feasible. [Constance Audrey, LoAR 08/2004, Atenveldt-A] [Per chevron purpure and sable...] There was considerable confusion as to whether the miniature emblazon on the Letter of Intent was a per chevron line of division or a point pointed. It should be noted that the LoI's miniature does not match the miniature on the form itself. While the mini-emblazon on the LoI did not accurately represent the submission, the College thought to take the time to consider both possibilities, so it does not need to be pended for further consideration. However, submissions heralds should take care that the minatures match the forms, as the College's ability to anticipate different depictions cannot be relied upon. [Willewyn of Three Rivers, LoAR 08/2004, Calontir-A] [Per fess indented azure and counter-ermine.] In addition, as drawn the line of division is too high, blurring the distinction between a per fess indented line of division and a chief indented. [Sancha da Sylva, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R] [Per chevron abased vert and argent...] The line of division is much too low to be per chevron, and too high to be a point pointed. We note that this line of division does not match the one on his currently registered device, and as such the Grandfather Clause does not apply. [Stephen Aldred, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R] [Per chevron inverted vert and sable...] This must be returned for a redraw. The "field division" on the full-size emblazon issues from the top corners of the shield; a per chevron inverted field division should bisect the area of the shield. [Dmitrii syn Dmitrii Rostislavich, LoAR 07/2004, Ansteorra-R] [Per chevron ermine and sable, a laurel wreath vert and a portcullis Or.] This must be returned for a redraw...The division should also come closer to bisecting the field area. If there were two properly drawn laurel wreaths in chief, the line of division could be drawn better and the laurel wreaths would fill the space properly. [Iron Gate, Canton of, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R] [Per chevron inverted azure and argent...] The line of division, or at least its bottommost point, is too high; the field division does not come close enough to bisecting the field. This is in accordance with precedent: As a general rule, chevrons inverted issue from the sides of the shield. One might posit that it could be acceptable for a chevron inverted to issue from the chief corners of the field, because in some displays of armory using chevrons in period on a square form of display (a banner or a square quarter), the chevron issues from the bottom corners of the field. However, the chevrons in those period examples still effectively bisect the field. The chevron inverted in this submission is too high on the field to bisect the field. This is therefore not an acceptable depiction of a chevron inverted. [Erika Bjornsdottir, R-Trimaris, Apr 2003] Likewise, per chevron inverted field divisions must also bisect the field, or at least come close. As drawn, the line of division on this emblazon is too high on the field to bisect the field, and is therefore not an acceptable depiction of a per chevron inverted division. [Gemma Ginevra Alighieri, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R] As drawn, this blurs the line between a per fess line of division and a chief. If this is intended to be a chief it needs to be narrower so as not to blur the distinction. [Hrafnhildr Mikaelsdóttir, LoAR 12/2004, Middle-R] Originally blazoned as Sable, a wall issuant from base argent, masoned and portalled sable, in chief an A-frame plumb line between two pairs of compasses Or, as drawn the "wall" placed on the "field" is indistinguishable from a per fess field division and we have changed the blazon to reflect that. [Griffith Jenner, LoAR 07/2004, Atlantia-R] [Quarterly embattled azure and argent, in dexter chief three half-moon knives one and two proper, in sinister base a crane in its vigilance argent.] Please advise the submitter on the proper way to draw the center of a quarterly embattled field; the azure and argent quarters still need to come all together at a single point, even when the lines are embattled." [Michael le Crane, LoAR 06/2004, Calontir-A] FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous [...on a point pointed argent a brown mouse couchant proper.] Please instruct the submitter to draw the point pointed smaller. This was barely small enough not to be confused with the bottom quarter of a per saltire field division (which is not registerable as either a charge or as a field division). [Julian ferch Luned, LoAR 07/2004, Drachenwald-A] [Per saltire arrondy vert and sable, a lozenge argent charged with a wolf's head cabossed sable.] This has a complex low-contrast line division overlain by a nonskinny charge. It therefore violates RfS VIII.3 which says in part: "For instance, a complex line of partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if most of the line is also covered by charges." As al-Jamal notes, "arrondy is considered a complex line of division. As a consequence, it may not be used between two low contrast tinctures with a overlying charge, precisely for the reason shown in the emblazon - the line of division becomes very difficult to identify when it is obscured by an overlying charge." Brachet notes: "Whether or not there is a CD for quarterly arrondi vs quarterly in field-only armory, it is quite clear that the arrondi part simply does not show up in low contrast when the center part of it is obscured by a lozenge." The central part of the field illuminates the lion's share of the difference between plain and arrondy partitions. Obscuring that intersection with a nonskinny charge makes it very difficult to distinguish between plain and arrondy, blurring the difference between two lines of division that have a CD between them. [Mary Kate O'Malley, LoAR 07/2004, Atenveldt-R] FIELDLESS and TINCTURELESS ARMORY [(Fieldless) A wolf courant to sinister argent.] This badge conflicts with Runolfr Audsson, Per chevron sable and gules, papelonné argent, in chief a wolf courant to sinister argent. There is one CD for fieldessness. There is no difference for location of the charge on the field versus a fieldless badge. [Gabriel Ximenez de Malaga, LoAR 01/2005, Northshield-R] There is [no CD] for location on the field against a fieldless badge. [Aveline l'oisele, LoAR 11/2004, East-R] [(Fieldless) A castle fracted palewise gules.] We decline to rule on whether fracting a building constitutes making it two disjoint charges (which would be unacceptable on a fieldless badge). [Olaf Wulfbrandt, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-R] [(Fieldless) A fleur-de-lys azure.] This conflicts with Elwyn of Snow Hill: Per chevron azure, ermined argent, and argent, in base a fleur-de-lis azure. There is one CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for placement of the fleur-de-lis against a fieldless badge; even against a fielded badge there would be nothing for placement, as Elwyn's fleur-de-lis was forced to base by the field. [Ysabeau Marie d'Auvergne, LoAR 08/2004, Trimaris-R] [(Fieldless) A Lacy knot vert surmounted by two arrows in saltire Or.] There is too much overlap between the arrows and the knot. This violates our current standards for fieldless badges, according to the precedent cited by Black Pillar: In this particular submission, the identifiability of all the charges is seriously compromised. It was difficult to tell whether the underlying knot was a Lacy or Bowen knot, and it is far more difficult to identify the arrows than it should be. [Bertrand de Lacy, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R] [(fieldless) On a billet fesswise Or three martlets azure.] According to current precedent, while charges that are also shapes of armorial display may be registered as fieldless badges when uncharged under certain other conditions, these same charges cannot be registered as fieldless badges when charged, since when charged they too closely resemble an independent display of armory. (This particular submission is effectively a display of "Or, [in fess] three martlets azure.") A billet fesswise is a shape of armorial display, and as such cannot be registered as a fieldless badge by itself when it is charged, as is the case here. [Nyilas Tiborch, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R] [Per fess engrailed argent and vert.] This device does not conflict with Britta Atlantica, Per fess engrailed azure and barruly-wavy argent and azure. RfS X.4.a.ii.c states that "independent changes to the tincture, direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces in the partition may be counted separately when comparing two pieces of field-primary armory." In this case, there are independent changes to both tincture and the number of pieces on the field. The following precedent is directly relevant: [Bendy sinister and per bend azure and ermine] This is clear of conflict with Sigeric of Ravenstone, Per bend azure and bendy sinister argent and azure. Pariselle's arms are equivalent to Per bend bendy sinister azure and ermine, and bendy sinister ermine and azure...Half of Pariselle's armory is ermine, and none of Sigeric's is that tincture. By the general statements in RfS X.4.a, changing half the tincture of the field is worth a CD. The sinister chief portion of Sigeric's field is undivided, and the sinister chief portion of Pariselle's armory field is bendy sinister. This provides the second CD for change of partition lines" [Pariselle Chouet, 06/02, A-An Tir]. Similarly, half of False Isle's armory is vert while none of Britta's is that tincture, and the lower portion of Britta's armory is barruly-wavy while both halves of False Isle's badge are undivided. [False Isle, Shire of, LoAR 01/2005, An Tir-A] [Per chevron gules and azure.] Unfortunately, this lovely armory conflicts with Geoffrey FitzDavid, Per chevron gules and chevronelly Or and sable. While RfS X.4.a.ii.c says that "independent changes to the tincture, direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces in the partition may be counted separately when comparing two pieces of field-primary armory," changing the bottom half of the device from chevronelly Or and sable to azure really cannot be considered two independent changes. There are also conflicts with Alfonso Henriques de Montoya, Per chevron azure and Or, and Tanczos Istvan, Per chevron potent and gules. In each case, only half of the field tincture is changed. As precedent states: [Per saltire gules and azure] Conflict with ... Per saltire Or and gules. The only possible rule that could make these clear is RfS X.4.a.ii.b, Complete Change of Tincture (part of the Field-Primary Armory rules); however, that rule states If the fields of two pieces of field-primary armory have no tinctures in common, they are considered completely different and do not conflict, irrespective of any other similarities between them. While each portion of the field has changed tincture, one cannot say that they do not have a tincture in common. [Iohanna Carracci, 11/00, R-Middle] [Jeffery of Jarrow, LoAR 01/2005, West-R] [Pily bendy and per pale Or and gules.] The device conflicts with Raymond the Mild: Pily bendy sable and Or. (The rules regarding field-primary armory are obviously in effect here.) The addition of the per pale line does *not* [sic] create a substantially different partition as claimed. The commentary that went into the formulation of RfS X.4.a.ii.(a) is quite clear on the point: when starting with a field divided by multiple parallel (or near-parallel) lines, counterchanging half of that field across a single line orthogonal or diagonal to the multiple lines does NOT create enough visual difference qualify as a substantial change of partition; in fact, the difference is not even significant, as the following precedent explains: This case is directly analogous; the complexity of the two fields makes it difficult to warrant granting a CD for the single per pale line of the submitted armory. RfS X.4.a.ii.(b) cannot apply, as the two armories share a tincture (Or). There is but one CD, for changing the tincture of half the field. This also conflicts with Walraven van Nijmegen: Bendy Or and gules. There is one CD for changes to the partition, but the two partitions are too similar to qualify for a substantial change via RfS X.4.a.ii.(a), and there are no other CDs available. Walraven has indicated a willingness to grant permission to conflict, but the point is currently moot as the device also conflicts with Raymond the Mild. [Robert Fairfax, LoAR 12/2004, East-R] [Per saltire sable and azure.] This is clear of Albrechtus Vagus: Per pall arrondi sable, azure and argent. RfS X.4.a.ii.c regarding Field-Primary Armory says "independent changes to the tincture, direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces in the partition may be counted separately when comparing two pieces of field-primary armory." (emphasis added) There are separate CDs for the number of pieces, and for changing the style of the line from straight to arrondy. The latter was established by the following precedent: [Quarterly Or and vert] This device does not conflict with ... Quarterly arrondi sable and Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of the field. Recent precedent has been mixed about whether there is a CD for making a field division arrondy. The weight of the recent precedent and the commentary is in favor of giving a CD between these two lines. This is an SCA choice (rather than one which can be based on period evidence). The weight of precedent, and the fact that there is a visual distinction between a straight and an arrondy line, indicates that we should give a CD for this change. [Br{o,}ndólfr the Stout, 03/03, A-Middle] [Gwenlian Catharne, LoAR 07/2004, An Tir-A] [Gules, a cross sable fimbriated argent [between charges].] This conflicts with the flag of Norway: Gules, on a cross argent another azure. There is one CD for adding the secondary charges, but none for the fimbriated cross when it is considered as on a cross argent another sable. Voiding and fimbriation have long since been considered equivalent to charging a charge with another of the same type, though a recent precedent perhaps explains it best: ... the three following very dissimilar-sounding blazons can all be drawn identically, and thus should be considered heraldically equivalent: A lozenge Or charged with a lozenge gules, A lozenge Or voided gules, and A lozenge gules fimbriated Or. This heraldic equivalence will apply for any charge "simple enough to void" by the criteria stated in the Cover Letter for the November 1992 LoAR. When checking for conflict with armory using fimbriation or voiding, all these interpretations should be considered when checking for conflict, and if one of the interpretations conflicts, the two pieces of armory conflict. This does not seem overly restrictive when one considers the rarity of armory in period featuring voided or fimbriated charges, or arms with the design of A "charge" charged with "the same type of charge". These are very uncommon designs in period. Period viewers probably had the same sorts of problems that we have when interpreting such designs. [Cecily of Whitehaven, 06/02, R-Æthelmearc] Thus this submission can and must also be considered as Gules, a cross argent charged with another sable, all between [multiple charges] for conflict checking purposes. Against the Norwegian flag (which we have also reblazoned here to better illustrate why this is a conflict) Gules, a cross argent charged with another azure, there is one CD for adding the secondaries, but the only other difference is for tincture only of the tertiary cross under this interpretation, which by itself does not qualify for a CD. [Fína ingen Chionaith, LoAR 11/2004, Outlands-R] Crosses crosslet are not voidable, nor can they be fimbriated. (Any charge that may be voided may be fimbriated, and vice versa.) RfS VIII.3 states that "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design." Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme clarified this as Laurel:
We can use the equivalence between voiding and adding tertiaries to determine when voiding is acceptable: if the voided charge can be reblazoned as On a [charge], another --- that is, if the inner line and the outer line of the voided charge are geometrically similar --- then it's simple enough to void. For instance, in the illustrations below, figure A could equally well be blazoned a delf voided or a delf charged with a delf; either blazon is correct for that picture. Figures B and C, on the other hand, are definitely a griffin's head voided and a griffin's head charged with another, respectively; the emblazons are quite dissimilar, and the inner line of figure B is not the shape of a griffin's head. The delf voided, then, is acceptable, but the griffin's head voided is not. By this guideline, mullets, hearts and triangles are all simple enough to be voided or fimbriated. This is only a rule of thumb, of course, not an ironclad law, but it helps us decide a thorny question, it's consistent with how we (and some period heralds) view voiding, and it eliminates the need to collect reams of case law. I shall be employing it henceforth. [Nov 1992, Cover Letter] Some later precedents deal directly with the issue of voiding or fimbriating complex crosses: The typical implementation of Bruce's test for more than a decade has been informally called the "photoreduction test." Start with a picture of the charge and make a photocopy of it at 90% reduction. Cut the reduced copy out close to its outer edge all the way around. Now place it on top of the original picture. If the result looks like that charge voided, then that charge is voidable; otherwise it is not. A cross crosslet does not pass the "photoreduction test," so voiding or fimbriating one violates RfS VIII.3. [Martin MacGregor, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R] [in pale a tyger...and a chevron inverted gules fimbriated argent charged with five beehives palewise Or.] The device violates RfS VIII.3 which states in part that "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design." This design forces the chevron to be abased, which moves it out of the center of the design; therefore it cannot be voided or fimbriated. [Voron Gregor'ev Tselomudrenni, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R] [...a bend sinister gules fimbriated between a natural dolphin contourny and a bear's pawprint Or..] This device has two problems, each of which is cause for return...Past precedent has ruled that pawprints are a step from period practice and that "natural dolphins, Bengal tigers, and garden roses are all still discouraged charges as they were not found in heraldry and have period counterparts" (Cover Letter, November 1999). As a result, this device must be considered two steps from period practice and returned. [Gwentliana filia Iohannes, LoAR 01/2005, Outlands-R] [Argent semy of ermine spots bendwise sinister, a natural seahorse...] The primary charge is not readily identifiable; it is somewhere between a generic fish, a heraldic dolphin and a natural seahorse. This therefore violates RfS VII.7.a which says that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." This is in itself cause for return. [Elizabeth Anglesay, LoAR 10/2004, Drachenwald-R] [...overall a sword proper enflamed gules.] This badge must be returned for redrawing because of problems with the enflaming of the sword. While precedent holds that properly drawn enflaming, small gouttes of flame issuing from the charge, is a blazonable artistic detail and can violate the contrast rules found in RfS VIII.2, in this case, the flames are entirely disconnected from the sword and appear to "float" on the low-contrast field. Recent precedent deals with a very similar case involving flames proper: "The "flames" that are not attached to the sword are each of a single tincture; those that are gules break the Rule of Tincture. Objects that are enflamed should have small gouts of flames emerging from, but still touching, the object at random intervals" [Stephen Other, 10/04, R-Artemesia]. [Morgan of Caer Graeme, LoAR 01/2005, Æthelmearc-R] [...issuing from a sword proper a flower Or two flowers gules and two flowers Or...]This is returned for a redrawing. The "flames" that are not attached to the sword are each of a single tincture; those that are gules break the Rule of Tincture. Objects that are enflamed should have small gouts of flames emerging from, but still touching, the object at random intervals. Each flame proper should generally consist of alternating bits of Or and gules. [Stephen Other, LoAR 10/2004, Artemisia-R] [Argent, a phoenix per pale azure and gules rising from flames and maintaining in its beak a feather Or.] This device conflicts with the device of Morgan Morfydd (October 1982): Pean, a phoenix displayed gules, issuant from flames, maintaining in its beak a dexter hand couped proper. The field difference is clear, but the tincture of flames proper on the pean field are primarily Or, so less than half of the tincture of the charge has been changed or only about a quarter of the whole charge. [Artemesia di Serena, LoAR 10/2004, Caid-R] [...a human skull argent enflamed proper...] The skull is not enflamed; it appears to have wolf's teeth issuing from it all around, alternating Or and pink. This is not identifiable as anything blazonable. [Gregor von Keiserberg, LoAR 08/2004, Northshield-R] [(Fieldless) A lozenge flory at the points Or.] This is clear of Solveig Throndardottir: (Fieldless) A lozenge Or, with one CD for fieldlessness and one for adding the highly prominent fleurs-de-lys at the points. [John Catharne, LoAR 07/2004, An Tir-A] [Checky Or and gules, on a fess purpure four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns Or.] As for the device, there are two independent causes for return here...Second, the tertiary charges present a combination of identifiability problems and non-period style. As drawn, there is confusion about whether the four fleurs-de-lys form a cross of fleurs-de-lys. While they do not, it is very hard to tell, even from the full-size emblazon. Given that they do not form a cross, the charges on the fess give the appearance of "primary" and "secondary" tertiary charges groups on the fess. This has long been cause for return: [... on a pale azure a salmon haurient embowed contourny in chief a compass star argent ...] It is not period style to have two different tertiary groups on the same underlying charge. The difference in scale between the salmon and the compass star makes the compass star appear to be in a subsidiary charge group to the salmon. There is precedent pertaining to this matter: [returning A mullet Or charged with a fleur-de-lys florency between five daggers points outwards sable] None of the commenters could find a similar motif: a primary charged with a tertiary X and a group of five tertiary Y's. Barring documentation of such an arrangement of tertiary charges, we believe that the motif is not a period one and therefore unregistrable. [The submission was returned for this reason and for conflict.] (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95 p. 15) (The device was returned for this reason and for redrawing the laurel wreath.) [Oct 2001, Ret-Drachenwald, Uma, Shire of] For the current submission, if the charges on the fess were instead on a field, they would be ...four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns, obviously a primary charge group between secondaries. Thus this example follows the above precedents. If, instead, the charges on the fess were drawn as a cross of fleurs-de-lys, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns then there would be a single group of three charges on the fess, which would be registerable. (We would still have to check for conflict and other potential style problems with the redrawn armory.) [Haroun al-Rashid the Toe Mangler, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R] The amaryllis flower has been registered before in SCA armory, to Susana Dunstan (February 1982, Caid). The supplied documentation shows that it was growing in European gardens during our "grey area" between 1600 and 1650, and may have been brought to Europe from the African coast as much as 200 years previously. These "grey area" references regard it as a variety of lily; even now it is referred to as "belladonna lily" in some parts of England. The visual distinctions do not appear to be significant enough to grant a CD between an amaryllis and a lily, though enough to allow the specific blazon where warranted (e.g., for a cant as is the case here). We shall henceforth regard the amaryllis as a possibly blazonable variant of lily. [Amaryllis Coleman, LoAR 10/2004, Æthelmearc] [Argent, a gurges azure surmounted by a carnation vert.] The device is being returned for a redraw. As drawn, the charge in the middle, while blazoned as a carnation, was indistinguishable between a lotus blossom affronty and a sun. It should be redrawn to be larger and with sufficient internal detailing to identify it as a flower. [Amalie zu dem Blumen, LoAR 12/2004, Atenveldt-R] This is being returned for redrawing. The dandelion blossom was not recognizable as such, nor could it be easily identified as another type of charge. RfS VII.7.a states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." [Chardonne de Lyon, LoAR 10/2004, East-R] [(Fieldless) In annulo eight triangles conjoined at point Or.] There are two issues with the identifiability of the charges on this device. Firstly, the proportion of each triangle is rather tall and thin when compared to the usual heraldic triangle. The heraldic triangle is normally depicted as equilateral which would prevent eight to be arranged in this manner. Secondly, the assemblage might be seen as some sort of a flower rather than a group of distinct conjoined charges. [Mairgret of Carrigart, LoAR 10/2004, East-R] [(Fieldless) An edelweiss argent seeded Or.] This conflicts with a badge of Wander Riordan: (Fieldless) A gillyflower argent. There is one CD for mutual fieldlessness. A visual inspection of Wander's flower shows it has the same number of petals as this submission's, so there is definitly not a CD for type. [Adelheid Leinwater, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R] The gendy flower is no longer registerable:
[(Fieldless) An annulet sable overall a dragon segreant argent] The dragon has a high degree of overlap with the underlying annulet, which is not acceptable style for fieldless badges. Moreover, an overall charge should extend significantly past the outlines of the underlying charge, which is not the case in this armory. [Alden Drake, 04/03, R-Ansteorra]
[Returning Barry wavy azure and argent, two dragons combattant gules maintaining between them a sword inverted, all within a laurel wreath Or.] Conflict with ... Barry wavy and per pale azure and argent, two wyverns combattant gules. There is a CD for the addition of the laurel wreath, but the complexity of the two fields makes it difficult to warrant granting a second for the per pale line of [the latter]. [2/94, p.20]
We consider voiding to have the same visual weight as adding a tertiary charge --- i.e. Sable, a cross Or voided gules and Sable, a cross Or charged with another gules are interchangeable blazons, yielding the same emblazon. This view is supported by period heraldic treatises: e.g. Guillim's Display of Heraldrie, 1632, in discussing chevrons voided, says "if you say voided onely, it is ever understood that the field sheweth thorow the middle part of the charge voided. If the middle part of this chevron were of a different metall, colour, or furre from the Field, then should you Blazon it thus: A Chevron engrailed Or, surmounted of another, of such or such colour."
[Returning (Fieldless) A cross botonny gules charged with a crescent argent] The weight of the commentary was that a cross botonny is not a simple enough primary charge for X.4.j.ii. to apply, and that this submission is indeed in conflict with Pilkington (Papworth, p. 652), Argent, on a cross botonny gules another of the first, with one CD for fieldlessness but nothing for the change to the type only of what is effectively the tertiary. [Dec 1993, Ret-Atlantia, Anton Tremayne]
[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. [Dec 1995, Ret-Trimaris, Sebastian Blacke]
[Returning Vert, semy of gendy flowers Or, a tower argent] There has been only one registration of a gendy flower, and that was in 1979. Therefore, before I am willing to register the charge again, I need proof that either it is a reasonable heraldic charge or that Gethyn can register it under the grandfather clause, i.e, that Gethyn is a close relative of Alma Tea av Telemark. [Nov 1999, Ret-Atenveldt, Gethyn Tal mab Cadwygaun]
This is directly applicable to the present submission. No evidence has been presented that the gendy flower is a reasonable heraldic charge, or that this submitter is entitled to use it by the grandfather clause. Therefore, this must be returned. [Beatrice da Palermo, LoAR 08/2004, Calontir-R]
[Azure, in pale a lotus blossom in profile and three chevronels braced argent.] This is clear of Gilmirron of the Blue Flame: Azure, a globe amaranth flower [Gomphrena globosa] argent. A visual check of Gilmirron's device shows that there is a CD for type between Gilmirron's globe amaranth flower and Odile's lotus blossom; there is a second CD for adding the chevronels. [Odile Davignon, LoAR 07/2004, Caid-A]
[Per pale vert and sable, on a pale argent three roses sable.] This conflicts with Amba Ædhi: Per pale purpure and gules, on a pale argent a cornflower slipped and leaved sable. There is one CD for the field. But this depiction of a cornflower is not significantly different from a rose, nor do we give difference for slipping and leaving. So the only difference between the tertiary charges is for change in number (from one to three), which is not sufficient for a CD per RfS X.4.j. [Anderlin zum schwarzen Rosen, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
There is no difference for slipping and leaving the roses: "there is no CD for removing the slipping of a rose-like flower." (September 2000 LoAR) [István Nyiregyhazi, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
Documentation was provided supporting the presence of camellias in late period Europe. The flowers on the emblazon appear to resemble camellias from one of the pictures provided, though the one on the picture has six petals. Camellias fall into the same heraldic classification as roses; we are using the specific term to preserve the cant. [Camilla Fante da Ferrara, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A]
[Or, a cinquefoil purpure, a bordure azure.] This conflicts with Barabara atte Rose: Or, a rose purpure, a bordure sable. There is one CD for the tincture of the bordure, but nothing for type between a rose and a cinquefoil. [Jacqueline de Meux, LoAR 08/2004, Calontir-R]
[Sable, on a rose Or seeded and barbed vert, a dragon salient sable.] This is technically clear of Aziza al-Kashani: (Fieldless) A double rose Or, charged with a horse passant sable. There is one CD for the fieldlessness, and one for type and posture of the tertiary charge. [Adriana Maria Presley, LoAR 08/2004, Outlands-A]
[Per pale vert and sable, on a pale argent three roses sable.] This conflicts with Amba Ædhi: Per pale purpure and gules, on a pale argent a cornflower slipped and leaved sable. There is one CD for the field. But this depiction of a cornflower is not significantly different from a rose, nor do we give difference for slipping and leaving. So the only difference between the tertiary charges is for change in number (from one to three), which is not sufficient for a CD per RfS X.4.j. [Anderlin zum schwarzen Rosen, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Azure, on a lozenge argent a sprig of alder vert, a bordure argent.] This device does not conflict with Anne Elizabeth Ross, Azure, on a lozenge argent, a thistle proper, a chief embattled argent. There is a CD for changing the chief to a bordure and another for a substantial change of type from a thistle to a sprig of alder under RfS X.4.j.ii. Past precedent says, "There is also a substantial difference between a shamrock and a thistle" [Magdalena Bischoptre, 10/99, A-Calontir]. The difference between a thistle and a shamrock is comparable to that between a thistle and a sprig of three leaves such as the one on this device. [Constantina Tagarina, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-A]
While blazoned on the Letter of Intent as proper, the thistle isn't quite. The bulbous part (just below the brushy "hair") of the head of a thistle proper should be green. [Finnéadan ingen Ruadhan, LoAR 12/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Argent, a thistle vert headed purpure and a chief embattled vert.] The device conflicts with Tiecia O'Scanlan: Argent, a thistle within an orle of ivy vert... As this submissions's thistle is still mostly vert, there is no difference for changing the tincture of considerably less than half of the primary charge (from all vert to mostly vert with a little bit of purpure). [Finnéadan ingen Ruadhan, LoAR 12/2004, Trimaris-R]
Blazoned on the LoI as proper, the trillium flower as drawn is mostly white with little purple flecks, green sepals, and a yellow center. Given that trillium flowers appear in nature as purple, red, pink, and white, there is no reasonable "default" tincture for a trillium. Henceforth, the tincture of a trilliums must be blazoned explicitly. We have reblazoned this trillium flower according to its emblazon. [Jerusha Kilgour, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-A]
[Or, a cinquefoil purpure, a bordure azure.] This conflicts with Barabara atte Rose: Or, a rose purpure, a bordure sable. There is one CD for the tincture of the bordure, but nothing for type between a rose and a cinquefoil. [Jacqueline de Meux, LoAR 08/2004, Calontir-R]
[...a bend sinister sable between two quatrefoils counterchanged.] The flowers/foils are not identifiable as drawn in this submission. While blazoned as quatrefoils, we have no evidence of quatrefoil petals being drawn with either "seeding" or multiple lobes. In addition, nobody was able to identify this as any particular type of flower. Therefore this must be redrawn either as a recognizable quatrefoil or some other identifiable flower; if this flower can be identified, documentation needs to be provided for its visual appearance and its being known in period. [Veronica da Asola, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Or, between a chevron and a chevron inverted braced a bee purpure.] This device conflicts with the Order of the Purple Fret, Or, a fret purpure. While there may technically be several CDs between a fret and a chevron and a chevron inverted braced, the consensus of the meeting was that there is an overwhelming visual similarity as defined in RfS X.5 between the two pieces of armory, with the small secondary bee on Róise's device adding little difference. [Róisi MacCracken, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-R]
[Gules, a fret couped argent within an orle Or.] This is clear of Anézka z Rozmitála: Gules, in dexter chief a fret couped argent. There is...a second [CD] for changing the position of the fret. The presence of the orle does not force the primary charge to the center of the field; it is still possible to draw in dexter chief an X, an orle. [Gyles de Blair, LoAR 11/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
[Vert, a fret and overall a mascle argent.] This conflicts with Kiena Munro, Vert fretty argent, a butterfly Or, and with Thomas Archer, Vert, fretty argent, a pale vert, fimbriated argent. In each case there is one CD for adding the overall charge, but this current submission is indistinguishable from Vert fretty argent so adding the overall charge is only worth one CD. By the same interpretation this also conflicts with Meredudd Brangwyn, Per saltire gules and pean, a fret argent, with the only CD for changing the field. [Phiala O'Ceallaigh, LoAR 10/2004, Æthelmearc-R]
While there is no CD between any number of frets (throughout) and fretty, the distinction between two frets and fretty is blazonable in this case. [Ellen of York, LoAR 09/2004, Atlantia-A]
[Per pale counter-ermine and ermine, a fret Or, a bordure gules.] This conflicts with Conrad de Graz: Ermine, a fret couped of six two-pronged forks Or within a bordure gules. There is one CD for the field but that is all. There is not sufficient difference between a fret couped (even of forks) and a fret to gain a second CD in this case. [Richard Dale, LoAR 09/2004, Calontir-R]
[Argent semy of ermine spots bendwise sinister...] The field also has issues. To quote Black Stag: "[T]he ermine spots on the ermine field should be palewise, not bendwise. There are many ermine fields in Maister Iago's extensive handout from his An Tir Kingdom Heraldic Symposium 2002 class, 'May the Furs be With You.' Without exception, the ermine fields in the handout show the ermine spots palewise." While the diagonal orientation is not in itself cause for return, it is a definite step from period style. [Elizabeth Anglesay, LoAR 10/2004, Drachenwald-R]
[Per chevron argent and gules, a chevron sable between two torteaux between three ermine spots sable and a elephant's head cabossed Or.] There are not enough ermine spots on the field to consider this as having the tincture ermine. As a result, there are three types of secondary charge in a single group on the field (ermine spots, roundels, elephant head), in violation of RfS VIII.1.a: "[T]hree or more types of charges should not be used in the same group." [Matthias de Kent, LoAR 09/2004, East-R]
[...on a bend...four gouts inverted palewise gules.] The gouttes as drawn are not identifiable as such; making them palewise and inverted on the narrow bend reduces their identifiability past the breaking point. This is in itself cause for return. [Orion Storm Bruin, LoAR 08/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[(Fieldless) A hawk striking to sinister maintaining in its talons a compass star all within and conjoined to an annulet sable.] While there was concern that the drawing was overly modern and not reconstructible (both separate causes for return), the problematic element is an exact match (modulo flipping around to sinister) of the same element in the previous (returned) design, for which this is a resubmission. Those concerns were not mentioned in the previous return, so they cannot be applied to this submission as they would to a completely new submission. Please instruct the submitter to draw the hawk in a less modern and more recognizable fashion. [Ricart Berenguer Falcón, LoAR 10/2004, Meridies-A]
The motif of Argent, in base two bars wavy azure, overall [something] is grandfathered to the barony. [Thescorre, Barony of, LoAR 10/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
The gendy flower is no longer registerable:
[Returning Vert, semy of gendy flowers Or, a tower argent] There has been only one registration of a gendy flower, and that was in 1979. Therefore, before I am willing to register the charge again, I need proof that either it is a reasonable heraldic charge or that Gethyn can register it under the grandfather clause, i.e, that Gethyn is a close relative of Alma Tea av Telemark. [Nov 1999, Ret-Atenveldt, Gethyn Tal mab Cadwygaun]This is directly applicable to the present submission. No evidence has been presented that the gendy flower is a reasonable heraldic charge, or that this submitter is entitled to use it by the grandfather clause. Therefore, this must be returned. [Beatrice da Palermo, LoAR 08/2004, Calontir-R]
[Per chevron abased vert and argent...] The line of division is much too low to be per chevron, and too high to be a point pointed. We note that this line of division does not match the one on his currently registered device, and as such the Grandfather Clause does not apply. [Stephen Aldred, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R]
[Sable, two swords inverted in saltire surmounted by a bear's head cabossed between two fleurs-de-lys in fess and another in base, all argent and in chief a label dovetailed Or.] The submitter has permission to conflict with Bryon l'Ours d'Argent de Bourgogne: Sable, two swords inverted in saltire surmounted by a bear's head cabossed between two fleurs-de-lys in fess and another in base, all argent. The depiction of the bear's head is also grandfathered to the submitter as it is identical to Bryon's. [Gerardus Christopherus de Burgondia, LoAR 07/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[Device (for the Prince)] Concern was raised in commentary about the eligibility of this submission for consideration despite the recent change in policy disallowing the registration of devices for consorts and heirs effective December 2003. Trimaris had a submission for the Prince returned in that same LoAR; Laurel specifically stated that Trimaris would be allowed to resubmit a device for the Prince because the original submission was initiated prior to the deadline. Had the original submission been registered, they would have been allowed to make changes to it later despite the ban; this appears to be why the Grandfather Clause was mentioned, but it isn't completely applicable in this case. Nevertheless, this submission is eligible for consideration. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-A]
In addition, the hand is depicted edge on, which has been cause for return in the past:
[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]
[(Fieldless) A cubit arm fesswise reversed palm to chief argent sustaining flames Or] The cupped hand is neither a documented nor a recognizable position. Furthermore, the cubit arm is neither fesswise, nor particularly bendwise sinister, and therefore cannot be accurately blazoned. [Katrine Eberly, 04/00, R-Artemisia]
[Gisele Flambeau, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Per pale Or and gules, a stag's head caboshed counterchanged.] The device conflicts with Fredrich der Rothirsch: Per pale Or and gules, a stag's massacre surmounted by a heart per pale gules and Or. The only possible difference between these two must be for the primary charge(s). A visual inspection of Fredrich's device shows that the charge most closely resembles a stag's attires attached to a heart, with each attire having about the same visual weight as the heart. As such there is really only one CD between the two, not substantial enough difference to qualify for X.2. Owen and Bright Leaf opine that this is a classic example of conflict via RfS X.5, with Owen adding that this is what X.5 is really meant to address. [William Wisehart, LoAR 12/2004, Caid-R]
[Sable, a dragon's head cabossed argent.] This device conflicts with a badge of Vargskol Halfblood: Sable, a lizard's skull fesswise argent (as reblazoned elsewhere on this LoAR)...The other CD must come from type, and the following precedent applies:
[Returning Azure, in pale a heart distilling gouttes d'Or and a stag's skull caboshed argent within a bordure embattled Or] The device conflicts with ... Vert, a heart Or between the attires of a stag's head cabossed argent, attired, within a bordure embattled Or. There is only one CD for the tincture of the field. The gouttes, the tincture of the horns, and the difference between a stag's skull cabossed and a stag's head cabossed are insufficient for the necessary CD. [12a/93, p.16]
The body and head of a heraldic dragon is typically drawn as those of a batwinged lizard, and as we generally give no CD between a head and its skull, there is no CD for type between Vargskol's skull and this dragon's head, leaving just a single CD for the change of posture of the primary charge. [Creature Twyne Dragon, LoAR 10/2004, Æthelmearc-R]
[Quarterly gules and purpure, three wolves "courant" in annulo argent.] Additionally, Crescent notes a conflict with Cuán MacDaige: Checky azure and Or, three mastiffs courant in annulo argent each gorged of a coronet gules. There is a CD for changes to the field but nothing for the type of canine and nothing for gorging an entire beast (as opposed to a beast's head). [Ulvar MacVanis, LoAR 10/2004, Lochac-R]
The difference between a stag's head and a bull's head, both properly drawn, is substantial...[Uther the Small, LoAR, 09/2004, Caid-A]
[Sable, a winged wolfs head erased, on a chief argent, three lozenges azure.] The device violates RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement: "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." Consensus of the College and the meeting were that the primary charge was unrecognizable. Suggestions about possible redrawing included making the head cabossed, coloring in the eyes and tongue, making the head a different tincture from the wings, and using less detail on the wings. Some combination of these may render the charge identifiable (depending on the specifics of the redrawing). [Desiderata del Rio, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
[(Fieldless) A natural tiger's head caboshed argent marked sable.] This conflicts with Alonzio of the Peacemakers: Gyronny Or and gules, a white tiger's head caboshed proper. There is one CD for the field, but the two feline heads are almost identical. [Tat'iana Aleksandrovna Ragozina, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Per pale gules and azure, a crane's head couped argent.] This conflicts with Ealasaid nic Chlurain (Fieldless) A swan's head erased at the shoulders proper, maintaining a rose gules, barbed, slipped and leaved vert. There is one CD between these for fieldlessness. The difference between a swan's head and a crane's head is just in the beak, which is not significant enough for the required second CD. [Enoch Crandall mac Cranon, LoAR 08/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[...a human skull argent enflamed proper...] The skull is not enflamed; it appears to have wolf's teeth issuing from it all around, alternating Or and pink. This is not identifiable as anything blazonable. [Gregor von Keiserberg, LoAR 08/2004, Northshield-R]
[Sable, a dragon's head cabossed argent.] This device conflicts with a badge of Vargskol Halfblood: Sable, a lizard's skull fesswise argent (as reblazoned elsewhere on this LoAR)...The other CD must come from type, and the following precedent applies:
[Returning Azure, in pale a heart distilling gouttes d'Or and a stag's skull caboshed argent within a bordure embattled Or] The device conflicts with ... Vert, a heart Or between the attires of a stag's head cabossed argent, attired, within a bordure embattled Or. There is only one CD for the tincture of the field. The gouttes, the tincture of the horns, and the difference between a stag's skull cabossed and a stag's head cabossed are insufficient for the necessary CD. [12a/93, p.16]
The body and head of a heraldic dragon is typically drawn as those of a batwinged lizard, and as we generally give no CD between a head and its skull, there is no CD for type between Vargskol's skull and this dragon's head, leaving just a single CD for the change of posture of the primary charge. [Creature Twyne Dragon, LoAR 10/2004, Æthelmearc-R]
[Per pale Or and gules, a sun counterchanged.] This also conflicts with Ajax Thermopylokles: Per pale Or and gules, a Gorgon's head cabossed counterchanged...original return (September 2002) is relevant here, and we excerpt it here:
The particular stylization of the gorgon's head in Ajax' armory leads it to be visually very similar to a sun in splendor. The snakes are evenly arrayed radially about the gorgon's face, rather than just issuant from the top of the head as one might expect of a gorgon with snakes for hair. The gorgon's face is also very stylized, more like a mask than a face. Thus the face resembles the disk of a sun more than one might expect of a standard woman's face. Overall the visual similarity is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to call conflict under RfS X.5. In ordinary circumstances we would expect there to be X.2 difference between a variant of a human head and a sun.
The lack of a face here reduces the similarity, but the particular stylization of Ajax's design does not allow for X.2 to apply. While there may be a CD between them, that would still be only one CD. We decline to rule on whether a CD actually exists in this case. [Gabrielle Annora d'Outre Mer, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[Argent, a seeblatt gules between two bendlets sinister azure.] This conflicts with Karen Roslin: Argent, a heart gules between two pallets wavy azure. There is a CD for type of secondary charge between bendlets sinister and pallets wavy, but changing the line of division is part of the type change. There is no CD for type between a heart and a seeblatt, leaving just the single CD. [Grietje Crynes, LoAR 09/2004, Northshield-R]
[Or, a pegasus rampant sable within a bordure pean.] The device does not conflict with the badge of Rinaldo of Blackhaven, registered in February of 1987 (via the Middle), Or, a pegasus salient sable ridden by a man in armour guardant vert, maintaining a sword sable...the addition of the rider is enough for the second CD. [Tamsin Kitto, LoAR 11/2004, Ealdormere-A]
[Or, a camel and on a chief gules three cowrie shells argent.] The "cowrie shells" on the chief were indistinguishable from many other possible charge types. The basic motif of an oval with internal detailing down the center does not appear to be something inherently "recognizable solely from their appearance," and is thus not registerable per RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement. [Amina al-Dyula an-Nisa al-Songhayya, LoAR 12/2004, East-R]
Many questions were raised in commentary about the identity of the strewn objects, originally (somewhat redundantly) blazoned on the Letter of Intent as triskeles arrondi within and conjoined to annulets. As drawn the charges were not identifiable as such. Indeed, it is unlikely that any drawing of these objects at the size of strewn charges could render them identifiable as what the LoI's blazon claimed they were. The question was raised whether compound charges were even registerable as strewn objects, as there seems to be no evidence of this pratice in period. [Ed.: The charges were reblazoned as three-spoked wheels.] [Ailill mac Ferchair Uí Diarmata, LoAR 12/2004, East-A]
[...a leather bottell sable...] This is returned for a redraw. RfS VII.7.a requires that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." As drawn, this was not identifiable. This would be the defining example of a leather bottell in SCA armory, and the submitter provided excellent documentation for this period artifact and its use as a charge in (possibly post-period) heraldry. However, the examples from the documentation have considerably more detail and are slightly in trian aspect to ensure the charge's identifiability as a bottle. The submitter should keep that in mind if using a leather bottell as a charge in a resubmission. [Svein sutari svithanda, LoAR 11/2004, Calontir-R]
[Or semy of roses purpure, a tower sable within a bordure embattled pean.] This violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable ... by being obscured by other elements of the design." In the case of this submission, the interaction of the roses and complex bordure make it impossible to tell that the bordure is actually embattled. [Antony of Bladon, LoAR 10/2004, Artemisia-R]
[...on a chief triangular Or three yak tails sable.] This is returned for identifiability and lack of documentation of the yak tails. The charges on the chief were not identifiable as yak tails; in addition there are no currently registered examples of yak tails, and the only prior registration of the charge (since released) was registered with a note to draw them more recognizable as yak tails. This should be redrawn so the yak tails recognizably match a documented form, and the documentation should be supplied. [Vladimir Davidovich, LoAR 10/2004, Atlantia-R]
[Argent semy of ermine spots bendwise sinister, a natural seahorse...] The primary charge is not readily identifiable; it is somewhere between a generic fish, a heraldic dolphin and a natural seahorse. This therefore violates RfS VII.7.a which says that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." This is in itself cause for return. [Elizabeth Anglesay, LoAR 10/2004, Drachenwald-R]
[...a winged woman statant affronty vested of a cloak...] As drawn, this violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability, which states in part: "Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by ... being obscured by other elements of the design." The way the cloak is draped, combined with the fact that the cloak and body are the same tincture, obscures the identifiability of the body too much. Also, the maintained snake is not readily identifiable as such due to its position relative to the woman and cloak.
We suggest that, on a possible redraw, identifiability would be enhanced by: draping the cloak differently; making the cloak a different tincture than the person wearing it; and making both ends of the snake visible. Making these changes cannot guarantee registerability, for that would depend on the specific drawing submitted as well as re-checking for conflict; but they will greatly improve the resubmission's chances. [Pierre l'Escot, LoAR 10/2004, Drachenwald-R]
This is being returned for redrawing. The dandelion blossom was not recognizable as such, nor could it be easily identified as another type of charge. RfS VII.7.a states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." [Chardonne de Lyon, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[(Fieldless) In annulo eight triangles conjoined at point Or.] There are two issues with the identifiability of the charges on this device. Firstly, the proportion of each triangle is rather tall and thin when compared to the usual heraldic triangle. The heraldic triangle is normally depicted as equilateral which would prevent eight to be arranged in this manner. Secondly, the assemblage might be seen as some sort of a flower rather than a group of distinct conjoined charges. [Mairgret of Carrigart, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[...on a saltire...a feather palewise] This violates RfS VII.7.a, which states in part: "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." As drawn, the feather was not identifiable as such. It may be possible that a redrawn feather in this position might be identifiable, but it may also be the case that there is intrinsic unidentifiability of the position. Making the feather bendwise or bendwise sinister (and concomitantly larger) would solve this problem if drawn in an identifiable manner. [Marsaili inghean Lachtnáin, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[(Fieldless) Three frogs sejant affronty conjoined in pall inverted vert.] The combination of the unusual posture and unusual arrangement of the frogs renders the design unidentifiable. [Ravenild Frogenhall, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
[...a pall wavy sable fimbriated...] On the full-size emblazon, the waves of the wavy pall are much too small and too numerous, which hinders identifiability. This is in itself cause for return. [Michael de Multon, LoAR 10/2004, Meridies-R]
[...a ram's head jessant-de-lys, on a chief argent a cup inverted between two cups azure.] The primary charges and the tertiary charges both violate RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability: "Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by ... being obscured by other elements of the design." As drawn, the ram's horns and the fleur-de-lys interfere with each other such that the identifiability of both is compromised. (Their placement on a complex field doesn't help either.) Likewise the inversion of the center cup makes one look at least twice to confirm the identity of the charges on the chief. [Michael of the Two Peaks, LoAR 10/2004, Northshield-R]
[...between three elfbolts argent.] There is one group of four primary charges on the full size emblazon, and we have reblazoned this accordingly. However, as drawn the elfbolts are not identifiable as such, per the following precedent:
The elfbolt is an SCA-invented charge referring to a stone-chipped arrowhead. The Pictorial Dictionary states that "prehistoric specimens found by the ancients were attributed to the Little People."
The College generally found that this artwork, which uses a smoothly rounded charge to depict the elfbolt, was not identifiable as the roughly chipped and angular SCA elfbolt. This is reason for return under RfS VII.7.a.
The College also questioned whether an elfbolt should continue to be registerable in the SCA, as it is an SCA-invented charge. The charge clearly was an artifact that was known in period, namely, old chipped arrowheads that could be found by period people. As a period artifact, a stone-chipped arrowhead may be registered if it is drawn identifiably. [Mar 2003, Ret-Meridies, Eckhart von Eschenbach]
The supposed elfbolts here have the same problem, and need to be redrawn to be recognizable as chipped stone arrowheads. [Flinthyll, Shire of, LoAR 09/2004, Calontir-R]
[Per chevron wavy Or and azure, a rose slipped and leaved proper, a chief counter-compony azure and Or.] The rose, especially its leaves, is drawn so large as to make the line of division completely unidentifiable. This therefore violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability.... a complex line of partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if most of the line is also covered by charges." [Caitlin inghean Tomais ui Duibhir, LoAR 09/2004, Ealdormere-R]
[...on a bend...four gouts inverted palewise gules.] The gouttes as drawn are not identifiable as such; making them palewise and inverted on the narrow bend reduces their identifiability past the breaking point. This is in itself cause for return. [Orion Storm Bruin, LoAR 08/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[(Fieldless) A double-headed eagle per pale gules and Or ermined vert.] This is being returned for a redraw. As drawn, the ermine spots are so small as to be almost completely unrecognizable by themselves. When combined with the internal details on the eagle they disappear entirely. The ermine spots need to be considerably fewer and larger. [Gotfridus von Schwaben, LoAR 08/2004, Calontir-R]
[...three towers conjoined in pall...] The center area in between the towers should not be colored in as if it were part of the towers. Doing so rendered the charge(s) unidentifiable. [Basil Faulke, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R]
[...an ermine dormant argent.] The beast was not identifiable as an ermine or other mustelid. Commentary in the College and at the meeting almost invariably confused it with either a dog or a cat. The specific problems noted were the length of the legs and the shape of the head and neck. [Isobel le Bretoun, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R]
[Or, a "bear" statant erect...] This violates RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement: "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." It was not possible to determine what type of beast the primary charge is (guesses at the meeting included lion, bear, badger, and otter). This must be returned for a redraw to make the primary charge clearly identifiable as a bear. [Thorin bjarnkarl, LoAR 07/2004, Æthelmearc-R]
[Argent, a pithon erect contourny wings addorsed...] The odd positioning of the pithon's back wing renders the charge unidentifiable. This must be returned for a redraw: the wings must be drawn such that they do not interfere with the identifiability of the pithon's body. [Kolbjorn Skattkaupandi, LoAR 07/2004, Ealdormere-R]
[Per pale azure and argent chapé ployé, two lymphads and a laurel wreath counterchanged, and for augmentation in chief on an escutcheon azure, four crescents argent conjoined in saltire points outward, within a bordure Or.] The augmentation is too small to be identifiable at any distance farther than two feet: the "field" looks sable and the crescents were blurred beyond recognition. Unfortunately, simply returning it for a redraw is not sufficient. Making the escutcheon larger would make it effectively a co-primary charge with the lymphads and laurel wreath, violating RfS VIII.1.a: "[T]hree or more types of charges should not be used in the same group" (the "slot machine" rule). While the addition of augmentations can be allowed to break rules in some cases, the violations we allow are grounded in period examples. Barring examples of period augmentations that result in three types of charges in the same group, this sort of augmentation cannot violate RfS VIII.1.a. We note as one possible suggestion that making the escutcheon an azure canton would eliminate the style problem. [Ildhafn, Barony of, LoAR 07/2004, Lochac-R]
[Sable, a winged wolfs head erased, on a chief argent, three lozenges azure.] The device violates RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement: "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." Consensus of the College and the meeting were that the primary charge was unrecognizable. Suggestions about possible redrawing included making the head cabossed, coloring in the eyes and tongue, making the head a different tincture from the wings, and using less detail on the wings. Some combination of these may render the charge identifiable (depending on the specifics of the redrawing). [Desiderata del Rio, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
[...a bordure argent mullety of four points azure.] The charges on the bordure on the emblazon are not identifiable; the meeting could not agree whether they were flowers, crosses, quatrefoils or mullets. [Lucien Philip de Bordeaux, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
[Per chevron inverted vert and Or a cross counterchanged.]This violates RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement, and VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. It is impossible to blazon this design such that "a competent heraldic artist can reproduce the armory solely from the blazon" (RfS VII.7.b), and neither the cross nor the field division is identifiable: "Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by [for example] being obscured by other elements of the design" (RfS VIII.3). To quote Nebuly: "The artistic effect devised by the submitter depends upon careful placement of the line of division..." and Brachet: "This violates "The drawing here totally obscures the identity of the primary charge (something that I would until now have thought impossible for a simple cross)."] Dirk van der Kruis, LoAR 07/2004, Northshield-R]
[Per bend indented ermine and vert, a tower counterchanged.] This violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiablility, which states in part: "A complex divided field could obscure the identity of charges counterchanged." Consensus of commentary and those at the meeting agreed that this applies here. The complex line of division makes it too difficult to figure out what the charge is. Nebuly points out that part of the problem lies with the line of division mimicking the crenellations of the tower, so a plain (or possibly even a wavy) line of division could resolve the difficulty. [Amalric de Mannia, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
The primary charge was not identifiable as a tilting lance as it lacks the handle to tuck under the arm. It should be redrawn to be recognizable as either a tilting spear or as some other recognizable charge. [Maximilian Wolfhart von Hutten, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
[(Fieldless) A mermaid purpure maintaining a scroll argent.] This violates RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement, and VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. As drawn on the full-color emblazon, the mermaid is not identifiable as such, and "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance" (RfS VII.7.a). The odd positioning of the mermaid's tail and of the maintained scroll also serve to obscure the identifiability of the mermaid and the scroll. We note that "elements may be rendered unidentifiable by [for example] being obscured by other elements of the design" (RfS VIII.3) and such is the case here. We quote Brachet:
This is a seriously non-standard position for the mermaid's tail, and this position acts to remove the identifiability of the charge. The tail should be curled so that the long part of the tail crosses under the mermaid's butt so that the whole creature is much more upright and less of a circle. Another standard depiction curls the tail under and does not cross it but leaves the end of the tail just below the waist of the mermaid (viz. #501 in the PicDic). While we have no inherent problem with the Art Deco hair on the mermaid, it adds to the problem in this case because it is confusable with an extension of the tail. This should be returned for a recognizable redraw.
In addition to the suggestions made by Brachet, we suggest using white details on the purpure mermaid (the full-color emblazon was much less identifiable than the miniature outline), and perhaps having the mermaid maintain the scroll off to the side (opposite the tail?). While we would have to see the actual emblazon of any resubmission before deciding on its identifiability, following the above suggestions would give the resubmission a better chance. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Checky Or and gules, on a fess purpure four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns Or.] As for the device, there are two independent causes for return here...Second, the tertiary charges present a combination of identifiability problems and non-period style. As drawn, there is confusion about whether the four fleurs-de-lys form a cross of fleurs-de-lys. While they do not, it is very hard to tell, even from the full-size emblazon. Given that they do not form a cross, the charges on the fess give the appearance of "primary" and "secondary" tertiary charges groups on the fess. This has long been cause for return:
[... on a pale azure a salmon haurient embowed contourny in chief a compass star argent ...] It is not period style to have two different tertiary groups on the same underlying charge. The difference in scale between the salmon and the compass star makes the compass star appear to be in a subsidiary charge group to the salmon. There is precedent pertaining to this matter:
[returning A mullet Or charged with a fleur-de-lys florency between five daggers points outwards sable] None of the commenters could find a similar motif: a primary charged with a tertiary X and a group of five tertiary Y's. Barring documentation of such an arrangement of tertiary charges, we believe that the motif is not a period one and therefore unregistrable. [The submission was returned for this reason and for conflict.] (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95 p. 15)
(The device was returned for this reason and for redrawing the laurel wreath.) [Oct 2001, Ret-Drachenwald, Uma, Shire of]
For the current submission, if the charges on the fess were instead on a field, they would be ...four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns, obviously a primary charge group between secondaries. Thus this example follows the above precedents. If, instead, the charges on the fess were drawn as a cross of fleurs-de-lys, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns then there would be a single group of three charges on the fess, which would be registerable. (We would still have to check for conflict and other potential style problems with the redrawn armory.) [Haroun al-Rashid the Toe Mangler, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Purpure, on a heart Or a double-horned hennin gules.] In addition, the charge on the heart is not identifiable as a double-horned hennin. Questions were raised in commentary about its identifiability; as drawn it looks like an abstract geometric shape. While the submitter has provided ample pictorial evidence for double-horned hennins in period, all of the examples provided had curved bottoms, not straight as in the submitted drawing, and the bottoms all had a band of some sort of trim on them, a feature which greatly helps in identifying the object as headgear. Therefore, if a resubmission wishes to use a double-horned hennin, it needs to be identifiable as such solely from its appearance (to paraphrase RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement). [Lucrezia di Bartolomeo, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[...a bend sinister sable between two quatrefoils counterchanged.] The flowers/foils are not identifiable as drawn in this submission. While blazoned as quatrefoils, we have no evidence of quatrefoil petals being drawn with either "seeding" or multiple lobes. In addition, nobody was able to identify this as any particular type of flower. Therefore this must be redrawn either as a recognizable quatrefoil or some other identifiable flower; if this flower can be identified, documentation needs to be provided for its visual appearance and its being known in period. [Veronica da Asola, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
Sable, a maunch fracted in pale...] The "maunch fracted" is not identifiable. While it has indeed been redrawn from the previous attempt, the "fracting" still yields the result of appearing to be "two slightly different styles of maunches addorsed rather than a single fracted charge" as noted on the previous return. At any distance the break looks like a straight line and not indented, so the indents obviously need to be drawn more boldly. Part of the identifiability problem also stems from the particular depiction of the maunch. The "shoulder" end of the maunch needs to be drawn to look more obviously like an end that attaches to the rest of the garment, and unmistakably NOT an end that a hand should come out of. If both of the above suggestions are applied successfully, the charge has a much better chance of looking like a single maunch torn in half rather than two maunches addorsed. [Wilhelus le Casse, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Per pale gules and argent, on a pair of wings counterchanged a trillium purpure barbed vert.] The charges here are not drawn such that they are "recognizable solely from their appearance" and thus must be returned for a redraw per RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement. The petals of a trillium should be significantly larger than the barbs; the wings need to be drawn in a form readily recognizable as wings. [Ann of Thanet, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
[Per bend sinister argent and sable, a winged trumpet counterchanged all within a bordure embattled vert.] The primary charge is not recognizable as a winged trumpet, and must be redrawn to be readily identifiable as such. While the submitter has a similarly blazoned motif in already registered armory, the registered depiction is considerably more recognizable than the one in this submission. [Gabriel of Maccuswell, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
[Per bend sinister nebuly azure and sable, in bend a Norse sun cross argent and double rose argent and azure.] This has an unregisterable low-contrast complex line of division: "...Finally, we no longer allow combining azure and sable with a complex line of division." (Sep 1997, Returns, Trimaris, Tymm Colbert le Gard) This is one of the combinations that has been held to violate RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability, even without a charge overlying it. [Katerin ferch Gwenllian, LoAR 06/2004, Middle-R]
The phoenix on the full-size emblazon has a great deal of internal detail. It is also extremely pixilated, and the combination of these two factors renders it unidentifiable. (Which is also in itself a cause for return.) Computer "clip art" is very convenient for many people to use, but care must be taken to ensure that the final picture remains identifiable. Items with a great deal of internal details are particularly troublesome when printed out on low resolution printers. [Ellyn Jourdain de Wentworth, LoAR 06/2004, Northshield-R]
[Per pale vert and sable, a tree blasted and eradicated within a bordure Or.] This device does not conflict with Betva a Bedwyn, Vert, a birch tree argent leaved Or, a bordure of knotwork argent. An examination of Betva's device (reblazoned on the Atenveldt section of this LoAR) shows that the bordure is not only argent, rather than Or as previosuly blazoned, but that it is actually made up of knotwork. [Saige of Lochmere, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-A]
Precedent gives a CD between triquetras and quatrefoil knots: [comparing Azure, a triquetra inverted Or to (Fieldless) A quatrefoil knot] "we have no trouble granting a CVD between a quatrefoil knot and a triquetra." [Jan 1991, Acc-Caid, Halldór Skaptason] Bowen knots look even less like triquetras than do quatrefoil knots, so the CD between Bowen knots and triquetras is simple to extrapolate. [Dante lo Rosso, LoAR 07/2004, Ansteorra-A]
[Argent, a Lacy knot gules between three oak leaves vert.] This is clear of Ragnar Thorbjörn: Argent, an annulet fretted with a bowen knot gules. There is one CD for adding the leaves. There is not a CD for type between a Lacy knot and the combination of an annulet fretted with a Bowen knot, but in this case there is a clear CD for orientation, as the default Bowen knot has its loops set saltirewise and a default Lacy knot has its outermost loops set crosswise. [Úna inghean Shéamuis, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-A]
[Or, on a bend wavy sable three ivy leaves Or.] Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as fig leaves, the tertiary charges actually appear to be ivy leaves. [Jehan Bacheler, LoAR 01/2005, Northshield-A]
[Argent semy of strawberry leaves, on a pale vert, a wolf salient argent.] This is clear of Talia Margherita da Milano: Argent semy of oak leaves, on a pale vert a fleur-de-lys Or ... There is another CD for change of type between oak leaves and strawberry leaves. [Helena Gewolf, LoAR 12/2004, Calontir-A]
[Argent, a seeblatt gules between two bendlets sinister azure.] This conflicts with Karen Roslin: Argent, a heart gules between two pallets wavy azure. There is a CD for type of secondary charge between bendlets sinister and pallets wavy, but changing the line of division is part of the type change. There is no CD for type between a heart and a seeblatt, leaving just the single CD. [Grietje Crynes, LoAR 09/2004, Northshield-R]
[...a bordure wavy argent semy of oak leaves sable.] As drawn, the oak leaves on the bordure lack a consistently reproducible orientation, thus violating RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement. Consensus of the commentary was that the leaves are not in an explicitly blazonable orientation, nor are they "following the bordure", which would be considered an unblazoned variant of the default (palewise) orientation. [Marryn Blackgroves, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-R]
[...three maple leaves...] Questions were raised in commentary about the identifiability of the leaves. The full-size emblazon shows the primary charges clearly as maple leaves, but the submitter should be advised to draw them taller so as to fill the space better. [Yoshikuri Nagayori, LoAR 07/2004, Ealdormere-A]
The pall was blazoned as indented on the Letter of Intent, but the proper description is dancetty when the zigzagged edges run parallel to each other. Indented ordinaries closely resemble lines of overlapping lozenges. [Cuilén Gordon of Tir Ysgithr, LoAR 12/2004, Atenveldt-A]
This is being returned for a redraw. The line of division of the chief is halfway between rayonny and indented. It needs to be drawn to be recognizably one or the other. [William Black Dragon, LoAR 11/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[Argent, on a chief engrailed azure three crescents Or.] This is clear of the badge of Rhwth Rhys of Eldatir: Argent, on a chief doubly arched azure an estoile argent. There is one CD for aggregate changes to the charge group on the chief. There is a second CD for changing doubly arched to engrailed on the chief. As doubly-arched is an SCA invention, difference with it must be obtained purely on visual grounds. In period a chief engrailed could have been drawn with as few as three engrailings, though in SCA heraldry engrailing generally has more. Consensus With three or more points, a chief engrailed is visually distinct from a chief doubly arched, providing the necessary second CD. Garnet explains this by making the case that the most visible attribute of a doubly-arched or engrailed line is the the point(s) where the arches/engrailings meet. A doubly-arched line always has exactly one point, whereas an engrailed line has at least two. She continues: "When considering the case of 1 point vs 2, we will always have the 1 being in the middle of the field while the 2 will be spaced evenly _around_ [sic] the middle. When considering 1 point compared to any more than 2, the differences become more and more obvious." [Erlan skáld í Norðrlandi, LoAR 12/2004, East-A]
The line of the bordure is not rayonny; it appears to be somewhere between indented, invected, engrailed, rayonny, and the non-period line of division wavy-crested. [Damiana al-Andalusiyya, LoAR 08/2004, Outlands-R]
[Per bend indented ermine and vert, a tower counterchanged.] This violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiablility, which states in part: "A complex divided field could obscure the identity of charges counterchanged." Consensus of commentary and those at the meeting agreed that this applies here. The complex line of division makes it too difficult to figure out what the charge is. Nebuly points out that part of the problem lies with the line of division mimicking the crenellations of the tower, so a plain (or possibly even a wavy) line of division could resolve the difficulty. [Amalric de Mannia, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
[...a chief rayonny of alternating straight and wavy rays...] The occurrence of rayonny lines of division is an uncommon late-period phenomenon, which occurs far more frequently in SCA armory than it does in late-period armory. This particular depiction is apparently found only in a post-period tract (albeit one from our "grey area"). It also blurs the distinction between rayonny and indented, between which there is a CD as lines of division.
al-Jamal notes:
...even Guillim notes it as a "rare" charge, stating that "had not the shining raies of this glistering Pale extrarodinarily invited me to gaze upon the rarity of this bearing I should ... omitted to have here demonstrated this Coat-armour", and as has been noted before, "we must draw our general rules from the common usage, not the anomaly." (LoAR August 1987, p. 16) Given that the near-period usage is so "rare", and that the emblazon here does not match the near period emblazon, and that the emblazon here confuses the eye with its half-rayonny/half-indented line, I think this should be returned.
There was some confusion as to whether the all-wavy and alternating lines were both gray-area-only. The all-wavy does appear to occur in late period while for alternating we have only the grey area example. We therefore concur with al-Jamal that the alternating depiction is too far from period practice, and therefore not registerable. [Tamlin Mac Gryhme of Westray, LoAR 07/2004, An Tir-R]
[Or, a sheaf of arrows inverted sable within a bordure indented azure.] There are not enough indentations on the bordure. Eight indentations on a bordure looks too close to a mullet of eight points. This is especially true on a round shield shape but applies to other shield shapes as well. Thus identifiability is not sufficient, and there is a visual conflict with Paul of Sunriver (Azure, a compass-star Or). Were there half again as many indents, the close resemblance to a mullet would be greatly reduced, eliminating these problems. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Ermine, on a chevron engrailed between three Maltese crosses gules, a rose Or.] The engrailings on the chevron are too many and too small to be registerable. This was a resubmission of a device most recently returned by Laurel in June 2003. That return was for a redraw, citing identifiability problems with the ermine spots and asking for fewer and larger engrailings on the chevron. While the issue with the ermine spots appears to have been successfully addressed, the chevron on this emblazon is identical to the one returned in June 2003. Since the submitter did not address all the issues raised in the previous return, this must be returned as well. [Genevieve de Calais, LoAR 06/2004, West-R]
This is being returned for a redraw. The line of division of the chief is halfway between rayonny and indented. It needs to be drawn to be recognizably one or the other. [William Black Dragon, LoAR 11/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[Per fess indented azure and counter-ermine.] This has a low-contrast complex line of division using two colors. The following precedent is relevant:
[Returning Per chevron wavy sable and azure, a decrescent, an increscent, and a sea-griffin argent] The contrast between the two halves of the field is so low that the line of division is not distinguishable. Past Laurels have returned extremely low-contrast lines of division even when there is not an overall charge (for an example, see the return of Isabel d'Avignon's device, June 1997 LoAR). [Oct 1999, Ret-Meridies, Anastasiia Novgorodskaia]
Likewise, azure and counter-ermine do not have sufficient contrast to allow them to be used as the tinctures on either side of a divided field with a complex line of division, even when there is no overall charge. [Sancha da Sylva, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R]
The line of the bordure is not rayonny; it appears to be somewhere between indented, invected, engrailed, rayonny, and the non-period line of division wavy-crested. [Damiana al-Andalusiyya, LoAR 08/2004, Outlands-R]
[...a chief rayonny of alternating straight and wavy rays...] The occurrence of rayonny lines of division is an uncommon late-period phenomenon, which occurs far more frequently in SCA armory than it does in late-period armory. This particular depiction is apparently found only in a post-period tract (albeit one from our "grey area"). It also blurs the distinction between rayonny and indented, between which there is a CD as lines of division.
al-Jamal notes:
...even Guillim notes it as a "rare" charge, stating that "had not the shining raies of this glistering Pale extrarodinarily invited me to gaze upon the rarity of this bearing I should ... omitted to have here demonstrated this Coat-armour", and as has been noted before, "we must draw our general rules from the common usage, not the anomaly." (LoAR August 1987, p. 16) Given that the near-period usage is so "rare", and that the emblazon here does not match the near period emblazon, and that the emblazon here confuses the eye with its half-rayonny/half-indented line, I think this should be returned.
There was some confusion as to whether the all-wavy and alternating lines were both gray-area-only. The all-wavy does appear to occur in late period while for alternating we have only the grey area example. We therefore concur with al-Jamal that the alternating depiction is too far from period practice, and therefore not registerable. [Tamlin Mac Gryhme of Westray, LoAR 07/2004, An Tir-R]
LINES OF DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
[Argent, on a chief engrailed azure three crescents Or.] This is clear of the badge of Rhwth Rhys of Eldatir: Argent, on a chief doubly arched azure an estoile argent. There is one CD for aggregate changes to the charge group on the chief. There is a second CD for changing doubly arched to engrailed on the chief. As doubly-arched is an SCA invention, difference with it must be obtained purely on visual grounds. In period a chief engrailed could have been drawn with as few as three engrailings, though in SCA heraldry engrailing generally has more. Consensus With three or more points, a chief engrailed is visually distinct from a chief doubly arched, providing the necessary second CD. Garnet explains this by making the case that the most visible attribute of a doubly-arched or engrailed line is the the point(s) where the arches/engrailings meet. A doubly-arched line always has exactly one point, whereas an engrailed line has at least two. She continues: "When considering the case of 1 point vs 2, we will always have the 1 being in the middle of the field while the 2 will be spaced evenly _around_ [sic] the middle. When considering 1 point compared to any more than 2, the differences become more and more obvious." [Erlan skáld í Norðrlandi, LoAR 12/2004, East-A]
[Per chevron dovetailed argent and azure...] Please advise the submitter to draw the dovetailing less shallowly on any resubmission using dovetailed lines. [Conrad Burnet, LoAR 09/2004, Lochac-R]
[Gules, a tree blasted and eradicated and on a chief nebuly argent, four acorns gules.] The line of division on the chief appears halfway between nebuly and dovetailed/embattled, between which there is a CD. Since it blurs the distinction, this must be returned for a redraw. [Elysant atten Oke, LoAR 08/2004, West-R]
[...a pall wavy sable fimbriated...] On the full-size emblazon, the waves of the wavy pall are much too small and too numerous, which hinders identifiability. This is in itself cause for return. [Michael de Multon, LoAR 10/2004, Meridies-R]
[Gules, a tree blasted and eradicated and on a chief nebuly argent, four acorns gules.] The line of division on the chief appears halfway between nebuly and dovetailed/embattled, between which there is a CD. Since it blurs the distinction, this must be returned for a redraw. [Elysant atten Oke, LoAR 08/2004, West-R]
The line of the bordure is not rayonny; it appears to be somewhere between indented, invected, engrailed, rayonny, and the non-period line of division wavy-crested. [Damiana al-Andalusiyya, LoAR 08/2004, Outlands-R]
Please advise the submitter that if a wavy bordure is used on a resubmission, the waves should be drawn a bit more boldly. (An extra wave or two might help in this regard.) [Cristina inghean Ruairc, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-R]
[Per bend indented ermine and vert, a tower counterchanged.] This violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiablility, which states in part: "A complex divided field could obscure the identity of charges counterchanged." Consensus of commentary and those at the meeting agreed that this applies here. The complex line of division makes it too difficult to figure out what the charge is. Nebuly points out that part of the problem lies with the line of division mimicking the crenellations of the tower, so a plain (or possibly even a wavy) line of division could resolve the difficulty. [Amalric de Mannia, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Per bend sinister nebuly azure and sable, in bend a Norse sun cross argent and double rose argent and azure.] This has an unregisterable low-contrast complex line of division: "...Finally, we no longer allow combining azure and sable with a complex line of division." (Sep 1997, Returns, Trimaris, Tymm Colbert le Gard) This is one of the combinations that has been held to violate RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability, even without a charge overlying it. [Katerin ferch Gwenllian, LoAR 06/2004, Middle-R]
[a cross of lozenges vert compared to a compass star gules]...Quoth Metron Ariston: "By precedent a compass star and a mullet of four points have no difference and this strikingly resembles a mullet of four points visually. While there is a clear difference in tincture of the lozengy cross/mullet, if the sizes and positions are not very different then this may be a problem." Upon visual comparison of the emblazons [, everyone at the meeting agreed that this is a conflict. RfS X.4.e. states, "A charge not used in period armory will be considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different". Compass stars are not used in period armory. Therefore, difference can only be derived on visual grounds, and the visual difference between these two charges is significantly different. [Safwah al-Zarqah al-Sabbiyah, LoAR 11/2004, Outlands-R]
[Sable, four lozenges in cross Or.] This conflicts with Heinrich von Stuttgart: Per bend azure and checky Or and azure, a cross of four lozenges Or...Neither is there a CD for the minor change in arrangement of the lozenges:
[Four fleurs-de-lys conjoined in cross bases to center] Conflict with Katlin von Kappel, Per saltire sable and gules, four fleurs-de-lys bases to center Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness. The four fleurs-de-lys in Katlin's device are placed by default into the four sections of the per saltire field, which arranges the fleurs-de-lys in cross. The two groups of fleurs-de-lys are arranged identically except for the conjoining. We do not give difference for conjoining the charges, although it is necessary to specify the conjoining in the blazon. [Otelia d'Alsace, 08/02, R-Æthelmearc]
The same interpretation applies to lozenges as it does to fleurs-de-lys. Black Stag notes that a different result might be obtained if documentation had been supplied showing a cross of four lozenges as having an independent identity in period armory from four lozenges in cross, but none was supplied, and it does not appear to have had such an independent identity in period. Thus the small difference in the arrangement is not significant. [Mari Alexander, LoAR 10/2004, West-R]
[(Fieldless) A lozenge flory at the points Or.] This is clear of Solveig Throndardottir: (Fieldless) A lozenge Or, with one CD for fieldlessness and one for adding the highly prominent fleurs-de-lys at the points. [John Catharne, LoAR 07/2004, An Tir-A]
The posture of the griffins here is not sejant, because their spines are horizontal (instead of diagonal). Neither is the posture statant/passant because of the position of the hind legs. The submitter should pick one posture and depict it unambiguously. [Gevehard von Baden, LoAR 07/2004, Northshield-R]
[...a winged woman statant affronty vested of a cloak...] As drawn, this violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability, which states in part: "Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by ... being obscured by other elements of the design." The way the cloak is draped, combined with the fact that the cloak and body are the same tincture, obscures the identifiability of the body too much. Also, the maintained snake is not readily identifiable as such due to its position relative to the woman and cloak.
We suggest that, on a possible redraw, identifiability would be enhanced by: draping the cloak differently; making the cloak a different tincture than the person wearing it; and making both ends of the snake visible. Making these changes cannot guarantee registerability, for that would depend on the specific drawing submitted as well as re-checking for conflict; but they will greatly improve the resubmission's chances. [Pierre l'Escot, LoAR 10/2004, Drachenwald-R]
There appearing to have been no prior default specification for the wing position on an angel, we will follow the stated default from Parker and declare that an angel's wings are displayed by default when the angel is affronty. [Isabelle Parlebien, LoAR 08/2004, West-A]
[Argent, a merman proper crined sable...] The device is being returned for lack of documentation for the specific form of the merman. al-Jamal cites the following precedent, which is relevant in part:
While we register brown beasts proper if the animal is found naturally brown, such as a brown rabbit, or a brown hound, this is not a beast, but rather a monster, because of the wings and halo. Since monsters do not have proper coloration, they cannot be brown. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR May 1998, p. 28)
While it is true that merfolk do have a defined proper coloration, that is because their torsos must be torsos of human figures seen in heraldry. For a merman to have a brown-skinned torso, that torso must be of a recognized heraldic human figure whose skin is typically brown. As drawn, this does not match any of the known variants, nor was documentation provided for this style of human figure. [Jens Sveinsson, LoAR 07/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[(Fieldless) A mermaid purpure maintaining a scroll argent.] This violates RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement, and VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. As drawn on the full-color emblazon, the mermaid is not identifiable as such, and "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance" (RfS VII.7.a). The odd positioning of the mermaid's tail and of the maintained scroll also serve to obscure the identifiability of the mermaid and the scroll. We note that "elements may be rendered unidentifiable by [for example] being obscured by other elements of the design" (RfS VIII.3) and such is the case here. We quote Brachet:
This is a seriously non-standard position for the mermaid's tail, and this position acts to remove the identifiability of the charge. The tail should be curled so that the long part of the tail crosses under the mermaid's butt so that the whole creature is much more upright and less of a circle. Another standard depiction curls the tail under and does not cross it but leaves the end of the tail just below the waist of the mermaid (viz. #501 in the PicDic). While we have no inherent problem with the Art Deco hair on the mermaid, it adds to the problem in this case because it is confusable with an extension of the tail. This should be returned for a recognizable redraw.
In addition to the suggestions made by Brachet, we suggest using white details on the purpure mermaid (the full-color emblazon was much less identifiable than the miniature outline), and perhaps having the mermaid maintain the scroll off to the side (opposite the tail?). While we would have to see the actual emblazon of any resubmission before deciding on its identifiability, following the above suggestions would give the resubmission a better chance. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Per pale Or and azure, two lions combatant counterchanged.] This device conflicts with the Kingdom of the East, Per pale Or and azure, two tygers combattant counterchanged. By precedent, there is only significant, not substantial, difference for the change from tygers to lions:
[a lion vs. a continental panther] There is one CD, but not substantial difference, between a heraldic (as opposed to natural) panther and a lion, just as there is only one CD between a heraldic tyger and a lion per RfS X.4.e. [Jane Atwell, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]
[Andreas de Caunteton, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-R]
[...between a bull rampant contourny and a bull passant argent.] The device is clear of Gwendwyn the Silent: Azure, a bend sinister between a winged unicorn countersalient and a batwinged manticore couchant argent. There is a...second CD for changing the posture of half the secondary charge group (i.e. the critter in base) from couchant to passant. A visual inspection of Gwendwyn's armory shows her manticore to be clearly couchant, with the legs tucked securely underneath. [Gwenhwyvar filia Aelfric, LoAR 11/2004, Artemisia-R]
[Per bend azure and argent, an alphin salient counterchanged.] This device conflicts with Riocárd Ó Donnghaile: Per fess azure and argent, a tyger rampant counterchanged. There is one CD for the field. There is no CD for type of charge per precedent:
[Returning Sable, papelonny argent, an alphyn passant Or] Visual conflict with ... Vert a heraldic tiger passant Or mane and tuft of the tail argent. There is clearly a CD for the changes to the field, but the visual similarities of the primary charges, combined with the lack of a clear heraldic difference in period, is too strong to grant the necessary second CD. [12a/93, p.18]
[Þorkatla grafeld, LoAR 10/2004, An Tir-R]
The term gamelyon occurs only once in armory, as noted in Dennys' Heraldic Imagination:
This odd creature makes but one appearance in armory and was evidently conjured up in the mind of Sir William Dethick, Garter King of Arms, who granted to Thomas Gardner of South Brent in Somerset, in July 1557, the following arms: Quarterly gules and azure on a Bend cotised or between two 'Gamelyons rampant and Volant supporting in their forefoote a Ring or with a Garnett proper' or a Lion's head caboshed of the first with a buckle in his mouth silver between two Fleur de Lys sable. In the Queen's College version the beasts are depicted in trick with lion's body, legs, feet, and tail, indeterminate head with slightly turned up snout, and Dragon's wings. In two College of Arms manuscripts they are depicted like Dragons rampant, while another depicts them like Griffins segreant. Clearly Sir William Dethick had his contemporaries guessing; but as he was considered the most skilful herald of his day, and a member of the original Society of Antiquaries, it is likely that he had some reason for creating this creature.
The depictions described in Dennys are extremely variable and do not help in working out what this charge is supposed to LOOK like. The drawing does not match its text description and is redrawn from a secondary-source redrawing off the original scroll -- which supposedly is not available for perusal, or at least wasn't back then. If we follow the submitter's stated desire to use a gamelyon as the blazon term, the armory thus violates RfS VII.7.a which states: "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance" and RfS VII.7.b which states in part: "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon.... Elements that cannot be described in such a way that the depiction of the armory will remain consistent may not be used, even if they are identifiable design motifs that were used before 1600." For these reasons the gamelyon is not an acceptable charge in SCA armory. [Gamel of Mottrum, LoAr 09/2004, Caid-R]
[Or, a pegasus rampant sable within a bordure pean.] The device does not conflict with the badge of Rinaldo of Blackhaven, registered in February of 1987 (via the Middle), Or, a pegasus salient sable ridden by a man in armour guardant vert, maintaining a sword sable...the addition of the rider is enough for the second CD. [Tamsin Kitto, LoAR 11/2004, Ealdormere-A]
There is no CD for simply deleting the horn [from a horned unicorn], nor for change of the tincture of only the hooves. [Mairi Muir, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a Chinese phoenix, the forms blazoned the charge as a simurgh, the usual SCA term for this type of monster. [Helena de Argentoune, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-R]
[Per bend sable and gules, a simurgh volant bendwise Or.] This device does not conflict with Reagan of the White Dawn, Per bend sinister azure and vert, a songbird migrant bendwise maintaining in its beak a flute bendwise sinister Or, or Reagan of the White Dawn, Azure, a songbird migrant bendwise, maintaining in its beak a fusa, Or. There is a CD for the field and another for the change of type between a songbird and a simurgh, which is a monster with a long, distinctive multi-part tail. [Helena de Argentoune, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-R]
Please advise the submitter to draw the flames with fewer flames shooting out to base; a phoenix's flames should more closely resemble a nest. These were starting to look like a tail... [Eiríkr Úlfgeirsson, LoAR 12/2004, East-A]
[(Fieldless) A demi-raven displayed sable issuant from flames proper.] This item came up during a conflict check for another item on thie LoAR. It was originally registered November 1973 under the blazon (Fieldless) A raven rising out of flames proper. This blazon led commentors to believe that the raven was in the typical rising posture, with almost the entire bird visible including the legs (but perhaps not the feet). This is doubly inaccurate to the actual emblazon, which more closely matches the original proposed blazon on the form "A raven rising from flames in the manner of a phoenix" (emphasis added). Only the top half of the raven is truly visible, and its posture is displayed instead of rising.
The term "rising" has a different meaning for phoenixes than it does for ordinary birds. Of late we have even avoided the term for a phoenix if the situation seemed to call for it, since "issuant" and "emerging" carry the same meaning without carrying the ambiguity. We have reblazoned the badge to describe the emblazon in clearer and more accurate terms. [Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin, LoAR 12/2004, West-A]
[Gules, a simurgh close within a bordure Or.] The device [sic] conflicts with Süleyman Khayám: Gules, a peacock statant close Or, eyed gules, collared and tethered argent in sinister chief to a mullet within the horns of an increscent Or... There is no CD for type of primary charge:
The simurgh is not visually distinct enough from a peacock to be worth difference. Since the simurgh is not a charge found in period heraldry, difference is determined on visual grounds only under RfS X.4.e. [May 2002, Ret-Outlands, Tavia of Persia]
[Diogenia Melanesi, LoAR 11/2004, Ealdormere-R]
[Argent, a phoenix per pale azure and gules rising from flames and maintaining in its beak a feather Or.] This device conflicts with the device of Morgan Morfydd (October 1982): Pean, a phoenix displayed gules, issuant from flames, maintaining in its beak a dexter hand couped proper. The field difference is clear, but the tincture of flames proper on the pean field are primarily Or, so less than half of the tincture of the charge has been changed or only about a quarter of the whole charge. [Artemesia di Serena, LoAR 10/2004, Caid-R]
[Argent, a pithon erect contourny wings addorsed...] The odd positioning of the pithon's back wing renders the charge unidentifiable. This must be returned for a redraw: the wings must be drawn such that they do not interfere with the identifiability of the pithon's body. [Kolbjorn Skattkaupandi, LoAR 07/2004, Ealdormere-R]
[Argent semy of ermine spots bendwise sinister, a natural seahorse...] The primary charge is not readily identifiable; it is somewhere between a generic fish, a heraldic dolphin and a natural seahorse. This therefore violates RfS VII.7.a which says that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." This is in itself cause for return. [Elizabeth Anglesay, LoAR 10/2004, Drachenwald-R]
Please advise the submitter that a unicorn should have a goatee. While lacking a beard is a fatal flaw for a supposed unicorn's head that is just the head, on a full unicorn there are other identifying features as well, which are present here. [Honora Shirebrooke, LoAR 11/2004, East-A]
[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a gamelyon rampant to sinister argent.] It was suggested in commentary that, given the specific drawing of the charge, we could reblazon it as a bat-winged lion. If we treat the charge as a winged feline, however, the armory conflicts with the Barony of Windmaster's Hill (badge for the Order of the Tempest): Gules, a winged domestic cat salient to sinister and maintaining a sword palewise argent... As for type of the primary charge, the following precedent applies:
[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 [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)
As there is no CD for type of wings only between a bat-winged creature and a bird-winged creature of the same base type, there is no CD between Gamel's bat-winged cat and the registered bird-winged cat. This leavs just a single CD for the field, making it a conflict. [Gamel of Mottrum, LoAR 09/2004, Caid-R]
[Per pale sable and gules, in pale a sun Or eclipsed gules and mountains couped Or capped argent.] The depiction of mountains in this emblazon is done in a modernistic style, which nobody was able to blazon in such a way as to be reproducible therefrom. The standard SCA depiction of "a mountain of three peaks (couped)" is to draw the centermost peak taller than the others, so using such a charge may be a way to fix the style problem. [Wilhelm of Atenveldt, LoAR 09/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Per pale azure and argent, a caltrop counterchanged.] The device conflicts with Richard Longstride: Per pale azure and argent, a mullet counterchanged. There would need to be substantial difference for these to be clear (via X.2), and two extensive precedent hunts yielded up decisions giving significant, but NOT substantial, difference. So X.2 does not apply. While there is a CD between the mullet and the caltrop, that is the only CD available. [Mylisant de Impinton, LoAR 11/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[Gules, a mullet of seven points voided and interlaced within a bordure Or.] The badge conflicts with Isabella de Medici: Sable, a mullet of 8 interlocking mascles, a bordure Or. There is one CD for the field. There is no CD for type of charge. The difference between seven and eight points is not significant for mullets. Moreover, both charges are really mullets voided and interlaced, just with different styles of interlacing. The fact that this badge's interlacing has interior corners in it (rather than going straight from vertex to vertex) only serves to highlight the similarity. [Ealdormere, Kingdom of, LoAR 11/2004, Ealdormere-R]
[Per fess argent and sable, issuant from the line of division a demi-mullet of three full points azure.] We note in Raneke's Svenska Medeltidsvapen several instances of a demi-mullet of varying numbers of points. These mullets are always exactly half of a full mullet. While most of these examples feature half-points on one or both ends, the arms of Forsaätten (vol. 2, p. 831) have a demi-"mullet of six" issuant from a per fess wavy line of division sporting three full points. Raneke's nomenclature system for this category of charge is not consistent; we have chosen to blazon the actual number of points drawn (and whether they are half-points or full points) for better clarity, though a demi-mullet of three full points would not get a CD from a demi-mullet of two full points and two half-points (to cite one example). [Heðinn inn Rauði, LoAR 10/2004, East-A]
(Fieldless) A mullet of six points per bend gules and sable.] The tincture of the mullet is divided in such a way as to split the tincture of two of the points in half. Questions were raised in commentary about the propriety of doing so. This appears to be the period way of dividing such a mullet's tincture. Examples in Raneke's Sveriges Medeltidsvapen support this; the submission's emblazon appears to be directly modeled on Plate XXII (p.48) of Nyuláazi-Straub's Öt évszázad címerei (Wappen aus fünf Jahrhunderten). [István Nyiregyhazi, LoAR 10/2004, East-A]
[Sable, a bend between two mullets of eight points Or] This conflicts with Grania Buchanan: Sable, on a bend between two suns Or three triquetras inverted palewise gules. There is one CD for adding the charges on the bend, but no difference for type between a sun and a mullet of eight points. [Matthew of Marinus, LoAR 10/2004, Atlantia-R]
[comparing a mullet of six points vs. a compass star] There is ... [no CD] for type of the primary charge:
There is no type difference between the compass stars and the mullets of six points. Because of the unusual (and non-period) design of compass stars, with their four greater and four lesser points, they are considered as variants of both mullets of four points and mullets of eight points. There is no type difference between mullets of six points and mullets of eight points and, hence, no difference between mullets of six points and compass stars. [Brian Sigfridsson von Niedersachsen, 07/03, R-Atenveldt]
[Mara Sutherland, LoAR 10/2004, Meridies-R]
[a mullet of six points] The somewhat odd drawing of these mullets (they look like mullets of eight points missing two points) further contributes to the visual confusion between them and compass stars. [Mara Sutherland, LoAR 10/2004, Meridies-R]
[Per pale sable and Or, a harp and an unstrung harp reversed counterchanged.] The lack of strings on only one of the harps is a weirdness but registerable. The motif barely does not fall afoul of the "sword and dagger" rule. [Allan Blackharp, LoAR 12/2004, Caid-A]
[Azure, seven square buckles three three and one Or.] This lovely device is returned for conflict with Mebd Liath, Azure, six round buckles Or, registered November 2004. RfS X.4.f gives no difference between the numbers six and higher and there are no CDs for the field nor for the tincture or arrangement of the charges. The only possible CD might come from a distinction between square and round buckles, an issue on which we decline to rule at this time. [Edward Little, LoAR 01/2005, An Tir-R]
[Gules, a mullet of seven points voided and interlaced within a bordure Or.] The badge conflicts with Isabella de Medici: Sable, a mullet of 8 interlocking mascles, a bordure Or. There is one CD for the field. There is no CD for type of charge. The difference between seven and eight points is not significant for mullets. Moreover, both charges are really mullets voided and interlaced, just with different styles of interlacing. The fact that this badge's interlacing has interior corners in it (rather than going straight from vertex to vertex) only serves to highlight the similarity. [Ealdormere, Kingdom of, LoAR 11/2004, Ealdormere-R]
[Checky of nine sable and argent, four crows migrant sable.] [This] conflicts with a badge of Egill von Stahl: Quarterly purpure and gules, in saltire an eagle displayed contourny Or between four eagles displayed contourny sable fimbriated Or. There is a CD for the field. Egill's birds are in fact a single group of five birds in saltire. There is no CD for number between four and five, nor is there a CD for tincture for changing only one out of five charges. [Richard Crowe, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[Gules, a saltire and in chief an oak leaf fructed Or.] This is clear of Rhiannon Ansachd, Gules, a saltire cotised Or, as cited on the LoI. There are CDs for number and type of secondary charges. As period blazons give (for example) a bend between two cotises, the cotising on all sides of a multi-sided ordinary necessarily involves more than one secondary charge. [Marie of Doune, LoAR 09/2004, Atlantia-A]
The bordure was blazoned on the LoI as specifically having fifteen pellets. However, on the full size emblazon it has only 14. We have reblazoned it to just plain pelletty. [Leiff Haakonson, LoAR 09/2004, Northshield-A]
[Or, in annulo five pheons points to center sable.] This conflicts with a badge of Kezia von Holzenhaus: Or, a cross of four pheons points to center sable within a bordure gules. (This badge has been reblazoned elsewhere in this LoAR.) There is one CD for the bordure. The other CD would have to come from differences in the primary charge group, but the change in number is not significant per RfS X.4.f ("One, two, and three are significantly different from any number, four is significantly different from six or more, and five is significantly different from eight or more" -- the difference between four and five is NOT significant). [Olaf Skytja, LoAR 09/2004, Northshield-R]
[...two horses galloping...] The posture of the horses is obtrusively modern. RfS VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction, states "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable charges may not be registered.... Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures." The horses were blazoned on the Letter of Intent as "galloping" but the leg position is not blazonable; this depiction is based on 19th century observations via photographs. Using a more identifiable passant or courant posture would solve this problem. [Ivegard Sask, LoAR 12/2004, Middle-R]
[Per pale embattled argent and azure, in the dexter side a sprig of European ash pendant, leaved of two leaves, vert and in sinister chief a mullet of four points argent.] The device is being returned for non-period style. The applicable rules here are RfS VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction: "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable charges may not be registered" and RfS VIII.4.d, Modern Style: "Generally modern style in the depiction of individual elements or the total design may not be registered." The overlapping of the ash leaves, the use of the ployé mullet of four points, the lack of a central focus (with two different charge types on either side of a field division) and the lack of symmetry (with the charges on either side of a field division not in a line orthogonal to the line of division) all contribute to the general modernistic feel. [Victoria of Lynwood, LoAR 12/2004, West-R]
[Quarterly gules and sable, in pale a jawless skull and a pair of cutlasses in saltire argent.] This violates RfS VIII.4, Obtrusive Modernity, and specifically VIII.4.b, Modern Insignia. VIII.4.b states "Overt allusions to modern insignia, trademarks, or common designs may not be registered." VIII.4 states that "'modern' is defined as anything outside the period of the Society." It was the overwhelming opinion of the College that this motif is too reminiscent of pirate designs featuring a skull above crossed items (typically bones or cutlasses) that go back only to the early 18th century. In particular (as noted by Palmer), John "Calico Jack" Rackham (hanged for a pirate in 1720) was reported to fly Sable, in pale a skull and a pair of cutlasses in saltire argent. Laurel precedent has held that "A name that, by its very presence, destroys any medieval ambience is not a name we should register." (Porsche Audi, August 1992, p.28) The same applies to armory, and designs such as this almost inevitably generate thoughts of post-period pirates, which likewise "destroy any medieval ambience". (We do not dispute the presence in period of those who practiced piracy or something closely akin to it. That is not the point.) [Alastair Corran, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
[(Fieldless) A hand apaumy argent charged with the letters 'He' gules.] This violates RfS VIII.4, Obtrusive Modernity, and in specific VIII.4.b, Modern Insignia: "Overt allusions to modern insignia, trademarks, or common designs may not be registered." RfS VIII.4 states that "'modern' is defined as anything outside the period of the Society." While the use of letters and words is found in period armory, most if not all of the period examples we have found use the same case of letter for all the letters on a given design. The use of an uppercase 'H' with a lowercase 'e' is therefore jarring, and causes anyone familiar with modern chemical symbols to think of the element helium, whose symbol is indeed "He". Helium was discovered and named in the 19th century, well out of the period of the Society. [Robin Gallowglass, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]
[a bear's pawprint Or charged on the pad with a cat's pawprint gules.] This device has two problems, each of which is cause for return...In addition, the device also uses two types of pawprints, a practice that has been ruled unacceptable: "The badge has the problem of using two different types of the same charge (pawprints) which has been disallowed for some time" [LoAR 12/90, p. 17]. [Gwentliana filia Iohannes, LoAR 01/2005, Outlands-R]
[...a bend sinister gules fimbriated between a natural dolphin contourny and a bear's pawprint Or..] This device has two problems, each of which is cause for return...Past precedent has ruled that pawprints are a step from period practice and that "natural dolphins, Bengal tigers, and garden roses are all still discouraged charges as they were not found in heraldry and have period counterparts" (Cover Letter, November 1999). As a result, this device must be considered two steps from period practice and returned. [Gwentliana filia Iohannes, LoAR 01/2005, Outlands-R]
Vert, on a bend bevilled Or between a cloud argent and a dog sejant erect contourny Or four dog's pawprints sable.] The device is being returned for non-period style. It has multiple weirdnesses or rarities: a charged bend bevilled, a bend bevilled (charged or not) between secondary charges, a complexity count of eight, and the use of pawprints. This is explained in the following precedents:
[Returning Per chevron enhanced argent and sable, two pawprints and a wolf's head cabossed counterchanged for two weirdnesses] The paw prints are one weirdness... [Jul 1996, Ret-Atenveldt, Morgan Blaidd Du]
While none of these problems would, by itself, make the device returnable, the combination is not registerable. [Rebekah Anna Leah Wynterbourne, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Argent chaussé, a bear statant gules.] The device conflicts with Seén Ó Súilleabháin Beirre: Gules, on a pile argent a turtle purpure. Birna's device needs to be checked for conflict as if it were Gules, on a pile argent a bear statant gules per the following precedent among other examples:
[re: Argent, chausse, a yale rampant and in chief a laurel wreath vert] Conflict with Nicholos of the Hill Folk, Vert, on a pile argent, a dragon rampant gules. As we do not give difference between a pile and chausse, there is only one CD for the changes to the tertiary charges." (LoAR April 2000).
Considering Birna's device under this interpretation, and comparing it to Seán's device, there is only one CD for cumulative changes to the group of charges on the pile. [Birna rauð, LoAR 12/2004, East-R]
[Per pale gules and azure chaussé, a bunch of grapes argent.] The device conflicts with Thomas Lyon of Braemar: Per bend sinister vert and sable, a bunch of grapes argent. The only CD is for the field. Piles do not issue from the top corners of the shield. As such, we have reblazoned it as a chaussé field division, the only possible way to blazon it while satisfying our style requirements. This, however, makes the bunch of grapes the primary charge, bringing it into conflict with Thomas. [Huguete de Saint Germain, LoAR 07/2004, Lochac-R]
[Azure, on a lozenge argent a sprig of alder vert, a bordure argent.] This device does not conflict with Anne Elizabeth Ross, Azure, on a lozenge argent, a thistle proper, a chief embattled argent. There is a CD for changing the chief to a bordure and another for a substantial change of type from a thistle to a sprig of alder under RfS X.4.j.ii. Past precedent says, "There is also a substantial difference between a shamrock and a thistle" [Magdalena Bischoptre, 10/99, A-Calontir]. The difference between a thistle and a shamrock is comparable to that between a thistle and a sprig of three leaves such as the one on this device. [Constantina Tagarina, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-A]
[Per chevron Or and purpure...] The putative field division is the lower quarter of a per saltire division, which has long been cause for return. If the submitter wishes for an honest per chevron division, the apex needs to be considerably higher. If the submitter wishes a point pointed, it needs to be considerably smaller and lower. [Aleksei Nikolai Rusianov, LoAR 12/2004, Calontir-R]
[Per chevron purpure and sable...] There was considerable confusion as to whether the miniature emblazon on the Letter of Intent was a per chevron line of division or a point pointed. It should be noted that the LoI's miniature does not match the miniature on the form itself. While the mini-emblazon on the LoI did not accurately represent the submission, the College thought to take the time to consider both possibilities, so it does not need to be pended for further consideration. However, submissions heralds should take care that the minatures match the forms, as the College's ability to anticipate different depictions cannot be relied upon. [Willewyn of Three Rivers, LoAR 08/2004, Calontir-A]
[Per chevron abased vert and argent...] The line of division is much too low to be per chevron, and too high to be a point pointed. We note that this line of division does not match the one on his currently registered device, and as such the Grandfather Clause does not apply. [Stephen Aldred, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-R]
[...on a point pointed fleury gules a vol argent.] This is being returned for a redraw. The point pointed is too large, issuing from too high up the sides of the shield. Note that of the various devices with which the submitter has permission to conflict, the two for which we could get emblazons have points that are significantly smaller. [Tristan de Gilbert, LoAR 08/2004, Outlands-R]
[...on a point pointed argent a brown mouse couchant proper.] Please instruct the submitter to draw the point pointed smaller. This was barely small enough not to be confused with the bottom quarter of a per saltire field division (which is not registerable as either a charge or as a field division). [Julian ferch Luned, LoAR 07/2004, Drachenwald-A]
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges
[(Fieldless) A wolf courant to sinister argent.] There is also a conflict with with Lynn of Dragonsmark, Quarterly vert and gules, a wolf passant contourny ululant argent. There is again the CD for fieldlessness, but there is no CD for the head position and per precedent, "[T]here is no posture difference between courant and passant" [Charlotte Cartier, 02/02, R-Ansteorra]. [Gabriel Ximenez de Malaga, LoAR 01/2005, Northshield-R]
...but [no CD] for the difference between statant and passant guardant...[Birna rauð, LoAR 12/2004, East-R]
[a martlet "volant wings displayed"] The position of the bird does not appear to be blazonable. RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement, states "Any element used in Society armory must be describable in standard heraldic terms so that a competent heraldic artist can reproduce the armory solely from the blazon. Elements that cannot be described in such a way that the depiction of the armory will remain consistent may not be used." [Kate Wrenn, LoAR 12/2004, East-R]
[...two horses galloping...] The posture of the horses is obtrusively modern. RfS VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction, states "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable charges may not be registered.... Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures." The horses were blazoned on the Letter of Intent as "galloping" but the leg position is not blazonable; this depiction is based on 19th century observations via photographs. Using a more identifiable passant or courant posture would solve this problem. [Ivegard Sask, LoAR 12/2004, Middle-R]
[Vert, three chevronels braced and in chief a heron volant contourny wings addorsed argent.] The device conflicts with Conan de Kirketun of Wyvernsreach: Vert, three chevronels braced and in chief a wyvern statant to sinister argent...a visual comparison of the emblazons shows that their postures are too similar to allow a second CD. [Michaleto Cappelli, LoAR 12/2004, Middle-R]
[...between a bull rampant contourny and a bull passant argent.] The device is clear of Gwendwyn the Silent: Azure, a bend sinister between a winged unicorn countersalient and a batwinged manticore couchant argent. There is a...second CD for changing the posture of half the secondary charge group (i.e. the critter in base) from couchant to passant. A visual inspection of Gwendwyn's armory shows her manticore to be clearly couchant, with the legs tucked securely underneath. [Gwenhwyvar filia Aelfric, LoAR 11/2004, Artemisia-R]
[a pegasus rampant wings inverted vs. a winged unicorn rampant wings displayed] There is one CD for the significant change of the wing position, plus the CD for the field. [Mairi Muir, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
...there is no CD for type or posture between Egill's eagles displayed and Richard's crows migrant as they are drawn. [Richard Crowe, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[Sable, a dragon's head cabossed argent.] This device conflicts with a badge of Vargskol Halfblood: Sable, a lizard's skull fesswise argent (as reblazoned elsewhere on this LoAR). There is one CD for changing the posture of the primary charge...[Creature Twyne Dragon, LoAR 10/2004, Æthelmearc-R]
[Per fess vert and sable, on a plate an eagle rising, wings elevated and displayed, sable.]...This is also clear of Anne of the Golden Mantle: Vert, on a plate a swan naiant, couped on the fess line, sable. Again there is one CD for the field; to get the second CD one can apply either RfS X.4.j.i for changes to type and posture of the tertiary charge, or RfS X.4.j.ii for substantial change in type of the tertiary charge (per the November 2003 Cover Letter discussion on birds). [Anders Knudsen, LoAR 10/2004, Atlantia-A]
[(Fieldless) Three frogs sejant affronty conjoined in pall inverted vert.] The combination of the unusual posture and unusual arrangement of the frogs renders the design unidentifiable. [Ravenild Frogenhall, LoAR 10/2004, East-R]
The wolves on the emblazon are an exact match for those in the following return:
The wolves are not clearly postured. They are in some posture between salient, courant and passant. Salient is a heraldically distinct posture from courant and passant. This submission must therefore be returned for violating RfS VII.7.b, which states, "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon." [Nov 2003, Ret-Meridies, Rúnólfr orðlokarr Úlfsson]
This submission likewise violates RfS VII.7.b and thus is returned for that reason. [Ulvar MacVanis, LoAR 10/2004, Lochac-R]
For alligators and crocodiles there is not a significant difference between the statant/passant and couchant/dormant postures. [Georg von Staufenberg, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A]
[Counter-ermine, a lion rampant to sinister Or, maintaining a sword argent in its dexter paw.] The device conflicts with Esteban de Asturias: Barry of twelve per pale azure and argent, a leopard salient to sinister coward Or. There is one CD for the field, but nothing for the maintained sword, and the type and posture of the primary charges are the same. [Ascelina de Tanet, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
[Purpure, a butterfly bendwise sinister argent.] The device conflicts with Taira Shirou Kaoresato: Purpure, three moths in pall, heads to center, wings conjoined argent. There is one CD for adding the other two insects, but nothing for type between moth and butterfly, nor for arrangement between a group of one and a group of more than one. Since we do not give difference for a 180-degree rotation of a moth/butterfly, one of Taira's moths is in the same position as this butterfly; therefore there is not an independent difference for orientation in this case. [Savine de Cressy, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]
The posture of the griffins here is not sejant, because their spines are horizontal (instead of diagonal). Neither is the posture statant/passant because of the position of the hind legs. The submitter should pick one posture and depict it unambiguously. [Gevehard von Baden, LoAR 07/2004, Northshield-R]
The submitter requested that the ravens be blazoned passant. However, that is a variant of close, while these birds are quite clearly rising (which is a CD away). [Mathghamhain MacCionaoith, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[...a stag statant head elevated argent.] This position of the head has been disallowed for any beasts except canines. 'While we allow wolves and foxes to be ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for return' (LoAR December 2000, quoted on LoAR February 2002, p. 2) [Chiere wreic Maredudd, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges
[...on a fess wavy argent, a feather reversed sable.] Long skinny charges, when placed on stripes (such as fesses, chiefs and bends) change their orientation to follow the stripe without need to be blazoned as such. However, the part that would normally be to chief should rotate to be to dexter, so this feather is reversed. [Caitríona inghean ui Chionaodha, LoAR 09/2004, West-A]
[Vert, in fess an arrow between a drinking horn and a drinking horn reversed argent, a bordure Or semy of pheons sable.] In reblazoning this submission, we have decided to follow Metron Ariston's suggestion, and the orientation impled therein is hereby made explicit: the default orientation for a drinking horn is embowed to dexter (as well as bell to chief), as depicted in the Pictorial Dictionary (2d edition) #388. [Eneas Mac Concarrigy, LoAR 07/2004, Artemisia-A]
[Argent, a Lacy knot gules between three oak leaves vert.] This is clear of Ragnar Thorbjörn: Argent, an annulet fretted with a bowen knot gules. There is one CD for adding the leaves. There is not a CD for type between a Lacy knot and the combination of an annulet fretted with a Bowen knot, but in this case there is a clear CD for orientation, as the default Bowen knot has its loops set saltirewise and a default Lacy knot has its outermost loops set crosswise. [Úna inghean Shéamuis, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-A]
[...in chief a coronet argent.] As drawn, the coronet in chief appears to have groups of three leaves emerging at regular intervals. This is insufficiently distinct from a standard ducal coronet to be registerable to anyone not of ducal rank. No evidence was presented that the submitter holds such a rank in the Society, so per RfS XI.1 (Reserved Charges) this is a cause for returned: "Symbols reserved or required solely inside the Society may only be registered to those entitled to the status associated with those symbols." [Fionnghuala inghen ui Chonchobhair, LoAR 08/2004, Drachenwald-R]
[Device for the Tanist] There are two independent causes for return of this armory.
This device violates RfS XI.1, Reserved Charges: "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." Longstanding precedent forbids the use of these items in armory for heirs: "I returned the original arms of the Crown Prince (Calontir differenced by a label) with a certain amount of regret. If there were to be any exception to the rule that a laurel wreath may be used only in the arms of an SCA branch, that would be it." [Baldwin of Erebor, 10 Mar 85, p.4] That same precedent went on to state: "I do not, however, consider it inappropriate for a Crown Prince to bear the arms of the King differenced by a label. This seems to me a valid form of display of the royal arms, and it appears to be consistent with our existing policies." As the heir to a throne is not necessarily a royal peer, the heir's armory may not use the coronet either. [Middle, Kingdom of the, LoAR 08/2004, Middle-R]
[Device (for the Prince)] Concern was raised in commentary about the eligibility of this submission for consideration despite the recent change in policy disallowing the registration of devices for consorts and heirs effective December 2003. Trimaris had a submission for the Prince returned in that same LoAR; Laurel specifically stated that Trimaris would be allowed to resubmit a device for the Prince because the original submission was initiated prior to the deadline. Had the original submission been registered, they would have been allowed to make changes to it later despite the ban; this appears to be why the Grandfather Clause was mentioned, but it isn't completely applicable in this case. Nevertheless, this submission is eligible for consideration. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-A]
[Quarterly argent and checky vert and argent, in bend two ravens rising to sinister sable.] The device violates RfS XI.3. The following precedent directly applies:
The motif Quarterly X and Y in bend two [charges] is allowable when the uncharged quarters are plain tinctures: we don't protect plain tinctures. But when the uncharged quarters are complex fields, we lose that rationale; and the complexity then begins to make it look like an independent coat. This, beneath all the subtext, is exactly what XI.3.b. is meant to prevent. [Aric Thomas Percy Raven, Oct 1992]
This armory definitely has the appearance of marshalling as shown above. [Robert of Ravenshill, LoAR 07/2004, West-R]
[(fieldless) On a billet fesswise Or three martlets azure.] According to current precedent, while charges that are also shapes of armorial display may be registered as fieldless badges when uncharged under certain other conditions, these same charges cannot be registered as fieldless badges when charged, since when charged they too closely resemble an independent display of armory. (This particular submission is effectively a display of "Or, [in fess] three martlets azure.") A billet fesswise is a shape of armorial display, and as such cannot be registered as a fieldless badge by itself when it is charged, as is the case here. [Nyilas Tiborch, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
While blazoned on the Letter of Intent as proper, the thistle isn't quite. The bulbous part (just below the brushy "hair") of the head of a thistle proper should be green. [Finnéadan ingen Ruadhan, LoAR 12/2004, Trimaris-R]
Blazoned on the LoI as proper, the trillium flower as drawn is mostly white with little purple flecks, green sepals, and a yellow center. Given that trillium flowers appear in nature as purple, red, pink, and white, there is no reasonable "default" tincture for a trillium. Henceforth, the tincture of a trilliums must be blazoned explicitly. We have reblazoned this trillium flower according to its emblazon. [Jerusha Kilgour, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-A]
[Argent, a fleece sable banded and ringed gules within and pendant from a chaplet of thorns sable.] This violates RfS IX.2 as the combination of the crown of thorns and the fleece was looked upon as excessive religious symbolism by too many commentors and people present at the meeting. [Anne of Blackthorne, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
For alligators and crocodiles there is not a significant difference between the statant/passant and couchant/dormant postures. [Georg von Staufenberg, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A]
[Vert, a goblet between two bunches of grapes Or.] This device conflicts with Graffico de Drell, Vert, entwined about a chalice Or, a serpent head to sinister sable. Precedent indicates, regarding a similar conflict, "[Graffico's] serpent is not significant, therefore there is only one CD for the addition of the secondary charges" [Beatrice Domenici della Campana, 12/00, R-An Tir]. [Sabine Lefevre d'Armagnac, LoAR 01/2005, Ansteorra-R]
[...three snakes involved interlaced two and one...] This is being returned for a redraw; the snakes need to be drawn as truly involved, with heads and tails conjoined. [Damiano Faust, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-R]
[Per bend sinister gules and sable, an annulet Or.] The badge conflicts with Vladimir Vitalievich Volkov: Per pale argent ermined purpure and purpure, an annulet Or. It also conflicts with Alexander le Browere: Per pale sable and vert, a serpent involved in annulo Or. In each case there is one CD for changing the field, but nothing for the difference between a serpent involved and an annulet:
[Returning Per pale sable and vert, a serpent involved in annulo Or] The device conflicts with Vladimir Vitalieich Volkov, Per pale argent ermined purpure and purpure an annulet Or. There is one CD for the field but nothing for involved serpent vs. annulet. [Jul 1999, Ret-Atenveldt, Alexander le Browere]
[Samuel Tosh McTier, LoAR 07/2004, Ealdormere-R]
RESERVED and RESTRICTED CHARGES
The submitter is a duchess and entitled to the ducal coronet. [Corisande de Burgh, LoAR 11/2004, Artemisia-A]
[Argent, a fox's mask azure within a belt sable.] The combination of a charge within a belt or strap is listed in the Glossary of Terms under "Restricted Charges" in accordance with the following precedent:
[Returning 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. [Dec 2000, Ret-Meridies, Pol MacNeill]
RfS XI.1 states: "Armory that contains elements reserved to or required of certain ranks, positions, or territorial entities, inside or outside the Society, is considered presumptuous." This is such a use, and must therefore be returned for violation of that rule. [Malcolm McGregor the Bold, LoAR 09/2004, Atenveldt-R]
While the ancient crown bears a distinct resemblance to a ducal coronet, the submitter is in fact a Duke, having completed his second term as King of the East in October 1994. [Lucan von Drachenklaue, LoAR 09/2004, East-A]
[...in chief a coronet argent.] As drawn, the coronet in chief appears to have groups of three leaves emerging at regular intervals. This is insufficiently distinct from a standard ducal coronet to be registerable to anyone not of ducal rank. No evidence was presented that the submitter holds such a rank in the Society, so per RfS XI.1 (Reserved Charges) this is a cause for returned: "Symbols reserved or required solely inside the Society may only be registered to those entitled to the status associated with those symbols." [Fionnghuala inghen ui Chonchobhair, LoAR 08/2004, Drachenwald-R]
[Argent, on a pale between two swords inverted sable a sword inverted proper issuant from a tree stump Or.] This conflicts with Gregor Dow McGregor: Argent, on a pale between two roses slipped and leaved sable a rapier argent...The second CD must come from changes to the tertiary charges. RfS X.4.j.ii does not apply because the type of all the tertiary charges has not been substantially changed. Using X.4.j.i, there is a significant difference in number (between one and two charges) but nothing for the tincture or orientation of only one of the two charges, and X.4.j.i states that "Generally such changes must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually significant". The following precedent applies:
[Returning an appeal of Azure, a bend argent cotised between a lion rampant and a castle Or] The SCA has always had difficulty dealing with the situation when both the number and the type of a single charge group change. For a classic example, consider the hypothetical arms Azure, a lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant versus Azure, a unicorn argent. In both cases, you have a blue field with a white rampant unicorn. In the first, the unicorn is also accompanied by a gold lion rampant to sinister. The traditional SCA view is to give only one CD for removing the lion so that the two arms are in conflict. However, occasionally, someone tries to argue from a different perspective, namely, that we should give one CD for changing the number of the group (from two to one charge), another CD for changing the type of the group (from half unicorn, half lion to all unicorn), a third CD for changing the tincture of the group (from half Or, half argent, to all argent), and a fourth for changing the posture of the group (from half facing dexter and half facing sinister, to all facing dexter). This, of course, would make the arms well clear of conflict. This interpretation has been disallowed fairly consistently in precedent, although the issue continues to be raised occasionally. The most recent time this issue was addressed was in the LoAR of October 2003, which stated:
Jan van Antwerpen. Device. Quarterly argent and azure, two lymphads sails unfurled azure. Conflict with Lee Sharpeyes, Quarterly argent and azure, four dhows reversed counterchanged. As noted in the LoAR of July 2001, "There is ... nothing for the change in the type of ship, [or] for reversing a ship." There is one CD for removing the two argent ships, but no other difference may be obtained from this change. One cannot argue, as was done on the Letter of Intent, that "there is a CD for the number of charges, and a CD for changing color of half the primary charges." That is equivalent to saying that there is a CD for removing two of the charges, and another CD for the changing the tincture of the charges that have just been removed. The rules have been interpreted consistently for years, and the following discussion from the LoAR of July 1992 still applies:
One cannot get a CD for adding charges, then another CD for changing the charges just added. This has been an underlying principle of the last three sets of Rules: see the LoAR of 25 Aug 85, p.14, for a full discussion. The difference obtained for adding, say, a bordure engrailed ermine, is exactly the same as for adding a bordure Or. (One does not get a CD for adding the bordure, then a CD for changing its tincture, then another CD for making it engrailed.....)
In the 1985 LoAR cited in this return, Laurel noted:
We have held previously that the addition of a modified charge (such as a roundel engrailed ermine) contributes no more difference than adding an unmodified charge (e.g. a roundel gules). This gets us away from absurdities such as the following: to "Azure, a fleurdelys [sic] Or" we add two bars Or and a bordure argent. We engrail the bordure, change the bars from Or to argent, and then delete the bordure. Depending on how creative you are at counting, you could get anywhere from two to five points for the addition of a pair of silver stripes. Not bad for a couple of minutes' work ...
In addition, it should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the change from "considered" to "registered". The February 2003 ruling on Siridean's device applied type first (no type difference) and then number (removing four lions). If we were going from "considered" to "registered", we could arguably give a CD for changing from a lion and a castle to two lions (half the group has changed, and is entitled to a CD) and then give a CD for adding four lions, giving two CDs. But this is not the situation under consideration in this appeal.
In Siridean's case, the submitter is changing one of the lions into a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e.
After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply the change to the number by removing all but one of the lions and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions, leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.
After applying the change of type and then the change in number, the submitted armory has but a single CD from Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent cotised between six lions rampant Or. The device appeal is denied. [Dec 2003, Ret-Calontir, Siridean MacLachlan]
In this case, we start from Gregor's registered armory. We apply the changes in such a manner as to give that the greatest protection. First, we add the tree stump, which is a significant change in number, but not for tincture because we did not change the tincture of the entire tertiary group (and the tincture change was also dependent on adding the second charge). Then we invert the sword (and embed its tip in the tree stump), which is a change of orientation, but is not a significant difference because we have not changed the orientation of the entire tertiary charge group. Thus there is not a CD for changes to the charges on the pale, and the potential conflict (as cited in the Letter of Intent) stands. [Cedric fils de Guillaume, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-R]
[...on a sun argent a falcon its dexter wing disclosed sable...] This conflicts with Conroy der Rote: Gules, on a sun argent, a falcon's leg couped a-la-quise proper...As suns are not suitable charges for the purpose of RfS X.4.j.ii, a second CD must come via X.4.j.i for two or more changes to the tertiary charge group. A visual inspection of Conroy's device shows the leg to be effectively per fess sable and gules, so the difference between the tertiary charges is type of all and tincture of half. This is not sufficient for a CD. [Fionnghuala inghen ui Chonchobhair, LoAR 08/2004, Drachenwald-R]
[...on a cross formy quadrate Or a bear's head cabossed gules.] This is clear of Ottokar von dem Schwarzwald: Azure, on a cross formy Or a chalice gules... A properly drawn cross formy nowy quadrate qualifies for RfS X.4.j.ii, as it meets both parts of the test for "suitable" charge under that rule. Therefore there is also a CD for type only of the tertiary charges. [Arnbiørn Bassi Dansson, LoAR 07/2004, Atlantia-A]
Many questions were raised in commentary about the identity of the strewn objects, originally (somewhat redundantly) blazoned on the Letter of Intent as triskeles arrondi within and conjoined to annulets. As drawn the charges were not identifiable as such. Indeed, it is unlikely that any drawing of these objects at the size of strewn charges could render them identifiable as what the LoI's blazon claimed they were. The question was raised whether compound charges were even registerable as strewn objects, as there seems to be no evidence of this pratice in period. [Ed.: The charges were reblazoned as three-spoked wheels.] [Ailill mac Ferchair Uí Diarmata, LoAR 12/2004, East-A]
[Or, a camel and on a chief gules three cowrie shells argent.] The "cowrie shells" on the chief were indistinguishable from many other possible charge types. The basic motif of an oval with internal detailing down the center does not appear to be something inherently "recognizable solely from their appearance," and is thus not registerable per RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement. [Amina al-Dyula an-Nisa al-Songhayya, LoAR 12/2004, East-R]
[Azure, in fess three pallets wavy argent and a castle within a laurel wreath Or.] The device is being returned for a redraw. The emblazon does not depict a tierce [wavy] paly wavy azure and argent, as claimed by the blazon on the Letter of Intent. As three pallets wavy, it is difficult to tell what the primary charge(s) are; if we consider them all as co-primary (as suggested by the reblazon), this violates the "Slot-Machine" rule. If the branch wishes for a tierce wavy paly wavy, the (equal-width) stripes need to continue all the way to the dexter edge of the shield. [Marcaster, Shire of, LoAR 12/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Per chevron argent and gules, a chevron sable between two torteaux between three ermine spots sable and a elephant's head cabossed Or.] There are not enough ermine spots on the field to consider this as having the tincture ermine. As a result, there are three types of secondary charge in a single group on the field (ermine spots, roundels, elephant head), in violation of RfS VIII.1.a: "[T]hree or more types of charges should not be used in the same group." [Matthias de Kent, LoAR 09/2004, East-R]
[Per bend sinister vert and azure, a bend sinister cotised between a dragonfly and a natural dolphin naiant argent.] Precedent has long held that cotises are a separate charge group from other secondaries; therefore this does not violate the "slot-machine" ban. [Ragnhildr Sigtryggsdottir, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A]
[Per pale azure and argent chapé ployé, two lymphads and a laurel wreath counterchanged, and for augmentation in chief on an escutcheon azure, four crescents argent conjoined in saltire points outward, within a bordure Or.] The augmentation is too small to be identifiable at any distance farther than two feet: the "field" looks sable and the crescents were blurred beyond recognition. Unfortunately, simply returning it for a redraw is not sufficient. Making the escutcheon larger would make it effectively a co-primary charge with the lymphads and laurel wreath, violating RfS VIII.1.a: "[T]hree or more types of charges should not be used in the same group" (the "slot machine" rule). While the addition of augmentations can be allowed to break rules in some cases, the violations we allow are grounded in period examples. Barring examples of period augmentations that result in three types of charges in the same group, this sort of augmentation cannot violate RfS VIII.1.a. We note as one possible suggestion that making the escutcheon an azure canton would eliminate the style problem. [Ildhafn, Barony of, LoAR 07/2004, Lochac-R]
STEP FROM PERIOD PRACTICE (SFPP)
[...a bend sinister gules fimbriated between a natural dolphin contourny and a bear's pawprint Or..] This device has two problems, each of which is cause for return...Past precedent has ruled that pawprints are a step from period practice and that "natural dolphins, Bengal tigers, and garden roses are all still discouraged charges as they were not found in heraldry and have period counterparts" (Cover Letter, November 1999). As a result, this device must be considered two steps from period practice and returned. [Gwentliana filia Iohannes, LoAR 01/2005, Outlands-R]
[Per pale sable and Or, a harp and an unstrung harp reversed counterchanged.] The lack of strings on only one of the harps is a weirdness but registerable. The motif barely does not fall afoul of the "sword and dagger" rule. [Allan Blackharp, LoAR 12/2004, Caid-A]
The use of a bird's toe is a single step from period practice. [Thescorre, Barony of, LoAR 10/2004, Æthelmearc-A]
[Argent semy of ermine spots bendwise sinister...] The field also has issues. To quote Black Stag: "[T]he ermine spots on the ermine field should be palewise, not bendwise. There are many ermine fields in Maister Iago's extensive handout from his An Tir Kingdom Heraldic Symposium 2002 class, 'May the Furs be With You.' Without exception, the ermine fields in the handout show the ermine spots palewise." While the diagonal orientation is not in itself cause for return, it is a definite step from period style. [Elizabeth Anglesay, LoAR 10/2004, Drachenwald-R]
Blazoned on the LoI as a natural antelope's head... within two antelope's horns conjoined at base, natural antelopes vary widely with respect to their horns. These were, however, identified at the meeting as being of a specific type of antelope, so we have reblazoned the head and horns as those of an impala. An online search yielded good pictures with head and horns clearly matching the style on the emblazon, and a range map showing that impalas inhabit coastal areas of modern South Africa and Mozambique. Therefore, impalas (and body parts thereof) are registerable with a "weirdness." [Eadweard Boise the Wright, LoAR 09/2004, Calontir-A]
[...flaunches purpure each charged with a triquetra fesswise one point outward Or.] While "[t]he difficulty in blazoning the triquetras suggests that this is not standard period style" (to quote the previous return of this submitter's similar design from November 2003), the odd orientation of the triquetras is blazonable and is only one step from period practice. [Liadan Chu, LoAR 09/2004, Ealdormere-A]
[Gules, between a chevron and a chevron inverted two double-bitted axes in chevron argent.] The combination of a chevron with a chevron inverted in the same armory is a distinct step from period practice, but is only one "weirdness." [John Logan, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A]
[Per chevron enhanced purpure and vert...] The use of the per chevron enhanced field division is a step from period practice but appears to be the only one. [Nadirah al-Duriyyah, LoAR 09/2004, Meridies-A]
Vert, on a bend bevilled Or between a cloud argent and a dog sejant erect contourny Or four dog's pawprints sable.] The device is being returned for non-period style. It has multiple weirdnesses or rarities: a charged bend bevilled, a bend bevilled (charged or not) between secondary charges, a complexity count of eight, and the use of pawprints. This is explained in the following precedents:
[Returning Gyronny of sixteen gules and argent, a windmill sable, a bordure vert bezanty] This device has multiple weirdnesses or rarities: a gyronny of sixteen with a central charge, a complexity count of eight, and identifiability problems with the primary charge. While none of these problems (with the possible exception of identifiability) would, by themselves, make the device returnable, the combination is fatal. [Jun 2000, Ret-Atlantia, Cadwan Galwiddoe of Redmarch]
[Returning Per chevron enhanced argent and sable, two pawprints and a wolf's head cabossed counterchanged for two weirdnesses] The paw prints are one weirdness... [Jul 1996, Ret-Atenveldt, Morgan Blaidd Du]
Even the documented per bend bevilled cannot, by Laurel precedent, be used with dissimilar charges. Legh, Accidences of Armory (1586), asserts that the field should not be charged at all. We have, as one step beyond period practice, allowed the field to be used with a single type of simple charge. The submitted device, however, would be at least two steps beyond period practice. [Béla Kós, 02/01, R-Outlands]
While none of these problems would, by itself, make the device returnable, the combination is not registerable. [Rebekah Anna Leah Wynterbourne, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[Sable, on a saltire nowy quadrate Or cotised argent, a harp sable.] The cotising of a saltire nowy or saltire nowy quadrate is a step from period practice, but as that is the only "weirdness" present, this can be registered. [Diele de Irlande, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[Azure, three wolf's teeth issuant from base...] This position of the wolf's teeth (issuant from base) is a step from period practice but is only a single "weirdness." [Dexter of Dragon's Aerie, LoAR 06/2004, East-A]
[...a stag statant head elevated argent.] This position of the head has been disallowed for any beasts except canines. 'While we allow wolves and foxes to be ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for return' (LoAR December 2000, quoted on LoAR February 2002, p. 2) [Chiere wreic Maredudd, LoAR 06/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Gules, five arrows in arch and a mount Or.] This device must be returned for using an arch of charges, a practice long forbidden in SCA heraldry. Precedent says:
It has been ruled that an arch of charges is not period heraldic style. The ruling was originally for an arch of stars : "Stars surrounding only part of a charge is fantasy art." [BoE, 28 Sept 84] It has since been extended to any charges "in arch" (Michaela de Romeny, October, 1992, pg. 30).
[Timothy of Shaftesbury, LoAR 01/2005, Atlantia-R]
[Sable, a bend gules fimbriated between a sun and three wolves' teeth issuant from dexter base Or.] In addition, there is a serious style problem with the use of wolves' teeth in this design. As recent precedent indicates, "The examples of wolf's teeth in the Pictorial Dictionary and in Siebmacher show that the teeth invariably extend almost to the center line; where teeth come from both sides they almost touch. Those on this submission do not come close. This is in itself grounds for return" [Dubhagán mac Ruairc, 5/04, R-Meridies]. Because of the nature of this charge, it is unsuitable for use in a design that prevents the wolves' teeth from being drawn correctly. [Iohannes Kynith, LoAR 01/2005, Outlands-R]
[Argent, two needles in saltire enfiling an annulet vert and three bendlets abased vert.] As drawn, the combination of bendlets abased and the needle-and-annulet combination is not period style. The emblazon gives rise to considerable confusion as to what is the primary charge. If the submitter wishes to depict Argent, three bendlets abased, in chief two needles in saltire enfiling an annulet vert, then the needle-and-annulet combination should be drawn smaller and more to chief. [Ana de Granada, LoAR 12/2004, Calontir-R]
[Per pale sable and gules, in pale a sun Or eclipsed gules and mountains couped Or capped argent.] The depiction of mountains in this emblazon is done in a modernistic style, which nobody was able to blazon in such a way as to be reproducible therefrom. The standard SCA depiction of "a mountain of three peaks (couped)" is to draw the centermost peak taller than the others, so using such a charge may be a way to fix the style problem. [Wilhelm of Atenveldt, LoAR 09/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[...flaunches purpure each charged with a triquetra fesswise one point outward Or.] While "[t]he difficulty in blazoning the triquetras suggests that this is not standard period style" (to quote the previous return of this submitter's similar design from November 2003), the odd orientation of the triquetras is blazonable and is only one step from period practice. [Liadan Chu, LoAR 09/2004, Ealdormere-A]
The group has only addressed one of the style issues raised in the previous return in November 2002, which read in part: "Please advise the submitters, on resubmission, to draw the laurel wreath so that it is round and has only a small gap, or no gap at all, between the tips of the branches." This laurel wreath is identical to that found on the previously returned emblazon; it needs to be redrawn according to the guidelines set forth in the previous return. [Nimenefeld, Canton of, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-R]
Checky Or and gules, on a fess purpure four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns Or.] As for the device, there are two independent causes for return here...Second, the tertiary charges present a combination of identifiability problems and non-period style. As drawn, there is confusion about whether the four fleurs-de-lys form a cross of fleurs-de-lys. While they do not, it is very hard to tell, even from the full-size emblazon. Given that they do not form a cross, the charges on the fess give the appearance of "primary" and "secondary" tertiary charges groups on the fess. This has long been cause for return:
[... on a pale azure a salmon haurient embowed contourny in chief a compass star argent ...] It is not period style to have two different tertiary groups on the same underlying charge. The difference in scale between the salmon and the compass star makes the compass star appear to be in a subsidiary charge group to the salmon. There is precedent pertaining to this matter:
[returning A mullet Or charged with a fleur-de-lys florency between five daggers points outwards sable] None of the commenters could find a similar motif: a primary charged with a tertiary X and a group of five tertiary Y's. Barring documentation of such an arrangement of tertiary charges, we believe that the motif is not a period one and therefore unregistrable. [The submission was returned for this reason and for conflict.] (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95 p. 15)
(The device was returned for this reason and for redrawing the laurel wreath.) [Oct 2001, Ret-Drachenwald, Uma, Shire of]
For the current submission, if the charges on the fess were instead on a field, they would be ...four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns, obviously a primary charge group between secondaries. Thus this example follows the above precedents. If, instead, the charges on the fess were drawn as a cross of fleurs-de-lys, bases to center, between a pair of drinking horns then there would be a single group of three charges on the fess, which would be registerable. (We would still have to check for conflict and other potential style problems with the redrawn armory.) [Haroun al-Rashid the Toe Mangler, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
[(Fieldless) A wolf's head cabossed vert.] This is clear of Wolfbrand of the Tiger's Paw as cited in the LoI. On Wolfbrand's device the sword is clearly co-primary, giving a second CD for number of primary charges in addition to one for the field. Wolfbrand's device has been reblazoned in the East Kingdom section of this letter. [Emily of Swordcliff, LoAR 08/2004, Middle-A]
[a cross of four swords conjoined at the points] As drawn the swords are visually indistinguishable from a cross crosslet or bottony, and the submitted blazon on the LoI supports this interpretation...there is insufficient difference between the charges to get a...CD. [Fernando Miguel de Valencia, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
The primary charge was not identifiable as a tilting lance as it lacks the handle to tuck under the arm. It should be redrawn to be recognizable as either a tilting spear or as some other recognizable charge. [Maximilian Wolfhart von Hutten, LoAR 07/2004, Trimaris-R]
In addition, the difference in size between the two lymphads in chief and the one in base is so great that there was too much confusion as to how the bird and ships should be grouped together. As a result this violates the "Sword and Dagger" principle as applied to charges of the same type but of different size: one cannot use the same charge as both a primary and a secondary charge on the field in the same piece of armory. [Kate Wrenn, LoAR 12/2004, East-R]
Commentary raised the issue of whether the use of both a compass and an A-frame plumb line violates the "sword and dagger" rule. By precedent this rule applies when the field (or a charge on the field) is charged with two or more items between which there is (1) not a CD for type and (2) enough visual similarity to cause confusion, but not so much similarity as to be considered identical for heraldic purposes. RfS VIII.3 states in part that "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability." The "sword and dagger" principle illustrates one instance where confusion between two (or more) separate charges compromises their individual identifiability. Consensus in commentary and at the meeting indicates that this design does violate RfS VIII.3 by the "sword and dagger" rule. [Griffith Jenner, LoAR 07/2004, Atlantia-R]
The musical note drawn here is an ovoid with a vertical stem rising from the sinister end. While this is a typical SCA form as described in the Pictorial Dictionary, further research has not been able to show this form of musical note as a period musical note. It continues to be registerable, but submitters should be advised that the standard form of such a note would have been a lozenge with a stem rising from its top point. To quote from previous precedent:
According to the PicDic, 2nd ed., # 520, "A musical note is ... commonly represented as a lozenge or an ovoid roundel with a vertical stem at one end." The 'musical note' here is not a period form, but a modern (post-period) one. This one neither matches the semiminim note in the Pictorial Dictionary (a lozenge shape with a vertical line from the sinister corner; this version has been superseded by newer research) nor the form the newer research has shown (a lozenge shape with a vertical line from the top corner). (LoAR 3/98 p. 16) For those interested in the "newer research" mentioned in this LoAR, the documentation for that submission's form of musical note was from Willi Apel's The Notation of Polyphonic Music 900-1600, fifth edition. The analysis indicating that the current standard form of SCA musical note is not found in period musical notation was provided by Magister Klement St. Christoph. [Alicia of Granite Mountain, 01/02, A-Atenveldt]
[Alys Tyrrell, LoAR 12/2004, Caid-A]
[Azure, in fess three pallets wavy argent and a castle within a laurel wreath Or.] The device is being returned for a redraw. The emblazon does not depict a tierce [wavy] paly wavy azure and argent, as claimed by the blazon on the Letter of Intent. As three pallets wavy, it is difficult to tell what the primary charge(s) are; if we consider them all as co-primary (as suggested by the reblazon), this violates the "Slot-Machine" rule. If the branch wishes for a tierce wavy paly wavy, the (equal-width) stripes need to continue all the way to the dexter edge of the shield. [Marcaster, Shire of, LoAR 12/2004, Trimaris-R]
[Per bend azure and argent, an alphin salient counterchanged.] This device conflicts with Riocárd Ó Donnghaile: Per fess azure and argent, a tyger rampant counterchanged...To determine whether there is a CD for tincture of the charges in cases like this, a visual comparison is generally necessary. This is in keeping with our standard practice. When set palewise, skinny charges such as swords do not get a CD for tincture between per fess X and Y and per bend X and Y, whereas fat charges, such as hearts, do. Charges such as the two in question, which fall in between the obvious extremes, should be compared visually, as in the following precedent:
[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)
In the case of this submission, a visual comparison of the two devices shows that the difference in tincture between the two heraldic monsters is not sufficient for a CD. Therefore, this is a conflict. [Þorkatla grafeld, LoAR 10/2004, An Tir-R]
[Per pale counter-ermine and ermine, a fret Or, a bordure gules.] This conflicts with Conrad de Graz: Ermine, a fret couped of six two-pronged forks Or within a bordure gules. There is one CD for the field but that is all. There is not sufficient difference between a fret couped (even of forks) and a fret to gain a second CD in this case. [Richard Dale, LoAR 09/2004, Calontir-R]
This is the defining registration of a lucet, a tool for making cords. The submitter's documentation shows that this form of lucet, a rectangular tool with notches on the shorter ends made from the naturally notched end of a bovine nosebone, was found in period. We have blazoned it as a bone lucet to distinguish it from the lyre-shaped form commonly used in the SCA. [Freydis inn kyrra Alfarinsdottir, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-A]
[...between three pairs of shears inverted Or.] As the default orientation of shears is blades to base, we have reblazoned these (which have their blades pointing up) as shears inverted. [Lochac, Kingdom of, LoAR 08/2004, Lochac-A]
[Per pale azure and argent, a tree blasted and eradicated, in chief three mullets of eight points counterchanged.] This device conflicts with Richenda de Jardin, Per pale azure and argent, a crequier counterchanged. Fortunately, Richenda has provided a letter of permission to conflict. This letter is necessary because, while there is a CD for adding the secondary mullets, there is no significant difference between a crequier and a tree blasted and eradicated. As Boar notes, there exists a precedent that a generic tree eradicated is not significantly different from a tree blasted and eradicated, since "there are period depictions of trees with only a few leaves" [Gabriela Silvana, 07/2000]. There is also a precedent giving a CD between a crequier and a default tree, but not a substantial difference "because early heraldic depictions of trees were sometimes drawn much like a crequier, with one large leaf at the end of each branch" [Lilias de Cheryngton, 12/2001]. However, the crequier is simply a stylization of a wild cherry tree (see Woodward, p. 318, along with Plate XXIX fig. 4 and p. 344 fig. 72 for a discussion). While it is a particular stylization, it falls within the expected range of depiction for trees in general. There is no reason to treat it differently from other trees, so it is not significantly different from a generic tree. [Mevanwy verch Gwion, LoAR 01/2005, An Tir-A]
[Per pale vert and azure, a weeping willow tree eradicated argent.] This is clear of Ioseph of Locksley, the Rhymer: Vert, a tree eradicated argent...There is another CD for type of tree between a willow vs. a generic tree per the following precedent: "There is a CD between a willow tree and a standard round shaped tree, just as there is a type CD between a pine tree and a standard round shaped tree..." [Aleyn More, Sep 2002, A-Caid]. [Thomas M'Manis of Skey, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-A]
[Per fess sable and argent, an open book argent and a raven sable charged on the wing with a Tau cross Or.] This device does not conflict with Ailléne Ravenstongue, Per fess sable and argent, in pale a moon in her complement argent and a raven sable perched atop and sustained by an oak branch fesswise proper. An examination of Ailléne's device (which has been reblazoned on the Middle section of this LoAR) shows that the branch is co-primary with the raven and the moon. There is thus a change of both the number of primary charges and the type of more than half the primary charge group as well as a CD for the addition of the tertiary. [Tómas Tóstason, LoAR 01/2005, Ansteorra-A]
[...flaunches purpure each charged with a triquetra fesswise one point outward Or.] While "[t]he difficulty in blazoning the triquetras suggests that this is not standard period style" (to quote the previous return of this submitter's similar design from November 2003), the odd orientation of the triquetras is blazonable and is only one step from period practice. [Liadan Chu, LoAR 09/2004, Ealdormere-A]
Precedent gives a CD between triquetras and quatrefoil knots: [comparing Azure, a triquetra inverted Or to (Fieldless) A quatrefoil knot] "we have no trouble granting a CVD between a quatrefoil knot and a triquetra." [Jan 1991, Acc-Caid, Halldór Skaptason] Bowen knots look even less like triquetras than do quatrefoil knots, so the CD between Bowen knots and triquetras is simple to extrapolate. [Dante lo Rosso, LoAR 07/2004, Ansteorra-A]
[Or, between a chevron and a chevron inverted braced a bee purpure.] This device conflicts with the Order of the Purple Fret, Or, a fret purpure. While there may technically be several CDs between a fret and a chevron and a chevron inverted braced, the consensus of the meeting was that there is an overwhelming visual similarity as defined in RfS X.5 between the two pieces of armory, with the small secondary bee on Róise's device adding little difference. [Róisi MacCracken, LoAR 01/2005, Atenveldt-R]
[Per pale Or and gules, a stag's head caboshed counterchanged.] The device conflicts with Fredrich der Rothirsch: Per pale Or and gules, a stag's massacre surmounted by a heart per pale gules and Or. The only possible difference between these two must be for the primary charge(s). A visual inspection of Fredrich's device shows that the charge most closely resembles a stag's attires attached to a heart, with each attire having about the same visual weight as the heart. As such there is really only one CD between the two, not substantial enough difference to qualify for X.2. Owen and Bright Leaf opine that this is a classic example of conflict via RfS X.5, with Owen adding that this is what X.5 is really meant to address. [William Wisehart, LoAR 12/2004, Caid-R]
[a cross of lozenges vert compared to a compass star gules]...Quoth Metron Ariston: "By precedent a compass star and a mullet of four points have no difference and this strikingly resembles a mullet of four points visually. While there is a clear difference in tincture of the lozengy cross/mullet, if the sizes and positions are not very different then this may be a problem." Upon visual comparison of the emblazons [, everyone at the meeting agreed that this is a conflict. RfS X.4.e. states, "A charge not used in period armory will be considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different". Compass stars are not used in period armory. Therefore, difference can only be derived on visual grounds, and the visual difference between these two charges is significantly different. [Safwah al-Zarqah al-Sabbiyah, LoAR 11/2004, Outlands-R]
[a mullet of six points] The somewhat odd drawing of these mullets (they look like mullets of eight points missing two points) further contributes to the visual confusion between them and compass stars. [Mara Sutherland, LoAR 10/2004, Meridies-R]
[Or, in annulo five pheons points to center sable.] This conflicts with a badge of Kezia von Holzenhaus: Or, a cross of four pheons points to center sable within a bordure gules. (This badge has been reblazoned elsewhere in this LoAR.)...Neither is there a change in arrangement, as that change is solely caused by the change in number. RfS X.4.g states "Changing the relative positions of charges in any group placed directly on the field or overall is one clear difference, provided that change is not caused by other changes to the design" (emphasis added). A visual inspection of the two badges makes this obvious (commentary at the meeting was unanimous). [Olaf Skytja, LoAR 09/2004, Northshield-R]
[Or, a sheaf of arrows inverted sable within a bordure indented azure.] There are not enough indentations on the bordure. Eight indentations on a bordure looks too close to a mullet of eight points. This is especially true on a round shield shape but applies to other shield shapes as well. Thus identifiability is not sufficient, and there is a visual conflict with Paul of Sunriver (Azure, a compass-star Or). Were there half again as many indents, the close resemblance to a mullet would be greatly reduced, eliminating these problems. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, LoAR 06/2004, Atenveldt-R]
The next issue was documenting three-spoked wheels. Various period heraldic sources show wheels with different numbers of spokes as charges. In one source (Raneke) a wheel has as few as three spokes. (Though this emblazon should be approached with extreme caution by any old-fashioned audiophile or "Big Iron" computer geek... put down the drink and swallow first, and the other usual measures.)
Three-spoked wheels are also a period artifact. Lincoln Cathedral in England has a genuine 14th-century mechanical clock, where all of the gear-toothed wheels appear to have four spokes, but all the smooth wheels have only three spokes. (The picture is quite clear.) Therefore we have no qualms at registering the strewn charges as three-spoked wheels. [Ailill mac Ferchair Uí Diarmata, LoAR 12/2004, East-A]
[a pegasus rampant wings inverted vs. a winged unicorn rampant wings displayed] There is one CD for the significant change of the wing position, plus the CD for the field. [Mairi Muir, LoAR 11/2004, East-R]
[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a gamelyon rampant to sinister argent.] It was suggested in commentary that, given the specific drawing of the charge, we could reblazon it as a bat-winged lion. If we treat the charge as a winged feline, however, the armory conflicts with the Barony of Windmaster's Hill (badge for the Order of the Tempest): Gules, a winged domestic cat salient to sinister and maintaining a sword palewise argent... As for type of the primary charge, the following precedent applies:
[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 [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)
As there is no CD for type of wings only between a bat-winged creature and a bird-winged creature of the same base type, there is no CD between Gamel's bat-winged cat and the registered bird-winged cat. This leavs just a single CD for the field, making it a conflict. [Gamel of Mottrum, LoAR 09/2004, Caid-R]
[...two sinister wings ending in claws Or.] We are unclear how to blazon the charges in base, but it does not seem that the submitted blazon would generate something close enough to the depictions in this emblazon. [Dmitrii syn Dmitrii Rostislavich, LoAR 07/2004, Ansteorra-R]
[Sable, a bend gules fimbriated between a sun and three wolves' teeth issuant from dexter base Or.] In addition, there is a serious style problem with the use of wolves' teeth in this design. As recent precedent indicates, "The examples of wolf's teeth in the Pictorial Dictionary and in Siebmacher show that the teeth invariably extend almost to the center line; where teeth come from both sides they almost touch. Those on this submission do not come close. This is in itself grounds for return" [Dubhagán mac Ruairc, 5/04, R-Meridies]. Because of the nature of this charge, it is unsuitable for use in a design that prevents the wolves' teeth from being drawn correctly. [Iohannes Kynith, LoAR 01/2005, Outlands-R]
[...a human skull argent enflamed proper...] The skull is not enflamed; it appears to have wolf's teeth issuing from it all around, alternating Or and pink. This is not identifiable as anything blazonable. [Gregor von Keiserberg, LoAR 08/2004, Northshield-R]
A similar design had been previously returned, with a note that the laurel wreath needed to be entirely on the field, but still large enough to be a significant element of the design. The redesign, appearing to err on the side of caution, shrank the pile such that the laurel wreath from the original submission would fit on this submission's field, but also shrank the laurel wreath. The laurel wreath should be drawn approximately the size of the original submission's wreath to be more clearly "a significant element of the design." Please instruct the submitter to draw the laurel wreath larger. [Rivenvale, Shire of, LoAR 12/2004, Middle-A]
The group has only addressed one of the style issues raised in the previous return in November 2002, which read in part: "Please advise the submitters, on resubmission, to draw the laurel wreath so that it is round and has only a small gap, or no gap at all, between the tips of the branches." This laurel wreath is identical to that found on the previously returned emblazon; it needs to be redrawn according to the guidelines set forth in the previous return. [Nimenefeld, Canton of, LoAR 08/2004, Atlantia-R]
[...a torch sable enflamed gules within a laurel wreath vert...] The laurel wreath is not identifiable as such. It should be drawn with distinguishable leaves. It should also be drawn with a more closed top; the opening here is as wide as the top of the torch, which is rather too wide. [des Forges, Canton, LoAR 07/2004, Meridies-R]
[Per chevron ermine and sable, a laurel wreath vert and a portcullis Or.] This must be returned for a redraw. On the full-size emblazon, the laurel wreath is drawn in a very "thin-line" fashion (with the equivalent of a green pen) and is not colored in. Against the overly large ermine spots it is not identifiable at any reasonable distance. (The wreath is almost invisible on the miniature emblazon.) The line of division should also come closer to bisecting the field area. If there were two properly drawn laurel wreaths in chief, the line of division could be drawn better and the laurel wreaths would fill the space properly. [Iron Gate, Canton of, LoAR 07/2004, Middle-R]