François's Draft Armory Precedents

Armory Precedents of the SCA College of Arms

The Tenure of Master François la Flamme

Last Revised: 14 July 2006
Period Covered: 08/01 -- 03/04

These are the armory precedents from the first tenure of Master François la Flamme as Laurel Principal King of Arms. During this period armory rulings were made primarily by Dame Zenobia Naphtali, Wreath Queen of Arms. Please verify all precedents you wish to use with the cited LoAR. There is an index. The index for the text version of these precedents is more detailed than for the on-line version. Other than that, the two version are identical.

If a charge is only referenced once in these precedents (and doesn't fall into a category such as BEAST -- Miscellaneous), it will be found under CHARGE -- Miscellaneous. A complete listing of these charges in found in the index. These charges are not currently cross-referenced in the index.

The category VISUAL COMPARISON deals with rulings relative to a specific piece of armory (e.g., a branch is maintained). These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory. A list of the owners is found in the index. The category "Mundane Armory" contains a list of real-world armory that has been ruled not important enough to protect. These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory.

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.

The following heralds are referred to by title: al-Jamal (Da'ud ibn Auda), Argent Snail (Jaelle of Armida), Brachet (Frederick of Holland), Clarion (Elsbeth Anne Roth), Crescent (Dietmar von Straubing), Eastern Crown (Tanczos Istvan), Kraken (Evan da Collaureo), Laurel Clerk (Daniel de Lincolia), Lions Blood (Teceangl Bach), Nebuly (Walraven van Nijmegen), Palimpsest (Rouland Carre), Pelican (Mari Elspeth nic Bryan), Rampart (Pendar the Bard), and Red Hawk (Gotfridus von Schwaben)

Table of Contents (Armory)

ADMINISTRATIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Comments and Commenting
ADMINISTRATIVE -- A Cautionary Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Generic Identifiers
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to Conflict
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Registration Limit
AMPHIBIAN
ANNULET
ARCHITECTURE
ARRANGEMENT
ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined
ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move
ARROW and ARROWHEAD
ARTHROPOD -- Bee
ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous
ARTHROPOD -- Spider
AUGMENTATIONS
AXE
BALANCE
BASE
BEAST -- Badger
BEAST -- Bat
BEAST -- Bear
BEAST -- Beaver
BEAST -- Boar
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
BEAST -- Elephant
BEAST -- General
BEAST -- Goat
BEAST -- Miscellaneous
BEAST -- Mouse
BEAST -- Rabbit
BEAST -- Weasel
BEND and BEND SINISTER
BIRD -- Cock and Hen
BIRD -- Corbie see BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Cornish Chough
BIRD -- Dove
BIRD -- Duck
BIRD -- Eagle
BIRD -- Falcon and Hawk
BIRD -- Generic
BIRD -- Goose
BIRD -- Loon
BIRD -- Martlet
BIRD -- Miscellaneous
BIRD -- Owl
BIRD -- Peacock
BIRD -- Quail
BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds
BIRD -- Sparrow
BIRD -- Swan
BIRD -- Vulture
BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE see also APPENDIX A -- Some birds and the postures in which they are found in period English heraldry
BLAZON
BOOK
BORDURE
CANDELABRA
CANTING
CARD PIQUE
CASTLE and TOWER
CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
CHARGE -- Overall
CHARGE -- Peripheral
CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved
CHARGE GROUP
CHESS PIECE
CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED
CHIEF
COLLAR
COMET
COMPASS STAR and SUN
COMPLEXITY
CONTRAST
COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK
CORONET and CROWN
COTISES
COUNTERCHANGING
COUPED and ERASED
COUPED and THROUGHOUT
CRESCENT
CROSS
CROSSBOW and BOW
CUP and CHALICE
DEFAULTS
DELF
DICE
DIFFERENCE -- Substantial
DIFFERENCE -- Groups
DOCUMENTATION
DOCUMENTED EXCEPTION
DOLPHIN see FISH and DOLPHIN
DROP SPINDLE
EMBLAZON
EMBLAZON -- Coloring Problems
ENFILE
ERASED and COUPED see COUPED and ERASED
ERMINE see FUR
ERMINE SPOT
ESCARBUNCLE
ESTOILE
FEATHER
FESS and BAR
FIELD DIVISION -- Barry
FIELD DIVISION -- Bendy and Bendy Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
FIELD DIVISION -- Checky and Party of Six
FIELD DIVISION -- Chevronelly
FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny
FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Paly
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Fess
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pall and Per Pall Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Quarterly
FIELD DIVISION -- Vêtu
FIELD PRIMARY ARMORY
FIELD TREATMENT -- Ermined see FUR
FIELD TREATMENT -- Honeycombed
FIELD TREATMENT -- Mailly and Other Field Treatments
FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned
FIELD TREATMENT -- Miscellaneous
FIELD TREATMENT -- Semy see SEMY
FIELDLESS
FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES
FISH and DOLPHIN
FLAG and BANNER
FLAMES and FIRE
FLAUNCH see TIERCE and FLAUNCH
FLEUR-DE-LYS
FLOWER -- Lily
FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Thistle
FLOWER -- Trillium
FLOWER -- Tulip
FOIL
FRET and FRETTY
FRUIT
FUR
GOUTTE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
GRENADE and FIREBALL
GURGES
HAND and GAUNTLET
HAT
HEAD -- Beast see also COUPED and ERASED
HEAD -- Bird see also COUPED and ERASED
HEAD -- Human
HEAD -- Monster
HEART
HELM and HELMET
HUMAN
IDENTIFIABILITY
JAPANESE MON and CHARGES
KNOTS
LABEL
LEAF
LEG and JAMBE
LIGHTNING BOLT
LINES of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Long
LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
LOCATION see POSITION
LOZENGE
MAUNCH
MOLLUSK -- Snail
MONSTER -- Chimera
MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
MONSTER -- Griffin
MONSTER -- Humanoid
MONSTER -- Merfolk
MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
MONSTER -- Panther
MONSTER -- Pegasus
MONSTER -- Phoenix
MONSTER -- Pithon
MONSTER -- Sea
MONSTER -- Winged
MOUNT and MOUNTAIN
MULLET
MUNDANE ARMORY
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
NESSELBLATT
OBTRUSIVE MODERNITY
OFFENSE
ORIENTATION see POSTURE categories
ORLE see CHARGE -- Peripheral
PALE
PALL and PALL INVERTED
Period Rolls of Arms and Armorials (discussion)
PIERCED
PILE and PILE INVERTED
PLANT
POSITION
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- General
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION -- Crests and Supporters
PROPER see also PROPER -- Brown Precedent
PROPER -- Brown Precedent
PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE ITEMS
RAINBOW
RECONSTRUCTIBILITY
REPTILE -- Lizard
REPTILE -- Snake
RfS X.4.j.ii
ROGACINA
ROUNDEL
SALTIRE
SCHNECKE
SEMY
SHAKEFORK see PALL and PALL INVERTED
SHEAF
SHELL
SHIP
STAFF
STYLE
SUN see COMPASS STAR and SUN
SUSTAINED see MAINTAINED and SUSTAINED
SWORD
SYMBOL
TIERCE and FLAUNCH
TINCTURE
TOOL -- Astronomical
TOOL -- Textile
TRADEMARK see COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK
TREE
TREE BRANCH
TRIDENT
TRIQUETRA
TRISKELE and TRISKELION
TROUSERS of NOBILITY
VISUAL COMPARISON
WEIRDNESS
WINGED OBJECTS
WINGS and VOLS
WREATH

ADMINISTRATIVE
see also PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE ITEMS

An interesting conflict question arose this month, reminding us of the following precedent (still pertinent) from the cover letter of the March 1993 LoAR:

Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority, as before.

[Magdalena Leonardi, 08/01, A-Drachenwald]

[Reblazon of device] The Administrative Handbook mandates that an error in blazon which requires correction via a Letter of Intent must also include an emblazon in the Letter of Intent. The Letter of Intent did not provide such an emblazon in the Letter of Intent, although a copy of the old form with the emblazon was provided in the package to Wreath. This is therefore being returned for lack of necessary paperwork. [Gilbert Rhys MacLachlan, 09/01, R-Caid]

Unfortunately, the College can only register the emblazons it receives, and we only received the emblazon for the augmented device. Since we have no emblazon received for the unaugmented device, it cannot be registered at this time. That would be akin to making a "holding device", which is not acceptable by College of Arms policy. [Anna z Pernštejna, 09/01, R-Middle]

Please advise the submitter to be careful on future submissions to avoid outlines so thick that they appear to be fimbriation. My staff advises me that, in many cases, the problem with thick outlines that appear to be fimbriation is due to use of the computer program "Blazons". As a general rule, heraldic art from that program is flawed, and we encourage the College to educate their submitters not to use this program to generate the artwork used on their forms. [Magy McTerlach, 10/01, R-Meridies]

Gillian's arms conflict with Iamys Huet's, found later in this LoAR. Gillian is an SCA member, and therefore, her submission takes precedence and may be registered without a letter of permission from Iamys. She is unlikely to be surprised by these events, as she has provided a letter of permission to conflict to Iamys. [Gillian Kylpatrick, 11/01, A-Caid]

[reinstatement of released device as badge] The LoI provided no evidence that the release of the bat-winged cat device, on registration of her 1981 device change, was in error, nor did the LoI present evidence of hardship. There was no directive in the 1981 LoI, on the device change form, or in other paperwork in Laurel files, asking that Laurel preserve the previously registered device as a badge. Standard procedure under the then-applicable 1979 rules for submission (like today) was to release an old device if the device were changed, unless the submitter requested that it be kept as a badge. In this submitter's previous device change attempt in 1980 (returned at Laurel), the LoI indicated that the previous device (the bat-winged cat device) should be maintained as a badge. However, it has never been College of Arms policy to assume that such directives from one Letter of Intent carry through to another Letter of Intent. Laurel notes that the submitter was heraldically active in the SCA after the badge was released, as the files show heraldic actions from her through 1983. Therefore there is no clear evidence of a hardship existing by which she might not have been informed that the previous device was released. Laurel Sovereign of Arms would remind everyone that decisions are made based on the information provided on the forms, in the LoI, and in the comments provided by the College. Therefore, we must hold by non scripta, non est: if it isn't in writing, it doesn't exist. [Su of the Silver Horn, 11/01, R-Caid]

No petition of support was provided for this augmentation. Since the augmentation modifies the branch arms, a petition of support is required. [Roaring Wastes, Barony of the, 11/01, R-Middle]

The device must also be returned for administrative reasons. The petition does not include a blazon or emblazon of the arms being supported. As with real-world petitions, the signatures should be on the same piece of paper as a clear description of the item being supported by the petition. That description, in an SCA armorial petition, would ideally be a statement that We, the members of (Branch) support this device for our branch device, accompanied with a colored emblazon and a blazon. Such a petition makes it clear that all the signatories, including the blazon-illiterate signatories, understand the design being so submitted. A line drawing of the emblazon combined with the blazon (and some text describing the colors for the blazon-illiterate) is just as good as a colored emblazon. A blazon on the petition without an emblazon will suffice, as long as the blazon is an accurate representation of the emblazon. If that is not the case, then the petition will not be acceptable. [Fiodnach Eoghan, Shire of, 11/01, R-Trimaris]

[Device appeal] There were other procedural problems with the submission. According to the Administrative Handbook section IV.C.1: Appropriate forms must be included for all submissions, including appeals, resubmissions, name and blazon changes, etc. No forms were sent. There was no mini-emblazon on the letter of intent. The Administrative Handbook section V.B.2.e states: An accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent. Such emblazons must be clearly labeled and large enough that all elements of the design may be clearly distinguished. [Madallaine Isabeau de Cat, 11/01, R-Trimaris]

[a pall inverted vs. a shakefork inverted] ... by current precedent, another CD between a pall inverted and a shakefork inverted.

Note that the precedent giving a CD between a pall inverted and a shakefork inverted is under discussion this month (see the cover letter). However, there is no need to pend this submission until the completion of a general policy discussion: it may be registered now under current SCA policy. Should the policy change as a result of the ongoing research and discussion, it will apply to those submissions received after the policy change. [David of Caithness, 12/01, A-Caid] [Ed.: CD granted between a pall inverted and a shakefork inverted as of 08/02 (see below)]

The device submission used wax-based crayons for the colors on the form. This resulted in a very brownish Or, and was almost a reason for return. Please do not use wax-based crayons on forms: the colors do not always stay true, the metallics fade particularly quickly, and wax crayons have been known to melt and stick to other items in the forms file or binder. The administrative handbook suggests Crayola Classic markers in the General Procedures section (AH IV.C.1): "The preferred medium for colored armory sets is to use watercolor markers such as Crayola Classic Markers. Any form of neon or pastel markers or pencils are inappropriate for the colored armory sets". [Oddr ölfúss the Tanner, 01/02, A-Atenveldt]

The submission form has been altered from the standard West Kingdom form and omits the check boxes which allow the submitter to specify the disposition of her previous armory. Therefore her previous device ... is released, which is the default action. Please note that the check boxes on the submissions forms, which should be standard throughout all kingdoms, are not supposed to be altered. Valuable information may be lost by altering the forms. In some cases, alterations to the forms may be extreme enough to cause return of the submission, although that is not necessary in this case. [Mari Greensleaves, 01/02, A-West]

The "Or" tincture is colored in a distinct orange color, which is not a valid variant of Or. [Asbjørn Pedersen Marsvin, 01/02, R-Caid]

[a Norse serpent] The Norse serpent was declared an unregisterable charge in the LoAR of May 1998, effective in October of that year. This submitter had a submission in kingdom using this charge before that deadine occurred, and no resubmission was received at Laurel level until after the deadline occurred. However, convincing evidence has been presented by the Ansteorran College that there were significant administrative problems with the submitter's local and (to a lesser extent) regional and kingdom heralds during the period of time in which he could have put in timely submission of this device. While there is no paperwork proof that the armory was resubmitted in a timely fashion, it has also been demonstrated that much paperwork was lost by the pertinent heralds during the time in which such a resubmission might have occurred. Kingdom heralds have stated that the submitter did indeed attempt to resubmit in a timely fashion. It therefore seems reasonable to give this submitter the benefit of the doubt and allow him the use of this charge under the hardship clause, as noted in the Glossary of Terms:

It sometimes happens that a submission is delayed so long by circumstances outside the submitter's control that changes in the Rules for Submissions or their interpretation make it unregisterable. Depending on the exact circumstances, and on a case-by-case basis, the submission may be judged according to the older Rules for Submissions and interpretations; this policy is popularly known as the Hardship Clause.

[Johann Gunnbjornsson, 02/02, A-Ansteorra]

[Gules, three axes argent] This is clear of conflict with Wolfram von Eschenbach, Gules, two axes addorsed argent hafted proper (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for changing the number of axes. The question was raised whether there is a second CD for changing the orientation of one of Wolfram's axes. If one looks at Wolfram's arms and counts the orientation change before the number change then one half of the group is changed and there is a CD for it. If one counts the number change first then only one of three charges has changed orientation and so no CD is granted. (A similar analysis can be made moving in the other direction, from Sefferey's submission to Wolfram's arms.)

The Rules for Submission give no indication that one class of change is to be considered before another. Precedent superficially appears to favor the less generous reading. As Palimpsest noted, "Consider the return of the submission of Leonia Dubarry in the January, 1993 LoAR. This compared three charges 2&1 vs in chief two charges. Laurel wrote in part, 'To sum up: the change from three charges 2&1 to two charges in chief cannot count a second CD for placement on the field, because two charges can't be 2&1' While it is true that two charges can't be 2&1, it is also true that three charges can be in chief. This leaves the implication that the less generous interpretation prevails." Consulting the 1993 text, however, shows that Laurel also adduced examples of the change from three charges 2 & 1 to two charges in chief being used as a cadency step in period. These examples of cadency forced Laurel to apply the less generous interpretation. In Sefferey's case, there is no reason to believe that the change from two axes addorsed to three axes all with blades to dexter is but one cadency step. Therefore we can give the submitter the benefit of the doubt and grant the second CD. [Sefferey of Wessex, 02/02, A-Meridies]

[Badge for Thrown Weapons Deputy] This badge is for a deputy for the marshallate in charge of thrown weapons. Precedent is mixed about whether deputies to major offices may have Kingdom badges assigned to them, or whether they must use a corporate level badge. The Sovereigns of Arms and Laurel Clerk discussed the issue, and Laurel determined the following: A combat marshal must be quickly identifiable on the field during inter-kingdom wars. Thus, it is important that the badges for marshals should be the same throughout the Society. Such badges should therefore be registered at the corporate level, rather than the kingdom level. This is currently the case for the Equestrian Marshallate, whose badge was registered at the Society level as Sable, two tilting lances in saltire and in chief a chamfron Or. [An Tir, Kingdom of, 02/02, R-An Tir]

Both Dafydd and Maridonna are SCA members, so the item on the earliest dated Letter of Intent takes precedence, and the Outlands letter predated the Meridies letter. [Maridonna Benvenuti, 02/02, R-Meridies][Ed.: Returned for conflict with Dafydd]

From Laurel: Similar in the geometric sense: mini-emblazons, that is

In the last few months, there have been cases where the mini-emblazon included with the Letter of Intent did not accurately represent the emblazon on the submission form. If the emblazon does not match the form, the CoA cannot produce useful commentary, which in turn does not allow a decision on that item. The CoA has enough to review without commenting on the "wrong" item. A mismatch between the LoI emblazon and what is on the submission form can be reason for administrative return. If you produce LoIs, please double-check that the mini-emblazons on your letters are a good representation of the emblazons on the submission forms.

Photoreduction is recommended over redrawing. Scanning can be used with care. Many complaints have been received about mini-emblazons which were produced by scanning at inappropriate settings, rendering elements of the armory invisible or otherwise unidentifiable. [04/02, CL]

The submitter did not check any boxes on the form indicating the disposition of his previous device, Ermine, a fox rampant contourny gules maintaining in dexter forepaw a rapier sable, a bordure sable semy-de-lys Or. It is therefore released by default, per the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.7, "Instructions for Disposition of Changed Items". [Balthasar Yvon Charon, 04/02, A-An Tir]

[a tower sable ... environed in base with a laurel wreath vert] The device must be returned for lack of a name to which to register it. The armory had an additional problem which would not allow it to be accepted. Laurel wreaths should not be drawn with another charge between the tips of the wreath, except possibly when the charge between the tips is very thin. "[A laurel wreath and in chief a roundel] Second, the laurel wreath is not closed (or even nearly so), and if it were, there would be no room for a roundel. A properly drawn laurel wreath should not have sufficient room between its tips to place another charge"(LoAR 2/00). [Hawk's Rest, Shire of, 04/02, R-Atenveldt]

[Transfer of name and device to Daniel del Cavallo] This is a posthumous transfer. The Laurel office was provided with (1) a copy of Caterina's real-world will, (2) a letter from Caterina's legal heir transferring Caterina's name and device to Daniel del Cavallo, and (3) a letter from Daniel accepting transfer of Caterina's name and device.

We suggest that all people with registered armory consider writing an explicit heraldic will. Directions on how to create and file a heraldic will are in the newest Administrative Handbook section IV.F with a template for the will itself in Appendix D. This newest version of the Administrative Handbook is available on-line at http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/admin.html as well as from the usual print sources. [Caterina del Cavallo, 05/02, A-Æthelmearc]

According to the September 2001 LoAR, "We do not have a similar period pattern of a wide range of field treatments based on various tessellations. Hence, after the LoAR of April 2002, honeycombed will no longer be registerable in the SCA." Therefore, this motif is no longer registerable.

Rampart expressed concern that this ruling was not available at the time the Letter of Intent was issued, possibly due in part to a misconception that the ruling was on the November 2001 LoAR, rather than the September 2001 LoAR. The cover letter for the LoAR of September 2001 is dated December 12, 2001, and the LoAR was mailed within a day or two of December 10 (the date that Master Symond, who is kind enough to do our mailings, received the LoAR). The decision was therefore available for a full month before the January 17, 2002, Letter of Intent upon which this submission was forwarded to Laurel.

Pelican and Wreath expect that submissions heralds will be aware of all rulings up to and including those made in LoARs which were mailed during the month before the date of a Letter of Intent. Standard College of Arms policy schedules the grace period for disallowed practices (when such grace periods are implemented as part of the Laurel decision) so that decisions may be made at kingdom based on the LoAR issued the month previous to the submission at hand. The grace period is not scheduled to cover items which were in submission in a kingdom Internal Letter of Intent, in the hands of a local consulting herald, or earlier in the consultation and submission process. Some pertinent precedents showing this timeline, or a slightly tighter timeline (depending on the postmark date for the LoARs in question) are:

No evidence was presented that a roundel enchancré is a period charge. Therefore, barring period evidence of its usage, after the July 1997 Laurel meeting we will no longer register it. (LoAR March 1997 p. 2) [note: deadline set so that it will cover all LoIs issued on or before March 1997, when the decision was published]

Commentary was nearly as strong in favor of banning garden rosebuds from armory. Consequently, we will accept whatever garden rosebuds may be in LoIs issued before December 1994, but no further registrations of this charge will be made. (CL for November 1994) [note: again, the deadline is set so that it will cover all LoIs issued on or before the Cover Letter date of November 1994.]

Please note that not all disallowed practices are given a grace period before they are disallowed. The institution of a grace period for a disallowed practice is at the discretion of the Sovereigns of Arms. [Gauvain Eisenbein, 05/02, R-Outlands]

The College should note that a grace period when a new policy is implemented is not required by Laurel policy, but is implemented at the discretion of Laurel and the pertinent Sovereigns of Arms. The wording of the December 2001 Cover Letter on this issue was interpreted by some to mean that a grace period was required. This is not so. A grace period did seem to be appropriate in the case of this submission. [Gwenllian de Castell Coch, 06/02, A-Artemisia]

[(Fieldless) A tankard argent] Conflict with Giles MacManus, registered in the Atlantian section of this LoAR, Per bend sinister sable and gules, a tankard argent. There is only one CD, for fieldlessness.

The cover letter for the March 1993 LoAR (dated 8 May 1993) stated:

At their April 93 meeting, the Board of Directors decided to accept my recommendation on how to prevent SCA members from being disadvantaged by non-members during the heraldic submission process. Corpora explicitly forbids us to consider the membership status of an armory's owner, once the armory is registered; the Board agreed that the only time a member's submission could be returned for conflict by a non-member's armory is when the two were considered at the same Laurel meeting. Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority, as before.

This gives an advantage to members' submissions, without requiring anyone to check every submitter's membership status. Laurel need only call the Registrar, on those rare occasions when membership becomes important; this happens seldom enough to impose no undue burden on Laurel, the Registrar, or the College.

This policy has not been rescinded. It has been upheld a number of times since:

Since both submissions were from the same month, we followed the strictures from the Board which meant that we had to determine the membership status of the two submitters, since if one was a member and one was not, the member would get priority (LoAR September 1996).

According to the registry, both submitters were members in August 2001, and thus priority is determined by the date on the LoI (LoAR August 2001).

Wreath therefore telephoned the registry. The registry indicated that Giles MacManus's membership was current at the time of the Wreath meeting, and that Caterina had not been a member since March 2000. Since the armory of a member takes precedence over armory of non-members, Giles's armory takes precedence. [Caterina Amiranda della Quercia, 07/02, R-Atenveldt]

[Or goutty de sang] The gouttes are too numerous and too small to be identifiable. There was a significant discrepancy between the emblazon on the forms and the mini-emblazon on the Letter of Intent. There are approximately 130 gouttes on the form, and approximately 40 gouttes on the mini-emblazon. Forty charges is a large number to have on the field compared to the standard period depiction of a group of strewn charges (which often has as few as ten charges on the field). As long as the charges in a group of strewn charges maintain their identifiability, they are acceptable regardless of the exact number of charges in the emblazon. [Steffan von Hessen, 07/02, R-Atenveldt]

The pile here is drawn with the pile issuing from the upper corners of the shield. This is different from the mini-emblazon. Since the full-sized emblazon is the final arbiter of the drawing, this must be returned. To quote from one of the more recent of the many rulings on the topic, "The pile is not drawn properly; a pile should not issue from the corners of the shield, but from farther in on the chief. As the pile also does not extend to base, it cannot be reblazoned as a chaussé field" (LoAR July 2000). [Michael of Ravenskeep, 07/02, R-Outlands]

[acceptance of transfer] The Letter of Intent stated, "The e-mail requesting transfer, and Their Majesties' e-mail accepting transfer, are attached to the submission form". General Laurel policy has been explicit in indicating that official correspondence should be signed and that, while a scanned copy of a signed document is acceptable, e-mail is not. While the section of the Administrative Handbook dealing with transfers does not explicitly reiterate the requirement for a signature, Laurel has stated that a signature is needed in this case as well. The kingdom and Mistress Iduna have provided the College with signed transfer paperwork, so the transfer may be effected.

The LoI noted that this badge was intended to be used by the officer known as the Keeper of the Kingdom Directory. Per Laurel, "The Directory Keeper is listed on the Artemisia web page as a deputy of the Chronicler." Badges may not be registered for officers (including deputy officers) if a kingdom or corporate level badge for that position exists. In November 1980, a badge was registered for the Chronicler of the Society for Creative Anachronism: Per pale sable and argent, two quills conjoined in pile counterchanged, a chief gules. We have dropped the intended designator in order to register this badge to the Kingdom of Artemisia. [Artemisia, Kingdom of, 10/02, A-Artemisia]

The shire's petition does not show support for this device. The petition does not contain a blazon, or any indication of tincture. The small line drawing emblazon does not show any charges on the chief. In addition, the laurel wreath is depicted on the petition as two curved lines making the bottom part of a semicircle with an 'x' at the bottom. This could only be viewed as a stylized laurel wreath with great charity. Because the petition needs to be reissued, when it is reissued, the depiction of the laurel wreath on the petition should match the wreath on the device. [Tir Briste, Shire of, 11/02, R-Meridies]

This submission also has administrative problems. It was submitted as a new device for the alternate persona, on a device form. A submitter may only have one device, and Cynuise already has a registered device, Argent, a griffin passant to sinister vert within a bordure rayonny sable. A submitter may designate secondary armory for the use of an alternate persona, but the secondary armory should be submitted on a badge form and should be designated as a badge instead of a device. Please advise the submitter, on resubmission, to submit appropriately on a badge or device form. If submitting on a device form, the form should indicate that the submission is a device change and should also indicate whether the previous device should be retained as a badge or released. [Cynuise ó Cianáin of Bardsea, 11/02, R-Trimaris]

[a cross fleury vs. a cross of four ermine spots] There is a CD ... for changing the type of cross. RfS X.4.e states "Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different." Both crosses fleury and crosses of ermine spots were considered to be separate in period and were drawn so that they could be visually distinguished from each other.

Some commenters noted the following precedent: "We could see no more than a minor point of difference between the cross of conjoined ermine spots and the cross fleury" (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 23). It is important to recall that the criteria of the current Rules for Submissions are not the same as the criteria of the rules which were in effect in May 1989. The current version of the rules relies on historical and visual criteria for difference, while previous versions of the rules relied mostly on visual criteria. Thus, a precedent that a particular change was worth either a major or a minor point of difference under the old rules does not clearly translate into the presence or absence of a CD. [Geffroi de Mosterol, 12/02, A-Ealdormere]

The Letter of Intent stated that this badge was intended for the joint use of the Barony of Concordia of the Snows and the Shire of Bergental. The Administrative Handbook only allows joint registration by two individuals - branches may not participate in a joint registration. To quote from section II.D.3, "Badges may be registered by an individual, by two individuals jointly, or by a Society branch." There is no administrative ambiguity about which branch should be registering this badge, as the paperwork received by the Laurel office only refers to the Barony of Concordia of the Snows, with no reference to the Shire of Bergental. [Concordia of the Snows, Barony of, 01/03, A-East]

[a cross patonce vs. a cross bottony] A second CD must come from the type difference between a cross bottony and a cross patonce.

SCA precedent has so far consistently held that there is a CD between crosses bottony/crosslet and crosses fleury/flory/patonce. Kraken provided some citations from Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials, taken from the beginning of the section on single crosses. In these examples, we find armory using both crosses bottony/crosslet, and crosses fleury/flory/patonce, belonging to people with the same surname. He therefore rightly raised the question of whether we should continue to consider these types of cross to have been distinct in period (and thus worth a CD for the change in type), or whether we should consider them to have been artistic variants of each other in period (with no CD for the change in type).

In researching this question, we have used Kraken's examples, and added further research from Papworth, as well as Brault's The Rolls of Arms of Edward I ("Aspilogia III"), Cecil Humphery-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory II, and the Dictionary of British Armorials (henceforth abbreviated DBA). We realize that these sources provide an unfortunately Anglocentric view of heraldry, but the sources at our disposal which allow this sort of research are largely English - and the research is being used to elaborate on some initial information that is also English.

The first, and most important question to ask, is whether changing the type of cross could ever be a change indicating different branches of the family (cadency). A change which could indicate cadency is a change which could be worth a CD. It appears that at least in some cases, the change in the type of cross indicates cadency. One good example is the family of Ward, as seen in the various sources cited above, where different branches of the family are specifically cited as using distinct cross types. As a general rule, type changes are one of the more common types of cadency change in period - much more common than cadency changes in posture and arrangement. So it is unsurprising that changing the type of a cross is, in some cases, a cadency change.

Since changing a cross type may sometimes indicate cadency, we must therefore determine whether the changes in cross type which we have found are indicative of cadency, or if they are indicative of artistic variation. Some ways of demonstrating that two types of charge are artistic variants of each other are:

- Demonstrating a general pattern of interchangeability between the two types of charge: most armory using one sort of charge is also found using the other sort of charge, or there is a temporal trend so that earlier versions of the charge are drawn in one way and later forms are drawn in the other way.

- Demonstrating that the choice of how to draw the charge was most likely due to the artist, because the artist of one roll would draw the charge consistently in one fashion and the artist of another roll would draw the charge consistently in another fashion.

- Demonstrating that there are numerous cases in which a single individual bore variations of the same sort of cross.

In all the cases above, the analysis should consider the source material and remove any erroneous material.

We were unable to demonstrate a general pattern of interchangeability between these two types of cross. It appeared that most of the time, a family used exclusively either crosses bottony/crosslet (henceforth abbreviated "bottony") or crosses patonce/fleury/flory (henceforth abbreviated "patonce"). This was particularly evident in the examination of the better-researched sources; as a general rule, Papworth's research is considered to be less authoritative than Brault's, Humphrey-Smith's, or that of the compilers of the DBA. Note that the DBA does not extend through the "cross" category yet, but DBA includes a fair number of examples of armory using either "bottony" or "patonce" crosses as secondary or tertiary charges in the company of bends, cantons, and chevrons.

We were unable to demonstrate that the choice of how to draw the cross was due to stylistic variations between artists. As Kraken noted, Harleian MS 1407 shows the family of Goldisbrgh/Goldesbry in both "patonce" and "bottony variants". The families of Brerlegh and Aton both are shown as using "patonce" and "bottony" variants in Glover's Ordinary.

We were unable to find any trend where a single individual was noted as using both "bottony" and "patonce" types of cross. We freely admit that we were not able to isolate many cases where we could attribute armory to a specific individual, so our researches in this area were not particularly compelling.

Lastly, it seemed apparent that Papworth's citations from Glover's Ordinary were responsible for a disproportionate number of the cases where one family appeared to use "bottony" and "patonce" crosses. These examples include the families of Aton, Brerlegh, Ward, and Taddington/Tuddington. If Papworth's interpretation of Glover's Ordinary is viewed as suspect, we are left with almost no reason to consider crosses "bottony" and "patonce" to be artistic variants of each other.

Thus, until new evidence is presented, we affirm the following precedent: "...there is still a CD between a cross flory and a cross bottony" (LoAR August 1999). [Miryam æt West Seaxe, 02/03, A-Caid]

Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory with similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if the September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that acceptance. Please note that registrations without comment do not establish precedent. [Magdelena Drucker, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]

From Laurel: Laurel Does Not Know It All
We have all seen instances when a submission was returned that was documented from a previously accepted submission - the old standard phrase is "Past registration does not ensure future registration." We are hopefully continuing to learn and this moving target can sometimes cause a name or device to be returned even just a month after a similar submission was accepted. A few weeks ago there was a discussion concerning the reply to a "But Laurel said ..." argument. The best summary of the situation comes from Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn:

One should always read any decision by Laurel as being prefixed by "Based on the available knowledge, research, and analysis available to us at this time, it is our understanding that ..."

Many heralds (on all levels of the hierarchy) often forget this and word statements of current knowledge as if they were Absolute Truth, but there's still an onus on the listener as well to insert the disclaimer.

We require your help to know "the truth". The current knowledge is extended by the research of the College of Arms, the College of Heralds, and the submitters. Any documentation provided on a submission, whether it is from the submitter, the Kingdom College of Heralds, or the College of Arms commenters, goes a long way to helping us all learn. If you provide "the truth" in your commentary and submissions work, that leads to better recreation and we all benefit from the latest best attempt at determining "the truth". [04/03, CL]

The badge is transferred from the Principality of Northshield. As an administrative note, both parts of the transfer (the sending from Northshield and the reception by Moraig) should be separate items on the Letter of Intent. [Moraig Ann Drummond, 04/03, A-Middle]

We apologize to the submitter for not mentioning this conflict at the time of the previous return, but the College of Arms did not bring it to our attention at that time. The Laurel office has been known to give the benefit of the doubt to a submission when a possible problem was not mentioned in the previous return, but was present in the previous submission and was clearly visible to Laurel when viewing the submission. Such a "clearly visible" problem could include possible problems with the artwork of the submission or the general heraldic style of the submission. Unmentioned conflicts are not clearly visible to Laurel and thus do not fall into this category. [Charles the Grey of Mooneschadowe, 06/03, R-Ansteorra]

Unfortunately, because there was a significant discrepancy between the artwork in the full-sized emblazon and the mini-emblazon provided to the College of Arms in the Letter of Intent, we were unable to get the College's input on this armorial style problem. ... Usually we would rely heavily on the College's input to determine whether the artwork in the submission was too ambiguous to be registered or whether it could legitimately be registered with instructions to the submitter on how to draw the emblazon more clearly.

A significant discrepancy between the full-sized and mini-emblazon can be reason for return in itself, and is certainly a reason for return when the mini-emblazon's depiction masks a significant style issue with the armory on the full-sized emblazon. The Administrative Handbook requirements for preparation of letters of intent state that "An accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent." The Cover Letter for the April 2002 LoAR stated:

In the last few months, there have been cases where the mini-emblazon included with the Letter of Intent did not accurately represent the emblazon on the submission form. If the emblazon does not match the form, the CoA cannot produce useful commentary, which in turn does not allow a decision on that item. The CoA has enough to review without commenting on the "wrong" item. A mismatch between the LoI emblazon and what is on the submission form can be reason for administrative return. If you produce LoIs, please double-check that the mini-emblazons on your letters are a good representation of the emblazons on the submission forms.

Photoreduction is recommended over redrawing. Scanning can be used with care. Many complaints have been received about mini-emblazons which were produced by scanning at inappropriate settings, rendering elements of the armory invisible or otherwise unidentifiable.

[Yosef ben Ami, 06/03, R-West]

The submitter's name, Caterina da Napoli, was returned in August 2002. That LoAR was mailed well before this submission was sent to Laurel. Holding names are only formed for armory submissions that appear on an LoI before the LoAR containing the name return could be received and processed by the submission herald, not submissions that appear on an LoI long after the name has already been returned. Thus, even if this submission did not have armorial style problems, it would need to be returned for lack of a name under which to register it. [Katerina da Napoli, 07/03, R-Lochac]

There are several letters used in the submissions process that require a signature. If a signature is required, then the letter must include a copy of the handwritten signature. A text e-mail message does not meet the requirement for a handwritten signature. [08/03, CL]

... we note that the submission form designated the badge for the use of the College of Scribes, but this was not stated in the Letter of Intent. A future resubmission should be clear about whether Kingdom intends to designate the badge for a particular use. [Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/03, R-Æthelmearc]

... we still have not received an acceptable petition of support. We have received a petition which consists of a piece of paper which describes the device being submitted (very accurately and completely) but the signatures are on a separate piece of paper which has been cut off halfway down the sheet and then taped to the description paper. As noted in the LoAR of November 2001, "As with real-world petitions, the signatures should be on the same piece of paper as a clear description of the item being supported by the petition." You wouldn't want your bank to cash a check which had a snipped separate piece of paper with the signature taped onto the check - the same principle applies here.

Lastly, Administrative Handbook section IV.C.5 states "In the case of branches with no ruling noble, this support may be demonstrated by a petition of a majority of the populace and officers or by a petition of the seneschal and at least three-quarters of the other local officers." The signatures provided here do not indicate which (if any) officers have signed the petition. As a result it is difficult to determine if a majority of the populace and officers - or the seneschal and at least three-quarters of the other local officers - have signed the signature list. The format of the petition is also unclear about whether the signatures shows both SCA and real names of the submitters - or just SCA names. It is thus hard to determine how many people have signed the petition. [Loch Meadhonach, Shire of, 08/03, R-Caltonir]

From Laurel: Time is a Precious Resource

Time is something that we all value and never seem to have in excess. As busy as we all are, it is a shame to waste time on activities that accomplish little or no good. It is a crime to do something only part way that then requires others to spend time to complete the work. There is a disturbing trend within the College of Arms to take shortcuts that save a little time up front but cause others more work.

Letters of Intent

When you take a shortcut on summarizing the documentation in a Letter of Intent or simply do not include documentation of a locative byname for a name submission, you are forcing the next person in the submission process to complete the work you started. The few minutes you saved by not including the necessary information will cost one or more people those minutes and perhaps more to recreate the information. (If you don't have the information and wish the help of the College then please specifically ask otherwise it looks like an omission.) If the omission is corrected by the kingdom college, the number of people doing the rework is limited, but if the rework must be done during commentary by the College of Arms, the amount of time is multiplied by potentially more than 50 people.

If you are unsure what is required either for documentation for a submission or in summarization in a letter of intent, I direct your attention to the Administrative Handbook (section V.B.2.b), the December 2002 LoAR Cover Letter secion "From Pelican: Inadequate Summarization of Submissions", and the November 2001 LoAR Cover Letter section "From Laurel Clerk: Things Missing from LoIs".

Commentary

Another place where shortcuts are tempting is in commentary to the College of Arms. We assume certain expertise and basic knowledge in our fellow commenters and in the Sovereigns of Arms. This relied-upon expertise can lull us into believing that a quick comment such as "we no longer register snort-gaskets" is sufficient. When making a statement or argument in which you give an "I think" or "I remember" or even "this is not done", please provide a reference to support your statement. A reference with no documentation or support requires us to spend time before or during the decision meeting looking for what you base your statement upon. If you do not have the time to provide support for a statement, it is better to omit that statement from your commentary.

In Summary

The volume of submissions has grown too large for the College of Arms to be able to regularly completely (re-)document an element of a submission. If the supporting documentation is not provided or adequately summarized on the Letter of Intent, the submission will be returned so that the deficiency may be corrected.

The high volume also means that the Sovereign of Arms do not have the time to search for the references that were vaguely given in commentary. Statements in commentary that allude to documentation but do not cite the source will be considered rumor and may be ignored. [09/03, CL]

It is important to realize that a submission may need to be returned because of a problem with the mini-emblazon, even if the full-sized emblazon does not share that problem. If it appears that the College fully researched the submission despite the problems with the mini-emblazon, we may accept the submission. However, in many cases, the College does not fully research the submission for all style and conflict problems because they felt that the artistic problem on the mini-emblazon was a sufficient reason for return. When this happens, the mismatch between the mini-emblazon and the full-sized emblazon is a reason for return. [Caitilín ni Killane, 09/03, R-Trimaris]

This month we received a request to honor a heraldic will, and we were able to honor it. However, the submission was not accompanied by any evidence that the person who had filed the heraldic will had, in fact, passed on. This was an uncomfortable situation. Our staff reminded us that it is by no means unknown for people to lie about a genuine real-world legal document with malicious intent, so it would be best if the Laurel office were provided with evidence of the death of the heraldic testator. On the other hand, we had no desire to cause any further grief to the bereaved by requesting this of the submitter. Laurel was able to determine that the heraldic will was valid. However, we advise kingdoms to accompany heraldic wills with some evidence indicating that the deceased has, indeed, passed on, to avoid the possibility that a living submitter might be a victim of a cruel prank. [12/03, CL]

Note that jointly owned armory counts against the registration limit of the primary owner of the badge. As noted in the Cover Letter for the July 1992 LoAR, "My policy shall be that the first name on the submission be the main badge-holder --- who has the right to release, grant permission to conflict, etc. --- and the second name receive the cross-reference in the A&O." The person with the right to release or grant permission to conflict must necessarily have this item counted against his registration limit. [James Andrew MacAllister, 12/03, R-West]

In the spirit of the day after the nominal print date of this cover letter, we should issue a warning about The Quarter, http://www.thequarter.org/. It is an SCA newsletter completely devoted to humor and satire. Those incautious enough to read it while drinking may hurt their nasal passages and their keyboards, and anyone else may be driven to drink. This newsletter takes especial pleasure in poking fun at heralds and revealing our secrets. Laurel and Laurel staff have even been deceived by their irony.

Therefore, we are putting http://www.thequarter.org/ into Administrative Handbook Appendix X, "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" ("Index of Prohibited Books"). All heralds are formally enjoined from reading it without prior written permission from Laurel. Laurel expects this injunction to be observed as rigorously as the last time Laurel "formally enjoined" something in Trimaris (LoAR of December 1992). [01/04, CL]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Comments and Commenting

There have been a substantial number of possible visual conflicts called since August 2001. My staff and I have duly looked at each emblazon, and it has been an interesting romp through the binders, the CDs, and the occasional hurried scan and email of a JPG from Filing Central in Austin (thanks, Pelican!) During our first two months, I made certain that each visual check was duly discussed in the LoAR. After looking at the length of the LoARs, the visual checks will only be reported if they appear to be important to discuss. I'll still look at all of them, have no fear. [10/01, CL]

[Ambiguity in wording] The Cover Letter for the February 2002 LoAR stated:

In this month's submission for Aethelwine Aethelredson (Calontir), a commenter raised the question of whether we should protect the non-SCA arms of the Earl of Atholl.

Ordinarily, such a request during the commentary cycle would cause a pend of the associated SCA armory and would be discussed there rather than in the Cover Letter. In this case, the armory in question was returned for a different reason, so there was no need for a pend. Laurel procedure in the past has been to rule on all requests for protection, whether they are raised in commentary pertinent to a submission in progress or whether they are raised in Letters of Intent to Protect. Therefore, this "orphaned" issue is presented for your consideration here in the Cover Letter.

The Cover Letter then quoted the section of the letter of comment which requested protection of these arms.

This item is being pended for the College's further consideration for two reasons. One reason is the ambiguity in the wording of the Cover Letter for the February 2002 LoAR. The second reason is the amount of new and pertinent information on this item which was received by the Laurel office, but which had not been presented to the College.

On the issue of ambiguity: As a general rule, when new items are presented to the College, the intent of the writer is clear to the readers. "Letter of Intent" is an accurate term. The Cover Letter for the February 2002 LoAR did not state that it was the intent of either Laurel or Wreath to protect the arms of the Earl of Atholl. It just asked for "consideration" of a commenter's request for protection of these arms.

The ambiguity in the request for consideration became apparent when we found that we must rule on this submission based on very sparse commentary. The general policy of the College of Arms has long been that "silence implies assent." The intent of the writer of a Letter of Intent is assumed to be supported (or at least, not opposed) by all members of the College who do not comment on the submission. Since the intent of Laurel and Wreath concerning this submission was not made clear in the Cover Letter, it was not clear how we should interpret the silence concerning this request for consideration. We asked some members of the College how they would interpret this silence, and received very disparate answers, implying that the ambiguity was a legitimate problem. Some members of the College felt that, since the Cover Letter did not state Laurel's (or Wreath's) intent to protect the submission, silence implied a lack of support for protection. Others felt that since the cover letter quoted the commenter's request for protection, silence implied support for the commenter's request for protection.

While the College is not, and has never been, a "voting organization", the criteria by which we choose to protect, or not to protect, real-world arms involve opinions as well as fact. Fame, familiarity, and importance are not easy to quantify. If twenty members of the College all provide the same argument explaining why two pieces of armory conflict, the argument is no more or less compelling than if only one commenter has done so. However, if twenty members of the College all state that a particular piece of real-world armory is, or is not, "important", "famous" or "familiar", that shared opinion is more compelling than hearing the same opinion espoused by only one commenter. We therefore strongly encourage all members of the College to comment on issues of protection of real-world armory. While scholarship and informed discussion are always preferred, there is use in even a short comment like "The evidence presented [does]/[does not] justify protecting this armory in the SCA."

It is therefore necessary to state unambiguously how silence will be interpreted in reference to this pended item. Because this item originated as a request for protection of the Earl of Atholl's arms as important non-SCA arms, silence will be interpreted as support for (or lack of opposition to) the protection of the arms. Please note that this statement does not reflect the personal opinions of either Wreath or Laurel. [Atholl, Earl of, 08/02,P-Laurel]

When quoting from the Armorial and Ordinary, please cite the date of the armory as well as the name and blazon. The Wreath files are organized in three different places, based on date: the 1985 and before CD archives, the 1986-1993 CD archives, and the binders. We can save valuable time in the meeting if the registration date is on the citation. My staff and I thank you for your consideration.

Also, when citing cover letters, please cite the LoAR with which the cover letter is associated, as well as the date of the cover letter. It helps find the cover letter in the archives somewhat faster. [10/01, CL]

Conflict with Earl of Morris, Lozengy sable and gules, a hart rampant argent. ... More than [one] commenter cited the conflict above as being "important real-world armory" for "the Earl of Morris." However, the Armorial and Ordinary, and the Earl of Morris submission form, are clear that this registration, originally from 1973 albeit reblazoned later, is not real-world armory. It is just for some SCA guy named [Sir] Earl. Please be precise in your citations. . [Áedán uí Néill, 02/04, R-Atlantia]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- A Cautionary Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"

From Wreath: A Cautionary Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"
It has come to our attention that there is a growing trend in the College to create "conflict tables". These tables summarize precedent on some class of armorial elements, such as crosses, flowers, or lines of division. The tables use a simple format that allows one to (for example) compare two types of crosses and look up whether they have no difference, a single CD ("significant" difference), or X.2 difference ("substantial" difference.) The tables also allow the user to identify the LoARs in which the rulings referenced by the table were made.

We understand the desire to provide a quick and simple summary of conflict issues, and we thank the compilers of these tables for their hard work. However, we caution the College that these tables may inadvertently contribute to an inaccurate view of the heraldic issues. We have reached this conclusion by investigating the source of some assertions made in College of Arms commentary, which turned out to be based on overgeneralizations from conflict tables, rather than being based on the combination of the Rules for Submission, examples of period armory, and precedents (past rulings in LoARs). We are happy to see that the conflict tables of which we are aware do reference an LoAR for each assertion made in the table. We suggest that people make use of the conflict tables, but that they do not make up their minds about conflict issues until they have read the full LoAR ruling referenced by the table, and until they have read the LoAR rulings referenced in closely related areas of the table.

In many cases, if there is not a clear general ruling pertaining to some class of armorial elements, it is because the issues pertaining to that class of elements are not easily summarized. RfS X, "Conflicting Armory", explains how armorial conflict in the SCA is based on an attempt to emulate period armorial practices:

A piece of armory may not be too similar to other pieces of armory, as is required by General Principle 3a of these rules. Period armory frequently distinguished between immediate relatives, like a father and his son, by making a single change to the arms in a process called "cadency". The changes made in such circumstances can be considered the smallest change that period heralds would recognize. This section defines ways in which submitted armory must be changed to be sufficiently different from protected armory.

It is just as easy - or as difficult - to create a table summarizing the grammar of a language, as it is to create a table summarizing period armorial practices for difference. In both natural language and in armory, there are many generally applicable rules, but also a large number of specific exceptions.

We would like to address one specific misconception which, according to some commenters, derived from an overgeneralization of a conflict table. One conflict table concerning crosses had a category of "cross throughout" (with sub-categories for the particular types of cross throughout, such as equal-armed Celtic quarter-pierced.) As a result of the cursory scan of this category, which generally gave a CD between the "throughout" cross and the cross with which it was compared, more than one College of Arms member incorrectly generalized that all crosses throughout were a CD from all crosses which were not throughout. The precedents listed in the LoAR table explicitly denied that generalization, but one had to look at the cited precedents to see that information. One example of a precedent referenced by the conflict table that denied this generalization:

[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ... for the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Mel Doraid, October, 1992, pg. 16)

A relatively recent LoAR also addressed this issue. Clarifying comments have been inserted into the quote in square brackets:

While we give a CD for a standard cross throughout [the ordinary] versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped [not-throughout] versus throughout. (LoAR February 2002).

[03/04, CL]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs

[Device change for Consort] This submission has insufficient support from the populace of the Kingdom to be accepted. It is necessary for a kingdom to show support, not merely indifference, for changing armory that is as important as the consort's arms. The total polling, according to the LoI, had 93 respondents with 74 of the respondents in favor of the change. According to the S.C.A. Registry, on April 1, 2003, the Kingdom of Atlantia had 1254 sustaining members, 166 associate members, and 663 family members, for a total of 2083 members. This means that the total polling of 93 people reflected less than 5 percent of the Atlantian membership, with the positive responses being even less than that. We do understand that in any polling, many members will choose not to respond to the polling. Even taking that fact into account, the support shown here is insufficient to support the change in the armory. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 04/03, R-Atlantia]

From Laurel: Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs

This month we were called upon to reflect on the SCA's policy of registering devices for a consort (either for a kingdom or a princpality), or for royal heirs apparent (also for a kingdom or principality). We have no evidence of a real-world consort having arms that differed from her husband's (except for marshalling). We likewise have no evidence of an heir apparent having arms that were not a differenced version of the arms of their parent, except for marshalling, and for fiefs that the heir apparent might have had (such as the Dauphiné, ruled by the dauphin, the heir to the French throne).

The practice of registering devices for the consort and heirs is falling out of favor in the SCA in general. Some of the newer kingdoms have not registered devices for their consorts and their heirs. We applaud the trend to a more period practice with regards to arms, or lack of separate armory for the consort and heirs.

Because the SCA device is parallel to real-world practices for arms, the SCA shall no longer register devices for consorts or for heirs to a kingdom or principality after July 2004.

Under this decision, consorts in kingdoms or principalities without consort's arms may use the undifferenced kingdom arms, and kingdoms may elect to allow both heirs to the throne to display the kingdom arms differenced by a label or other standard mark of cadency. This matches some period armorial display for royal arms.

Kingdoms and principalites that currently have arms registered for the consort or heirs may submit changes to the registered armory via the application of the grandfather clause. We shall require a poll of the populace showing support for changes to the armory. Note that this poll has not previously been explicitly required for the armory of the heirs apparent, but it seems appropriate to require such a poll, which is already required for consorts.

Kingdoms and principalities that currently have arms registered for the consort or heirs are encouraged to consider following period practice and to discontinue the use of the armory. [12/03, CL]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Generic Identifiers

From Pelican: What is a Generic Identifier?

A submission this month raised the issue of generic identifiers again. Given the confusion that exists regarding what is and is not a generic identifier, as well as how generic identifiers are used, we are providing a clarification of this issue.

Generic identifiers are descriptions that may be associated with registered items (mainly badges) to identify the use of that item. Unlike registered names (award names, order names, guild names, household names, et cetera), generic identifiers are not registered as an independent item and are not protected from conflict. This does not mean that the group may not use this identifier, but simply that we will not limit the usage of that identifier to a single group.

Names that fall into the generic identifier category are names that would reasonably be used by more than one branch for common functions of the branch. All kingdoms can have a university. All baronies can have a baronial guard. All groups can have an equestrian guild.

Adding the name of the branch to the description does not affect generic identifiers (because branch identifiers are transparent for conflict). As an example, Outlands Equestrian Guild falls into the generic category because the only thing that would differentiate it from Equestrian Guild of Calontir are the branch identifiers Outlands and of Calontir.

Some generic identifiers referring to kingdom uses are:

King's battle flag, Ensign, Flag, War banner, populace badge

Some generic identifiers referring to awards or specific positions are:

Champion, Defender, Kingdom Warlord, King's Champion, Queen's Bard, Queen's Champion, Children's Defender, Champion of Arts and Sciences

Some generic identifiers referring to guards and guilds are:

Baronial Guard, Guard, Queen's Guard

Archers, Archery Guild, Armourers' Guild, Bards' Guild, Brewers' Guild, Chirurgeon's Guild, Clothiers' Guild, Cooks' Guild, Equestrian Guild, Herbalist Guild, Needleworker's Guild, Scribes' and Illuminators' Guild, Waterbearers' Guild

Æthelmearc Equestrian Guild, Equestrian Guild of Calontir, Outlands Equestrian Guild

Carolingian Brewers' Guild, Drachenwald Brewer's Guild, East Kingdom Brewer's Guild

Some generic identifiers referring to academies and universities are:

Atlantian Pages Academy, University of Drachenwald, University of the East Kingdom

Some generic identifiers referring to offices are:

Office of the Chatelaine, Ministry of Children, Office of the Minister of Children, Kingdom Chirurgeon, Chronicler, Chronicler's Office, Hospitaller, Office of the Lists

Descriptions such as these are generic and may be used to identify the purpose of a registered item, but are not registerable on their own. They are included in the Ordinary and Armorial as references, rather than as registered items. In this manner, they convey the use of the item with which they are associated, but they are not protected against conflict. [12/02, CL]

The LoAR designated the badge for use by a particular named academy and stated "Atlantia is not attempting to register the Academy Name at this time, merely wishing to associate the badge with that group." Only registered items (such as order names and household names) and generic identifiers may be associated with badges. As the (particularly named) academy is neither a registered item nor a generic identifier, it must be removed from the submission. One recent ruling affirming this long-standing administrative procedure is in the February 2002 LoAR: "The submission was designated as being for the Tinkerer's Guild. However, this is not a generic designation. A tinker is a period artisan, and thus a Tinker's Guild would be a generic designation (like a Blacksmith's Guild) which could be applied to a badge. However, tinkerer does not seem to be a period occupation. Since the branch does not have the name Tinkerer's Guild registered to them, the designation has been removed."

The Cover Letter to the December 2002 LoAR has a long discussion of what sort of identifiers are generic. The summary definition states, "Names that fall into the generic identifier category are names that would reasonably be used by more than one branch for common functions of the branch. All kingdoms can have a university. All baronies can have a baronial guard. All groups can have an equestrian guild." [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 07/03, A-Atlantia]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to Conflict

Unfortunately, the letter of permission provided is not valid. According to the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.3, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society. The letter provided was not signed. Note that a signature is not a computer generated line of typescript giving the name of the submitter, it is a handwritten signature or a copy thereof. Perhaps in the future we might wish to consider email headers, or electronic signatures, as valid signatures. However, it is worth noting that neither of these were present in this letter of permission either. [Madallaine Isabeau de Cat, 11/01, R-Trimaris]

[regarding Eleanor Leonard's permission to conflict] Over the years, there have been many requests for permission to conflict made of and given by Eleanor. In 1991, Eleanor Leonard presented the College of Arms with a blanket letter of permission to conflict reserving only the specific ways she intended to use the badge, so that she would not continue to be bothered by requests for permission to conflict.

In the September 1991 LoAR Cover Letter, the relevant portion of the letter was published with a call for discussion. In the January 1992 Cover Letter, Da'ud ibn Auda, then Laurel, did not accept it, giving reasons for not "customizing protection" that included not wanting to complicate the Administrative Handbook, the Armorial, and the lives of SCA heralds. It is true that there would be problems with registering any arbitrary conditions a submitter might impose. However, one simple blanket permission was registered in 1997. The recent edition of the Administrative Handbook now provides for two simple types of blanket letters of permission in III.C.4, "Blanket Permission to Conflict", and Appendix D has a template "Blanket Permission to Conflict". Furthermore, even a more complicated blanket permission may be worth accepting. We will consider such exceptional letters on a case-by-case basis, balancing the costs of implementations of letters versus the benefits to submitters. ...

Therefore, there is permission to conflict for any armory with a primary charge that is not solidly one of the seven major tinctures (argent, Or, azure, gules, purpure, sable, and vert). As well, there is permission to conflict for any fielded armory (not fieldless) where the field is not solidly one of those seven major tinctures. [01/02, CL][Ed.: See the Cover Letter for the complete discussion]

[Azure chapé ployé, a tulip slipped and leaved Or] Conflict with Katheline van Weye, Quarterly vert and purpure, a tulip slipped and leaved Or. The submitter has a letter of permission to conflict from Katheline that explicitly pertained to her previous submission, Azure, a tulip slipped and leaved Or. However, no letter of permission to conflict has been received for this submission. As can be seen in Appendix D of the Administrative Handbook, the standard form letter for a letter of permission to conflict (which was followed in Katheline's letter) only specifically gives permission to conflict between two stated blazons: that of the registered item and that of the submission in progress. The old letter of permission to conflict, as stated, does not pertain to this new submission. It is an unfortunate inconvenience, to be sure, but it does allow precision in granting permission. Note that more general letters of permission to conflict are acceptable if stated clearly and unequivocably. [Sondra van Schiedam, 09/02, R-Calontir]

The device is still in conflict with the armory cited in the previous return, that of Degary Golafre of Pembroke ... The submitter has provided Laurel with emails from Degary's wife, issued from Degary's email account, indicating willingness to provide permission to conflict. However, the administrative handbook requires that "If permission to conflict has been granted, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society." The emails did not include a signature, and therefore are not valid letters of permission to conflict. A scan of a full letter of permission to conflict (including signature along with the text of the letter) would be acceptable, but unsigned text email is not.

The submitter, in her long and unfortunately arduous submissions history, has amassed letters of permission to conflict ... Some of these letters of permission to conflict are by no means recent: the one which bears a date is dated November 27, 1995, and some of the others may be older. The College should note that the administrative handbook does not mandate an "expiration date" for letters of permission to conflict, nor does a letter of permission to conflict cease to be valid if a submission is returned at Laurel. Yet permission to conflict may be rescinded by the owner of the conflicting armory at any time before the submission is registered. Any person wishing to rescind permission to conflict for a submission which has not yet been registered must write to Laurel and the submitting kingdom with an explicit letter to rescind any previously written letter of permission to conflict. [Elina of Beckenham, 09/02, R-West]

It has been requested that the long-standing SCA tradition of assuming that a submitter automatically grants himself permission to conflict should finally be enshrined, in writing, in these hallowed LoARs. Therefore, let it be explicitly known that a submitter is assumed to give himself permission to conflict with all names and armory registered to him individually or jointly. [Timothy of Glastinbury, 11/02, A-Ansteorra]

[on a bordure ... the words "In Diece von Albrecht von Halstern"] The text on the bordure was intended to mean "in service to Albrecht von Halstern." ... In addition, the College had concerns about the fact that this armory contains text using another SCA member's registered name (Albrecht von Halstern) without permission from that SCA member. Note that RfS I.3 states (emphasis added) "No name or armory will be registered which claims for the submitter powers, status, or relationships that do not exist." We decline to rule on this issue at this time, as we would like to see more commentary from the College on this topic. However, we strongly suggest that any submitter whose armory contains text that is a registered SCA name should obtain a letter of permission from the referenced person or branch. [Beowulf fitz Malcolm, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]

The badge conflicts with a badge of Isabel the Mad ... The submitter included a copy of e-mail from Isabel the Mad, which gave permission to conflict, but the e-mail was not signed with an actual signature. The Administrative Handbook section IV.C.3 requires a signature to a letter of permission to conflict:

Permission to Conflict - If permission to conflict has been granted, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society. (See Appendix D for a standard form for granting permission to conflict.)

In this month of "spoofed" e-mails courtesy of the computer virus de jour (where the apparent sender of the e-mail was not in fact the real sender of the e-mail) it seems appropriate to reaffirm current precedent on this topic, as stated in the LoAR of November 2001:

Unfortunately, the letter of permission provided is not valid. According to the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.3, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society. The letter provided was not signed. Note that a signature is not a computer generated line of typescript giving the name of the submitter, it is a handwritten signature or a copy thereof. Perhaps in the future we might wish to consider e-mail headers, or electronic signatures, as valid signatures. However, it is worth noting that neither of these were present in this letter of permission either.

[Gabriel Ximenez de Malaga, 08/03, R-Calontir]

ADIMINSTRATIVE -- Registration Limit

From Laurel: Enough, or More Than Enough?

The CoA Administrative Handbook, in defining limits on the number of items that may be registered, specifically states that, "Kingdoms, principalities, baronies, provinces, and equivalent branches are subject to no limit on the number of items they may register". (AH I.A) In the March 1986 LoAR, Baldwin Laurel returned the five badges, identical save the color of the field, submitted by the Barony of Westermark, saying:

No formal restriction is placed on the number of badges a branch may be submit because it is assumed that branches may have good and constructive reasons for more than one badge. This is an abuse of the privilege. Please advise them to pick one.

Since June 2002, we have been asked to consider nineteen badges from Trimaris (not counting duplicate submissions that were withdrawn by the kingdom). Of these nineteen badges, ten were addressed in June and nine are being considered for registration this month. The Letter of Intent did not explain the intended purpose of any of these badges.

The large number of badges submitted in a short time has raised concerns of abuse of the privilege of unlimited registrations allowed for kingdoms. All the submissions have been for fieldless badges using azure charges, most of nautical origin. On conferring with the submitting kingdom, it appears that they have been registering badges against future need.

The large number of undesignated badges submitted in such a short time, especially when a number of the badges are intended for future use, appears to be an attempt to "corner the market" on azure nautical badges. We consider this to be an "abuse of the privilege" of the unlimited number of registered items allowed by the Administrative Handbook. We believe that badges should only be registered for current or identified need. Therefore, the nine badge submissions from Trimaris are being returned to allow Trimaris to reconsider the need for the registration of these badges at this time.

Laurel wishes to make it clear that, if the kingdom or any branch "subject to no limit on the number of items they may register" has a legitimate need for these badges, it should certainly be able to register them without forcing the kingdom to provide a designation - or worse, an unnecessary associated name registration - to "explain" the need for the badges. Reference to a generic identifier in an armory submission may assist Laurel when considering significant numbers of submissions at a single time. [11/02, CL]

AMPHIBIAN

[a frog tergiant inverted] This device uses a frog in the tergiant inverted posture. The SCA has general precedents against registering inverted animate charges unless they are part of a radially symmetrical group such as in annulo. These precedents are on the grounds that such inverted animals are generally not readily identifiable, and they are not found in period heraldry. However, the SCA also has a registration tradition of allowing animals which are usually found in a tergiant posture to be registered in the tergiant inverted posture. We were asked by the submitting kingdom to rule on the acceptability of the tergiant inverted posture when considering this submission.

There is very little period evidence for tergiant inverted animals in heraldry. No evidence was presented by the College. We were only able to find two instances of period or near-period tergiant inverted animals after the Wreath meeting, both of which used scorpions. There is a tergiant inverted scorpion as the crest of Sir William Sharington/Sherrington c. 1547 in Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, p. 104. This crest is a very unusual depiction of the Sherrington scorpion crest/badge: in the town of Lacock (where the Sherrington family was granted the old abbey as a home by Henry VIII), there are period displays of their armory in the Abbey/Sherrington home and in the town church, and the scorpion seems always to be in the default tergiant posture. Guillim's Display of Heraldrie second edition p.215 gives the arms of Cole, Argent, a cheueron, Gules, betweene three scorpions reversed, sable. The emblazon shows the scorpions in what the SCA would call the tergiant inverted posture. The second edition, published in 1632, is not in our period, but is in our grey area. The combination of a perhaps-erroneous emblazon of a crest with a slightly post-period emblazon of armory is not clear evidence of period practices for scorpions, and is certainly not compelling evidence for a general period use of the posture tergiant inverted.

A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a tergiant charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a tergiant scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the identifiability of the charge so much as to render it unidentifiable, and they felt that it should be acceptable. The frog in this submission certainly retains its identifiability very clearly in the inverted posture. As a result, inverting a tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does not otherwise violate any basic heraldic principles, including the requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of period evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will be considered a clear step from period practice (also known informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be found in this posture in period. We explicitly decline to rule at this time on whether scorpions tergiant inverted should be considered a "weirdness". [George Anne, 05/02, A-Æthelmearc]

[a frog courant] This frog is not drawn identifiably. Most notably, it lacks the expected webbed feet (appearing, rather, to have feline paws), and instead of having a frog's long hind legs and rear feet, its hind legs and hind feet are only slightly larger than the forelegs and forefeet. In general, the College uniformly found this emblazon to be difficult to identify for a number of artistic reasons.

We note that frogs in period heraldry are invariably found in the tergiant posture. The SCA has registered frogs in other postures as long as they maintained their identifiability. [Dauid Mac an Ghoill, 09/03, R-Meridies]

ANNULET

[(Fieldless) Three thistles conjoined in pall inverted bases to center proper within and conjoined to an annulet Or] The annulet is drawn at the edge of the circle of the form, so that at first glance it appears to be a bordure. This sort of depiction should be avoided, as it causes confusion. [Isabel du Lac d'Azur, 08/01, A-Atenveldt]

[three annulets interlaced one and two Or] A question was raised about possible problems with use of the Ballantine's Ale insignia. While we did not find the corporate web site, we did find beer collectors' web sites showing many beer labels of varying ages, and the Ballantine's Ale logo uses the annulets two and one, not one and two. Because this is a simple geometric logo, without any particular nuances of artwork that make these rings an unmistakable allusion to the Ballantine's logo, the inversion of the three rings design does not infringe on the Ballantine's Ale insignia. [Roaring Wastes, Barony of the, 11/01, R-Middle]

[Gules, a fireball within an annulet Or] This does not conflict with ... Gules, a horse rampant to sinister within an annulet Or. The annulet functions here as a surrounding secondary charge, like a bordure. This is therefore clear by RfS X.2, as the type of the primary charges has substantially changed, and this is simple armory for purposes of that rule ("no more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no overall charges.".). [Jehanne le feu du Christ, 06/02, R-Atenveldt]

[six annulets interlaced in annulo] The submitter is a knight and thus entitled to use a closed loop of chain. These annulets interlaced in annulo resemble a chain closely enough that they could only be registered to someone able to register the reserved charge of a closed loop of chain. [Ibrahim al-Dimashqi, 03/03, A-Artemisia]

[Quarterly azure and argent, an annulet sable] Conflict with Conrad Breakring, Argent, an annulet fracted on the dexter side sable. There is one CD for changing the field but nothing for fracting the annulet. The LoAR of February 1999, p. 10, gave no difference between a serpent involved (a serpent biting its tail so that its body is in a circle) and Conrad's annulet fracted: "[Or, a serpent involved sable] This conflicts with Conrad Breakring of Ascalon, Argent, an annulet fracted on the dexter side sable., with one CD for the difference in the fields." This default annulet should resemble Conrad's fracted annulet even more strongly than the fracted annulet resembles a snake involved. [Guðrøðr of Colanhomm, 11/03, R-Drachenwald]

ARCHITECTURE

There is no difference between a tower and a lighthouse given the varying depictions of towers and similar architecture in period, so there is only one CD for adding the laurel wreaths. ... A lighthouse, like a beacon, is correctly enflamed at the top only, according to the Pictorial Dictionary. [Dun an Chalaidh, Shire of, 08/01, R-An Tir]

[a tower argent masoned sable] Architectural charges made of stonework such as towers, castles and walls may be drawn masoned as a matter of artist's license. Therefore, there is no additional tincture difference for adding or removing masoning for these types of charge. [Gemma Meen, 01/02, R-An Tir]

The turnpike, or turnstyle, in this submission would be the defining registration of this charge in SCA heraldry. Defining instances of charges require slightly higher standards of documentation than registrations of previously registered charges. This policy has been upheld consistently for over ten years but one of the clearest statements of the policy is in the LoAR of August 1995:

A registration of this submission would apparently be the first, and therefore defining, instance of such a charge. Especially in the case of charges not registered previously, the College requires documentation that the charge (a) has been used in period armory or (b) is compatible with similar charges in period armory, and (c) has a standardized depiction which would make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible. We need such documentation here.

This submission was accompanied by a single piece of documentation from Parker's A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry. This book does not clearly date the charge as having been used in period armory. The only date provided in Parker is associated with the crest of Skipworth, but appears to be the date of the founding of the baronetcy rather than the date of the crest. We consulted Fairbairn's Crests, but that volume did not help resolve the date of that particular crest. No evidence was presented by the submitting kingdom, and none was found by the College or Laurel staff, for use of a turnpike in period heraldry.

If a turnpike is a period artifact, it would probably be "compatible with similar charges in period armory" such as portcullises and doors. However, no evidence was presented describing a period turnpike. Nor was documentation presented showing that a turnpike "has a standardized depiction which would make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible." The submission must therefore be returned until such time as the turnpike may be documented appropriately for a defining instance of the charge. [Ian Cradoc, 05/03, R-Atenveldt]

[an arch top] The SCA has not registered an arch top before, although it has registered an arch. The arch top in this submission is the semicircular portion of an arch only, without any columns on the sides.

In some cases, we routinely create a new charge out of a portion of a standard heraldic charge without requiring specific documentation for that portion of a charge being used as an independent charge in period. It was a standard period heraldic practice to create demi-beasts and beast's heads from a beast. In keeping with this real-world practice, if a particular beast or monster is a documented heraldic charge, we routinely allow the registration of a demi-beast/monster or a beast's/monster's head as long as the charge's identifiability is preserved. For example, a demi-enfield preserves its identifiability as a portion of an enfield, as it includes the enfield's fox's head, eagle's forelegs and greyhound's torso. However, an enfield's head does not preserve its identifiability, as it would be identical to a fox's head. We thus would not register an enfield's head, although we could register a fox's head.

In the case of the arch top, it does not appear to be a standard period heraldic practice to create an arch top from an arch, any more than it is a standard period practice to create a tower top from a tower. The College felt that the identifiability of the arch top was not preserved when it is removed from the rest of the arch, and that this charge violated RfS VII.7.a, which states in pertinent part, "Any charge, ... must be identifiable, in and of itself, without labels or excessive explanation. Elements not used in period armory may be defined and accepted for Society use if they are readily distinguishable from elements that are already in use." The College felt that the arch top was not "identifiable, in and of itself." Moreover, if the arch top is an "[element] not used in period armory", it is not "readily distinguishable from elements that are already in use", as it could be confused with a bridge.

If documentation were provided for an arch top in period heraldry, then the charge could be registered. The concerns about the identifiability of this "[element] not used in period armory" would be removed if documentation were presented showing that an arch top, in this depiction, was a period charge. However, no such documentation has been provided with this submission, or by the College.

Precedent has consistently held that the first submission of a charge to the College should be accompanied by documentation: "This is being returned for lack of documentation. We can find no indication that a 'muffin cap' has ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges to the same standard of documentation and have return them for lacking it, c.f. a winch (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 9/92, p. 42), a Mongol helm (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 12/92, p. 15), a zalktis (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 1/93, p. 28) and a Viking tent arch (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 5/94, p. 17)" (LoAR August 1997, p. 16). [Odysseus Titinius Maximus, 12/03, R-Calontir]

[a house] This is the first SCA registration of a house. It is shaped like a horizontal billet with a hip roof and a slightly sagging ridge beam. The door is arch-topped and is in the center of the fesswise billet, and there are two small arch-topped windows over the door, one to either side.

The depiction of the house is taken from Von Volborth's Heraldry, Customs, Rules and Styles, p. 54. Von Volborth does modern redrawings but has a good idea of period sensibilities. The illustration says that the arms are of the town of Dorfen, in Bavaria, and are derived from 14th C seals.

Houses are found, if infrequently, in period armory. In addition to the 14th C coat mentioned by Von Volborth, the Dictionary of British Arms gives a few examples of armory depicting a "house" or "hall." Unfortunately, no evidence was either presented or found showing a period depiction of a house as used in heraldry.

The LoAR of May 1998 indicates that the usual SCA procedures for the first registration of a charge are relaxed for architectural charges. While ordinarily a new charge documented solely from a modern redrawing (such as Von Volborth's) would not be registerable, this house meets the criteria set forth in the May 1998 LoAR for first registrations of architectural charges. This charge is clearly recognizable as some sort of a house, and houses were period charges. This is thus analogous to the May 1998 registration of a domed mosque of one minaret which stated:

A question of reproducibility was raised in commentary in regards to this submission. Of particular relevance to this case are period heraldic depictions of buildings. There are, particularly in Continental heraldry, many coats incorporating everything from individual buildings up to entire cities. Even a casual examination of multiple sources will show that there was little regularity in depiction. The blazon for such charges is characteristically vague: "a church" or "a city". Clearly any variation in depiction is a matter of artistry, not heraldry.

In this case, anyone viewing the emblazon will recognize the charge as a mosque. A competent heraldic artist may not produce this particular mosque, but will presumably produce a drawing which, again, the viewers will recognize. This situation is no different from period heraldic depictions of churches.

This is a change to our normal policy of having the first registration of a charge not documented as having been used in period heraldry be the defining example of the charge. In this specific case, since the period usage of buildings varied so widely, we are comfortable with not having a defining example.

[Brian of Leichester and Katryna Robyn, 03/04, A-Æthelmearc]

[Argent, an arched wooden double door inset into a stone archway proper] The Pictorial Dictionary states that "The door... may be inset into an arch or wall." This submission insets the door into a stone archway proper. Unfortunately the grey of stone proper (as defined in the SCA Glossary of terms) classes as a metal, and has insufficient contrast with the underlying argent field.

Note that the stone surrounding the door is, as drawn in this submission, an intermediate grey which has insufficient contrast with either argent or sable. This adds additional problems to the depiction, in that the stone proper is not drawn as a correct depiction of stone proper (which would class as a metal) but is not dark enough to be considered an artistic variant of sable. [Sudentorre, Canton of, 03/04, R-Atlantia]

ARRANGEMENT
see also ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move and ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined

[Azure, in chief three cups inverted in chevron Or and in base three plates in chevron] The arrangement of the charges does not match any period pattern. However, this is only one weirdness and is thus registerable. [Ælfgar Greggor of Vulpine Reach, 08/01, A-Merides]

[Or, five birds volant two one and two sable] This device conflicts with ... Or, six ravens close sable. ... There is no CD for arrangement, since six charges cannot be two one and two, and five charges cannot be arranged three two and one. [Robert of Gresewode, 09/01, R-Caid]

[Argent goutty de sang, a laurel wreath vert] The device is clear of conflict with the Barony of Coeur d'Ennui, Argent, a laurel wreath vert within eight boars' heads couped in annulo gules. There is one CD for the type of secondary charges and another for arrangement. This is clearly a group of strewn charges rather than charges in annulo, as can be seen from the gouttes in the middle of the laurel wreath. [Campofiamme, Stronghold of, 10/01, A-Drachenwald]

[three fleurs-de-lys vs. three ash leaves stems to center] When a group of charges has a visually obvious palewise posture, and a visually obvious top and bottom, there can be a CD between three palewise charges and three charges which are radially disposed. [Ysabel la Serena de Lille, 11/01, A-Artemisia]

[in chief three lozenges] The original blazon read, in latter part, ... and in chief three lozenges in fess Or. Three items in chief will also be in fess by default. We do find armory in the SCA with three items in chief, arranged one and two, but this arrangement should always be blazoned. [John de Lochabre, 12/01, A-Atlantia]

[Purpure, a tower within five compass stars in annulo Or] Conflict with a badge of Roland O'Donnell, Purpure, a tower within an orle of lions rampant Or. There is a CD for the change in type of secondary charges. There is normally a CD for changing the arrangement of a group of unnumbered (and thus "many") charges from in orle to in annulo, even on a round badge form. However, Roland's emblazon shows that there are only seven lions in his group of unnumbered charges. Because there are relatively few charges in both these secondary charge groups, the difference in arrangement is much less obvious than when there are eight or more charges in each group. Most of the charges in the two groups are in the same place on the field, and would likely to be in the same place on the field on any shape of escutcheon. Therefore, there is no difference for the change in arrangement, and nothing for the change in number from five to seven charges by RfS X.4.f. [Agripina Argyra, 01/02, R-Ansteorra]

[Vert, in pale a stag courant inverted and a stag courant to sinister argent] These stags were originally blazoned as courant in annulo widdershins, legs outward, argent. However, these are not clearly in annulo as they are not embowed enough to make a circle. Such a posture may not be possible for stags with their legs outwards, since in order to truly make a circle, the stags would need to be drawn with extremely arched backs. Such a depiction is likely non-period style. In any case, animals in annulo are expected to have their legs inwards and their identifiability and period style are hampered by this posture.

We have precedent against animals which are almost, but not really, in annulo:

[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part of an arrangement in annulo. (LoAR October 2000)

This is clear of conflict with ... Vert, two stags combattant argent. There is one CD for the difference in arrangement between in fess (as with two animals combattant) and in pale. There is also a CD for changing the posture, for the change between rampant/rampant to sinister and courant inverted/courant to sinister. [Katrín Þorfinssdóttir, 02/02, R-Atenveldt]

[Gules, in dexter chief, sinister chief, and base a bear rampant Or, and in chief, dexter base and sinister base a tree argent] No documentation was presented, and none was found, for this arrangement of two types of charge on a plain field. The arrangement is very difficult to blazon, hence the laborious blazon above. Some less explicit blazons were suggested, but none of them would unambiguously recreate this emblazon. The combination of the lack of documentation and difficulty of blazon indicates that this design is too far from period style to be accepted.

While we were unable to find this arrangement of two types of charge on a plain field, it may be found on a field divided party of six pieces. See, for example, a grant of arms c.1558, Party of six azure and Or, three fountains and three lion's heads erased gules (Gwynn-Jones, The Art of Heraldry, p. 103). This blazon for the 1558 coat is patterned on the blazon for Theodoric of Salt Keep, Party of six pieces per fess nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent and three falcons close sable. In these cases, the divided field causes the charges to fall into the desired arrangement by default, simplifying the blazon. [Sofia Chiudskaia Smolianina, 05/02, R-Middle]

[Per pale vert and sable, six gouttes three two and one argent] It is not clear whether the default for six objects on a per pale field should be three two and one (as on a plain field) or two two and two (so the charges are placed on opposite sides of the line of division.) We have thus blazoned the arrangement of the gouttes explicitly. [Malcolm Makalestyr, 07/02, A-Outlands]

Note that the SCA default for six objects on a plain field is three two and one. This matches the default for six objects on a plain field in most of the times and places in which heraldry is found before 1600. [Edward of Hartwell, 09/02, A-Caid]

[in base three millrinds two and one] The millrinds' arrangement was not originally explicitly blazoned on the LoI, but it was blazoned on the form. On a shield shape three charges in base will be two and one by default, but this is not necessarily the case on other shapes, such as a rectangular banner. Since the submitter explicitly blazoned the charges in base as two and one, we have reinstated this term. If the submitter would prefer to have this left as a matter of artist's licence, she may request a reblazon. [Áine Sindradóttir, 10/02, A-Atlantia]

[Azure, an orle of oak leaves argent] This does not conflict with Catterina da Calabria, Azure, six leaves argent. There is one CD for changing the type of leaf. There is a second CD for changing the arrangement from three two and one to in orle. While six charges three two and one could conceivably be misdrawn to leave a clear open space in the center, that is not the case with Catterina's emblazon, so there is no visual conflict problem between the two pieces of armory. [Jake de Twelfoaks,10/02, A-East]

We have blazoned the ermine spots in base as a bar of ermine spots, parallel to armory using arrangements of unnumbered charges such as an orle of martlets. "Unnumbered" charges, such as the charges in an orle of martlets, are too many to explicitly enumerate: generally eight or more charges.

Orles of unnumbered charges are found in period armory, but no documentation has been provided for barrulets abased of unnumbered charges (or other ordinaries abased of unnumbered charges). This arrangement is a step from period practice. The fact that the unnumbered charges in question are ermine spots is a second step from period practice. While ermine spots are reasonable charges when taken in small numbers, unnumbered ermine spots are indicative of an ermined fur rather than a group of charges. This combination is too many steps from period practice to be acceptable. This design could alternately be blazoned with a counter-ermine bar on a sable field, but that would contravene the rules of contrast, further indicating that this design is not period style. [Iuliana inghean Domhnaill, 10/02, R-East]

[three fleurs-de-lys in pall bases to center] These charges were originally blazoned in annulo, but three charges, two and one, bases to center, are generally blazoned in pall bases to center. A number of commenters questioned whether these charges could allowably be blazoned in pall because the angle of the fleurs-de-lys was not the standard angle for such an arrangement. The problem with the angle of the fleurs-de-lys in the letter of intent is due to the way that the mini-emblazon was cut-and-pasted, or scanned, into the letter of intent. On the full sized form, the three fleurs-de-lys are oriented as one would expect for three charges in pall bases to center. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/02, A-Atenveldt]

[Per bend sinister azure and sable, three crosses potent two and one argent] The three crosses are blazoned explicitly as two and one because, on a per bend sinister field, three charges default to having two in the dexter chief portion of the field and one in the sinister base portion. [Marmaduc de Thystelesworthe, 01/03, A-Atlantia]

[Argent, two double-bitted battleaxes and a phoenix azure] We have reblazoned the device to show that it consists of a group of equally-sized primary charges arranged two and one. There were some questions in the commentary about the way in which the charges were arranged. Because all three charges are longer vertically than horizontally, it is a reasonable artistic choice to draw them so that the bottom part of the chiefmost charges is alongside the top part of the basemost charge. [Simon von Beckum, 01/03, A-East]

[three dolphins embowed-counterembowed in annulo] The College had some concerns about whether the dolphins could reasonably be blazoned in annulo. The one in dexter chief is haurient to sinister, that in sinister chief is urinant and the one in base is fesswise. We encourage the submitter, on resubmission, to draw these charges so that they are more clearly in annulo, or to posture them so that they may be blazoned clearly. [James of Essex, 01/03, R-Trimaris] [Ed.: Returned for conflict.]

[Per bend argent and sable, a hound rampant and a hound rampant contourny counterchanged] This does not conflict with Matthew de Wolfe, Per bend sinister embattled argent and sable, in bend two wolves rampant combattant counterchanged. To understand why there is no conflict, it is helpful to remove all blazon shortcuts and blazon each of these pieces of armory explicitly. Note that there are two important common blazon shortcuts which are found in both Matheus' and Matthew's current blazons. The first blazon shortcut is that two charges on a divided field are placed on opposite sides of a line of division by default. The other blazon shortcut is the use of the word counterchanged rather than using the tinctures argent and sable.

Thus, when we remove blazon shortcuts, Matheus' arms may be blazoned Per bend argent and sable, in sinister chief a hound rampant sable and in dexter base a hound rampant to sinister argent. Matthew's arms may be blazoned Per bend sinister embattled argent and sable, in dexter chief a wolf rampant to sinister sable and in sinister base a wolf rampant argent.

Precedent has consistently held that "you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a conflict" (stated succinctly in this quote from the LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent). Thus, we must compare these two pieces of armory using the "explicit" blazons. There is one CD for changing the field. There is no difference for changing the type of canine from wolf to hound.

The charges may not lie on a portion of the field with which they have no contrast. Matheus' charges could not be arranged like Matthew's (with the sable charge in dexter chief and the argent charge in sinister base) on a per bend argent and sable field, because each charge would have no contrast with half of the field on which it lies. The charges must change their arrangement. Because this change in arrangement is "caused by other changes to the design" (namely, the changes to the field) it is not worth difference per RfS X.4.g for arrangement changes. (This is often known as a "forced" arrangement change or "forced" position change.)

The second CD comes from the change of posture. Each canine is facing in the opposite direction from the corresponding canine in the other coat. This posture change is a CD by RfS X.4.h.

By this analysis we are expressly overturning the precedent set in January 1994 that stated in pertinent part:

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two <charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the <charges> cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field

By this precedent, the use of the word counterchanged would remove a conflict which would apply if the tinctures of the charges were explicitly sable and argent, which is contrary to long-standing SCA policy. [Matheus of Coppertree, 02/03, A-Æthelmearc]

[in pale three labels couped] The armory depicts all three labels in the top two-thirds of the escutcheon. These labels are therefore not in the in pale arrangement (which would distribute them equally across the shield). However, the labels cannot be blazoned in chief, because that would place the labels considerably higher on the field. The blazon term enhanced only applies when there is a standard position on the field for the charge (from which the charge has been moved towards chief). There is no standard position on the field for three labels, so enhanced is not meaningful in this context. Thus, this device is not blazonable as drawn. At this time, it appears that the armory would be acceptable if the three labels were correctly drawn in pale, as indicated in the blazon.

There was a question about whether it is acceptable to have multiple labels in a piece of armory. This is not a common period design but al-Jamal provided a number of period or near-period examples from various sources. [Valentino da Siena, 03/03, R-An Tir]

[a chevron between three towers argent and a fleur-de-lys] The three towers would default, given this blazon, to lie in chief. However, they are arranged somewhere between in chief and one and two. This arrangement is not blazonable and thus is not acceptable by RfS VII.7.b. [Julienne de La Rochelle, 04/03, R-East]

[five <charges> in saltire vs. four <charges> in pall] There is a CD for changing the arrangement of the charges. It is possible to arrange five charges in pall by arranging them two, one, one, and one. Therefore, the change in arrangement of the charges from in pall to in saltire "is not caused by other changes to the design" and thus is worth difference under RfS X.4.g. [Jordan Catharne, 05/03, A-An Tir]

The triangle inverted voided ployé fleury at the points azure may have been considered a single charge in German armory. However, this single charge is not heraldically distinct from three fleurs-de-lys conjoined in pall azure. We do not give difference between three charges and three conjoined charges when both groups of charges are in in the same orientation and arrangement. This is noted in the following precedent, which specifically treats of charges in annulo: "There is no difference between charges in annulo and charges in annulo which are also conjoined, although the conjoining must be blazoned when present" (LoAR January 2002).

As a result, this only has one CD from a badge of Atenveldt (registered in December 2002), Or, three fleurs-de-lys in pall bases to center azure. There is one CD for fieldlessness but nothing for conjoining the fleurs-de-lys. [Sonnet Manon, 08/03, R-An Tir]

We have received the occasional comment asking whether the charges in an orle of [charges] are conjoined by default. They are not. By default an orle of [charges] is an unnumbered group of charges (generally, eight or more charges) that are arranged in orle. Each individual charge is in its default posture unless otherwise blazoned. The arms of the Valence family (sometime earls of Pembroke) are, perhaps, the best-known example of this sort of design in real-world armory. Their arms are protected as important non-SCA arms as Barruly argent and azure, an orle of martlets gules.

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]

[Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a chevron dovetailed on the upper edge argent between three compass stars Or and a fleur-de-lys per pale gules and Or] There were some questions in the commentary about whether it was necessary to explicitly blazon the arrangement of the charges on the top half of the field. Note that charges on the top half of a field divided in a roughly horizontal fashion (per fess or per chevron) will have the charges in a horizontal row in chief by default. [Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 09/03, A-Ansteorra]

[Argent chapé azure, three goblets two and one gules] It is not clear what the default arrangement for three charges on a chapé field should be. The usual default on a plain field (two and one) doesn't fit well on a chapé field, and thus seems an unlikely default for that field. We have thus blazoned the arrangement explicitly. [Waldemar Stanislaw of White Mountain, 09/03, A-Trimaris]

[Or, in pale two talbots courant contourny gules] In period armory, one would usually expect two long horizontal charges on a plain field to be in pale. However, the SCA does not have a default arrangement for two charges on a plain field. Armory using two charges on a plain field is so uncommon in both SCA and real-world heraldry that it is best to blazon the arrangement of such charges explicitly rather than define default arrangements. We have therefore explicitly blazoned these talbots as in pale. [Aster Peyton, 10/03, A-An Tir]

[Or, two foxes counter-salient in saltire purpure] His previous blazon, Or, two foxes countersalient purpure, did not clearly indicate that the foxes were in saltire. Although the most common illustrations of two animals counter-salient show animals which are counter-salient in saltire, research indicates that animals counter-salient must face in opposite directions, but are not in saltire by default. In addition, all the other SCA blazons using counter-salient for this arrangement blazon the animals explicitly in saltire. [Alfred of Warwick, 10/03, A-Middle]

[Or, semy of mullets of five greater and five lesser points sable] This also conflicts with ... Or, five mullets in annulo sable... When one considers a group of as few as five charges, there is no difference between the arrangements in annulo and semy, because in annulo is about as close as one can come to strewing five charges evenly on an entire field. This is similar to the ruling in the LoAR of September 2000, which ruled, "[semy of fraises Or] Conflict with ... Azure, six roses, two, two and two, Or. There is not a CD ... for arrangement." [Timothy of Glastinbury, 10/03, R-Ansteorra]

[in pale a scorpion Or and two swords inverted in saltire argent] Conflict with ... Azure in pale a horse's head erased Or and two swords inverted in saltire argent. There is one CD for changing the field. There is not a CD for changing the type of only the topmost charge in a group of three charges arranged in this fashion on a plain field. There is a special-case precedent allowing a CD for changing the type or tincture of bottommost charge of a group of three charges arranged two and one, but that precedent is specific to that arrangement, and does not apply here. [David of Clayton, 10/03, R-Artemisia]

[Argent, two daggers in chevron sable each distilling gouttes] The gouttes in this emblazon are too large to be merely considered artistic license and omitted from the blazon, and they cannot be blazoned in a manner that reproduces the emblazon. This submission therefore violates RfS VII.7.b, which states, "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon."

The gouttes are not drawn in a fashion that one would expect given the blazon on the Letter of Intent, which states that the daggers are distilling the gouttes. One would expect such distilled gouttes to be small gouttes which drip from the point of the dagger and are placed close to the point of the dagger. These gouttes are too far from the tips of the daggers to be distilled from the daggers.

The arrangement of the gouttes could not otherwise clearly be blazoned. To attempt to describe this emblazon: there are two vertical columns of gouttes, each column of two gouttes each (making a total of four gouttes). In each column, the top goutte is about one-fourth of the field below the tip of the dagger, and the lower goutte another one-fourth of the field below that. The dexter column of gouttes is a bit higher on the field than the sinister column. The group of four gouttes is not arranged in an heraldic arrangement such as two and two or one two and one. The gouttes are thus in an unblazonable arrangement. [Bora Gan, 11/03, R-An Tir]

[three dragons each involved in annulo inverted] Each of these dragons is inverted: on its back with its paws in the air. "The College has judged inverted creatures to be unacceptable style, barring documentation of this practice in period heraldry" (LoAR of September 1993, p. 21). The College has not yet found, or been presented with, documentation for animals in this involved in annulo inverted posture. The device must therefore be returned.

We note that the ruling in the October 2000 LoAR stating, "By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part of an arrangement in annulo", does apply to the armorial design found in this submission. This submission consists of three dragons in an arrangement two and one, not an arrangement in annulo. The precedent refers to an arrangement in annulo without specifying the posture of the animals in that arrangement. For example, Three dragons courant in annulo would be in an arrangement where the three courant dragons would be running in a circle, feet towards the center of the shield. As a result, the bottommost dragon in the group must perforce be inverted. The precedent makes clear that such an arrangement in annulo is acceptable, even though one of the animals in such an arrangement is inverted. [Avice Greylyng, 11/03, R-East]

[seven roundels two three and two argent, the centermost Or] There was much commentary regarding the style of the device. The group of roundels is in a clearly blazonable (albeit not standard) heraldic arrangement. While it is one step from period style (a "weirdness") to tincture only one of these roundels differently from the others in the group, it is not so far from period style to be a bar to registration. Note the following precedent from the LoAR of September 2000:

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

In this September 2000 precedent, it was made clear that if the charges could be arranged so that they were clearly all in the same charge group, the design would be registerable. [Bull Pitte, Shire of, 03/04, A-Calontir]

ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined

[two Wake knots conjoined in pale] A Wake knot, as per the PicDic, is fesswise by default. Two Wake knots in pale would be arranged like these. However there is no guarantee that the loose ends would tie up as neatly as in this badge. It is as likely that the loose ends would stick out and the round parts would be conjoined.

The fact that the loose ends do connect up with each other in an unbroken interlace could imply that this is "knotwork". On the other hand, the knots maintain their identifiability as Wake knots, which are themselves a standard heraldic knot. The conjunction may not be the only way to conjoin the knots, but it is an acceptable way to do so.

A pertinent precedent on the topic is in the LoAR of November 1994, for the Middle Kingdom's Order of the Cavendish Knot, [Fieldless] Four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross vert:

There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased ... as to diminish the size seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9)

It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots.

This conjunction of knots is a weirdness, but as there is only one such weirdness, it is registerable. [Nottinghill Coill, Barony of, 08/01, A-Atlantia]

[Purpure, a chevron between three grape leaves inverted within an orle Or] It is standard SCA practice for an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to stop at the inside of the surrounding charge, as per the reblazon of Rouland Carre's arms in January 1991:

Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.

The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would not have the bend throughout within the orle.

In the real world, both the "throughout" and the "within and conjoined to" combinations of ordinaries and orles/double tressures may be found, without a clear default. David Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll of arms gives five examples of ordinaries combined with double tressures flory counterflory. There is support for both designs in this book: with the ordinary throughout, and with the ordinary within and conjoined to the double tressure flory counterflory. Both designs are specifically found with chevrons. [Inigo Missaglia, 08/01, A-Caid] [Ed.: The emblazon has the chevron terminated at the orle]

[Argent, a cat sejant erect guardant azure between two rose branches in chevron inverted conjoined in base sable] This submission was listed in the Letter of Intent as a device and augmentation. However, this is a simple new device registration. The original blazon referred to a wreath of roses around this cat, but a wreath of roses is circular (or nearly so.) The emblazon here shows rose branches, and we have therefore so blazoned them.

The design of two rose branches in a "V" shape is close to many SCA depictions of a rose wreath. Thus the only persons who may use such a design without presumption are those who are entitled to bear a rose wreath. The submitter is a countess and Lady of the Rose and is thus entitled to such a wreath. [Judith Maryse, 10/01, A-Trimaris]

[Azure, three crescents one and two horns to center Or] Conflict with ... Sable, three crescents one and two conjoined at the horns Or. There is one CD for changing the field. There is not a CD between a given group of charges conjoined and another group of charges in the same arrangement which are not conjoined. [Selim ibn Murad, 12/01, R-Atenveldt]

[Five crescents conjoined in annulo horns outward argent] This is clear of conflict with ... Purpure, six crescents in annulo argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is another CD for changing the posture of the group, since over half the charges have changed their posture from palewise to some other orientation. There is no difference between charges in annulo and charges in annulo which are also conjoined, although the conjoining must be blazoned when present. There is also no difference between five and six charges, by RfS X.4.f. [Caid, Kingdom of, 01/02, A-Caid]

[Four fleurs-de-lys conjoined in cross bases to center Or] 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 conjoiniWe 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]

Some commenters asked whether it was necessary to blazon the saltire as "within and conjoined to" the orle. "It is standard SCA practice for an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to stop at the inside of the surrounding charge" (LoAR August 2001). See that LoAR for further details of period practices for orles combined with ordinaries. [Roesia de Blakehall, 11/02, A-Atlantia]

[Three birds close conjoined in annulo sable] These birds are conjoined in annulo. The only conjoining is where the beak of each bird touches the tail of the bird in front of it. This emblazon thus meets the objections stated in the previous return. The outline of the group is somewhat more triangular than round, because the birds have straight backs, but this is an acceptable group of birds conjoined in annulo. [Bran Trefonin, 01/03, A-Atlantia]

[Quarterly gules and azure, in bend sinister a Danish axe sustained by a bear rampant contourny argent] This is clear of conflict with the Barony of Bjornsborg, ...(Fieldless) A bear statant erect reguardant contourny supporting a berdiche blade to sinister argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is another CD for arrangement: the Bjornsborg bear and its sustained axe are in the default arrangment for a statant erect beast sustaining a polearm (in fess), while the charges in this submission are in bend sinister. [Leifr Vagnsson, 09/03, A-Outlands]

ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move

There is not a CD for the placement on the field, since the arrangement on the field is forced because the Or wolves in Katherine's arms may not lie on the erminois parts of the field. [Ingilborg Sigmundardóttir, 08/01, R-Caid]

[... a falcon contourny argent] Conflict with ... Azure, a falcon close contourny argent. There is only one CD for changes to the field. It also conflicts with ... Per chevron argent and azure, in base a falcon counter-close argent. There is one CD for the field but nothing for the forced move of the bird to base. [Ailill Lockhart, 09/01, R-Atenveldt]

[Gules, in dexter chief a fret couped argent] This does not conflict with ... Per fess gules fretty argent and sable. There is one CD for the change to the field. The comparison between the fretty in chief and the fret couped in dexter chief is like the comparison between a mullet in chief and a mullet in dexter chief. This is an unforced move and thus worth a CD. This also does not conflict with ... Per saltire gules and pean, a fret argent. There is one CD for the change to the field and another for the unforced move of the primary charge to dexter chief. [Ané{zv}ka z Ro{zv}mitála, 11/01, A-Ansteorra]

[Quarterly vert and argent, two Latin crosses argent] Conflict with ... Per pale azure and sable, two Latin crosses fitchy argent. There is a CD for changes to the field, but nothing for fitching the crosses. There is no difference for the change of the arrangement of the crosses, since Faílenn's are forced to be in bend by the field tincture. [Faílenn inghean Mheanmain of Ulster, 11/01, R-Atlantia]

[Per chevron azure and vert, a chevron and in base a cross clechy argent] This also conflicts with ... Per chevron azure and vert, a chevron and a chief embattled argent. There is one CD for changing the type of secondary charge to a cross from a chief. RfS X.4.g only allows difference to be gotten for changes to charge placement or arrangement if the change "is not caused by other changes to the design". The placement change here is caused by the change of type of secondary charge from a chief, which has a mandatory placement. Therefore, there is not a second CD for changing the arrangement. [Áine inghean uí Ghríobhtha, 01/02, R-Atenveldt]

[Quarterly per fess rayonny Or and gules, in bend two birds displayed sable] The device therefore conflicts with Edward de Maccuswell, Per saltire argent and sable, in pale two double-headed eagles displayed sable. There is one CD for changing the field. There is no difference for arrangement by RfS X.4.g. This rule 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." Here, the change of arrangement is due to another change to the design: the field tincture. The black birds in Edward's arms may not lie on the black portions of the field and therefore cannot be in bend like Brangwayn's birds. There is no type difference between these generic birds and the double-headed eagles. [Brangwayn Snowden, 01/02, R-Middle]

[Gules, in bend three escallops argent] Conflict with ... Per fess azure and vair ancient, three escallops in chief argent. There is one CD for changing the field. However, there is not a second CD for the change in the arrangement of the escallops. The change in the arrangement is caused by the change in the field. One could not put three escallops argent in bend on a per fess azure and vair ancient field, because the the bottommost and centermost argent escallops would be placed wholly or in part on the vair portion of the field, with which they have inadequate contrast. According to RfS X.4.h [Ed: should be X.4.g], "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." [Laurence of Damascus, 08/02, R-An Tir]

[Per chevron gules and sable, in base a dragon passant Or] This does not conflict with ... Per fess indented azure and gules, a wyvern passant Or. There is one CD for changing the field and a second for the unforced move of the dragon to base. While it is true that the dragon, in order to fill the space, extends slightly into the upper half of the shield, the fact that the dragon is entirely below the per chevron line of division is an unmistakable visual cue that the charge is, indeed, in base. [Alex the Scribe, 09/02, A-Atenveldt]

ARROW and ARROWHEAD

[Azure, eight pheons in annulo shafts to center argent] A question was raised in commentary about whether this was overly reminiscent of the "Chaos shield" insignia, which is a major item of insignia in Michael Moorcock's Melniboné books. The Moorcock insignia is described with the arrows conjoined in the center, as if they compose an eight-armed cross. The separation of the pheons here should be sufficient to avoid an overwhelming reference to that insignia. [Alessandra di Fióre, 08/01, A-Meridies]

[Two arrows in saltire surmounted by a double-bitted axe Or] Conflict with the device of Michael of York, Gules, a sheaf of three arrows bound by a serpent coiled to sinister guardant, all Or. ... The arrangement of the charges has not changed: a sheaf of three arrows consists of two arrows in saltire surmounted by a third arrow. RfS X.4.e only gives a CD for changing the type of a group of charges when at least half the group has changed in type. Here only one-third of the group has changed in type. The serpent binding the sheaf in Michael's arms is effectively a maintained charge, and its addition or deletion is not worth difference. [Conall of Twin Moons, 08/02, R-Atenveldt]

[fire arrows inverted proper flighted] An arrow proper, according to the Pictorial Dictionary, has a brown shaft and black head. A fire arrow, when proper, is enflamed near the head in proper flames. [Ád Fáid, 09/02, A-Atlantia]

[a bend counter-ermine between a bow nocked with an arrow and a lion rampant] The group of charges around the bend is not considered to be a group of three unlike charges (which would be overly complex by RfS VIII.1.a):

[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate charges. (LoAR April 1999 p. 6)

[Roderick de Graham, 01/03, A-Calontir]

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. [Eckhart von Eschenbach, 03/03, R-Meridies]

There is substantial (RfS X.2) difference between arrows and crampons. The charges were treated quite distinctly in period, and there is notable visual difference between them. While it is true that both arrows and crampons are long and pointed at one end, so they have a certain similarity of shape, they are as different in appearance from each other as a bow and a crossbow (ruled substantially different in the LoAR of November 1996), a pretzel and a triquetra (ruled substantially different in the LoAR of April 2001), and a pear and a pinecone (ruled substantially different in the LoAR of May 2001). [Diethelm Waltorfer, 12/03, A-Ansteorra]

[Gules, a sheaf of arrows within an annulet argent] Conflict with Aeddan Ivor, Gules, a sheaf of three arrows argent fletched vert marked sable, a chief embattled argent. There is one CD for changing the chief to the annulet under RfS X.4.e. However, there is no additional difference for changing the tincture of the arrows. The head and fletching of arrows are together considered half the tincture of the arrow (per the LoAR of January 1992, p. 6), but the fletching alone is not half the tincture of the arrow. Therefore, since less than half the tincture of the arrow has changed, there is no difference per RfS X.4.d. Note that Aeddan's fletching is indeed vert marked sable, the sable markings are not elsewhere on the arrow. [Ichijou Jirou Toshiyasu, 02/04, R-Atlantia]

ARTHROPOD -- Bee

[two bees and a dragonfly counterchanged] When drawn clearly, there is a CD between a bee and a dragonfly. However, there is significant potential for visual confusion when the two are used in the same group. In the drawing here, the types of charges are not easily distinguished from each other. Hence, this must be returned for redrawing. [Syslye ferch Morgan, 09/01, R-Ansteorra]

[Azure, in chevron two wasps statant respectant within a bordure argent] The previous device submission was returned for using rampant insects. Those insects had their bodies palewise with their limbs extended forward and outwards in a more or less rampant fashion. This emblazon clearly uses statant wasps. Even though their bodies are, as noted in the blazon, tilted in chevron, they do not appear to be rampant, and they are drawn differently from the wasps in the previous submission. This redrawing meets the objection of the previous return.

The SCA has registered many insects statant, as well as other arthropods statant (such as scorpions), even when the insect or arthropod has only been documented as tergiant in period heraldry. Without an extensive change in policy concerning the acceptability of insects or arthropods statant, this may be registered. [Robert Pine, 08/02, A-Atlantia]

[a bee rising] Rising is not a defined posture for insects. These bees are seen in profile with their wings addorsed and their bodies hovering in intermediate postures between bendwise and palewise. Their posture cannot be blazoned, and therefore, this device must be returned.

Note that the SCA accepts bees in a statant posture (horizontal body, legs down, wings addorsed). The SCA also accepts bees which are statant in a clearly defined bendwise or bendwise sinister posture. However, it is not acceptable to rotate a statant bee 90 degrees to a "palewise" posture. The resulting posture, with a vertical body, and legs extended to dexter, is equivalent to the previously forbidden "rampant" posture for bees and similar insects. [Patrick Olsson, 10/02, R-Æthelmearc]

[(Fieldless) A bee statant proper] In the SCA, a bee statant has its wings addorsed by default, as in the August 2002 registration of Robert Pine's device.

This badge does not conflict with Aideen the Audacious, (Fieldless) A bumblebee fesswise proper. There is one CD for fieldlessness. Aideen's bumblebee is in its default tergiant posture, and then rotated fesswise. There is a CD between a bee tergiant fesswise and a bee statant. Both postures show the bees with fesswise bodies, but a bee tergiant fesswise has wings visible on both sides of the bee's body, while a bee statant only has wings visible on the chiefmost side of the body. This difference is worth a CD, analogous to the difference between a bird rising wings displayed and a bird rising wings addorsed. [Catríona nic Theàrlaigh, 12/02, A-An Tir]

[butterflies vs. bees volant en arrière] ... and a second CD for changing the type of the group ... from bees to butterflies. [Sorcha inghean Shearraigh, 07/03, A-Atlantia]

ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous

There does not appear to be a well defined proper for ladybugs, and they can be found in various colorations when in nature. Therefore, this bug has been blazoned explicitly. [Morgan Skeene, 09/01, A-Calontir]

[butterflies vs. bees volant en arrière] ... and a second CD for changing the type of the group ... from bees to butterflies. [Sorcha inghean Shearraigh, 07/03, A-Atlantia]

ARTHROPOD -- Spider

... the spider is not recognizable as drawn. A spider has two roughly equally sized body segments, the cephalothorax (a slightly smaller segment to which the legs are attached) and the abdomen. The spider's legs are each, roughly, as long as the body. In this emblazon, the abdomen is disproportionately large: about four times the length that one would expect given the size of the legs and cephalothorax, and wider than one would expect as well. This changes the outline of the spider so much that it cannot be recognized. [Valdís Osborne, 09/02, R-An Tir]

AUGMENTATIONS

[Vert, a bull's head caboshed Or, for augmentation, in chief a lance fesswise argent dependent therefrom a pennant bearing Argent, a pale gules, overall a dragon passant vert, in chief a laurel wreath proper] The armory on the pennant isn't the Midrealm arms, as stated on the LoI, because it does not include the crown. It does include a laurel wreath, which may not be used in personal armory, even in an augmentation (see Jan w Orzeldom, Ansteorra returns, April 1992 LoAR). The arms of a branch without either laurel wreath or crown may be used as an augmentation on personal arms (see Jonathan DeLaufyson Macebearer, Ansteorra returns, August 1988 LoAR). [Anna z Pernštejna, 09/01, R-Middle]

[Vert, in pale a lion couchant guardant and a laurel wreath Or, as an augmentation, within the laurel wreath a triskele argent] This armorial design consists a group of three co-primary charges of different types, which violates RfS VIII.1.a. However, RfS VIII.7, "Augmentations of Honor", states "The augmentation may, however, on a case by case basis break the rules in relation to the original armory." Augmentations in period were commonly made by adding charges, which increases the complexity of the armory thus augmented. Therefore, it seems reasonable to grant an exemption for augmented armory that violates the complexity rules if the armory is augmented in a period fashion.

Some commenters asked whether adding a "random" charge on the field is a period form of augmentation. Anthony Wagner and Arthur Colin Cole co-authored "The Venetian Ambassador's Augmentation" in The Coat of Arms, volume III (old series) numbers 19 (July 1954) and 20 (October 1954). The article states that "during the reigns of Henry VII to George III it was customary for the Ambassador of the Republic of Venice in London, at all events if he remained in office for some length of time and rendered distinguished service, to be knighted and granted an augmentation of arms under the Great Seal ... Occasionally other Venetians also were honoured by receiving grants of augmentation." It then describes these augmentations. This article shows a number of types of augmentation: creating entirely new arms, adding quarterings, adding charged cantons, adding charged chiefs, and adding charges to the field. As period (or near-period) examples of the last practice, on February 12, 1550, Edward VI granted an augmentation to Daniel Barbar of Venice. The original arms were Argent, an annulet gules, and the augmentation placed a Tudor rose within the annulet, much in the same way as the augmentation in this device places a triskele within the laurel wreath. In 1608, James I knighted and granted an augmentation to George Giustinian, Ambassador of the Republic of Venice. The original arms were Gules, on a double-headed crowned eagle Or an escutcheon Gules charged with a fess Or, and the augmentation was in chief a lion passant guardant maintaining a Scottish thistle Or. [Oldenfeld, Shire of, 06/02, A-Trimaris]

[Sable, a torteau fimbriated and conjoined in fess with an increscent and a decrescent Or, and as an augmentation on the torteau, a rose sable charged with a rose Or, thereon a mullet of five greater and five lesser points sable] Because this submission uses a sable rose on a gules roundel, it violates the rules of contrast in RfS VIII.2.a. It has been explicitly ruled that augmentations may not violate the rules of contrast until such time that documentation is presented showing such violations of contrast to be standard in period augmentations:

The basic question raised by this submission is can an augmentation break the rule of tincture? ... only one example of period use of an augmentation breaking the rule of tincture was found. Barring documentation of large numbers of period augmentations that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling to register this practice. (LoAR August 1997 p. 26)

In addition, the augmentation violates the stylistic "layer limit" (RfS VIII.1.c.ii). The most generous interpretation of this augmentation would place a type of mullet on a double rose, which double rose lays entirely on a roundel (not "directly on the field"), thus violating the rule. It is necessary to demonstrate that such a violation of the layer limit would be compatible with period styles of augmentation in order for this practice to be acceptable.

The submitter has been given permission for the augmentation to match a registered badge of the Kingdom of Ansteorra, (Fieldless) A rose sable charged with a rose Or, thereon a mullet of five greater and five lesser points sable. The SCA has registered numerous augmentations in which a kingdom badge is used as an augmentation for an individual. In all such cases, in order for the augmentation to be registered, the kingdom must give permission for the badge to be used as the augmentation, and the badge must be stylistically acceptable as an augmentation in the context of the armory which it augments. [Tivar Moondragon, 09/02, R-Ansteorra]

[... a chief vert and for augmentation, on a canton Or a tower and overall a sword sable] This emblazon does not appear to depict a correct way of combining a canton with a chief. The canton as drawn in this emblazon takes up a bit less than the dexter third of the chief in its horizontal extent and extends exactly to the bottom of the chief in its vertical extent. This seems neither the correct way to charge a chief with a canton, nor the correct way to place a canton so that it surmounts the entire device.

Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, states that a canton, when combined with a chief, will overlie the chief. This implies that the canton will extend onto the field. In this armory, since the canton and the field are of the same tincture, this might result in problems with our rules for contrast (RfS VIII.2). Franklyn and Tanner, An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 59, indicate that a canton can be charged on a chief but they also state that "A canton on a chief ought to be slightly smaller than the chief's width in order not to appear like a chief party per 'side'."

We suggest that, if the submitter resubmits, she include documentation that the form of augmentation that she plans to use is found in period armory. Note that if she attempts to resubmit with the canton lying entirely on the chief, or to otherwise submit with a charged charge on the chief, she should specifically address how such a violation of the "layer limit" (RfS VIII.1.c.ii) would be compatible with period styles of augmentation. [Rachel Wallace, 09/02, R-Atlantia]

[adding coronets to a device] This submission exceeds the rule of thumb for complexity in RfS VIII.1.a, as the number of tinctures and the number of types of charge total nine. This rule of thumb may be exceeded in cases where the armory adheres strongly to period armorial design, but that is not the case in this device.

It is important to note that the allowances for overcomplexity when considering augmentations do not apply to simple device changes. Device changes incorporating symbols of rank are not augmentations. Augmentations are a special honor from the crown. [Sara Charmaine of Falkensee, 01/03, R-Æthelmearc]

From Wreath: Augmentations
This was a busy month for augmentations. An augmentation is one of the highest honors bestowed by the SCA: it behooves us to make policies for augmentations as clear as possible, so that the excellent people receiving the honor have as little difficulty with registering augmentations as possible. Therefore, while the ensuing discussion mostly addresses issues raised by the augmentations this month, it also addresses some other general issues and policies that arise frequently when considering augmentations.

We particularly direct kingdom heralds to the sections on "Kingdom Badges that are Designated as an Augmentation" and "Augmentations and Appropriate Content", as they set forth some previously unstated policies and interpretations.

Who Specifies the Form of an Augmentation

We remind the College that the form of an augmentation is determined according to the normal registration process: the submitter proposes the form of the augmentation and it is either accepted (or not) based on the Rules for Submission. The form of the augmentation cannot be mandated by the crown bestowing it. RfS VIII.7 states "While the right to an augmentation is bestowed by the crown, its form is subject to the normal registration process." The Board of Directors has upheld this policy:

[Concerning an augmentation whose form was specified by the granting Crown] At the time of the August [1987 Laurel] meeting this submission was pended, despite the strong conviction of most of the College that it infringed on the proper usage of [a reserved charge]. Since it involved a "constitutional issue", i.e., in the event of conflict between the will of the Crown and the decision of the College, which takes priority. As the Board of Directors at its January meeting has now decided that the College may not be compelled to register that which is in violation of its existing rules, this submission is now formally returned. (LoAR February 1988)

Augmentations and General Paperwork

If a person's device changes at the same time that an augmentation is added, the armorial changes need to be performed in two separate submissions actions, each with its own set of submission forms: one for the change of the device (without the augmentation) and one depicting the changed device and adding the augmentation: "... as we protect both the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, a device change and an augmentation must be submitted as two separate actions" (LoAR October 2000).

Augmentations and General Conflict Issues

RfS VIII.7 states, "If [the augmentation] has the appearance of being independent armory, for example a charged escutcheon or canton, then it is independently subject to the normal rules of armorial conflict." This means that the augmentation must be checked for conflict as if it were a separate piece of armory.

Note that the converse is not true: it is not necessary to check new devices or badges for conflict against previously existing augmentations that have the appearance of being independent armory. This is because the augmentations do not have an existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore are not independently protectable entities. Per the LoAR of October 1985: "Arms may be borne with or without an augmentation, but the augmentation should not be used separately from the arms."

Some commenters have theorized that if a person registers an augmentation that appears to be independent armory, the independent armory is somehow grandfathered to the kingdom that originally bestowed the augmentation, and thus (the theory continues) the independent armory could be registered by any new recipient of an augmentation from that kingdom. But this cannot be the case, because the augmentation does not have an independent existence, and because the kingdom has no ownership of, or even control of, the form taken by an individual's augmentation.

Note also that, per RfS VIII.7, it is not necessary to check augmentations for conflict when they do not have the appearance of an independent display of armory. If someone's augmentation takes the form ... and for augmentation, in chief a rose argent, the rose in chief does not have the appearance of an independent display of armory, and one does not have to check it for conflict as if it were (Fieldless) A rose argent.

We also remind the College that augmented arms are to be checked for conflict both with and without the augmentation: "Augmentations in Society armory should always be blazoned as such; the bearer has the option of displaying the armory with or without the augmentation, and conflict should be checked against both versions" (LoAR September 1992, pg. 26).

Augmentations and Letters of Permission

The SCA has previously registered augmentations that appeared to be independent armory and were in conflict with - or identical to - a badge owned by a kingdom or some other entity. In these cases, it has been necessary for the person with the augmentation to have a letter of permission from the owner of the badge in order to register that augmentation. As noted in the LoAR of September 1995 regarding an augmentation (which was in conflict with armory belonging to a kingdom):

For the ... conflict, we need to receive a letter of permission to conflict signed by the Crown or the kingdom Seneschal. It has always been the policy of the College not to assume that permission is given even if explicitly stated in a LoI (which was not the case here), but to require a copy of a written letter of permission to conflict.

Such permission was explicitly stated to be present in the first of a (relatively) long line of augmentations from the crown of Caid where the recipient elected to use the Caidan War Banner on a charged canton or escutcheon, per the LoAR of October 1995: "A letter of permission from the Crown of Caid for the use of the War Banner of Caid as an augmentation has been received by the Laurel office." These letters of permission to conflict have not always been mentioned in the LoAR, but are present with the paperwork.

Kingdom Badges That Are Designated as an Augmentation

In the case where a kingdom has a badge designated as an augmentation, it seems appropriate to rule that a person or entity with an augmentation from that kingdom may be assumed to have permission for his/her/its augmentation to conflict with the specifically-designated augmentation badge. Kingdoms that already have badges that are serving as an augmentation should strongly consider adding the "augmentation" designation to those badges, to cut down on subsequent paperwork with letters of permission to conflict.

A kingdom badge that is designated as an augmentation may not imply any particular rank or status for the bearer. It is appropriate for a kingdom to consider adding an "augmentation" designation to a populace badge, ensign, war banner, or a previously undesignated badge without reserved charges. It is not appropriate to add an "augmentation" designation to an order, award, or office badge, or to an undesignated badge with a reserved charge.

The augmentation of the Kingdom of Meridies, (Fieldless) Three mullets one and two argent, was registered in the LoAR of March 1996 with the following comments: "This is an augmentation of arms which the Crown of Meridies may grant to individuals it deems worthy. It's [sic] purpose is not the same as a fieldless badge; as an augmentation, it should always be displayed on a field by the recipients." These LoAR comments referred to the fact that the armory contained charges that were not conjoined. Then, as now, such armory was illegal style on a fieldless badge per RfS VIII.5. But, because an augmentation will always be displayed on a field, a designated augmentation may break these fieldless style rules. The other constraints in RfS VIII.5 could also be broken for an augmentation, so a kingdom could register an augmentation of (Fieldless) a bordure embattled ... or (Fieldless) a bend charged with ..., even though these would not be registerable designs for any other type of fieldless armory.

It also seems appropriate to allow a kingdom's designated augmentations to incorporate armorial motifs that are grandfathered to that kingdom, thereby allowing users of a designated augmentation to receive the same grandfathering that the kingdom would have. As an example, hypothesize that the Kingdom of Atlantia chose to designate its badge, (Fieldless) A unicornate natural seahorse erect azure, finned argent, as an augmentation. The SCA's current policies do not allow new registrations of unicornate natural seahorses without the use of the grandfather clause. A hypothetical Atlantian recipient of an augmentation could place the designated augmentation on any suitable place on his device. If he already had an uncharged canton Or on his device, he could create the augmentation for augmentation, on the canton a unicornate natural seahorse erect azure, finned argent. However, a hypothetical Atlantian recipient of an augmentation could not use the designated badge to create the augmentation for augmentation, on a canton Or a unicornate natural seahorse erect azure finned argent. This augmentation would not be identical to the designated augmentation, and thus, the kingdom's grandfathering would not extend to this augmentation.

Augmentations and Appropriate Content

The September 1995 LoAR ruled in general that no piece of armory could be exactly duplicated as an augmentation: "We have not previously allowed armory, even as an augmentation, to be an identical version of the armory of a group or office, whether or not a letter of permission to conflict existed." However, this portion of ruling has been overruled by the October 1995 acceptance of the Caidan War Banner as an augmentation, and by successive similar registrations. At this point, in some cases augmentations may be identical to armory belonging to a group (or an individual). However, the point that an augmentation must not appear to be a claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess" (RfS XI) is one that must be considered whenever an augmentation is registered.

Precedent notes that, in at least some cases, the use of a badge of office as part of an augmentation may give an incorrect implication that the holder of the augmentation is the holder of the office. Since that statement will not always be true, the augmentation is not allowed in that circumstance. The LoAR of September 1995 dealt with an augmentation where the owner of the augmentation quartered her original coat with a quartering that was a tinctured version of a kingdom herald's seal. That ruling read, in the immediately pertinent part:

The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the ... Principal Herald is more troublesome for a couple of reasons... [one reason that] it is troublesome is that it was a period practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to apply to former holders of the office, but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a claim to be the current ... Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to 'status or powers the submitter does not possess' (RfS XI).

We also believe that any augmentation that incorporates the badge of an office in a fashion that resembles an independent display of arms is likely to give a very strong implication that the submitter holds that office, even outside of the context of marshalling. We note that there is no pattern of use of badges of office used in the SCA as augmentations. Only one such augmentation has been registered (a sinister canton of the arms of the Exchequer of the West registered in 1979). Therefore, we rule that it is not permissible for an augmentation to exactly duplicate a badge of office, even with a letter of permission.

Precedent holds that individuals may not register an augmentation that uses an inappropriate reserved charge, as it would be such a claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess". Per the LoAR of April 1992: "Laurel wreaths have always been reserved in the Society to branches of the Society, and may not be registered to an individual. (see, e.g., Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR of 10 March 1985, p.4) It is Laurel's belief, and that of many of the commenting heralds, that this restriction applies to augmentations as well as to devices, the same way that coronets and loops of chain, even as augmentations, have been restricted to those who may rightfully bear them."

It also seems appropriate to consider whether an augmentation may ever duplicate the badge of an order or award. Such an augmentation gives a strong implication that the owner of the augmentation is a member of that order, or a holder of that award. We at this time rule that such an augmentation cannot be registered if the owner of the augmentation is not a member of that order or does not hold that award, even if he has a letter of permission from the branch that owns the badge. We leave open the question of whether it is ever appropriate to register an augmentation that is identical to an award or order badge. [10/03, CL]

[for augmentation on a canton purpure a cross of Calatrava and a bordure Or] The augmentation conflicts with ... Purpure, a cross moline disjointed, a bordure Or. The augmentation in this submission appears to be a display of the armory Purpure, a cross of Calatrava and a bordure Or, which has one CD ... for changing the type of cross, but does not have the substantial difference required to qualify for RfS X.2. [Edward Cire of Greymoor, 10/03, R-An Tir]

We are aware of the previous registration of an augmentation to Valens of Flatrock in 1993, Vert, a bend azure fimbriated Or between a tower argent and a castle Or, and for augmentation, on a canton purpure a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or. He, like Andreas, is the recipient of an augmentation from the Crown of Calontir. However, Valens' augmentation (which predates Bianca's 1996 registration) does not protect the armory Purpure, a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or against conflict, nor does it in any way grandfather the use of this armory for recipients of augmentations from the Kingdom of Calontir. As stated in a pertinent excerpt from the Cover Letter to the October 2003 LoAR:

It is not necessary to check new devices or badges for conflict against previously existing augmentations that have the appearance of being independent armory. This is because the augmentations do not have an existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore are not independently protectable entities. Per the LoAR of October 1985: "Arms may be borne with or without an augmentation, but the augmentation should not be used separately from the arms."

Some commenters have theorized that if a person registers an augmentation that appears to be independent armory, the independent armory is somehow grandfathered to the kingdom that originally bestowed the augmentation, and thus (the theory continues) the independent armory could be registered by any new recipient of an augmentation from that kingdom. But this cannot be the case, because the augmentation does not have an independent existence, and because the kingdom has no ownership of, or even control of, the form taken by an individual's augmentation.

We note that Bianca registered her device through the kingdom of Calontir. Since it appears that many recipients of augmentations from Calontir wish to use the augmentation found in this submission, we strongly suggest that the kingdom of Calontir attempt to register Purpure, a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or as a badge designated as an augmentation. If it is able to do so (which will require, at minimum, permission to conflict from Bianca), then as stated in the October 2003 Cover Letter, further recipients of augmentations from Calontir will be able to use this designated augmentation badge as an augmentation on an appropriate form of display (including a canton or inescutcheon), without requiring letters of permission from the Crown of Calontir against their badge, and without requiring a letter of permission to conflict from Bianca. [Andreas Seljukroctonis, 12/03, R-Calontir]

[Per bend sinister gules and purpure, on a bend sinister dovetailed argent between two double-bitted axes Or a bull's head caboshed palewise sable and for augmentation, on a canton purpure a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or] It is acceptable for an augmentation to surmount a portion of the underlying armory even if, as in this emblazon, it renders one of the charges unidentifiable by surmounting it almost entirely. The effective invisibility of the charge under the canton is apparent from the blazon and should be taken into account when doing conflict checking. [Andreas Seljukroctonis, 12/03, R-Calontir] [Ed.: Augmentation returned for conflict]

[Per bend sinister sable and gules, on a bend sinister wavy argent a ducal coronet bendwise sable, in chief three passion nails inverted bendwise in bend sinister gules enflamed Or and in base, for augmentation, an inescutcheon azure charged with a demi-sun issuant from base Or within a bordure argent] The device change was made on a form that also depicted the (pre-existing) augmentation. Precedent states "As we protect both the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, a device change and an augmentation must be submitted as two separate actions" (LoAR October 2000). The same logic implies that, because we protect both the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, in order to register this we will need two actions, each action with associated forms: one representing the unaugmented device change, and one representing the augmented device change.

It is important to note that if armory is changed with a previously existing augmentation, it is possible for that augmentation to become incompatible with the underlying armory due to the armory change. When this happens, the augmentation is not "automatically grandfathered", because (as noted in the Cover Letter to the October 2003 LoAR) "Augmentations do not have an existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore are not independently protectable entities."

As an example, consider the case of a submitter with the hypothetical armory Or, a pall inverted vert, for augmentation, in canton an estoile azure, who then submits a device change for the underlying device to Vert, a pall inverted Or, and for the augmented device to Vert, a pall inverted Or, for augmentation, in canton an estoile azure. The augmentation would violate RfS VIII.7, which states that "The augmentation must itself follow the armory rules", in conjunction with the ruling in the LoAR of August 1997, p. 26, which stated "Barring documentation of large numbers of period augmentations that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling to register this practice."

Because the old augmentation is not compatible with the new device change, Laurel would be forced to (without extra direction from the submitter) register the new device change (unaugmented) and return the augmented device change. The "old augmented device" could not be retained as a badge and thus must be released. At the end of this series of actions, the submitter would no longer have a blue estoile augmentation on his list of registered items. In order to avoid this situation, the submitter could, as part of the original submission, add an administrative note to the submission indicating that, if the changed augmented arms were not registerable, the unaugmented device change is to be withdrawn, and the previous device (augmented or not) is to be retained. [Kathryn of Iveragh, 02/04, R-Outlands]

AXE

[axe vs. double-bitted axe] ... nothing for changing the type of axes. [Eleri of Caerleon, 11/01, R-Meridies]

Note that under current precedent, there is no difference for changing the tincture of the hafts of the axes: "[A woodaxe reversed argent] Conflict with... a battle axe Or, headed argent, the edge to sinister... In each case there is... nothing for the change in tincture of the handle only." (LoAR June 1992 p.18). [Sefferey of Wessex, 02/02, A-Meridies]

BALANCE

[Sable, a hanging balance atop a sword argent] The hanging balance is not depicted correctly. The balance should have pans hanging by chains at each end of the arm of the balance. Instead, the emblazon shows all the space between the chains and over the pans as argent (in addition to the argent chains and pans). As a result, this submission more closely resembles two bags hanging from a yoke than a hanging balance. The artwork needs to be redrawn to clearly depict either a hanging balance, or two bags hanging from a yoke.

Please note that there is a conflict problem with this submission as well. A hanging balance atop a sword resembles a standing balance so closely that it is not given difference from a standing balance. The LoAR of January 1998 noted that a hanging balance resting atop a vertical "stand-shaped" charge can be given no difference from a standing balance: "[Gules, a double-bitted axe inverted and balanced on its haft a set of scales Or.] This conflicts with ... (Fieldless) A standing balance Or., with one CD for the field." The same problem applies to this design. Thus, if the hanging balance were redrawn correctly, this would conflict with ... Sable platy, a standing balance argent. There would be one CD for removing the plates, but no difference between the hanging balance atop the sword and the standing balance. [Cathal the Black, 09/03, R-Trimaris]

[in pale a hanging balance and a sword inverted Or] In this emblazon, the hanging balance and the sword inverted are so close to each other that they are almost conjoined. This emblazon resembled a standing balance so closely that this submission is in visual conflict under RfS X.5 with ... (Fieldless) A standing balance Or.

Note that precedent has previously held that a hanging balance resting atop a vertical "stand-shaped" charge can be given no difference from a standing balance without invoking RfS X.5, in cases where the hanging balance was conjoined to the "stand-shaped" charge. The LoAR of January 1998 noted that: "[Gules, a double-bitted axe inverted and balanced on its haft a set of scales Or.] This conflicts with ... (Fieldless) A standing balance Or., with one CD for the field." This precedent was reaffirmed in the LoAR of September 2003 where a hanging balance atop a sword was given no difference from a standing balance. [Tigernan Fox, 01/04, R-East]

BASE
see also MOUNT and MOUNTAIN

[a base engrailed] The engrailing is too small and shallow to be acceptable. There are ten cups in the engrailing, which would be a fairly large number on a fess. Here the width across the base is much smaller than the width of a fess. [Derdriu de Duglas, 10/01, R-Trimaris]

[Argent, three crosses of Cerdaña sable between a chief and a base azure] This armory is visually equivalent to Azure, a fess argent charged with three crosses of Cerdaña two and one sable. It therefore conflicts with a number of pieces of armory protected by the SCA, including the flag of Honduras (important non-SCA flag), Azure, on a fess argent five mullets in saltire azure, and ... Azure, upon a fess argent, a mole's paw print sable. In each case there is only one CD for the cumulative changes to the group of charges on the fess. [Bianca Sereni, 09/02, R-Ansteorra]

[three points] Previous precedent has held:

Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts, in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and not in conjunction." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 4/92, p. 19) No documentation was presented to contradict this precedent. As a consequence, the precedent disallowing the use of dexter and/or sinister points remains in place (LoAR December 1993).

We also have not been provided with documentation to support this design as period style and thus continue to uphold the previous precedents. [Shirin al-Adawiya, 12/02, R-Atenveldt]

[Per chevron ployé argent and vert, three compass stars counterchanged] The submission was originally blazoned using a point pointed rather than a per chevron field division. However, because the three compass stars are of the same type and size, and because heraldic designs of the form Per chevron three [charges] counterchanged are much more common than designs using a point pointed in any fashion, the overwhelming visual impression is of armory using a per chevron line, with the line drawn somewhat lower on the shield than usual. We have thus reblazoned it accordingly. [Duncan Darroch, 01/03, R-An Tir]

This emblazon does not clearly use a point pointed, nor does it clearly use a per chevron division. This is reason for return by RfS VII.7.a.

The top of the point pointed is slightly above the fess line in the large sized emblazon. The mini-emblazon showed a standard point pointed, which was notably shorter than the one in the full-sized emblazon. Therefore, the difference between the mini-emblazon and the full-sized emblazon did not allow the College to comment properly on this submission. [Wilhelm von Düsseldorf, 02/03, R-West]

[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]

[Argent, a pile inverted vert issuant from a ford proper] The ford is drawn with the blue stripe to chief, lying entirely against the vert pile inverted. This has insufficient contrast, as the remainder of the ford does not have enough stripes to clearly identify it as a ford. If the ford were drawn with two more stripes, or if the pile issued from the center of the ford (so that the top stripe on the ford laid partially against the field), there would not be a problem with having the blue stripe at the top of the ford.

The College had some questions about the way that the bottom of the ford extends exactly across the bottom of the pile inverted. As a general rule, we would expect a pile inverted to be somewhat thinner and thus issue from the center of the ford, rather than extend all the way across the ford. [Kateryne Segrave, 04/03, R-East]

[Sable, a dhow Or sailed argent issuant from a ford proper and in chief a decrescent and an increscent Or] Some commenters inquired if this armory was overly pictorial armory per RfS VIII.4.a, "Pictorial Design", which states, in part, "Design elements should not be combined to create a picture of a scene or landscape. For example, combining a field divided per fess wavy azure and Or with a sun and three triangles Or, as well as a camel and two palm trees proper to depict the Nile Valley would not be acceptable." It is important to remember that heraldry reminiscent of simple landscapes is not uncommon period armory. The "landscape" in this armory is similar to period armorial designs, and is much simpler than the example given in RfS VIII.4.a.

In particular, period civic armory often includes designs where a ship or a building issues from a ford or similar charge depicting water in base. Jiri Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms gives the history of many civic coats of arms along with illustrations. The arms of Paris in the 13th C were Gules, a lymphad issuant from a base wavy argent, and Charles V added a chief azure semy-de-lys Or in 1358. A piece of civic armory even more reminiscent of a landscape was granted to Cambridge in 1575, Gules an arched bridge throughout, in chief a fleur-de-lys Or between two roses argent barbed and seeded proper, in base three lymphads sable sailing atop a ford proper. [Achmed ibn Yousef, 05/03, A-Atlantia]

A question was raised about the depiction of the ford, which has four barry wavy traits. Some commenters asked whether it was necessary to draw the ford with six traits. It is perfectly acceptable (and sometimes ideal) to draw a ford with four barry wavy traits. Perhaps this question arose due to the recommended way of drawing a barry wavy field. A barry wavy field is usually drawn with six or more traits, but there is much less room to draw that many traits on a ford, which is often less than one-third of the height of the field. Six or more barry wavy traits on a ford will often result in undesirably narrow traits. Four traits is an excellent compromise depiction for many fords. [Helga lómr, 11/03, A-An Tir]

Note that SCA blazon always explicitly tinctures a ford. If the tinctures of the ford are argent and azure (or the other way around) it may be blazoned as proper. [Thomas Joseph de Lacy, 11/03, A-Caid]

[a merman .... issuant from a base] Some commenters mentioned the fact that the merman has his tail reflexed up in a 'u' in this emblazon. The main body of the merman through the top of his tail (where his hips would be if he had them) issues from the base, and the end of his tail also issues from the base, and these two pieces of the merman are not conjoined to each other. This is an acceptable way of drawing a merman issuant from a base. It is analogous to the period practice of drawing a demi-lion issuant from a line of division so both the demi-lion and the end of the demi-lion's tail are issuant from the line of division and are not conjoined to each other. It is the choice of the heraldic artist to decide whether to draw the merman in this fashion, whether to draw him so that his body and tail end are conjoined, or to draw him without the tail tip showing at all. [Christopher MacEveny, 01/04, A-An Tir]

BEAST -- Badger

[a badger rampant sable] The badger was originally blazoned as sable marked argent, but it is predominantly sable with only a few small argent details. We generally do not blazon a charge as "marked" when the marking details are so small. In addition, we might mistakenly give the impression that large portions of the badger (such as its underside) are argent, which might lead to emblazons that have inadequate contrast with the argent field. [Gareth Craig, 08/03, A-Æthelmearc]

This month, some questions were raised about the tincture of a previously registered SCA brock proper. The tincture of a brock (or badger) proper is not clearly defined in SCA or real-world heraldic practice. We here state explicitly that the SCA has no default proper tincture for brocks or badgers. In this LoAR, we have reblazoned the few pieces of existing SCA armory that were blazoned using brocks or badgers proper. [11/03, CL]

[brock vs. wolverine] A wolverine is not a charge that is used in period heraldry, so its difference from a badger must be determined on visual grounds per RfS X.4.e. There is not sufficient difference between a badger and a wolverine to give a CD for this type change. [Caisséne Merdrech, 11/03, R-Atlantia]

BEAST -- Bat

[a reremouse displayed head to dexter] The reremouse is both displayed and guardant by default. Since this reremouse is displayed but has its head turned to dexter, its posture has been explicitly blazoned for clarity. [Mat of Forth Castle, 03/02, A-Meridies]

The submitter requested that these charges, normally blazoned as reremice, be blazoned using the common term bats. Since the term bat for this animal is not heraldically ambiguous, and it has been registered recently (in July 2001), we may accede to her request. [Elynor O'Brian, 09/02, A-Caid]

[a reremouse inverted] Bats inverted have been explicitly allowed in the SCA in the past, as long as they are identifiable (as is the case here):

While the inversion of the bat is unusual, it remains (even at a distance) identifiable... Because of the bird-like nature of the bat, we believe that it should be allowed a posture which is not so very different from "migrant to base", which posture has not been disallowed under the ban on "inverted creatures" noted in the September 1993 LoAR. [The badge was registered] (LoAR September 1994)

There is also a recent precedent concerning tergiant animals which applies equally well to bats displayed:

A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a tergiant charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a tergiant scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the identifiability of the charge so much as to render it unidentifiable, and they felt that it should be acceptable. The frog in this submission certainly retains its identifiability very clearly in the inverted posture. As a result, inverting a tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does not otherwise violate any basic heraldic principles, including the requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of period evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will be considered a clear step from period practice (also known informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be found in this posture in period (LoAR May 2002).

We will accordingly consider a bat (displayed) inverted to be a step from period practice ("a weirdness") unless documentation is provided for bats inverted in period heraldry. [Zhou Long Xi Xian Sheng, 10/02, A-Lochac]

[a reremouse dormant pendant from a branch] The reremouse is hanging upside down and has its wings wrapped around its body in a natural sleeping posture. This posture is not registerable by previous precedent: "[a reremouse dormant dependent from an annulet] The bat was not dormant, but was rather in its natural sleeping posture. We know of no examples of this posture in period heraldic depictions of bats, and for good reason: this posture eliminates any identifiable aspects of the bat. Therefore the device violates VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction: ... Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures ... and VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability" (LoAR August 2000). [Sebastian Goulde, 09/03, R-Middle]

BEAST -- Bear

[a panda bear] By current precedent, it is not acceptable to use a species of flora or fauna in armory which was not known to Europeans in period: "The primary charge is the leaf of a vanillaleaf plant (genus Achlys). Europeans did not discover it until the 18th century so [it] cannot be used in SCA armory" (LoAR February 2000). The most recent precedent explicitly concerning pandas notes in pertinent part that the panda was not known to Europeans in period: "Lanner provided some distinct evidence that the panda was not seen by an European until this century and that its furs were not known to Europeans until the last century" (LoAR December 1989). The panda is therefore not acceptable for registration. [Zubaydah as-Zahra, 02/02, R-Meridies]

[a bear rampant contourny gules] Conflict with Elfarch Myddfai, Or, a bear legged of an eagle's legs rampant to sinister gules. There is one CD for changing the field but no difference for changing the type of the bear's feet. [Od Barbarossa, 07/02, R-Calontir]

[a bear vs. a winged bear] There is one CD for removing the wings ... [Wilhelm Bär, 02/03, R-Calontir]

BEAST -- Beaver

[a beaver vs. a sea-dog] ... and a second CD for the type difference between a sea-dog and a beaver.

One commenter asserted that the sea-dog is "the heraldic depiction of a natural beaver", and went on to reason that, as a result, no difference should be given between a sea-dog and a beaver. No references or documentation were provided to support this assertion. Two questions are begged by this unsupported assertion:

What natural animal (if any) is the origin of the sea-dog?
If the sea-dog originates from some natural animal, should we give difference between the sea-dog and the heraldic version of that originating animal? (and in any case, should we give difference between a sea-dog and a beaver?)

As for the first question, the only source we found saying that the beaver is the origin of the sea-dog is Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide to Heraldry, where the sea-dog is discussed with the other dogs in the chapter titled "Beasts". Parker's A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry mentions a conjecture that the crocodile is the origin of the sea-dog. However, it seems generally agreed that the most likely origin of the sea-dog is the otter (as stated in Parker's A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry, Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry British and Foreign, and Moule's The Heraldry of Fish).

As for the second question, RfS X.4.e gives clear criteria for when we should, and should not, give difference between two charges. That rule states "Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different."

In comparing the sea-dog with the most likely animal of origin, the otter, Woodward states explicitly that "The otter may be the original of the heraldic creature known as the sea-dog, but it is quite clear that, as represented, the latter finds a fitting place among armorial monsters. The otter, of whose use in armory The Heraldry of Fish contains a sufficient number of instances both as a charge and as a supporter, is usually drawn proper, and is thus very unlike the heraldic sea-dog." By "drawn proper" it is clear in context that Woodward means "drawn naturalistically" rather than "in its proper tincture": The Heraldry of Fish, pp. 147-149, provides a sizeable discussion of armory using otters, none of which are tinctured proper, but which are illustrated using naturalistic otters.

Visually, the sea-dog is quite distinct in period heraldry from period heraldic otters and from period heraldic beavers. The sea-dog is drawn like a talbot with prominent scales and fins. It often has a paddle-shaped tail, but not always: the sea-hounds dated to 1547 on p. 155 of Dennys' The Heraldic Imagination do not have paddle-shaped tails. The sea-dog's prominent fins often extend to the head of the creature as in the crest circa 1528 for Thomson on the bottom row of figure 13 of Woodcock and Robinson's The Oxford Guide to Heraldry, stated in the index to be a sea-dog.

By contrast, the heraldic otter is drawn as a smooth-furred animal with the shape of an ermine, except with a wider tail, as can be seen in the various arms of Meldrum (a good example is in the 15th C Armorial de Berry). The otter's head is a particularly popular charge in period Scottish heraldry, and is very different from the finned talbot-like head of a sea-dog: the heraldic otter's head has a pointed weasel-like face and small erect round ears, rather than the blunt muzzle, large floppy ears, and finny details of a sea-dog's head.

The heraldic beaver is drawn with a stocky, smooth-furred (not finned or scaled) body, a wide (usually, but not always, paddle-like) tail, and small or nonexistent ears. It is sometimes contorted into an unspeakable posture based on the medieval view of this animal's habits, as noted in Dennys' The Heraldic Imagination, p. 151. As an example of a beaver in a standard heraldic posture, see the family of Biber, Or, a beaver rampant sable, in the 14th C Zuricher Wappenrolle (http://ladyivanor.knownworldweb.com/zroadt2r.htm). Some heraldic beavers did not resemble naturalistic beavers but did maintain the smooth-furred body, wide tail, and small (or nonexistent) ears of the beaver. Note, for example, the arms of the town of Biberach from 1483 (redrawn in Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide to Heraldry from the Concilum von Constanz), also in the chapter on "Beasts". Note also the arms of the same town on f. 219 of Siebmacher from 1605, which depict a less stocky beaver than the other examples, but which still cannot be visually confused with a sea-dog.

The evidence above appears to strongly indicate that a sea-dog and a beaver were considered distinct charges in period and should be given a CD for type difference under RfS X.4.e.

We do note that Fox-Davies, in his discussion of the sea-dog, states that "There has been considerable uncertainty as to what the sinister supporter [of the city of Oxford] was intended to represent. A reference to the original record shows that a beaver is the real supporter, but the representation of the animal, which in form has varied little, is very similar to that of a sea-dog." Certainly the sinister supporter of the city of Oxford in the emblazon used in Fox-Davies' time does not closely resemble a sea-dog, although it does resemble Siebmacher's beaver. A depiction of the emblazon used in Fox-Davies' time (roughly 100 years ago) is depicted at http://www.oxfordbusiness.info/civic/old_oxford/town_hall.htm, which site states that the charge is indeed intended to depict a beaver. It is not clear what emblazons Fox-Davies is using to support his assertion that the depictions of the sea-dog and the beaver are "very similar": it is entirely possible that any "very similar" emblazons are found after 1600. Given the other evidence above, we do not feel that Fox-Davies' assertion contravenes the demonstrated general pattern by which sea-dogs were drawn distinctly from beavers before 1600. [Elia Stefansdottir, 01/04, A-Outlands]

Based on period heraldry, naturalism, and the Pictorial Dictionary, beavers proper are brown by default. [Adelicia of Caithness, 02/04, A-Caid]

BEAST -- Boar

[winged boars vs. boars] There is one CD for the number of boars and another for removing the wings:

[A winged wolf] Conflict with ... a wolf ... there is only one CVD for adding the wings. (LoAR October 1991 p.16).

[Ruaidhri ua Ceallaigh, 09/01, A-Calontir]

[a boar statant sable crined gules] The crining of the boar refers to the ridge of bristles along its back. [Rycharde de Northewode, 12/01, A-An Tir]

There is a CD between a correctly drawn hippopotamus and a correctly drawn boar. [Tat'iana Travina, 11/02, A-Outlands]

BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger

[a natural tiger couchant guardant contourny Or marked sable] The device conflicts with ... Gules, in pale a Grecian façade argent and a cat couchant to sinister guardant Or. There is one CD for removing the second primary charge (the façade). 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. This also conflicts with ... Gules, a lion dormant contourny Or, a chief wavy argent. There is one CD for the removing the chief but nothing for the changing the posture from dormant to couchant guardant. Again, there is no difference between types of cats. [Sheila Stuart, 11/01, R-Meridies]

[Manx cat rampant] The College could not identify this animal as a cat, generally believing it appeared to be some sort of dog, or perhaps a bear. While period heraldic art was by no means always realistic, it had unmistakable cues to the identity of the type of animal, especially in stylized artwork. Because the Manx cat has no tail, one of these cues was lost, making it all the more important that the remainder of the animal be drawn recognizably as a cat. Since this drawing was not identifiable, the armory must be returned. [Zachary Strangeman, 11/01, R-Meridies]

[winged lion vs. a lion-dragon] ... and at least another [CD] for the difference between a winged lion and a lion-dragon. As seen in the Pictorial Dictionary, a lion-dragon is a demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a dragon, much like a sea-lion is a demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a fish. [Maredudd Angharad ferch Gwenhyfar, 01/02, A-Outlands]

[a winged lioness] We have preserved the submitter's desired blazon of a lioness, since the creature does not have any of the characteristics that would mark it specifically as a male lion, such as a mane or a pizzle. However, it should be noted that this artwork probably would have been perceived as a winged lion in the culture which originated it, not a winged lioness. Lions in period could be drawn without a distinct mane, and often were not drawn with any mane in early period. Also, period lions were often drawn without a pizzle. [Þórunn Vígadóttir, 06/02, A-Trimaris]

There is no type difference between a cat and a natural panther. [Isabel Margarita de Sotomayor y Pérez de Gerena, 11/02, R-Trimaris]

The lion was blazoned as a Saracenic lion, but we do not blazon the national origin of charges unless such an adjective is needed to distinguish between different types of charge. This appears to be a reasonable artistic variant of a lion guardant and we have so blazoned it. [Scheherazade al-Zahira, 01/03, R-East]

[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]

[a cat rampant guardant] This device does not conflict with ... Per chevron sable and azure, an English panther rampant reguardant argent pellety incensed Or, an orle argent. ... Precedent indicates that there is a CD between a panther and a lion, so there should also be a CD between a panther and a cat: "If she resubmits with a genuine panther, charged with large roundels --- better yet, with a Continental panther --- it should [be a CD from a lion]" (LoAR March 1993). [Catte MacGuffee, 03/03, A-Meridies]

We have reblazoned the cats from herissony to statant, as their backs are not arched enough to be blazoned herissony. [Garrett Fitzpatrick, 04/03, R-Atenveldt]

[a lion] The primary charge was originally blazoned as a Chinese lion. We do not specify the artistic or ethnic origin of a charge in blazon unless the modified blazon indicates a significantly different type of charge from the unmodified blazon. As an example where such an adjective indicates a significantly different charge, an Oriental dragon is a sinuous wingless monster, while the default dragon has wings and a much more compact body.

Because of the wide range of depictions of lions in period, this maned quadruped with clawed feet, fangs, and a long feathery tail is sufficiently identifiable as a standard lion, and is therefore blazoned as such. [Uggedei Mighan Nidun, 07/03, A-Artemisia]

Lions' tails, when nowed, are generally blazoned as such, although this distinction is not worth difference. [Asshelin Chrystal, 11/03, A-Ansteorra]

The leopard was originally blazoned as spotted sable, but the spots of a natural leopard are usually left as an artistic detail rather than blazoned explicitly. [Skarpheðinn Irlandsfari, 11/03, A-Drachenwald]

There is no difference for changing the type of feline from a lynx to a natural leopard. [Jenet Froste, 02/04, R-Atlantia]

This charge was originally blazoned as a panther, but it is neither a heraldic panther (as it lacks the appropriate incensing) nor a natural panther (as it has the elaborately tufted tail and legs of a heraldic lion, which would never be found on a natural panther). It is an appropriately stylized lion for much of the heraldry in the last two centuries of our period. While it has either a minimal or nonexistent mane, this lack of mane is common with heraldic lions in our period. [Racheel Dominique de Brienne, 03/04, A-Middle]

BEAST -- Deer

[three unicorns couchant] There were some suggestions in the commentary that these unicorns were not in a standard couchant posture, and perhaps might be better blazoned as lodged. Lodged is just a synonym for couchant used when blazoning deer and their close relatives, and there is no difference in the way lodged and couchant are drawn. The slight bend in one foreleg is an acceptable artistic variant for any animal in this posture, although it is found most often with a long-legged animal such as a deer. [Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon,11/01, A-Æthelmearc]

The term springing is, in the SCA, a synonym for salient used when blazoning deer and their close relatives, and should not be used for other animals. [Stierbach, Barony of, 11/01, A-Atlantia]

BEAST -- Dog and Wolf

Per the cover letter for the June 2001 LoAR, there is no difference between talbots and wolves. This means any additional difference must be derived from the posture of the beasts. [Ingilborg Sigmundardóttir, 08/01, R-Caid]

[talbots vs. foxes] By long standing precedent, there is no difference between foxes and talbots. [James Jacob Talbot, 11/01, R-East]

... no difference for the type change from a fox to a wolf ... [Æthelwynn Rædwulfesdohter, 01/02, R-Trimaris]

The LoI suggested that the blazon term ravissant be used. This term is sometimes used for a wolf which is grasping its prey by the neck and holding it over its back. However, it might also be considered appropriate for other sorts of predator/prey arrangements. Therefore, the term ravissant should not be used without more explicit arrangement and posture description. [Sigmundr Hákonsson, 02/02, R-Drachenwald]

Some commenters felt that the terrier was hard to identify, but most were able to identify it as a dog. The particular terrier in this emblazon has a short muzzle with a long hairy "beard" or "mustache", which seemed to be the source of the identifiability issues. Similar small dogs were documented with the submission, from the Arnolfini Wedding portrait circa 1434 and from the Unicorn Tapestries circa 1500 (which dog resembles a West Highland terrier, except that it is tan colored). The period sources showed dogs with small fluffy tails, so the fact that this dog's tail is also small (possibly docked) does not require blazoning. [Helena d'Évreux, 06/02, A-West]

A fox proper in the SCA is "Red with black 'socks' and white at tip of tail", according to the Glossary of Terms. [Piero Antonio Volpe, 10/02, A-Atlantia]

[a dachshund] Ammalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir's "May I Use a Collie In My Arms" (KWHS, Meridies, AS XVII, pp. 45-55) indicates that the dachshund is probably a period breed of dog. The dachshund is literally a badger-hound, bred to hunt badgers. The New Zealand Kennel Club (http://www.nzkc.org.nz/breeds/dacsh.htm) states that "Earliest records now available of dogs hunting badgers include several woodcuts in a book first published in 1560. These dogs had long bodies, short legs, medium length heads, pendant ears, short necks and sickle tails." This description matches the emblazon here. It seems reasonable to register dachshunds as period charges. If nothing else, the term for the breed is generic ("badger-hound") and closely resembles a period sort of dog used for hunting badgers. [Marie Boleyn, 11/02, R-Middle]

Many commenters noted the similarity of this emblazon to the Dalmatian breed of dog, and questioned whether that breed was period. Clarion stated:

Dalmatians are probably a period breed, there is a mention of spotted dogs in an Elizabethan Journal (National Geographic Book of Dogs). As the shape of the dog resembles a Dalmatian, we might as well use it. I would still give its color as argent spotted sable, especially as modern Dalmatians can have brown spots as well.

This is sufficient evidence to allow this sort of depiction of a dog in SCA heraldry, as the type of dog is compatible with period types of dog. Because the submitter originally blazoned this dog simply as a dog argent spotted sable rather than a Dalmatian argent spotted sable we will continue to blazon it as a dog. [Lyn the Inquisitive,12/02, A-Ansteorra]

[an armored wolf] The wolf's armor is not dissimilar from period dog-armor. Dog-armor was found in various places in Europe by the end of period, according to documentation provided from Brassey's Book of Body Armor by Robert Woosnam-Savage and Anthony Hall. This book also describes other sorts of animal armor. While the armored animals in the body armor book are all domestic animals, the arms of Finland, Gules semy of roses argent, a lion rampant crowned Or brandishing with one human arm armored a sword and in base a falchion fesswise reversed proper, incorporate a wild creature wearing armor. All in all it seems unusual, but acceptable, to have an armored wolf in SCA armory. Because the armor does not affect the outline of the wolf and is of the same tincture as the wolf, it is considered a blazonable artist's detail and is not worth difference. [Vilk{u,} Urvas, Shire of, 12/02, A-Middle]

The dog was originally blazoned as a Bouvier de Flandres but that is a modern breed. The Zuricher Wappenrolle shows a dog much like this one, stocky, fuzzy, with short pointed ears and a short tail, for the family of Toggenburg. Pastoureau blazons this dog simply as a chien (or dog) in Traité d'Heraldique. It thus seems appropriate to register this very similar-looking dog simply as a dog. [Jean Philippe des Bouviers Noirs, 01/03, A-East]

... no type difference between a fox and a wolf. [Ichijou Jirou Toshiyasu, 01/03, R-Atlantia]

[a brown vixen proper] The vixen was originally blazoned as proper, which is defined in the SCA Glossary of Terms as "Red with black 'socks' and white at tip of tail". The vixen drawn here is brown with black feet, white chest, and white tail-tip. This is not acceptable by the following precedent, which requires that the brown fox proper be all brown:

A falcon proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown head, wings and back, buff breast with darker spots, and a tail striped with black; a hare proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown with white underbelly and tail and pink ears. This also appears to be more in keeping with period heraldic practice. (Cover Letter for the October 1995 LoAR)

If period evidence is shown for a brown fox proper with black socks and white at the tip of the tail (and on the chest), we may reconsider the return. However, no evidence for such a period heraldic depiction of a fox has been presented. We can find find evidence for period foxes that are solid brown (for example, the canting arms of Die Fuchsen in Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch, fol. 62, Or a brown fox salient proper). [Apollonia Voss, 01/03, R-East]

[A wolf couchant sable] This does not conflict with a badge of Thylacinus Aquila of Dair Eidand, (Fieldless) A thylacine couchant gardant proper, orbed and langued gules. There is one CD for fieldlessness and another CD for the tincture of the beast. The thylacine proper in Thylacinus' emblazon is predominantly tan in color. The College's researches also indicate that this is the expected proper coloration for a thylacine. [Rhys ab Idwal, 06/03, A-Middle]

[enfield vs. talbot] Previous precedent strongly implies that there is difference between a wolf and an enfield (and thus, a talbot and an enfield) as long as the forelegs of the enfield are not obscured by other elements of the design: "The main difference between a wolf and an enfield is in the front legs; when one of the beasts is holding a charge with those legs, it becomes impossible to tell the two creatures apart. We cannot give a second CD for type of primary here" (LoAR July 1992, pg. 17). There is thus a second CD for changing the talbots to enfields. [Dafydd ap y Kynith, 09/03, A-Meridies]

[a wolf statant argent] The cumulative problems with the artwork call for redrawing. The wolf is not clearly identifiable as a wolf. It does not have a wolf's long bushy tail, nor does it have a wolf's erect pointed ears. The head and neck are slightly in trian aspect, which causes the neck to effectively disappear, which also hampers the identifiability of the animal. Only about half the people who commented on this submission or who viewed this submission at the Wreath meeting were able to clearly identify this charge as a canine, and few of them believed it to be a wolf. [Randolf Garard, 10/03, R-Atlantia]

[wolves vs. seawolves] There is a ... CD for changing the type of secondary charges. Most (albeit not all) "sea-beast" monsters are constructed as fish-tailed demi-beasts (the top half of the beast conjoined to a fish's tail). A sea-wolf follows this general practice: it is a fish-tailed demi-wolf, just as a a sea-griffin is a fish tailed demi-griffin. As a general rule, there is a CD between a quadruped (or quadrupedal monster) and a fish-tailed demi-quadruped. While there are not many explicit precedents on this topic, one such precedent is found in the LoAR of January 1992, p. 6: "There is a CD... for the difference between a sea-griffin and a griffin." [Daniel of Whitby, 11/03, A-Ealdormere]

The dogs were originally blazoned as mastiff hounds but they should simply be termed mastiffs. From a heraldic perspective, a mastiff and a hound are different types of dogs, and the phrase mastiff hound is as nonsensical as the phrase talbot greyhound. [Grimbrand Hundeman, 12/03, R-Calontir]

BEAST -- Elephant

[Gules, in pale a woolly mammoth statant proper atop a hurt fimbriated argent] The Laurel files did not contain a colored emblazon for this very old submission, and so we were unable to clarify the tincture of the mammoth in the blazon. [Aaron the Mighty, 03/02, A-West]

[Per bend Or and vert, an elephant argent] Conflict with Andrew Castlebuilder, Per chevron purpure and Or, overall an elephant [Elephas sp.] trumpeting passant proper, on its back a carpet purpure, fimbriated Or, supporting a tower argent, masoned sable. There is a CD for changing the field but no difference for adding the tower. Towers are commonly found on the back of elephants, and must be blazoned when present. However, such towers are of much less visual weight than the elephant, and are therefore equivalent to maintained charges. The tower in Andrew's arms follows this pattern. [Dionello Cristoforo dei Medici, 03/02, R-An Tir]

BEAST -- General

[a horse's head contourny erased Or collared gules] This is clear of conflict with ... Sable, a single headed chess knight contourny Or. There is a CD for changing the field and a second CD for adding the collar. "When considering a full beast or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (LoAR 9/93 p.5) [Ceinwen ferch Rhys ap Gawain, 03/02, A-Caid]

The College was generally in agreement that the addition or deletion of a crown from the head of a (whole) animal should not be worth difference. Some period evidence was presented suggesting that, in armory using a crowned animal, the crown was at times dropped from the emblazon. Such an easily deletable artist's distinction should not be considered to be worth difference.

The College was not able to find period evidence about whether crowned animal's heads could have the crown added or deleted by artistic license. Some commenters suggested that perhaps crowns on animal's heads should be considered analogous to collars on animal's heads. Current precedent gives a CD for collaring an animal's head (as if the collar were a tertiary charge) but does not give a CD for adding a collar to a whole animal. However, these two designs are not truly analogous. A collar on an animal's head does indeed function as a tertiary charge and thus must have good contrast with the head on which it lies. This good contrast enhances the collar's visual prominence. However, a crown on an animal's head does not generally have such good contrast. The crown generally either has poor contrast with the field or with the animal's head. In addition, a crown may be further obscured by some artistic details of the head on which it lies, such as ruffled eagle's feathers or a lion's mane.

Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's head. [12/02, CL]

Most demi-quadrupeds (including winged demi-quadrupeds, such as demi-griffins) are erect in period armory. Erect appears to be the default posture for such charges in the real world. Therefore, erect should be the default posture for demi-quadrupeds in the SCA. [Thomas von Hessen, 08/03, A-Æthelmearc]

[stag's head erased gorged of a pearled coronet ... argent] A beast's head gorged of a coronet or collar is treated by the SCA as having a tertiary charge. "When [considering a] creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (LoAR of September 1993). A tertiary charge needs to have good contrast with the underlying charge. This coronet is the same tincture as the underlying head, so it violates our rules for contrast. On a full-sized beast, where a collar is considered an artist's detail rather than a charge in its own right, it would be acceptable to have a no-contrast detail of this nature. [Chrestienne de Waterdene, 04/02, R-Æthelmearc]

BEAST -- Goat

[goats clymant] Some commenters suggested that clymant was not a correct blazon and that these goats should be reblazoned as salient. This is an erroneous suggestion, as clymant may be used as a synonym for either salient or rampant goats. Parker's A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry defines clymant as "salient, applied to the goat", and, under goat, he notes that "[clymant] may be used for either salient or rampant." It is thus acceptable to use the term clymant to refer to a goat which is either rampant or salient. [Christophe de Lorraine, 11/03, A-Atenveldt]

Note that, in the SCA, the default sheep does not have horns... [Boddi bjarki Bjarnarson, 11/03, A-East]

[A ram statant gules] The ram was tinctured on the Letter of Intent as gules armed Or. The horns of the ram are a large enough artistic detail so that their tincture could be blazoned (unlike the tincture of the hooves of the ram, which the SCA always leaves entirely to the artist). However, the tincture of the horns of the ram is not so important that it must be blazoned. The submitter did not blazon the horns as Or on the form, so we suspect the submitter would like to leave the tincture of the horns to artist's license, and we have omitted the arming tincture from the blazon. [Aaron Graves and Alessandra Gabrielli, 12/03, A-Atenveldt]

BEAST -- Miscellaneous

[a pillar sable surmounted by a horse passant] While the pillar and horse combination were universally found to be evocative of a carousel horse, it does not appear to be so obtrusively modern as to warrant return. Please note a very similar design found in the period arms of v. König, Siebmacher f. 146, Azure a pillar Or surmounted by a horse salient argent. [Micaela Leslie, 02/02, A-Atenveldt]

Camels may be brown as part of their natural color variations. Just as we register brown wolves proper (even though natural wolves are often grey) we may register brown camels proper, under the criteria set forth in the cover letter for the October 1995 LoAR.

The original blazon was simply a camel. Since there is no default proper tincture for a camel, it is necessary to specify that this is a brown camel proper.

The blanket on the back of the camel was originally blazoned as a saddle, but it is simply a blanket. As drawn in this submission, the blanket is an artistic detail worth blazoning, but not a tertiary charge, and therefore does not need good contrast with the camel. [Aminah of Nithgaard, 03/02, A-Æthelmearc]

Please advise the submitter to draw the squirrel more identifiably. A squirrel has shorter and smaller forelegs and larger round hindquarters. Its tail, while full, also tends to be less shaggy than in this submission. The squirrel's statant posture does not enhance its identifiability, as squirrels are sejant erect by default and almost always found in that posture in period armory. As drawn, this squirrel risks being confused with another animal. [Isabel Fosson, 04/02, A-Middle]

There is a CD between a correctly drawn hippopotamus and a correctly drawn boar. [Tat'iana Travina, 11/02, A-Outlands]

[gorillas] The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (http://88.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GO/GORI.htm) states:

It was long supposed that the apes encountered on an island off the west coast of Africa by Hanno, the Carthaginian, were gorillas, but in the opinion of some of those best qualified to judge, it is probable that the creatures in question were really baboons. The first real account of the gorilla appears to be the one given by an English sailor, Andrew Battel, who spent some time in the wilds of West Africa during and about the year 1590; his account being presented in Purchas's Pilgrimage, published in the year 1613. From this it appears that Battel was familiar with both the chimpanzee and the gorilla, the former of which he terms engeco and the latter pongo-names which ought apparently to be adopted for these two species in place of those now in use. Between Battel's time and 1846 nothing appears to have been heard of the gorilla or pongo, but in that year a missionary at the Gabun accidentally discovered a skull of the huge ape; and in 1847 a sketch of that specimen, together with two others, came into the hands of Sir R. Owen, by whom the name Gorilla savagei was proposed for the new ape in 1848.

We require that animals used in our armory were known to Western Europeans. In the past this has not been taken as a requirement that Western Europeans were very familiar as a group with the animal in question. Rather, it has been taken as a requirement that the animal had been seen by some explorer or explorers. It appears from the 1911 Encyclopedia citation that a Western European explorer had seen a gorilla before 1600. Thus, this charge may be accepted.

The College should note that the standard heraldic ape, found in the crest of the Irish family of FitzGerald, has a long tail and is thus biologically a representation of a type of monkey. [Seth MacMichael, 02/03, A-Æthelmearc]

The primary charges were blazoned on the forms and the LoI as buffalo. We have reblazoned them to ensure that the correct animal will be drawn from the blazon. The term buffalo, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, primarily refers to the large-horned water buffalo and African buffalo. The term bison is used for a different sort of ruminant noted for its "large forequarters, a shaggy mane, and a massive head with short curved horns." Bisons include the American bison (bison bison) and the European bison or wisent (Bison bonasus). Even though the word buffalo may properly be used in modern English to refer to bison, the SCA has previously registered bison as bison. [Tarasius of Galata, 03/03, A-Calontir]

The armadillo is a New World animal. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the word "armadillo", referring to this animal, to 1577 and 1594. Armadillos are also found in several regions occupied by the Spanish long before the end of period. As armadillos were known to Western Europeans in period they may be registered, albeit as a step from period style (a "weirdness"). Per the LoAR of August 1999, "New World flora and fauna... are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable." Armory with a single step from period style may be registered, and there are no other steps from period style in this device. [Drogo Rabenwald, 01/04, A-Æthelmearc]

BEAST -- Mouse

[mouse vs. mole] ... a CD for changing the type of beast. While moles were found in period armory (e.g. Twistleton, Argent, three moles sable; Dictionary of British Armorials Volume I p.295), we've found no period examples of armory using mice or rats. Woodward, in A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign, indicates that mice and rats were found in real-world heraldry but were limited to the Continent in their few appearances, and he gives no dated examples of their use. We must therefore judge the difference in the types of charges by visual distinctions, per the provisions of RfS X.4.e. Given that the mouse has prominent ears and tail, while the mole has none, there should be a CD between them. [Eileen ingen Dubh-luchag, 12/01, R-An Tir][Ed: Evidence was later found - see Franz Belgrand die Mus below.]

[mouse vs. ferret] Weasels are found in many forms in period heraldry: ermines, martens, and so forth. Without period examples of armory using mice, the distinction must be made on visual grounds. The weasel has very different body proportions from the mouse and lacks the prominent ears. It has at least a CD's difference for type change. [Eileen ingen Dubh-luchag, 12/01, R-An Tir]

Please advise the submitter that a lemming resembles a mouse with a short mouse tail. [Hierytha Storie, 05/02, A-Æthelmearc]

The gerbil is a Mongolian animal that was first found by Western Europeans in the 19th C. While some members of the College suggested reblazoning this animal as a hamster, hamsters have vestigial tails and gerbils have long thin furry tails. Because this is not a period animal, and cannot easily be reblazoned using a period heraldic animal, it may not be registered under RfS VII.4, "Period Flora and Fauna". [Kis Mária, 01/04, R-East]

[a brown mouse rampant proper] We are glad to see a submission including a mouse, as it gives us an opportunity to modify, due to later developments, the statement in the December 2001 LoAR that "we've found no period examples of armory using mice or rats." We've found some now. The Stemmario Trivulziano, a 15th C Milanese armorial, has armory using both mice and rats. The arms of di Francavila on p. 150 and da Sorexina on p. 329 both include a mouse statant sable (blazoned in modern Italian by Carlo Maspoli as "sorcio"). The canting arms of di Topi on p. 354 also include a mouse (or rat) statant sable (modernly blazoned as "topo", which word can mean either rat or mouse). Canting rats (from the dialectical Italian "ratt" variant of the more common "ratto") may be found in the arms of Ratazi on p. 312, using a rat statant sable, and Ratanate on p. 308 using a rat rampant sable.

Note that all these rats and mice are sable. There are no mice proper in Stemmario Trivulziano - although there are a number of other proper brown animate charges in this book including canting dormice. Dormice are distinctly visibly different from mice or rats, with bushy tails, and we do not believe that practices for dormice can necessarily be extended to practices for mice. We thus continue to uphold the Glossary of Terms entry in Table 3 stating that there is no default proper tincture for mice.

This leaves the question of whether a brown mouse proper should be allowed. As noted in the LoAR of August 1995 and upheld since then (including the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for the March 2002 LoAR), "Animals which are frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e. g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper)." Mice are commonly found in a brown tincture in the natural world, so brown mice proper may be registered. [Franz Belgrand die Mus, 03/04, A-Æthelmearc]

BEAST -- Rabbit

[a hare passant gules breathing flames] Breathing fire is (to put it mildly) an unusual attribute for a hare, and may be considered a weirdness. [Maeve of Trimaris, 08/01, A-Trimaris]

[a rabbit sejant erect affronty paly argent and azure] The identifiability of the rabbit is unacceptably compromised by the combination of the unusual sejant erect affronty posture and the paly tincture of the rabbit. While there is period armory depicting animals in multiply divided tinctures such as barry and checky, the period animals so tinctured are in their most identifiable postures. Sejant erect affronty is not such a posture. In addition, period examples of sejant erect affronty, such as the crest of Scotland, are generally drawn with the forepaws displayed. Such a rendition is more identifiable than the depiction in this emblazon, where the forepaws lie entirely on the rabbit's body. [Tieg ap Gwylym, 07/02, R-Atenveldt]

[A hare-headed man argent statant to sinister vested azure] The primary charge was blazoned on the letter of intent as a hare-headed man, and blazoned by the submitter as a hare. The charge has a hare's feet and head but a man's proportions. This is a style of drollery which is found in period art, but no documentation has been presented for such a charge in period heraldry. Most of the commentary received on this submission indicated that it was difficult to identify the charge. As a result, this may not be accepted without either documentation for such a charge in heraldry, or a redrawing so that the charge is clearly either a hare-headed man or a hare. [Bright Hills, Barony of, 07/02, R-Atlantia]

BEAST -- Weasel

[a black-footed ferret proper] Reblazon to: Azure, a black-footed ferret passant guardant Or marked sable and argent, grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose argent, barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved proper. Her original blazon was Azure, a black-footed ferret passant guardant proper, grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose argent, barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved proper [Mustela nigripes]. Members of the College were confused about what tincture a black-footed ferret proper might be, citing various references to support interpretations of either argent or Or. Inspection of her form shows that the ferret is predominantly Or with a black mask, forefeet, and tail, and white showing at the very bottom of the belly. The blazon has been changed to reflect the predominant Or tincture. The term black-footed has been retained in the blazon. We would not currently specify a species to this level of detail in blazon, but this term is grandfathered to the submitter. The Linnaean species reference has been omitted, as it was only necessary due to the use of Linnaean proper. The term black-footed should specify the type of ferret sufficiently. [Megan Glenleven, 10/01, A-Ansteorra]

What natural animal (if any) is the origin of the sea-dog?
If the sea-dog originates from some natural animal, should we give difference between the sea-dog and the heraldic version of that originating animal? (and in any case, should we give difference between a sea-dog and a beaver?)

BEND and BEND SINISTER

A baton in heraldry is, by definition, a bend couped. [Lucia Francesca de Valencia, 04/02, A-East]

The bendlets sinister are far too enhanced to be acceptable. Overly enhanced ordinaries have been a reason for return for many years. As an example: "These bendlets are enhanced so much to chief that the style becomes unacceptably modern" (LoAR of January 1992). Scarpes enhanced should issue from most of the way across the chief, taking up most of the top half of the armory. These issue from less than halfway across the chief. [Gruffydd ap Idwallon, 04/02, R-Artemisia]

[three barrulets bevilled] The bendlets provided here are not bevilled. A bend bevilled, as illustrated in the Pictorial Dictionary, is a bend which has been cut along a vertical line and offset so that the top edge of the chiefmost portion of the bend touches the bottom edge of the basemost portion. Each of the bars here is in a "Z" shape: the bar is not broken but bent at two sharp angles. No evidence has been presented that a bar in this shape is a period heraldic charge or an SCA-compatible heraldic charge.

Moreover, the nested Z-shaped barrulets are each individually much too thin and much too close together for good heraldic style for any sort of barrulet. This emblazon is much more like a single Z-shaped barrulet with white artistic details rather than three barrulets bevilled. We cannot, however, reblazon this, as we lack a term of art for a Z-shaped barrulet of this sort.

While the College speculated about whether a charge of this shape might be a traditional element of Japanese mon, no such example has been found. The closest that could be found is the traditional Japanese stream depiction, which uses S-shaped barrulets.

As this design cannot be blazoned in either Eastern or Western terms, and as it is not a documentable design in either the East or the West, it cannot be accepted. [Kusunoki Yoshimoto, 10/02, R-East]

Please advise the submitter to draw the bend sinister closer to a 45-degree angle. It is drawn somewhat too steeply in this emblazon, with the result that it lies low on the field. [Richard de Frayne, 02/03, A-Caid]

[a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed] The bend sinister was originally blazoned as wavy but did not have enough waves for that blazon. The concensus of the College appeared to support the SCA-acceptability of a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed.

Because there is no evidence that a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed is a period charge, we must determine any difference from a bend sinister wavy on solely visual grounds. A bend sinister wavy and a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed do not appear to be so visually distinct as to warrant difference.

Thus, this conflicts with ... Vert, on a bend sinister wavy between two ox heads erased affronty argent a scarpe wavy azure. There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary charges. A bend sinister wavy argent charged with a scarpe wavy azure is heraldically equivalent to a bend sinister azure fimbriated argent, so there is no additional difference. [Aíbinn ingen Artáin, 03/03, R-Trimaris]

Some commentary asked whether this depiction of an ermine bend, which charges the bend with five bendwise ermine spots, should be blazoned as A bend argent charged with five ermine spots sable rather than a bend ermine. This is an excellent period depiction of an ermine bend. As noted in the January 2002 LoAR:

There seem to be few ermine bends in period, but they may be found throughout the heraldic period. Those which [Maister Iago ab Adam] found are all depicted with the ermine spots tilted bendwise on the bend.

Maister Iago has provided some additional detailed information about English depictions of ermine bends throughout our period:

Out of seven period examples of ermine bends studied, two had two offset rows of spots (like footprints up the bend), one had seven spots arranged 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, one was charged and had the spots arranged to fit around the charges, and three were drawn as in this submission, with a single row of five spots (although it should be noted that these last three examples are all mid-16th C. or later.)

[Catarina de Zaneto Rizo, 04/03, A-Æthelmearc]

[a bend engrailed to base Or between two pineapples Or leaved vert] Pineapples are new world flora and thus considered a step from period style (a "weirdness"): "New World flora and fauna... are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable" (LoAR of August 1999). It appears that having a two-sided ordinary (like a bend) with a complex line on only the lower side of the bend should also be considered a "weirdness": "The only period examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary" (LoAR of November 1990 p. 15). As a result, the armory has two steps from period style armory ("two weirdnesses") and is stylistically unacceptable. [Pamela Gattarelli, 04/03, R-East]

[a fess of three conjoined fusils] This does not conflict with Vert, a dance Or between three daisies proper. There is one CD for removing the secondary daisies. There is another CD for the difference between a dance and a fess of fusils:

[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty] Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... (LoAR April 2001)

We have also researched the question in the Dictionary of British Arms in the two bars section, and also found that bars dancetty were used by different people from bars lozengy. Unfortunately, the Dictionary of British Arms is not yet published to the point where we could research fesses, but the evidence so far found implies strongly that what is true for bends and bars should also be true for fesses.

We do note that there is some interchangeability in period between the somewhat analogous lines embattled-counterembattled and bretessed, which also differ by putting the top and bottom lines 180 degrees out of phase. As a consequence of the period interchangeability, we do not give difference between embattled-counterembattled and bretessed. However, the square and indented line treatments are not exactly analogous, because there is no "zig-zag" form of the square lines analogous to dancetty. The "zig zag" form of embattled-counterembattled would look like the shaft of the SCA charge of a lightning bolt (see the Pictorial Dictionary for an illustration). There is no period treatment of an ordinary which makes this sort of square "zig zag". Because the two sides of a period ordinary embattled-counterembattled or bretessed are always separated by at least a thin amount of central ordinary, the two treatments are much more visually similar, and this may have contributed to the period confusion between them.

Some commentary on this submission addressed previous precedent on this topic, which appears to need some clarification (especially when only excerpts of the precedent were quoted). Here is some discussion clarifying these past precedents. As always, we encourage people quoting precedents to consider going back to the original LoAR and reading the excerpts in context.

As a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend sinister indented (LoAR April 2001, p. 13)

This precedent only refers to the lack of difference between an ordinary indented and an ordinary of fusils - ordinaries dancetty are not discussed by this precedent at all. Ordinaries indented and ordinaries of fusils were indeed interchangeable artistic variants in period. In both an ordinary indented and an ordinary of fusils, the top and bottom lines are 180 degrees out of phase, and the only difference is whether the artist decides to touch the "inside" parts of the top and bottom lines (creating an ordinary of fusils) or whether to leave some space between them (leaving an ordinary indented).

...the distinction between 'dancetty' and 'indented' when applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, as White Stag suggests, but a distinction parallel to that between counterembattled and bretassed (LoAR December 1988)

This precedent did not discuss the determination of difference between ordinaries dancetty and indented, but solely discussed the definitions of the two treatments. It makes the very good point that there is no implication of an amplitude difference between indented and dancetty (as indicated in some very post-period treatises). As noted in the discussion above, the difference between dancetty and indented is indeed "parallel" to that between counterembattled and bretessed, but it is by no means exactly the same. [Elena Bertholmeu, 05/03, A-Atlantia]

[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]

[Argent, three bendlets azure each charged with a mullet of six points palewise Or] Conflict with ..., Per pale gules and sable, three compass stars in bend sinister Or. Because armory with three or more bendlets is equivalent to armory with a bendy field, this armory needs to be considered as if it were blazoned as Bendy argent and azure, in bend sinister three mullets of six points Or. Under this interpretation, there is one CD for changing the field. 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]

[Gules, three bendlets abased argent each charged with a bendlet azure] Her previous armory submission was very similar to this but was blazoned as using bendlets abased azure fimbriated argent. That submission was returned for using fimbriated charges that were not in the center of the design, which is forbidden by RfS VIII.3. The submission is blazoned as using bendlets each charged with a bendlet, and is proportioned acceptably for that blazon.

Per the LoAR of February 2000, "In this case the blazon can make a difference: while you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a conflict, you can 'blazon your way out of' a style problem." In the colored-in full-sized emblazon, the bendlets are identifiable as bendlets (rather than part of a complicated bendy field), and are not debased so far as to be unregisterable. [Ann Busshenell of Tylehurst, 10/03, A-Atenveldt]

[Quarterly gules and sable, three bendlets argent] Conflict with Ysfael ap Briafael, Per bend bendy vert and argent and vert. Ysfael's device could alternately be blazoned as Vert, three bendlets enhanced argent, and was originally submitted under that blazon. Ysfael's registration in the LoAR of December 2000 stated, "Originally blazoned as three bendlets enhanced, the blazon above more closely describes the emblazon." When considering Ysfael's device under the alternate blazon of Vert, three bendlets enhanced argent, and comparing it to Tigernach's submission, there is one CD for changing the field, but the second CD must come from the change of location of the bendlets from enhanced.

Our original inclination was to give a second CD for enhancing the bendlets under RfS X.4.g. However, evidence indicates that, in period, armory using three bendlets enhanced was not distinct from armory using three bendlets in their default location on the field. We thus should not give difference between these designs.

The Dictionary of British Arms (DBA) volume two gives very few coats of arms using three bendlets enhanced (on p. 117). Most of these coats are also found belonging to the same family but with the three bendlets in their default position (on pp. 114-116): the arms of Byron, Argent, three bends [enhanced] gules, Greeley, Gules, three bends [enhanced] Or, and Mawnyse/Mauvesin, Gules, three bends [enhanced] argent. For one of these families, there is scholarship which explicitly states that the coat with the three bendlets enhanced is a later version of the coat with three bendlets, rather than a distinctly different, cadenced, coat. Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry British and Foreign discusses the arms of Byron on p. 132, stating, "What appears to have been the original coat of Biron viz., Argent, three bendlets gules, is now borne with the bendlets enhanced (Fr. haussés) i.e. placed higher in the shield, as in the arms of the poet, Lord Byron."

The difference between three bendlets and three bendlets enhanced is thus similar to the difference between crosses bottony and crosses crosslet. We give no difference between these crosses because, as discussed in the LoAR of August 2002, "It is important to recall that the cross bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to represent the same charge throughout our period's heraldry. The bottony form is found predominantly in earlier artwork, and the crosslet form predominantly in later artwork." The evidence in DBA and Woodward suggests that three bendlets and three bendlets enhanced are both used to represent the same armory throughout our period's heraldry. Just as the cross crosslet became distinct from the cross bottony after our period, three bendlets enhanced became distinct from three bendlets after our period. [Tigernach Mag Samhradháin, 11/03, R-Æthelmearc]

[Or, three bendlets sinister vert] This submission is heraldically equivalent to Bendy sinister Or and vert. It thus conflicts with ... Bendy sinister of four vert, argent, purpure and argent. There's no difference between bendy sinister of four and bendy sinister of six. The two pieces of armory share a tincture so X.4.a.ii.b does not apply. This leaves one CD for changing the tincture of the field, but that is all. [Gabriel Halte, 12/03, R-Drachenwald]

BIRD -- Cock and Hen

[dunghill cock] According to J. P. Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet, a "dunghill cock" is "the common farmyard cock". [Barbara Sterling, 08/01, A-Meridies]

There is a CD between a correctly drawn turkey cock and an ostrich. The turkey has a much shorter neck and legs and has a distinctive fan-shaped tail. [William Crome, 09/02, A-Calontir]

[cock vs. secretary bird] This is clear of the Society for Creative Anachronism's badge for the Privy Clerk to Morsulus Herald, (Tinctureless) A secretary-bird sejant regardant. [Sagittarius sepentarius]. There is one CD for tincturelessness. A secretary bird is a thin African raptor, with a shaggy crest, long tail and long legs. It is unique among hawks for killing its prey by stamping with its powerful legs and taloned feet. Because the secretary bird is a charge that was not used in heraldry in period, difference from a period charge (such as a cock) is determined on visual grounds by RfS X.4.e. The secretary bird should thus have at least a CD from a cock. [Sancha de Flores, 08/03, A-East]

... no difference between a dunghill cock and a hen. While the dunghill cock generally has a more pronounced tail and comb than the hen, given the period variations with which these charges are drawn, there is little visual difference between them. No evidence has been presented or found to indicate that period heralds would have given difference between these charges. [Alienor of Iron Mountain, 11/03, R-Meridies]

[dunghill cock] This also conflicts with ... Azure, a simurgh close Or. A simurgh is a monster which is effectively identical to a peacock. Per this month's cover letter, both dunghill cocks and peacocks are "poultry-shaped" birds, and substantial difference cannot be given between them, which would be necessary to clear this conflict under RfS X.2.

Both dunghill cocks and peacocks have details on their heads (a crest for the peacock, a comb and wattles for the dunghill cock) and both have prominent tails. Despite these vague similarities, they are considered different in period, and consistently drawn differently in period. They are thus significantly different, and a CD is given between them. [Alienor of Iron Mountain, 11/03, R-Meridies]

[(Fieldless) A rooster vert] This badge is clear of ... (Fieldless) A raven vert. Per the Cover Letter to the November 2003 LoAR, there is substantial difference between a rooster (a "poultry-shaped" bird) and a raven (a "regular-shaped" bird) when both birds are in period postures and drawn correctly. The two badges are clear of conflict by RfS X.2.

This is also clear of conflict with ... (Fieldless) A dodo close vert armed Or. The dodo is not a bird used in period heraldry, and its eligibility for RfS X.2 is thus determined on a case by case basis. Because RfS X.2 is not required to clear these two pieces of armory, we are declining to rule on the question of the dodo's eligibility for RfS X.2. There is one CD for fieldlessness, and a second CD under RfS X.4.e between a rooster and a dodo. While both the rooster and the dodo are heavy-bodied short-legged birds, the dodo lacks the distinctive tail, crest and wattles of a rooster. [Carlo Gallucci, 03/04, A-Æthelmearc]

[duck vs. dunghill cock] Per the Cover Letter for the November 2003 LoAR, "swan-shaped" birds and "poultry-shaped" birds are eligible for X.2 (substantial) difference when they are drawn correctly and in period postures, which is the case in this armorial comparison. [Rainald Slater, 03/04, A-Ansteorra]

BIRD -- Cornish Chough
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

[Cornish chough] There is no difference between the falcon and the Cornish chough. For more details on the reason why falcons have no difference from either ravens or Cornish choughs, see the cover letter. [Muirenn Faulkner, 01/02, R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included below under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar Birds"]

Cornish choughs are black birds with red beak and feet, and so this is a correctly tinctured proper Cornish chough's leg. [Leona of Remington, 02/02, A-Ansteorra]

BIRD -- Dove
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

The bird in chief was originally blazoned as a dove. However, the bird lacks the head tuft which is used to identify a heraldic dove, and is not in the dove's standard close posture. It has thus been reblazoned as a generic bird, per the Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR: "In the future I will be stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the defining attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as 'a bird.'" [Kyne Wynn the Kind, 08/02, A-Artemisia]

[Vert, a dove rising wings addorsed Or] We have reblazoned the dove from volant wings addorsed to rising, as its somewhat bendwise body posture and legs "planted on the ground" are indicative of the rising posture. A bird volant wings addorsed would have a fesswise body posture and the legs would be tucked up as with a bird in flight.

The device conflicts with Conall Ó Cearnaigh, Vert, a hawk striking within a bordure embattled Or. There is one CD for removing the bordure. "There is ... nothing for the difference between striking and rising" (LoAR January 2001). Per the Cover Letter for the LoAR of January 2000 (which should be read in its entirety for a full discussion of the interaction between bird posture and type difference), "In the future I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference." Hawks and doves would be considered different in period when in their default postures. However, Conall's striking hawk is not in a period posture, and Sarah's rising dove is not in a standard period posture for doves. Sarah's dove is drawn with the dove's heraldic attribute of a tuft at the back of the head. However, Conall's hawk is also drawn with a tuft or crest at the back of its head. The body shapes and beak shapes of the two birds as depicted in their emblazons are not as distinct as one would expect for good depictions of either type of bird. After visually comparing the two emblazons, it was the strong opinion of the people present at the Wreath meeting that there was not much visual difference between these two birds. As a result, we cannot give additional difference for changing the type of bird. [Sarah nic Leod, 07/03, R-Atenveldt]

The bird ... was originally blazoned as a dove. However, it lacks the tuft at the back of the head, which is the defining characteristic of a heraldic dove. It also has some characteristics that are not found in heraldic doves: it has a deeply forked swallow-tail. Because the type of bird is not clearly apparent, we have reblazoned it as a generic bird. [Riguallaun map Guoillauc, 09/03, A-A-Ansteorra]

BIRD -- Duck

By examination of period armory, ducks and geese are close by default - this is by far the most common posture for either of these birds. Ducks and geese do not share the same default posture as the larger and more aggressive swan, which is rousant by default. [Svana ormstunga Vermundardottir, 11/03, A-Atenveldt]

BIRD -- Eagle
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

An examination of the development of the various heraldic eagles shows that the direction of the wingtips of a displayed eagle is entirely a matter of artistic license. To avoid incorrectly limiting the submitter's ability to display the arms in reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify "elevated" and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds. [Robert Michael McPharlan, 08/01, A-Ansteorra]

The birds were originally blazoned as "ravens displayed". Ravens are not found in the displayed posture in period heraldry. They are close by default and almost always found in that posture. The unusual posture makes them more closely resemble eagles, which are usually found in the displayed posture. Because of the difficulty of identifying these birds as any particular sort of bird, they have been reblazoned as generic birds. See the cover letter of January 2000 for a more complete discussion of the interaction between bird type and bird posture.

... There is no type difference between these generic birds and the double-headed eagles. [Brangwayn Snowden, 01/02, R-Middle]

[Vert, an eagle Or] Conflict with Constantinople, Emperor of, Gules, a double-headed eagle Or. There is one CD for changing the field, but nothing for changing the type of eagle from a double-headed to a single-headed eagle. This also conflicts with Napoleon I, Azure, an eagle displayed contourny grasping in both claws a thunderbolt Or. There is one CD for changing the field but nothing for changing the head posture only of the eagle and nothing for removing the small held thunderbolt. There are other conflicts as well, but none so illustrious. [Egil Haraldsson, 05/02, R-Meridies]

[three hawks jessed displayed] Some commenters suggested that these birds be reblazoned to eagles. The birds in this submission are jessed, which is an identifying attribute for hawks. They can thus be visually distinguished from eagles. [Randal Gartnet, 08/02, A-Æthelmearc]

[Per bend azure and argent, an eagle striking to sinister, wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon cedar proper] The previous blazon was Per bend azure and argent, an eagle rising to sinister, wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon cedar proper. The submitter's request for reblazon asked that we change the eagle's posture to striking. Striking is an SCA blazon term describing a hawk terminating its dive by braking with its wings and extending its claws down in order to, with luck, send some smaller animal into the afterlife. It is different from stooping, which depicts the hawk in the midst of the dive. Striking is similar to the period posture rising and no difference is given between these postures, but the SCA has continued to use striking when the posture seems appropriate. The eagle here is drawn in a posture that is at least somewhat characteristic of striking and we may therefore accede to the submitter's request. [Jamal Damien Marcus, 09/02, A-Caid]

[an eagle enflamed] The bird was originally blazoned as a firebird, which is an SCA-defined charge representing a folk art design. The SCA firebird resembles a peacock. This charge is an eagle enflamed (surrounded with small tufts of flame). We have reblazoned it accordingly.

Conflict ... no difference ... for removing the small tufts of flame. [Piera da Ferrara, 04/03, R-Atlantia]

[a raven displayed vs. a double-headed eagle displayed] There is no type difference given between a raven displayed and a double-headed eagle displayed: "[a raven displayed vs. an eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different birds in period, only eagles were ever displayed. Therefore there is not a CD for type" (LoAR November 1999; see also the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR). There is also no difference for the number of heads: "...(not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)" (LoAR October 1990 p.14). [Njall Randvesson, 04/03, R-East]

[an eagle Or] We have removed the explicit armed sable from the blazon; this is too small a detail to mention on an eagle, and is invisible from any distance. [Heinrich von Melk, 05/03, R-Atlantia]

BIRD -- Falcon and Hawk
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

There is no difference between the falcon and the Cornish chough. For more details on the reason why falcons have no difference from either ravens or Cornish choughs, see the cover letter. [Muirenn Faulkner, 01/02, R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included below under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar Birds"]

... there is another CD for changing the type of bird from an owl close to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/02, A-Drachenwald]

There is another CD for changing the type of bird from a stork statant (which is equivalent to a stork close) and a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/02, A-Drachenwald]

There is no posture difference between birds naiant and birds close. However, there is another CD for changing the type of bird from a swan naiant to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/02, A-Drachenwald]

There is a second CD for the type difference between a falcon and a wren.

We have no reason to believe the two charges would not have been considered distinct in period. They are certainly different types of bird (the falcon is a raptor and a wren is a small perching bird), and real-world heraldry generally distinguishes between these types of bird, at least in blazon. Falcons and wrens are certainly quite visually distinct. A wren has a thin pointed beak, and horizontal body posture with its tail pointing straight up. A falcon has a hooked raptor's beak, and vertical body posture with its tail pointing downwards. The falcon in this device is further identified as a falcon or hawk by its prominent bells and jesses. [Kateline Hicch, 09/02, A-East]

[Ermine, a hawk striking wings displayed sable tailed and in chief three triquetras gules] Conflict with Malutka sep Srebnitska, Ermine, a turkey vulture [Cathartes aura] displayed, dexter wing erect, sinister wing inverted, proper. There is one CD for adding the triquetras.

There is no type difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk. The turkey vulture is a New World bird, which is not a period heraldic charge. Per RfS X.4.e, when determining difference from a non-period charge, difference is determined by a visual comparison. A visual comparison shows that there is insufficient difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk to give difference on solely visual grounds.

There is no difference between the visually similar postures of displayed dexter wing erect and striking wings displayed. There is no difference for changing tincture, as less than half the charge has changed in tincture. Malutka's turkey vulture is black with a red head, and Morgan's hawk is black with a red tail. The head and the tail combined make up less than half the tincture of these birds. [Morgan mac Máeláin, 09/02, R-Caid]

[A hawk striking maintaining in its talons a compass star sable] Conflict with ... Argent, a raven rising regardant wings disclosed proper, maintaining in the dexter claw a sword gules. There is a CD for changing the field. There is no difference between a hawk and a raven (see the discussion in the January 2002 cover letter). There is no difference in posture between these birds except for the head position, which is insufficient for posture difference by RfS X.4.h. There is no difference for changing the maintained charge.

This is also a visual conflict by RfS X.5 with ... (Fieldless) A raven striking sustaining a spur rowel of eight points sable. The only obvious visual difference between these two pieces of armory is the angle of the bird's wings (which is never worth difference) and the piercing of the spur rowel. Only on close comparison is it clear that in Jared's case the spur rowel is co-primary while in Ricart's case the compass star is a maintained charge. The visual similarities of two designs are so close as to give an unavoidable visual conflict. [Ricart Berenguer Falcón, 03/03, R-Meridies]

BIRD -- Generic
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

[A bird close gules] There is ... nothing for the difference between a generic bird and another sort of bird. [Tatiana Heinemann, 08/01, R-Trimaris]

There is no CD for type for ravens vs generic birds ... [Robert of Gresewode, 09/01, R-Caid]

[a bird displayed] The bird was originally blazoned as a martlet, but as drawn it was not clearly a martlet. It was not in the martlet's default close position and does not show the martlet's leg stumps. It has therefore been reblazoned as a generic bird. [Aidan of Aran, 04/02, A-Middle]

The birds in chief were originally blazoned as ravens but they are not in a standard period posture for ravens and they do not have any particularly defining attributes of ravens. They have thus been reblazoned as generic birds. [Wulf Gray Wind, 09/02, A-East]

The bird was originally blazoned as a nightingale. However, the drawing is not clearly a nightingale; it has a significantly longer tail than a nightingale, and has some other artistic details (such as wing bars) which are not present on a nightingale. According to Peterson's A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe, a nightingale in nature is a brown bird with a buff underside and rusty tail. We have thus blazoned this bird as a generic bird. [Arlindis o Gordon, 02/03, A-An Tir]

[a bird displayed] The bird was originally blazoned as a raven, but it is neither in the raven's default posture nor is it otherwise clearly identifiable as a raven. We have thus blazoned it as a generic bird. [Bronwyn Mewer, 02/03, A-An Tir]

The College generally felt that this bird, drawn in some sort of early period artistic stylization, was not recognizable as a raven. However, this charge is clearly identifiable as a bird close, albeit a stylized one. We have therefore reblazoned it as a bird. [Brenna of Storvik and Gauss Magnússon, 04/03, R-Atlantia]

Note that a generic bird does not have a defined proper tincture. [Lachlan McBean, 08/03, A-Atenveldt]

In the last months we have often received commentary suggesting that some charge should be reblazoned from a specific sort of bird to a generic bird (e.g., reblazoning a hawk as a bird). We remind the College that we should only reblazon a specific sort of bird as a generic bird when the specific bird truly cannot be identified as such. We also remind the College that the reblazon to a generic bird has unfortunate side effects for conflict. As noted on the LoAR of April 1998, "Blazoned on the LoI as [a specific type of bird], as drawn it is not clearly any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird. Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this conflicts with ..." When one proposes to reblazon an imperfectly-drawn "hawk" as a generic "bird", it would lose an often-critical type CD from past or future submissions using swans, herons, chickens, peacocks, ostriches, hummingbirds, penguins, and so forth. Never forget that the suggestion to reblazon a specific bird as a generic bird is also a proposal to reward a poor artist with an unwontedly huge slice of armorial space. When we reflect on the quality of much period heraldic artwork, which is rarely precise in its depiction of birds or other animals, I think we can all agree that birds should only be reblazoned as "generic" birds when there is no other alternative.

We have also continued to receive commentary indicating that ravens that are not drawn as "hairy" birds should be reblazoned as generic birds. This suggestion does not match period armorial style, which often depicts ravens as smooth-feathered birds. Please refer to the cover letter to the January 2002 LoAR, which discusses this matter in detail, including citations in commonly-available heraldry books showing specific examples of smooth-feathered/non-hairy corbies in period heraldic art. [10/03, CL]

BIRD -- Goose

While swans are rousant by default, their barnyard cousins, geese, are close by default. Note, for example, the canting arms of Die Gansen on fol. 150 of Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch, and von Ganse on fol. 182 of the same volume. Each of these canting coats uses a goose close as the sole charge on the armory. [Effie Little, 03/03, A-An Tir]

BIRD -- Loon
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

[Argent, a loon naiant contourny sable] The loon was originally blazoned as sable marked argent, but it is predominantly sable on the color emblazon. The depiction of this loon on the mini-emblazon included details that closely resemble the markings of the black and white bird that the Americans call a Common Loon and the British call a Great Northern Diver, but most of the details that would be white in a naturalistic depiction of this species were tinctured sable in the color emblazon. If we blazon this loon as sable marked argent, it would likely be drawn by an artist as a naturalistic loon/diver, and would then have too many argent markings against the argent field to have acceptable contrast. We have thus blazoned the loon as sable. Per the LoAR of March 2000, concerning an orca proper (black and white) on an argent field, "The argent portions of the orca cannot be placed on an argent field." The same constraints apply to a Common Loon in its natural colors. [Helga lómr, 11/03, A-An Tir]

[loon vs. raven] No evidence has been presented or found indicating that a loon is a charge found in period heraldry. Thus, per RfS X.4.e, we must determine the type difference between a raven and a loon on visual grounds. A loon is similar to a duck, except that it has a thin pointed bill rather than a duck-bill. The visual difference between the loon and the raven merits significant difference ... [Helga lómr, 11/03, A-An Tir]

[loon vs. quail] Per the LoAR of March 2002, "Quails are round birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a corbie... The European quail, like the quail in Kathren's badge, has a round body. However, it is worth noting that the quail in Kathren's badge is distinctly a California or Gambel's quail, New World birds with a distinctive feather shaped like an inverted comma atop their heads. Old World quails do not have this distinctive crest." Neither the loon nor the California or Gambel's quail are found in period heraldry, and thus the difference between them must be determined visually per RfS X.4.e. There is certainly sufficient visual difference between the loon and the New World quail to give a CD between them. [Helga lómr, 11/03, A-An Tir]

Note that this loon does not clearly and obviously fall into any of the categories of birds set forth in this month's cover letter. While the loon resembles the "swan-shaped" birds more than any of the other types of birds found in period heraldry, it lacks the rounded bill of a "swan-shaped" bird. While a loon does have webbed feet, its feet are not visible when is naiant (as in this submission), and thus a naiant loon also lacks the prominent webbed feet of a "swan-shaped" bird. The armorial comparisons between this submission and ... do not require us to determine whether loons are substantially different from either ravens or (New World) quail, and thus we are not ruling on those questions at this time. [Helga lómr, 11/03, A-An Tir]

BIRD -- Martlet
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

Some commenters inquired about the depiction of the martlet in this emblazon. The College should note that martlets across Europe are drawn in varying depictions. The standard English depiction is based on a swallow, with its slim body and long forked tail. However, the depictions on the continent and even in Scotland more resemble a European blackbird (with a thrush-like shape) or a lark. Neither of these birds have long forked tails, and both types of bird have stouter bodies than the swallow. In all cases, a martlet is drawn without visible feet, although the way that this 'footlessness' is depicted also varies from period emblazon to period emblazon. Martlets may be drawn with forked 'leg stubs', couped 'leg stubs', and probably other leg variations. The important thing in drawing a martlet is that the legs should not end in clawed bird's feet. [Renee Claymore, 11/02, A-Atenveldt]

[a martlet volant "brown"] The martlet is tinctured in brown, and was originally blazoned as proper. However, the martlet is a heraldic (rather than natural) creature, and does not have a defined proper tincture. Because brown may not be used in SCA heraldry except as a proper tincture, this may not be registered. [Tamar bas Reuven, 08/03, R-East]

BIRD -- Miscellaneous
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

[a swan rousant vs. a stork passant, wings elevated and addorsed] There is one CD ... and another for the change of type of bird between a swan and a stork. While both birds do have long necks, they appear to have been considered distinct types of bird in period. Moreover, the stork is visually distinct from the swan, both in general and in ... emblazon. The stork has much longer legs and a spearlike beak. [William Lindsay, 11/01, A-Ansteorra]

[a penguin statant affronty, head to dexter vs. a vulture close affronty] Penguins are arguably in their most identifiable posture when in this posture (statant affronty, head to dexter.) The most identifying portions of the vulture (the head and neck ruff) and penguin (flipper wings) are easily visible. Since penguins are not birds found in period heraldry, the difference between the penguin and vulture must be determined on visual grounds. A second CD is available for changing the type of bird. [Tylar of Lochmere, 04/02, A-Atlantia]

Herons are close by default, so the posture need not be blazoned. [Herons Reach, Shire of, 08/02, A-An Tir]

There is a CD between a correctly drawn turkey cock and an ostrich. The turkey has a much shorter neck and legs and has a distinctive fan-shaped tail. [William Crome, 09/02, A-Calontir]

The demi-crane was originally blazoned as a crane displayed. While this is a Far Eastern stylization of an entire crane, from the Western perspective this crane lacks the bottom of a bird displayed: no tail or legs are visible. Therefore, this is, for purposes of SCA heraldry, a demi-crane. [Ise no Kusunoki Kametsuru, 09/02, R-Calontir]

[a winged owl's head cabossed] Some members of the College did not find the owl's head as drawn here to be identifiable. We note that this is a very stylized depiction of an owl's head, without a clearly drawn beak or eyes.

Those members of the College who were able to identify the owl's head all perceived this "winged owl's head cabossed" as a depiction of an owl flying straight out of the shield towards the viewer. While the SCA does register many winged objects, such as winged swords, they generally cannot be perceived as anything other than a winged object. When one adds wings to a bird's head cabossed, one does not perceive a winged bird's head, but one perceives an entire bird seen flying towards the viewer, which is to say, a bird volant affronty. Previous precedent notes that "The posture volant affronty has been ruled unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable"... in those case[s] the returns involved birds... [This return was of a demi-pegasus.]" (LoAR February 1998 p. 18). [Mora de Buchanan, 08/03, R-Caid]

[(Fieldless) A rooster vert] This is also clear of conflict with ... (Fieldless) A dodo close vert armed Or. The dodo is not a bird used in period heraldry, and its eligibility for RfS X.2 is thus determined on a case by case basis. Because RfS X.2 is not required to clear these two pieces of armory, we are declining to rule on the question of the dodo's eligibility for RfS X.2. There is one CD for fieldlessness, and a second CD under RfS X.4.e between a rooster and a dodo. While both the rooster and the dodo are heavy-bodied short-legged birds, the dodo lacks the distinctive tail, crest and wattles of a rooster. [Carlo Gallucci, 03/04, A-Æthelmearc]

BIRD -- Owl
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

An owl affronty has been ruled to be equivalent to an owl close (and thus therefore, also to an owl close and contourny): "The 'blobbiness' of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty" (LoAR of October 1992). Therefore there is no meaningful posture difference for turning the charges in chief (which are contourny) to this owl affronty, as the owl affronty is equivalent to an owl contourny. [Ambra Biancospina, 04/02, R-Middle]

[a brown owl] The owl in the device was originally blazoned as a horned owl, but this overspecifies the type of owl. This sort of detail should be specified as an artist's note, not as a blazon detail. In Europe, the eagle owl is a large owl found over most of Europe which is brown in tincture (with darker brown spots.) Three other sorts of owl (the short-eared, Scops, and long-eared owls) are predominantly brown. It therefore seems reasonable that an owl proper could be depicted as brown. Per the Cover Letter of the October 1995 LoAR, "animals which are frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper)." [Leofwynn Kyndheir, 05/02, A-Æthelmearc]

... there is another CD for changing the type of bird from an owl close to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/02, A-Drachenwald]

The owl was blazoned as affronty on the Letter of Intent but the overall posture of the owl is mostly a side view, with only the head facing forward. This close guardant posture is the default for an owl and need not be blazoned.

Please advise the submitter to make some changes to the artwork. The submitter should be careful to draw the owl's body entirely in profile, rather than having the chest portion tilted slightly towards the viewer. An owl in a truly three-quarter view (also known as "trian aspect") would have had to be returned for a nonperiod heraldic posture. [Alfgeirr skytja, 03/03, A-Calontir]

[an owl argent] The owl was originally blazoned as a snowy owl. As noted in the LoAR of January 1993, "The owls were blazoned on the LOI as snowy owls argent marked sable, which is excessive precision in medieval blazon: the black spots were so small as to be heraldically negligible, and the exact type of owl here makes no difference. [The owl was registered with an argent tincture.]" We have thus reblazoned this owl accordingly. We also note that, even if a snowy owl could be blazoned, the distinguishing black spots are not present in this emblazon. [Keja Tselebnika, 03/03, A-Ealdormere]

[an owl contourny] Conflict with Ayslynn MacGuraran, Azure, a snowy owl affronty proper grasping in its dexter talon three roses Or, slipped and leaved vert, and in its sinister talon two of the same, within an orle Or. There is one CD for changing the field. "There is not a CD between an owl close guardant and an owl close affronty" (LoAR of October 2000). The same applies to an owl close guardant contourny (as in this submission) and an owl close affronty (as in Ayslynn's device). There is no difference for removing the small held charges. [Marko Evanovich Panfilov, 04/03, R-Outlands]

[Azure, three owls within a bordure argent] This does not conflict with Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, Azure, three quail and a bordure argent. Per this month's Cover Letter discussion of birds and substantial difference, owls are "regular-shaped" birds and (European) quail are "poultry-shaped" birds. There is thus substantial difference between "poultry-shaped" European quails in a period posture (the default close posture) and "regular-shaped" owls in a period posture (the default close guardant posture).

The quails in Catalina's device are the new-world California or Gambel's quails, with a comma-shaped feather topping their heads, so their eligibility for substantial difference must be determined on a case by case basis. Because the California quail resembles a European quail very closely except for the comma-shaped crest, it is as different from an owl as a European quail would be - or even more so, since an owl does not have a crest of this sort. Thus, it seems appropriate to give substantial difference between California/Gambel's quails and owls. These two pieces of armory are thus clear of conflict under RfS X.2. [Megge de Northwode, 11/03, A-Atlantia]

[two owls addorsed] Some of the commentary noted the precedent stating that there is no difference between an owl turned to dexter and an owl affronty, and wondered if that meant there was no difference between an owl turned to dexter and an owl turned to sinister. The precedent in question, on the LoAR of August 1992, states, "The owl's posture has slightly changed, from statant close guardant to statant close affronty (which is guardant by definition). The 'blobbiness' of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty." Conflict is not transitive: if A conflicts with B and B conflicts with C, it is not required that A must conflict with C. In this case, while there may not be a CD between an owl affronty and an owl turned to dexter, and there may not be a CD between an owl affronty and an owl turned to sinister, there is sufficient visual difference to allow a CD between an owl turned to dexter and an owl turned to sinister. One can thus meaningfully give a posture CD between respectant owls and addorsed owls, ... [Sigurd Grunewald, 11/03, A-Meridies]

BIRD -- Peacock
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

[(Fieldless) A peacock Or the tail marked gules] The markings on the tail of the peacock are the "eyes" of the tail feathers. However, we are hesitant to use the term eyed in the blazon, as was done in the Letter of Intent. The term eyed could be confused with the heraldic term orbed, which refers to the bird's eyes. [Sunnifa Eiríksdóttir, 10/01, A-Ansteorra]

[Azure, a simurgh close argent] The simurgh has been explicitly blazoned as close, since simurghs have no default posture. 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. This therefore conflicts with ... Azure, in pale a peacock passant close between two roses, all argent. There is one CD for removing the roses. This also conflicts with a badge of ... Sable a peacock close maintaining in its beak a lotus with seedpod argent, slipped and leaved vert. There is one CD for changing the field but nothing for removing the very small maintained lotus. [Tavia of Persia, 05/02, R-Outlands]

[two peacocks respectant Or] Peacocks are close by default, with their tails extending behind them, and closed up (rather than being fanned out). The SCA has blazoned some peacocks close as pavonated to base (indicating that the tail points downwards), but the exact orientation of the tail of a peacock close is an artistic choice rather than a heraldic distinction. A peacock close could legitimately be drawn with the tail pointing straight behind the peacock, to base, or even somewhat towards the chief, as long as the tail is not fanned out. The exact orientation of the tail of a peacock close thus does not need to be explicitly blazoned and is not worth difference. A peacock in his pride, which is affronty with its tail fanned out and held up behind its body, must be explicitly blazoned. There is a posture CD between a peacock close and a peacock in his pride.

Because there is no difference between a default peacock and a peacock pavonated to base, the device conflicts with ... Gules, two peacocks pavonated to base respectant and a pomegranate Or. There is only one CD for removing the pomegranate.

The peacock tails in this emblazon are held so that they point behind the peacocks and the end of each tail curves to chief. This is a Byzantine and Eastern stylization of a peacock. Some members of the College felt that the identifiability of the peacocks had been diminished by the unusual tail depiction. Although we feel that these peacocks are adequately recognizable in a Western artistic context, please advise the submitter to be careful to draw the peacocks so that they are clearly identifiable in the context of Western heraldic art.

We also note that the submitter has drawn the peacocks' tails with substantial amounts of detail in argent, vert, and sable. Please advise the submitter to draw the tails of the Or peacocks so that they are more predominantly Or. [A'ishah bint Rashid al-Andalusi, 08/03, R-Caid]

BIRD -- Quail
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

[a corbie contourny sable] This does not conflict with a badge of Kathren of Sandesward, Argent, a legless quail close to sinister reguardant sable. There is ... another [CD] for the difference between a corbie and a quail. Quails are round birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a corbie. Hens and corbies are distinct in period, so quails and corbies should be distinct as well.

The European quail, like the quail in Kathren's badge, has a round body. However, it is worth noting that the quail in Kathren's badge is distinctly a California or Gambel's quail, New World birds with a distinctive feather shaped like an inverted comma atop their heads. Old World quails do not have this distinctive crest. [Ansger von Hohenkrewe, 03/02, A-Drachenwald]

[Azure, three quail and a bordure argent] This does not conflict with ... Azure, three swallows migrant within a bordure argent. There is one CD for the change in posture from close to migrant and a second CD for the difference in type between quail and swallows. Both quail and swallows are found in period armory. They appear to be considered distinct in period and most certainly have significant visual difference. Quails are round birds with short tails and swallows are lean birds with long forked tails.

Please note that the comma-shaped head feathers drawn on the quails in this emblazon are an attribute of certain species of quail native to the southwest portion of North America. The European quail does not have any sort of distinguishing crest. The comma-shaped head feather, while not a bar to registration, should not be considered a period heraldic identifier for a quail. [Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, 10/02, A-Atenveldt]

BIRD -- Raven
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

There is no CD for type for ravens vs generic birds ... [Robert of Gresewode, 09/01, R-Caid]

[a raven rising wings elevated and addorsed vs. a falcon striking]. There is a CD for adding the laurel wreath, but no difference for the posture of the bird. [Fiodnach Eoghan, Shire of, 11/01, R-Trimaris]

These are correctly drawn ravens, even though they have smooth feathers rather than hairy feathers. Please see the cover letter for a discussion of the correct depiction and blazon of ravens. [Lazarus von Kyrchberc, 01/02, A-Caid] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included below under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar Birds"]

The submitter's raven is drawn as a smooth-feathered, and otherwise recognizable, raven. For a discussion of the depiction of ravens in period armory, see the cover letter. [Derbáil ingen Chonchobair, 01/02, A-Meridies][Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included below under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar Birds"]

... there is no difference between ravens and falcons. [Muirenn Faulkner, 01/02, R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included below under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar Birds"]

[a bird displayed wings inverted] The bird was originally blazoned as a raven. However, it is not in a posture used by ravens in period. It has a very eagle-like stylization of the wings and it lacks any other distinguishing features of a raven. It therefore cannot be identified as a raven and must be blazoned as a bird. [Thorfinn of Deodar, 02/02, A-Calontir]

[birds displayed] The birds on the chief were originally blazoned as "ravens". They are are not identifiable as ravens: they are not in a period posture for ravens, they do not have any of the heraldic identifying characteristics of a raven and they do not clearly resemble naturalistic ravens. They have thus been reblazoned as birds. [Dietrich von Ravensburg, 02/02, R-Atenveldt]

[a raven sable vs a vulture close sable] The pertinent question is whether we should give a CD for type difference between a vulture and a crow. Both birds are found in period armory, although the vulture is found much less frequently than the raven. One example is in Siebmacher, in the arms of Geyer von Osterberg on fol. 34 (canting on German for vulture, geier). The vulture in those arms is depicted so that it is identical to an eagle rising wings displayed sable.

It does not seem surprising that European vultures would be depicted similarly to other raptors. When one looks at European vultures in bird guides, many of them have a closer resemblance to hawks and eagles than do the commonly found North American vultures (such as the turkey vulture): for example, some European vultures have feathered heads. The term vulture may also apply, in some cultures, to any bird of prey, not just a carrion eater. A vulture close (said to be heraldic) is found on a coin of Vladislav (Vlaieu) of Wallachia in 1364-1377 as noted in an article at http://www.geocities.com/romaniancoins/coattar.html. The article states that in Romanian, vultur refers to any large bird of prey and the bird depicted on the coin is certainly not distinct from an eagle.

The similar depictions of hawks and ravens in the close posture has been noted at some length in the Cover Letter of January 2002. [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included above under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar Birds"] The vulture seems to fall into the same category, as the period representations of vultures in heraldry (or heraldic coins) noted are apparently indistinguishable from eagles and hawks. The Cover Letter of January 2000 stated, "In the future I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference." Until such time as it can be demonstrated that there is ¨some visual difference¨ between a vulture and a raven when used in heraldry, no difference will be given between these charges. [Brand Björnsson, 11/02, R-Meridies]

BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

From Wreath: Ravens and Similar Birds
Three submissions this month (Muirenn Faulkner in Ansteorra, Lazarus von Kyrchberc in Caid, and Derbáil ingen Chonchobair in Meridies) raised questions about the correct depictions of ravens in armory, and how much difference ravens should be given from other birds.

A raven is a crow is a rook is a daw is (almost) a Cornish chough

It is important to remember that, for the medieval herald, no difference is made in depicting ravens, crows, rooks, or jackdaws. Cornish choughs are only distinguished in heraldic art from these birds by the chough's gules beak and feet. This information can be found in various heraldic treatises, including Parker, Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, and Woodward, A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign. Even the word corbie in English, from which derives the canting arms of Corbet, refers both to the raven and to the carrion crow, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The ensuing discussion will use the term "corbie" to refer to all these birds, for convenience.

Must corbies be depicted with hairy feathers to be good period style?

Just as one attribute of the boar is its bristles, one attribute of the corbie is its hairy feathers. A nice depiction of a "hairy" raven is in the Grünenberg Armorial, reproduced in fig. 474 of Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry. It is important to realize that corbies are drawn with hairy feathers in period heraldic art just as often as boars are drawn with clearly visible bristles, which is to say, infrequently. It is therefore acceptable to draw a corbie with smooth feathers and blazon it as a raven, crow, or whatever sort of corbie it is meant to be, as long as it is identifiable as a corbie in the emblazon. It is not necessary to reblazon a smooth-feathered and identifiable corbie as a generic bird.

In the Cover Letter to the January 2000 LoAR, Laurel ruled in pertinent part that "... in the future I will be stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the defining attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as 'a bird.'" Since the majority of the period depictions of corbies are smooth-feathered, it is clear that the corbie's hairy feathers are merely an attribute of the corbie, not a defining attribute. It is unclear whether a corbie has a true defining attribute. Corbies in period heraldry are overwhelmingly both tinctured sable and postured close, but other birds share these attributes. The question of whether the corbie has a defining attribute for purposes of the January 2000 ruling must be left for further research.

In England, smooth-feathered corbies are found in depictions of the canting arms of Corbet throughout our period. These arms all feature some number of corbies in sable on an Or field. These depictions range from the Herald's Roll c. 1280 (as seen in Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, Heraldry, p. 8), through the 15th C Fenwick Roll (Gwynn-Jones, The Art of Heraldry, p. 26) through the early 17th C Segar Roll (The Oxford Guide to Heraldry, plate 12). In addition to the canting corbies in the arms of Corbet, the Fenwick roll gives us the canting rooks in the arms of Rokesdon (Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, p. 61) and the canting crows in the arms of Crowmer (ibid., p. 109). They are drawn virtually identically.

Outside of England, we also find many smooth-feathered corbies. Siebmacher, in his 1605 Wappenbuch, draws his corbies indistinctly from some of the other birds close, and without hairy feathers. Some of the corbies in Siebmacher hold a coin or ring in their mouths, as period heralds also recognized the corbie's acquisitive nature and love for shiny objects. However, most of Siebmacher's corbies are drawn in their default close posture without other accoutrements. Two of the numerous examples from Siebmacher are the canting arms of die Raeblinger (f. 129) from the Rhineland, Or, a raven sable maintaining in its beak a ring argent, and the canting arms of die Krhomair (f. 63) from Silesia, Or a crow sable atop a trimount vert. The author of Gelre (a late 14th/early 15th C armorial) depicts the Spanish arms of Don Loys Cornel, Or, five crows sable, but the only way to know these are meant to be crows (keeping in mind the French for crow, corneille), is to recognize the cant, or to read the blazon provided by the editors of this volume. The birds are drawn indistinguishably from martlets. In Italy, the arms of Alfonso Sadoleto da Modeno (who held office in the Bargello from 1521-1524) are found in bas relief in the courtyard of the Bargello, Bendy embattled ... on a chief ... a raven (Stemmi (nel museo nazionale del Bargello), p. 126). This bird is blazoned as a raven by the author of Stemmi and is a rather naturalistic raven or crow. It has the outlines of a smooth-feathered bird, although the bas relief shows some shaggy feathering as internal detail.

How much difference should be given between corbies and other birds?

As noted in reference to Gelre and Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, some period heraldic art draws corbies interchangeably from other sorts of birds which are in the same close posture. In these cases, only obvious cant, or well researched blazon, can help the viewer know what sort of bird was intended. Both the author of Gelre and Siebmacher draw their corbies indistinguishably from martlets, although other heraldic art may be found (such as the Fenwick roll) which is careful to distinguish between the footless martlet (drawn either with erased leg stumps, or couped leg stumps) and birds which have feet. It is interesting to note one coat in Gelre, the arms of Jan von Raligen (f. 75), Argent a cross and in canton a martlet sable, for a crest on a cap of maintenance argent turned up sable, a martlet sable between two wings argent. The martlet on the shield is drawn with the expected couped legs, but the martlet on the crest is shown with full legs and standard bird feet. So in Gelre, not only does it appear that other compact-outlined birds are drawn like martlets, but on some occasions, martlets are drawn more like other birds. The heraldic art in both Siebmacher and Gelre is generally of good quality, so these depictions are not a result of sloppy heraldic art.

The specific question raised this month was that of the difference between corbies and falcons, when they are both in the close posture. It is easier to find artwork depicting corbies close in period heraldry than it is to find artwork depicting falcons close, as a larger proportion of the falcons in period armory are depicted in a rising posture, either with wings addorsed or displayed (see, for example, Elizabeth I's badge, Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, p. 118, or the arms of die Falcken on f. 189 in Siebmacher, Or a falcon rising wings displayed proper ... as a crest a falcon rising wings displayed between two bundles of sticks proper).

When it comes to the question of the difference of a close falcon and a close corbie, it appears that a falcon close could be drawn in period so that it was not distinguishable from a corbie close. See for example v. Falckenstein, f. 193 of Siebmacher, Azure three falcons argent ... as a crest, a falcon rising wings displayed argent. In the Cover Letter of the January 2000 LoAR, Laurel ruled in pertinent part, "In the future I expect that I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when (a) they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference (i.e., there is really no visual difference between a popinjay and a hawk).". It appears that, at least in the case of falcons close versus corbies close, there are cases where there is no visual difference, even though they are in a period posture and in well-drawn works of heraldic art. Therefore, falcons close are not entitled to difference from corbies close. Similarly, martlets close and corbies close should not be given difference. [01/02, CL]

BIRD -- Sparrow
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

[brown sparrows proper] It is only acceptable to blazon an animal as a brown animal proper when that animal is frequently found in a brown color in nature, as per the Cover Letter of October 1995, which states in pertinent part in part "... animals which are normally brown may be registered simply as an {X} proper (e.g., boar proper, hare proper). Animals which are frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper)"

Period Western European sparrows are not brown birds, but distinctly marked birds. The male is about one-third brown with the remainder marked in black and white. The less distinctive female is half brown and half off-white. One typical species is Passer domesticus, which is called the house sparrow in both Europe and the United States. It is thus appropriate to inquire as to how a bird with such natural markings would be depicted in period heraldry when proper. Documentation was neither provided nor found for sparrows proper in period armory, so we have to draw conclusions based on other similarly marked proper birds.

There is evidence that birds that are black and white in nature are depicted as black and white birds when proper, even if their markings in the heraldic depictions are not quite correct for the species. The black and white stork with red legs and beak in the arms of Die Dobrzinsky on f. 73 of Siebmacher (from Silesia) is depicted very much like a European stork. There are two types of European stork, the White Stork and the Black Stork. Both are black and white birds with red beak and legs. Siebmacher's depiction is closer to a White Stork. Rietstap's blazon for this family indicates that the bird there depicted is intended to be a stork proper (beaked and membered gules, although this would, as stated, also be proper for a stork). Siebmacher also gives us the arms of von Atzelndorf (from Meissen) on f. 156 using a black and white bird. Atzel is the German word for magpie, and a magpie is a black and white bird, so it seems logical to conclude that the bird in these arms is meant to be a magpie. The Siebmacher rendition does not do a good job of duplicating a magpie's natural markings, but its proportions and general black and white coloration are correct for a magpie. A more accurately marked magpie proper may be found in the 15th C Milanese Stemmaria Trivulziano, p. 67, in the arms of de Bertis. The magpie there is black and white and the markings mostly follow the natural markings of a magpie. The editors inform us that the word berta means magpie (although it is not the most common Italian word for that bird) and de Bertis thus has canting arms.

Because birds that are black and white in nature appear to be drawn black and white when proper in period heraldry, it is not reasonable to assume that the partially brown and partially black and white sparrow would be solid brown in period heraldry. The female sparrow is a closer match, but is still not an "all brown bird". Also, as a general rule, it is the more colorful member of a species that is used to determine the proper coloration of a species in heraldry, the peacock being the prime example of this practice. Thus, unless evidence is provided for brown sparrows proper in period armory, they may not be registered in the SCA.

Note that some New World birds that are called "sparrows" in modern terminology are mostly brown in their coloration, unlike the Old World species. It does not seem appropriate to consider species outside of Western Europe when considering the proper tincture of an animal, unless the animal being considered is a distinctly non-European animal, such as the turkey (which is found in its proper coloration as the crest of Robert Cooke in 1556). [Líadan Arundel, 09/02, R-Ansteorra]

[sparrows proper] This submission violates some of the provisions of RfS VIII.4.c. That rule states: "Proper is allowed for natural flora and fauna when there is a widely understood default coloration for the charge so specified. It is not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other elaborate description) would be required to get it right. An elephant, a brown bear, or a tree could each be proper; a female American kestrel, a garden rose, or an Arctic fox in winter phase, could not."

The College felt strongly that there was no "widely understood default coloration" for sparrows. The members of the College "would have to look up the correct coloration" in order to draw the sparrow correctly. European sparrows all have complicated markings that cannot be blazoned without "Linnaean genus and species (or some other elaborate description)." Most male European sparrows (the House, Tree, Italian, and Spanish Sparrows) have white chests, black bibs, brown wings, back and top of head, and brown or grey tails (with slight difference between them in the particulars of the markings). The only male European sparrow that don't match this general description is the Rock Sparrow, which is white with grey streaks below and buff and brown streaks above. The female sparrows are less elaborate in their coloration but are still complicated to describe.

The sparrows as drawn in this submission are also not a correct proper color for period European sparrows. The birds drawn in this emblazon have dark grey breasts and rumps, which does not match any of the European sparrow species described above. [Líadan Arundel, 11/03, R-Ansteorra]

BIRD -- Swan

[A swan contourny] Conflict with ... Per bend Or and sable, a goose counter-statant, wings elevated, head lowered, argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no difference between the postures of the birds, which only differ in how high the head is held. There is no difference between a goose and a swan. [Katerina von Halberstadt, 11/02, R-Ansteorra]

BIRD -- Vulture
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

From Wreath: Birds and Substantial Difference

This month we were called upon to make a number of rulings concerning difference between very different types of birds. After much thought, and discussion with Evan Wreath-designate, we have formulated the following policy.

Policies concerning birds and substantial difference need to be built upon previous policies concerning birds and significant difference. An important ruling on the topic is found in the Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR. That ruling was entitled On Owls and Eagles, but it also spoke more generally concerning difference for birds. The pertinent summary portions of that ruling read as follows:

The conflict rules make a rigid distinction between the type of a charge and its posture. This works well most of the time, but less so for birds, where the type and the posture are often closely connected. In particular, with vanishingly rare exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be visually similar to an eagle...

The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period, any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any bird in a displayed posture usuing [sic] the visual test of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a "weirdness" [step from standard period practice].

In the future I expect that I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when (a) [sic] they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference (i.e., there is really no visual difference between a popinjay and a hawk).

In some cases, it is appropriate for very different types of bird to be given substantial difference from each other. This parallels the SCA's precedents for other kinds of similarly-formed, but nonetheless very different, animate charges: bulls and lions were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of July 2001, dragons and griffins were ruled substantially different in the same LoAR, zebras and stags were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of May 2001, unicorns and wolves were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of March 1994, and ferrets and hedgehogs were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of September 1991.

In order for two birds to be considered substantially different from each other, it is necessary for the following conditions to apply, analogous to the criteria listed in the January 2000 Cover Letter for significant difference between birds:

1. The change from one type of bird to the other type of bird must "not usually [have been] used to indicate any form of cadency" in period (RfS X.2). The two types of bird must of course also have been considered different in period, or they would not even be significantly different (RfS X.4.e).

2. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be in a posture which was period for that type of bird.

3. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be drawn correctly.

4. The two types of bird must have been drawn in fashions that were consistently very different from each other throughout period heraldry.

Concerning criterion 2, remember that a bird may be in a period posture without being in a default posture. Ravens are sometimes found in the rising posture in period, although their default posture is close. Swans are found in the close posture in period, although their default posture is rousant (synonymous with rising).

It is vanishingly rare to find birds other than eagles in the displayed posture, while vast multitudes of eagles are found in the displayed posture. We thus re-affirm the January 2000 Cover Letter precedent (above). All birds (other than eagles) in the displayed posture are considered a "weirdness" and are not eligible for substantial difference - unless documentation is provided showing that the particular type of (non-eagle) bird is frequently found in the displayed posture in period.

Here are a few generalizations concerning bird posture to be used in conjunction with criterion 2 above. In addition, see the attachment to this LoAR titled "Some birds and the postures in which they are found in period English heraldry." [Ed: Included as Appendix A]

Barring evidence to the contrary for a particular type of bird, it may be assumed that any type of bird is in a period posture when it is close.
If a bird is found in a rising posture in period, it is reasonable to assume that both rising wings addorsed and rising wings displayed are standard variants of that posture.
Period birds that are reguardant are considered a standard posture variant of period birds that are not reguardant. So, if a bird is found in the rising posture in period, it is reasonable to assume that rising reguardant is also a period posture. One cannot make the same assumption about guardant.
Turning any type of bird to sinister is considered a standard posture variant for all period heraldic postures, due to long-standing SCA practice. So, if a bird is found in the naiant posture in period, then for purposes of SCA heraldic rulings we will also consider the naiant to sinister posture to be period.

On examining the types of birds found in period armory, and how they were used, certain categories of bird type become apparent. These categories are:

Swan-shaped birds, including swans, geese, and ducks: waterfowl with long necks, rounded bills, long heavy bodies, webbed feet.
Crane-shaped birds, including cranes, herons, and storks: tall thin birds with long necks, long pointed beaks, medium-weight bodies, very long legs.
Poultry-shaped birds, including chickens, quail, partridge, and peacocks: compact rounded birds with short to medium necks, short beaks, heavy rounded bodies, medium or short legs, often with distinctive tails or head details (combs, crests).
"Regular-shaped" birds, including martlets, ravens and other corbies, raptors (hawks, eagles, and owls), and doves: birds with the classic "bird shape". Compact light- or medium-weight birds with small necks and beaks, short to medium legs, plain tails.

Not all period birds are found in the categories above. For example, while many popinjays (parrots) are drawn as "regular-shaped" birds in period (often indistinct from a green crow with red legs and bill), some of the more naturalistic drawings of popinjays have such pronounced tails that popinjays, for the moment, been left out of any of these categories.

Substantial difference relates to these categories of birds as follows:

Birds within a category are not substantially different from each other. They may be (but are not always) significantly different from each other based on the criteria in RfS X.4.e. Within the "regular-shaped birds" category, there is significant difference between an owl (close guardant) and a dove (close), but not substantial difference. However, in the same category, there is no difference between a falcon rising and an eagle rising.
Birds in different categories are given substantial difference from each other as long as they meet the general requirements for substantial difference listed above. Thus, a correctly drawn dunghill cock (close), in the "poultry-shaped" bird category, is substantially different from a "crane-shaped" heron (close), a "swan-shaped" swan close, or a "regular-shaped" martlet (close). However, a "poultry-shaped" dunghill cock volant is not substantially different from a "regular-shaped" dove volant, because, while the dove is found in the volant posture in period heraldry, the dunghill cock is not.
Birds that are not mentioned as part of the categories above must have their eligibility for substantial difference determined on a case by case basis. In particular, SCA-compatible birds that are not found in period heraldry, such as some New World birds, may be considered in a category with very similar Old World birds, on a case by case basis.

[11/03, CL]

Since the July 1992 LoAR, the term maintaining has been used for grasped or held items which are too small to be worth difference. Sustaining and supporting have been used for a grasped or held item which is of comparable visual weight to the item holding it, and thus worth difference. In cases where other blazon words are used for the act of holding an item, the blazon is ambiguous about whether the held item is significant or not. It is true that the term maintaining literally derives from a Latin phrase for holding in a hand, and thus is not ideal for blazoning an item which is held in the mouth, or by the tail, of an animal. However, it seems preferable to remove the blazon ambiguity and use the word maintaining in these cases. [Godwin Alfricson, 08/01, A-Ansteorra]

[Tierced per chevron wavy throughout ...] ... the stylistic problems are allowed under the Grandfather Clause. The general form of her blazon, using the term tierced, has been held over from her previous device as well. [Allison Poinvillars de Tours, 09/01, A-Æthelmearc]

[coward] The Letter of Intent blazoned this cat as coward. The exact disposition of the tail of an animal is a matter for artistic license in period, which would argue against using the term coward in blazon. However, the term is permissible if the submitter so requests, as long as the tail position is drawn correctly and identifiably. Coward may be blazoned when the tail is clearly tucked between the hind legs. This is not the case in this emblazon. Also, the submitter's original blazon did not use the term coward. Therefore, the term was deleted. [Muirgel ingen Gilla Comgaill, 09/01, A-Æthelmearc]

The Pictorial Dictionary indicates that a pair of deer's horns conjoined in this fashion may be blazoned as a deer's attires or as a massacre. The former term is closer to the submitted blazon. [Colin de Vire, 09/01, A-Calontir]

Reblazon. Azure, a black-footed ferret passant guardant Or marked sable and argent, grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose argent, barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved proper. Her original blazon was Azure, a black-footed ferret passant guardant proper, grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose argent, barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved proper [Mustela nigripes]. Members of the College were confused about what tincture a black-footed ferret proper might be, citing various references to support interpretations of either argent or Or. Inspection of her form shows that the ferret is predominantly Or with a black mask, forefeet, and tail, and white showing at the very bottom of the belly. The blazon has been changed to reflect the predominant Or tincture. The term black-footed has been retained in the blazon. We would not currently specify a species to this level of detail in blazon, but this term is grandfathered to the submitter. The Linnaean species reference has been omitted, as it was only necessary due to the use of Linnaean proper. The term black-footed should specify the type of ferret sufficiently. [Megan Glenleven, 10/01, A-Ansteorra]

[a dragon rampant] Winged quadrupedal monsters have their wings elevated and addorsed by default when rampant. For dragons and griffins, both segreant and rampant will result in the same emblazon. There is no reason to prefer one term over the other in blazon, and thus I will preserve the submitted term in blazon.

Recall that for many years, SCA blazon did not use segreant at all, and it is a latecomer to real-world blazon as well. Parker indicates that segreant is "applied by most writers to the griffin instead of rampant", but I believe Parker overstates the case for our period, even though he may adequately represent 19th and 20th C English preferences. Parker also does not extend his preference for segreant outside of griffins. His discussion of dragons, on p. 296 (inexplicably under the Griffin heading), depicts the dragon rampant of Dauney exactly as we would draw a dragon segreant. The SCA allows the term segreant to be used for all winged quadrupeds.

Brault's Early Blazon (second edition) is a book which thoroughly discusses 12th and 13th C blazon. The phrase grifon rampant on p.218 is translated as "griffin rampant". The illustration, in figure 222, is exactly what one would expect from segreant. Brault gives one period blazon example, taken from the Siege of Caerlaverock c. 1300, De inde au grifoun rampant de or fin. This blazon, using other entries in Early Blazon, translates to Azure a griffin rampant Or. The term segreant is not found in Early Blazon at all. It is interesting to note that Dennys, in An Heraldic Imagination, refers to a coat of arms in the Siege of Caerlaverock as Azure a Griffin segreant gold. I believe that this is likely to be the same example as Brault gives, and Dennys has used the later preference for segreant when translating the blazon (as well as choosing to translate or fin as literally gold, although Brault does not indicate that this was a real 13th C blazon implication for the term or fin.) However, since Brault does not indicate the owner of the arms in question, this remains a conjecture. [Feme inghean Donnabháin, 10/01, A-Trimaris]

[a boar statant sable crined gules] The crining of the boar refers to the ridge of bristles along its back. [Rycharde de Northewode, 12/01, A-An Tir]

[A holly branch bendwise sinister inverted vert fructed gules enfiling a mullet voided Or] The design of a charge enfiling a voided mullet is a weirdness, but it is not in itself sufficient reason for return. It is a weirdness because of the cumulative effects of the unusual voided charge (the voided mullet), the unusual action of enfiling, and the fact that the overlap implicit in the act of enfiling reduces the identifiability of both charges involved. Charges which in their standard period depiction include a large central hole (such as laurel wreaths, annulets, and mascles) are not considered a weirdness when enfiled. Charges with small central holes (such as spur rowels and rustres), and voided charges where the usual form of the charge is not voided (mullets) will be considered a weirdness when enfiled.

The question of which charge in the heraldic ring-toss is "enfiled" is one of the great heraldic cocktail party discussion topics. The SCA has a precedent on the topic which is being followed in this blazon:

[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term, but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid. Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil, "thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on [by] a sword). That is the definition used here.

[Evelyn atte Holye, 12/01, A-Ealdormere]

This submission was originally blazoned using a lozenge fesswise. Because lozenges could be drawn with various proportions in period, including a square set on its corner (which can be neither fesswise nor palewise), it does not make sense to distinguish different proportions of lozenge in blazon. [Cecily of Whitehaven, 02/02, A-Æthelmearc]

[wolf's heads erased ululant] This seems a good time to remind the College that the blazon term ululant, indicating that the animal has its head up and is howling, is not a period blazon term: "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). [Wülfer Drachenhand, 02/02, A-Æthelmearc]

[Or, a mascle within a mascle throughout sable] This was originally blazoned as Sable vêtu Or, a lozenge within a mascle Or. The visual realities of the emblazon are such that it is immediately perceived as a mascle within another, and we have so reblazoned it. There were concerns about "op art" stylization, but this is clearly visible and reproducible as a mascle within another, so it does not have visual ambiguity. While it is possible to blazon this in the fashion originally presented in the Letter of Intent, blazon ambiguity is not the same problem as visual ambiguity. [Marquet de Hyet, 02/02, A-Ansteorra]

Labels are throughout by default, so this need not be blazoned. [Thomas de Lacy, 02/02, A-Atenveldt]

The device was blazoned on the LoI using a lozenge ployé throughout rather than the originally submitted vêtu ployé. We have been asked whether one can reblazon using a lozenge ployé throughout to avoid stylistic problems with placing charges (in this submission, the estencely) on the "vested" portions of a field (in this submission, the portions of the field outside the "lozenge"). There is explicit precedent stating that placing charges around a lozenge ployé throughout (also known as a lozenge concave throughout) is not allowable style:

Vêtu fields should not have charges in the "vested" portions of the field --- and although this was blazoned on the LOI as a lozenge concave throughout, the latter two adjectives almost mandate this be considered a vêtu field. (LoAR December 1992, pg. 15)

Some commenters noted that we allow fields per chevron throughout to be charged with three charges two and one. Such fields could conceivably be blazoned as chapé with charges on the "vested" portions of the field. Yet we do not return these arms for using charged chapé. This is because a "per chevron" design with three charges on it is relatively common in period, and "per chevron throughout" is a period artistic variant of "per chevron". Chapé with any charges on it is extremely rare. The most likely interpretation of such a design is per chevron, and thus that design is acceptable. The design in this submission is one for which the most likely interpretation is of a vêtu field, rather than some design using a variant lozenge, and absent documentation to the contrary, will be considered to be a vêtu ployé field.

We have had a few previous registrations of charged lozenges ployé throughout between charges, but they were registered without explanatory stylistic comment. One cannot draw any firm conclusions about heraldic policy from registrations without comment. [Brigitte MacFarlane Red, 02/02, R-Æthelmearc]

The raven was originally blazoned with its dexter talon raised. This detail has been ruled unblazonable in the past: "A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close" (LoAR February 1996, p. 1). Quite a few period birds close are drawn with one leg raised to some degree, especially massive birds such as cocks, hens and swans. Perhaps this is because the bird better fills the space at the bottom of the shield when drawn with one leg raised. [Branwen of Werchesvorde, 02/02, A-Atenveldt]

[a wolf passant regardant ravissant a man] The device cannot be blazoned in a way which consistently reproduces the emblazon. The man is almost large enough to be co-primary with the wolf, so his exact posture and placement on the field must be blazoned rather than left to artistic license. The man overlaps the wolf in front, is somewhere between palewise and bendwise sinister, and his posture is statant affronty with raised arms. No one in the College or at the Wreath meeting was able to provide a clear blazon for this man or his arrangement with the wolf. [Sigmundr Hákonsson¸ 02/02, R-Drachenwald]

[Argent, ... and a chief barry argent and gules] This was blazoned on the Letter of Intent with three barrulets enhanced rather than a chief barry. The College felt that the proportions of the emblazon would be better preserved with this blazon. [Ii Saburou Katsumari, 03/02, A-Atlantia]

Remember, enfiling is equivalent to threading (as in threading a needle). [Randal Avery of the Mease, 04/02, A-Artemisia]

[Argent, a columbine and a bordure wavy purpure charged with increscents argent] It is an odd but nonetheless valid nuance of SCA blazon that the blazon above is equivalent to the blazon Argent, a columbine flower purpure and a bordure wavy purpure semy of increscents argent. Either blazon form is acceptable. In this emblazon, the columbine is purpure, and the bordure is purpure with argent increscents on it. However, the blazon Argent, a columbine and a bordure wavy purpure semy of increscents argent puts increscents on the columbine as well as on the bordure. [Olivia MacKay, 04/02, A-Calontir]

[Per fess purpure and sable, a skull and in base an hourglass fesswise argent] There were some questions about the charge placement in this armory and the correct blazon for the armory. The visual interpretation of this emblazon shows that the skull is indeed a primary charge, the only primary in this design. This can be seen by the fact that it is mostly centered on the field and overlies the line of division. The hourglass is clearly secondary because it is in base beneath a charge which is clearly primary.

The primary nature of the skull and secondary nature of the hourglass are apparent from the blazon as well as from the emblazon. The fact that the hourglass is marked by the blazon as in base after a charge which is not explicitly positioned on the field makes it clearly a secondary charge, and the previously named charge a primary charge.

If the blazon were simply Per fess purpure and sable, a skull and an hourglass fesswise argent, then the two charges would be co-primary, with the skull entirely on the top half of the field and the hourglass entirely on the bottom half of the field. If the two charges were both explicitly positioned in chief... and in base..., they would also be co-primary charges and again be placed with the first named charge entirely on the top half of the field and the second named charge entirely on the bottom half of the field. [Soshka Gregor'evich Vilanov, 07/02, A-Trimaris]

This submission adds an augmentation to her registered device. The previous device blazoned the field as Per pale argent and gules, goutty. We have reblazoned the field of her registered device to Per pale argent and gules, all goutty to ensure that both sides of the field are goutty. [Ysabella Celestina Manrique de Palma, 10/02, A-Trimaris]

[a brown horse couchant proper blazed and stockinged argent] The details of the tincture of the stockings and blaze of the horse would not generally be blazoned but were present in the submitter's previous blazon. Blazons can be changed by Laurel at any time, so the Grandfather Clause does not apply to blazons as it does to registration of armorial elements. However, it seems appropriate to maintain the same blazon if that blazon is not misleading. [Betha of Bedford, 11/02, A-Æthelmearc]

[Quarterly argent and vert, two crosses potent in bend sable] Some commenters suggested that it was unnecessary to explicitly blazon the sable crosses in bend on this quarterly argent and vert field. Because the black crosses could be disposed in many different arrangements on the field, including in pale and in fess, it is necessary to blazon their arrangement explicitly. Had the field been quarterly argent and sable, then the crosses would indeed be placed in bend by default, since the black crosses could not overlap the black portions of the field. [Arkell vom Cophus, 11/02, A-Ansteorra]

[in pale a thistle proper issuant from a tower] We have used the blazon phrase in pale to indicate that the thistle and tower are co-primary charges. The blazon A thistle proper issuant from a tower sable implies that the thistle would be a maintained charge. [Derek of Ildhafn, 01/03, A-Caid]

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two <charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the <charges> cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field

[a chevron enarched within and conjoined at the point to a chevron] The central conjunction of chevrons was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a chevron inarched. A standard SCA chevron enarched has each arm embowed outwards (curved in the opposite direction from the arms of a chevron ployé). The SCA chevron enarched is an artistic variant of a standard chevron deriving from attempts to show the curvature of a shield. The combination of chevrons in this submission is found in Legh's 1591 Accedens of Armory, where the combination is blazoned as a chevron enarched. Parker, in his Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, blazons this combination as a chevron inarched. To avoid confusion with the already established SCA definition of a chevron enarched we have blazoned this device using standard SCA blazon terms. If there is any question about what this conjunction of chevrons looks like, we direct the reader to Parker's Glossary under chevron inarched. The book may be found in libraries and there is an on-line version at http://www002.upp.so-net.ne.jp/saitou/parker/jpglossc.htm#Chevron. [Hákon Þorgeirsson, 02/03, A-Atenveldt]

This submission has been reblazoned by Laurel many times since it was originally registered. ... Some commenters questioned the blazon of the chief as urdy, as it has somewhat rounded lines. This chief has consistently been blazoned as urdy in her long and varied reblazon history, and at this point we are happy to grandfather this odd depiction of urdy to this submitter. However, should this somewhat "onion-domed" depiction of urdy be presented by anyone else, it must be accompanied by documentation. [Neptha of Thebes, 02/03, A-Caid]

[Per chevron throughout argent and gules, two frogs tergiant vert and an increscent argent] The field drawn here is an acceptable per chevron throughout field.

SCA precedent has been consistent, if somewhat unclear, regarding per chevron throughout fields (which may have charges in each portion of the field without violating any style rules) and chapé fields (which may only have charges in the lower portion of the field).

Both per chevron throughout and chapé fields have the top of the line touch the top of the escutcheon. However, the proportions of the rest of the line of division can make a difference in whether the armory is viewed as per chevron throughout or chapé in the SCA. If the line of division provides a roughly equal balance between the top and bottom halves of the field, it is considered a reasonable depiction of per chevron throughout. If the line of division leaves the bottom half of the field much larger than the top half, then it is considered chapé. It is not uncommon for the bottommost charge on a per chevron throughout field to be larger than the chiefmost charge(s), but the bottommost charge should not be so large as to force the field division up to the fess line and therefore contribute to the appearance of a chapé field (requiring its return).

As a general rule, the sides of a charged per chevron throughout field hit the sides of the escutcheon significantly lower than the fess line, while in charged chapé fields, the line of division hits the sides of the escutcheon at the fess line or higher. This follows from the need for per chevron throughout fields to balance the top and bottom halves of the field. Note the following precedent from the LoAR of June 2002 (quoting, in part, an earlier precedent from January 2000). This precedent is also consistent with earlier precedents on the topic (bolded emphasis added):

The submission was blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron in chief. It is a clear drawing of modern chapé: it's throughout and high on the field. Note the following precedent: "Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division, the location of the line of the division and the relative sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé. Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging its upper portions" (LoAR January 2000).

These precedents specifically set SCA policy for SCA stylistic rules concerning charged fields which are per chevron throughout and chapé. Period armory almost never uses any charges on a chapé field. In period armory using uncharged chapé fields, the line of division often extends down so that the field division could be interchangeable with per chevron throughout. Thus, we will continue to allow the use of the blazon term chapé for uncharged armory which resembles the period armory described above. [Aemilia Sabine, 02/03, A-Calontir]

There is no difference between a single chevronelle and a chevron; at this time we would blazon any single central "chevronelle" as a chevron regardless of how narrowly it was drawn, to be in keeping with period armorial practices. [Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts, 02/03, R-Caid]

[Per chevron] Please note that the line of partition was originally blazoned as enhanced. The line is moved slightly to chief from the most standard central position, but that is a natural consequence of only having one charge in base. The term enhanced has thus been removed from the blazon as unnecessary. [Jon the Tall, 04/03, A-Meridies]

We have removed the Linnaean species name from the blazon given in the Letter of Intent, as we have not specified types of flora or fauna with Linnaean designations for some years. [Dananir bint Zang al Tabib, 05/03, A-Ealdormere]

[Azure, a chevron argent charged with three roundels azure] A number of comments were received about this blazon. Blazons of the form On an [underlying charge] [a group of tertiary charges] are equivalent to blazons of the form An [underlying charge] charged with [a group of tertiary charges]. The specifics of a particular piece of armory may cause one form or the other to be more mellifluous, but there is no generally applicable rule which indicates that one or the other form of blazon is preferable. [Hildegardis filia Vulframni, 07/03, A-Artemisia]

From Wreath: Responses to Some Requests for Reblazon
In the last few months, we have received some requests for systematic reblazon of certain types of blazon in the Ordinary and Armorial. We thought we would set out Wreath and Laurel's current philosophy regarding such requests for systematic reblazon, and some of the specific requests.

There are two main reasons why armory is reblazoned. The first reason is that the submitter requests the reblazon: these cases are by their nature specific, and do not result in systematic reblazons. The second reason is that some specific type of blazon is so confusing that it will most likely not reproduce the emblazon correctly. In this category we have the March 1997 reblazon of all the seahorses, natural seahorses, or hippocampi to clearly indicate the type of charge, and the January 2003 reblazon of all the trilliums to clearly indicate the posture of the charge.

It is important to remember that while it is Laurel's right to reblazon armory at any point, a person who already has many scrolls on the walls using the original blazon may not wish to have a reblazon. As a result, we have limited reblazons to cases where the submitter has requested the reblazon or cases where the original blazon is genuinely confusing. We tend not to initiate systematic reblazons for less compelling reasons.

In some borderline cases, the issue of available time affects the decision of whether to do the systematic reblazon. When we reblazon armory, we always have to check in the files to ensure that the reblazon is correct, even if the request only appears to address a simple typographical error. (After all, just as when we do visual comparisons, an examination of the file may find that there is an error in the existing blazon that must be corrected, which may have nothing to do with the original systematic reblazon request). We are not blessed with much free time. We note with thanks those persons who, when requesting a systematic reblazon, are willing to do the (also time-consuming) preliminary research to identify all the cases which may require reblazon, rather than expecting Wreath and her staff to perform this work as well.

It may be determined that, for reasons other than inaccurate reproduction of emblazon, some particular blazon style is so problematic that it requires a systematic reblazon. People feeling strongly about any of the requests for systematic reblazon listed below - or who have similar concerns that have not yet been received - should write privately to Laurel and Wreath.

In some cases, a member of the College requests a systematic reblazon of some style of blazon which is not at all likely to cause an error in the emblazon, although examples of the blazon style in the Armorial and Ordinary may cause new heralds to emulate the undesirable blazon style. For example, despite the fact that (everyone, sing in unison!) "there is no 'e' in contourny", the SCA has registered a number of blazons using contourney. We have received one request to correct all the "contourney" spellings. So far, we have not acceded to this request, because contourney is interpreted correctly by heralds and scribes and the submitters may not wish the blazon to be corrected.

In some cases, a member of the College may request a systematic reblazon of some blazon style to help with conflict checking. It is (or should be!) generally understood that blazon is to some extent a natural language as well as a technical language, and the Armorial and Ordinary follows that language's accepted variations. Thus, one finds SCA blazons that correctly represent the same charge as, variously, a griffin rampant to sinister, a gryphon segreant and sinister facing, or a griffon contourny. One also finds heraldically identical charges blazoned using terms that span the alphabet (and thus, a section of the Ordinary), often due to the period practice of canting. Thus, a picture of a particular type of stylized dog might be blazoned as a brachet, a hound, or a talbot.

It is important to remember that the Armorial and Ordinary's primary purpose is to record names and blazons, not to provide a data base for conflict checking. While some of our friends in Library or Information Science dream of a controlled vocabulary for SCA blazon, it is unlikely to happen in the Armorial and Ordinary because so many people would have their blazons changed without their request and so many cants would be removed. We may someday, perhaps, see a "controlled vocabulary and normalized style" blazon as an adjunct to the official blazon, used for computer search purposes only. However, the magnitude of the project, and the concerns about mistakenly introducing discrepancies between the official blazon and the "controlled vocabulary" blazon, have been prohibitive.

One request for reblazon has been made on the grounds that similar armorial designs are not phrased similarly in their blazons, which adds to difficulty in conflict checking. The specific issue is the blazon of tertiary charges: the identical designs (Fieldless) On a mullet gules a trefoil Or and (Fieldless) A mullet gules charged with a trefoil Or do not have identical blazons and will not be found next to each other in the Ordinary. The request asked that all the "charged with" blazons be changed to follow the "... on a ..." convention. Because both blazon styles are clear, and because different legal blazon choices routinely result in heraldically identical items being phrased quite differently in blazon, we have chosen not to implement this request.

One other request has been received from a few different people, on the grounds that the blazon style may lead to incorrect emblazons and that it is also difficult to conflict check. This is the blazon style that reads Azure, a bend argent, three estoiles in bend sinister counterchanged, rather than the more usual Azure, on a bend between two estoiles argent an estoile azure. Note that this blazon style may be misleading, as it may lead a scribe to draw the estoiles so some part of an estoile overlaps the edge of the bend (which is usually not the case in the submitted emblazon). This blazon style is also difficult to conflict check.

This request for systematic reblazon seems more compelling than the other requests that have recently been received. We would not, however, embark on such a significant reblazon without getting the opinion of the College on whether it is necessary. It is also important to note that it will be very time-consuming to compile the list of items that may need to be re-blazoned in this request. There is no handy keyword like "trillium" to use for a search: it may be necessary to examine every piece of armory using the word "counterchanged" to assemble the list of items that might need reblazon. We also suspect there will be a large number of items which need to be visually checked at the end of the list compilation. It is important to note that in this tenure, we do not expect that this project could be completed unless the compilation of the initial list of items which may need reblazon were performed by some volunteers other than Wreath and her usual staff.

Reblazons of this blazon style may occur on a case by case basis as they come through Wreath's office, as happened this month for the submission of Christopher Jameson in the Midrealm section of this LoAR, which came to the attention of the office for a different reason. [08/03, CL]

[a tulip] The tulip was originally blazoned as a Turkish tulip. However, this appears to be a reasonable variant of the standard tulip and needs not be explicitly blazoned. This particular stylization of a tulip is found in period Middle Eastern art. [Kathy of Tir Ysgithr, 08/03, A-Atenveldt]

[Argent crusilly formy] The SCA has been fairly consistent about reblazoning a group of more than eight charges that evenly covers a field or underlying charge as a group of strewn charges. We have thus reblazoned this device from the original blazon of ten crosses formy to crusilly formy. We note that should this device be drawn on another shape for heraldic display, such as a rectangular banner or a round shield, the submitter will quite likely find that a different number of charges will fill the space better. [Christgaen von Köln, 08/03, A-Caid]

The previous blazon ... misspelled the bretessed line of division as betressed. Betressed is not an acceptable spelling for this line of division. [Christopher Jameson, 08/03, A-Middle]

[a fleur-de-lys] The fleur-de-lys was originally blazoned as florency but the SCA does not blazon this sort of artistic detail. Per the Cover Letter for the June 1993 LoAR (dated July 1993):

Occasionally, the very diversity of the Society dictates that some details shouldn't be blazoned. For instance, we don't normally blazon the local drawing style: a fleur-de-lys is blazoned a fleur-de-lys, whether drawn in the Italian style (sometimes blazoned a fleur-de-lys florencée by modern heralds) or the French style. In this way, we permit the broadest mix of cultures; we don't micro-manage the scribes, but allow them the fullest creativity and expression; and we make it possible for someone to change persona without requiring a reblazon.

[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 09/03, A-Ansteorra]

Seven charges on a stripe ordinary like a fess are too many to explicitly enumerate, so the blazon has been changed from on a fess ... seven compass stars to a fess ... semy of compass stars. [Gabrielle von Strassburg, 09/03, A-Meridies]

[a bordure wavy] The blazon originally used the term undy rather than wavy. We have reblazoned it to use the more standard SCA term to avoid confusion. The term undy is confusing for two reasons. One reason is that the term undy sometimes represents a line of division (wavy) and sometimes a field division (barry wavy). Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet, p. 212, states: "Undy (also Undé or Ondé) A synonym for wavy. It is not much used today but in early blazon it was always employed, often meaning barry wavy." The other reason that the term undy is confusing is that it is prone to handwriting or typing errors, and might easily be misinterpreted as the different field division urdy. The SCA has previously chosen to avoid error-prone terms. For example, it has chosen not to use the error-prone term ermines (easily confused with ermine), in favor of the less error-prone term counter-ermine. [Ginevra Visconti, 09/03, A-Trimaris]

There have been a number of requests in the commentary to modify the gender used in referring to (for example) a sun in its splendor or a moon in her plenitude. We allow suns to be either masculine or neuter, and we allow moons to be either feminine or neuter, and we will retain the submitter's blazon when feasible. [10/03, CL]

The mermaids were originally blazoned as respectant. We understand the temptation to use the term respectant: mermaids were often drawn in period so that they are slightly in trian aspect and they can thus face each other to a small extent, as these mermaids do. The LoAR of July 2001, ruling on an earlier submission of this device, stated, "The device originally blazoned the mermaids as respectant, but that implies that their bodies are in profile as well. There is no way to indicate in the blazon that the tails are symmetrical; the direction of the tail is normally artistic license and not blazoned." We agree with the previous ruling and have removed the term respectant from the blazon. [James of Riverhold, 10/03, A-Calontir]

[a horse's head couped] Some commentary suggested that the head be blazoned in some fashion other than the default couped because it was "not couped in the usual horizontal manner." We direct the College to the Cover Letter of the November 2001 LoAR, which discusses period treatments of both couped and erased in some detail. Regarding the form of couped found in this emblazon, the cover letter states that one of the period depictions was "a straight line... [which could be] parallel to the side of the shield." Because Francesca's horse's head is a primary charge, drawn to fill the space, the bottom of the horse's head and neck is near the sinister base portion of the shield. The angle of the side of the shield in sinister base is approximately bendwise sinister, and the couping of the horse's head in this emblazon is roughly parallel to that sinister base portion of the side of the shield. Thus, this is a period form of couping, and it is not necessary to describe it further in blazon. [Francesca Testarossa de' Martini, 11/03, A-An Tir]

[a tower argent] The tower was originally blazoned as argent masoned sable. This depiction is acceptable artistic license for a tower argent: as stated in the LoAR of August 1992, "As with all charges of stonework, the masoning is an artistic detail worth no difference." The submitter did not blazon the masoning explicitly on the submission form, so we have removed it from the blazon. [Gemma Meen, 11/03, A-An Tir]

The submitter asked that the tails of the dragon be blazoned as nowed in an Ormand knot [sic]. The SCA usually uses the term Wake knot for this knot, but the term Ormond knot is found as a synonym for this knot in standard real-world and SCA sources (Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet and the Pictorial Dictionary). Since the submitter wants to use this alternate name for the knot, we have acceded to her request, although we have fixed the spelling of the knot to the documented spelling Ormond Knot. [Symmonne Deccarrette de Villette, 01/04, A-An Tir]

Please note that when blazoning items in saltire, the bendwise charge is blazoned first and the bendwise sinister charge is blazoned second. [Malise of Sundragon, 01/04, A-Atenveldt]

[a pithon] This was originally blazoned as a sea-python. Firstly, the bat-winged snake monster found in this submission is blazoned as a pithon, and the natural snake is blazoned as a python. Secondly, this charge does not have a fish's tail, as one would expect from a sea-pithon. The small detail at the end of the tail is not large enough to require reblazoning this as a sea-pithon. [Setembrina Bramante, 01/04, A-Northshield]

[a wolf's head] The wolf's head was originally blazoned as ululant, a term used in SCA heraldry for a wolf in some posture with its head pointed to chief and howling. In this emblazon, the muzzle of the head is tilted to dexter chief, which is a reasonable artistic variant for a plain wolf's head. We do not believe that it is necessary to blazon a charge consisting only of a head in profile as ululant. [Caitilín inghean Sheáin, 01/04, A-Outlands]

[a sheaf of swords inverted Or banded argent] Parker, under banded, states that the term "is used when two or more objects (e.g. a garb or branches of a tree) are bound together with a band of different tincture." [James Irvin, 02/04, A-Æthelmearc]

[A landscape (in pale sky azure, snow-capped mountains argent, hills vert, prairie proper, and a wheat field proper) and on a chief argent a cross gules] This armory posed some difficult questions regarding blazon:

The arms of Alberta are not stylistically compatible with pre-1600 heraldry, and are thus not easily described by SCA blazon.
...

We are fortunate to have benefited by the efficiency and kindness of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The Chief Herald of Canada, Robert D. Watt, provided the following information:

The most definitive information we have here is found on page 209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May 1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of writing and had full access to the records of the College, I believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered absolutely accurate.

The real-world official blazon of the province of Alberta is not clearly comprehensible from the perspective of SCA blazon. It uses the term surmounted in a different way than we do. It also assumes that the reader is aware that a St. George's cross is, by definition, a cross (throughout) gules. We have elected to reblazon the armory for the SCA, as we generally do with important real-world armory when it is necessary. We have left in the ambiguous proper tinctures for the wheat field and the prairie, as this ambiguity seems to be part of the definition of the armory. By blazoning this armory, exclusive of the chief, as a landscape, we hope to make it clear for future researchers that this armory is distinct from most heraldic treatments (aside from issues of purely visual conflict). The landscape is not, for example, equivalent to a variant of a barry field, or some combination of bars, but it is an excellent example of an overly pictorial design per RfS VIII.4.a, that could not be registered to a new SCA submitter. [Alberta, 02/04, A-Society for Creative Anchronism]

The crescents were blazoned as crescents pendant on the LoI but crescents inverted on the submission form. We have restored the submitter's preferred form. Both terms are acceptable for use in the S.C.A. [Iror of Crystal Mynes, 03/04, A-Calontir]

[on a bend vert four bear pawprints argent and overall a bear statant sable] We were at a loss on how to blazon this armory in a way which would clearly re-create the emblazon and would also be compatible with period armorial style. As blazoned, and based on our knowlege of overall charges in period armory, we would expect the four pawprints to be evenly placed on the bend, and thus, we would expect overall bear to obscure some of the four pawprints on the bend. However, all four pawprints are visible. It is not possible to blazon the bend with a larger number of pawprints, because there is enough of the bend showing in between the bear's limbs to show that there are no pawprints under the bear. [Appolonia Notburgen, 03/04, R-Calontir]

BOOK

[Sable, three open books Or] This submission raised the question of whether we should give difference between open and closed books. Both are found in period armory: the open book in the arms of Oxford in 1585 and the closed book in the arms of Cambridge in 1572. There are few books found in period heraldry, so it is not easy to generalize about period distinctions between open and closed books, although there is a fair amount of evidence showing that Oxford and Cambridge consistently use their books in the open and closed forms respectively in the 17th C and beyond.

Without evidence of period practice, we must rely on visual distinction, and open and closed books are visually distinct. This is therefore clear of conflict with ... Sable, a closed book palewise Or, with one CD for changing the number of books and another for open versus closed books. It is similarly clear of conflict with ... Vert, three closed books palewise, spines to sinister Or, with one CD for changing the field and another for open versus closed books. [Emma in draumspaka, 03/02, A-An Tir]

[Azure, an open book and in base a bee argent marked sable] This does not conflict with Yale University (important non-SCA armory), Azure, an open book argent charged with Hebrew letters sable. There is one CD for adding the secondary bee, and another CD for removing the tertiary letters from the book. As seen on p. 241 of Neubecker's Heraldry-Sources, Symbols and Meanings, the Hebrew letters on the books in the arms of Yale University are few and large, and function as tertiary charges. In general, open books may be drawn with numerous small writing marks as artistic license, the writing so small that it could not be read from any distance, but such writing would not be blazoned. [Branwen filia Iohannis de Monmouth, 04/02, A-East]

Please advise the submitter to draw the open book so it does not appear to be tilted back into the shield. [Cormac Mór, 02/03, A-Caid]

[a merman maintaining an open book argent fimbriated gules] ... the maintained book may not be fimbriated. RfS VIII.3 states, in part, "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design." An open book is not a simple geometric charge and it is not in the center of the field in this device. Note that the book was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as an open book argent bound gules, but that blazon would not necessarily recreate the fact that the binding fimbriates the book around all of its edges. [Jens Sveinsson, 05/03, R-Atenveldt]

[(Fieldless) On a ribbon fesswise enarched gules the words "verba volant scripta manet," overall an escallop Or] ... The ribbon in this submission was originally blazoned as a scroll. A scroll is not nearly as long and narrow as a ribbon, and is proportioned more like a billet. Æthelmearc has previously registered a badge using a scroll: Argent, on an open scroll gules an "Æ" Or. The scroll in that submission is drawn correctly and does not resemble this ribbon. Because this charge is not the same charge as the previously registered scroll, the grandfather clause does not apply to this submission.

We note that there would be stylistic difficulties with armory designed with a scroll... and overall an escallop. Due to the shapes of these charges, any such design would have a large amount of overlap between the scroll and the escallop, making the escallop just "barely overall." By previous precedent, "Barely overall charges have been ruled unacceptable for a long time and for fieldless badges overall charges must have very little overlap with the charge it surmounts" (LoAR of September 1999). [Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/03, R-Æthelmearc]

BORDURE

The bordure here is much too thin to be acceptable. Each side of a bordure is usually as thick as one-eighth to one-tenth of the shield width, and this bordure is less than one-twentieth of the shield width. Part of the problem is that the bordure was drawn with a very thick black outline compared to the outlines on the dragon's head. This outline cut into the white part of the bordure and also had somewhat of an appearance of fimbriation. [Magy McTerlach, 10/01, R-Meridies]

[Argent ... a bordure parted bordurewise indented argent and sable] This sort of bordure has been registered in the arms of Coileáin Olafsson (registered February 1991), Gules, a sword inverted proper between a pair of lions' jambes couped Or within a bordure parted bordurewise indented sable and Or. To quote from the January 1990 LoAR (the return of Coileáin's original device submission, which used an identical bordure), "The bordure is a period usage, as noted by several commentors who adduced a number of examples of bordures and other ordinaries parted in this manner.".

The blazon for this unusual bordure treatment has been changed to be consistent with Coileáin's registration. To quote that acceptance: "The bordure was blazoned as 'indented-in-point' in the LoI. The above blazon, though not quite as elegant, is believed to be clearer.".

Please advise the submitter to draw the bordure so that the black is all on the inside and the argent is all on the outside. In Coileáin's bordure, each corner of the bordure is tinctured entirely in the outside tincture. [Heinricus vom Eichenhain, 12/01, A-Drachenwald]

[Per pale argent and sable, a human footprint sable and two roundels in pale argent within a bordure vert] The device raised questions about marshalling. RfS XI.3 states: "Armory that appears to marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous." Without the bordure, this would be returned for the appearance of impalement, which is the display of two coats, side by side, to show marital affiliation or tenure in an office.

Armory can avoid the appearance of marshalling by adding "charges overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry" (RfS XI.3.a). In late period, a bordure may be added to some kinds of marshalled coats of arms as a mark of cadency: an individual who bore quartered arms as his personal arms might have a child who bore the quartered arms within a bordure. The child's arms would still be marshalled. Thus, adding a bordure will not remove the appearance of marshalling from quartered arms.

However, impaled arms show marriage or tenure in an office. In period, a second generation would not generally inherit the impaled arms in that form. The component arms of two married people might be inherited in a quartered form by a child, but would not be inherited in an impaled form.

Bordures in impaled arms traditionally cut off at the line of division. If one impaled the hypothetical arms Argent, a cross fleury within a bordure gules and Gules, a lion within a bordure argent, the resultant impaled armory would appear to be Per pale argent and gules, a cross fleury and a lion within a bordure counterchanged. As a result, armory using a per pale line of division, a bordure, and different types of charges on each side of the line of division will look like marshalled arms if the bordure changes tincture at the line of division. It may also look like marshalled armory if the bordure is a solid tincture but has good contrast with both halves of the field. The hypothetical arms Argent, a sword within a bordure sable and Or, an eagle within a bordure sable would combine when impaled to armory which would appear to be Per pale argent and Or, a sword and an eagle within a bordure sable. Thus, the only case in which a bordure may remove the appearance of impalement from armory which would otherwise appear to be impaled is if the bordure is a solid tincture and if it has poor contrast with one half of the field. That is the case with this device. [Pegge Leg the Merchant, 03/02, A-An Tir]

Bordures may be counterchanged over a gyronny field. We have many period examples of bordures compony, which are almost the same in appearance as bordures gyronny. Because the bordure counterchanged has large enough pieces to maintain its identifiability, and it looks like a common multiply divided period bordure, it may be accepted without explicit documentation of a bordure counterchanged on a gyronny field. [Wulfgar Neumann, 03/02, P-Outlands]

[a bordure indented] This bordure differs somewhat from the standard SCA bordure indented. This bordure indented is drawn with the indentations extending all the way to the edge of the shield, so that the indentations appear to be a series of conjoined triangles issuing from the side of the shield. (Or, alternately, drawn so that the bordure indented looks like the outside portion of a bordure parted bordurewise indented.) This bordure also has rather numerous small indentations (15 up one side), but (unlike most cases which are returned for "too many too small" indentations), the indentations are not too small to be identifiable. The indentations in this emblazon are very prominent and clearly visible. No explicit documentation was provided by the College for this form of bordure, and a number of commenters asked whether this was acceptable for SCA use.

Precedent has noted that period chiefs could be drawn with the indentations "inwards" reaching all the way to the chief line:

The device was blazoned as having three triangles issuant from chief. This style of indentation can be found in period (for example Lowell of Balumbye (Lindsay of the Mount, pl. 107)), but it was blazoned as either indented or three piles. As current scholarship believes that such chiefs were originally indented with deep indentations, we decided to blazon it as indented and leave the depth to artistic license (LoAR July 2000).

In addition, some period bordures indented approached this depiction. The Milanese Stemmario Trivulziano (second half of 15th C) has two coats of arms using bordures indented where the indentations touch the outside of the bordure: the arms of d[i] [L]uino de Barbati and the second and third quarters of Dal Vermo. Each of these emblazons has almost the same number of indentations up one side of the escutcheon as in this emblazon. While we do not have a period blazon for these arms, the modern blazon provided by the editor of the text is indented.

Because the bordure in this emblazon has a clearly identifiable indented line, and the artwork of the indentation is similar to period indented chiefs and at least one period armorial's depiction of an indented bordure, it is an acceptable variant of a bordure indented. Please also advise the submitter that the standard way to draw such a bordure through most times and places in our period would have fewer and larger indentations and would not have the indentations extend all the way to the outside of the shield. If the submitter can find a blazon term to describe this specific sort of bordure, and can show that it was considered distinct from a standard bordure indented in period, he may provide this documentation and make a request for reblazon. [Ulf de Fribois, 10/02, A-Drachenwald]

Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a pile is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in armory is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered too far from period practice and reason for return. [Clef of Cividale, 03/03, R-Calontir]

Please advise the submitter to draw the embattlements on the bordure so that the height of the embattlements matches their width. [Günther von Weißensee, 05/03, A-Meridies]

CANDELABRA

[a three-armed candelabra vs. a nine-armed menorah] There is a CD between a three-armed candelabra and a nine-armed candelabra. [Uilliam of Bronzehelm, 11/02, A-Artemisia]

[a three-armed candelabra] This does not conflict with a ... (Fieldless) A trident Or. Both three-armed candelabra and tridents are period heraldic charges. A candelabra much like this one, where the outside arms form a U-shaped arc with the center arm palewise, is found in the arms of von Krage on fol. 151 of Siebmacher. Tridents are found in the same book. A similarly-outlined trident is found in the arms of von der Gabel on fol. 149. A more angularly-outlined trident is found in the arms of von Ebnet on fol. 114. Because the charges appear to be distinct in period, and have some visual difference between them, there is a CD between them. [Uilliam of Bronzehelm, 11/02, A-Artemisia]

CANTING

[a four-leaved clover saltirewise slipped vert] We have blazoned this quatrefoil as a clover to preserve the cant. [Ærne Clover, 08/02, A-An Tir]

The sage leaves cant on the submitter's surname, Salviati. We have therefore blazoned them as sage leaves to preserve the cant. [Dianora Salviati , 08/02, A-East]

[(Fieldless) On an apple gules slipped and leaved vert a Roman capital letter B Or] This is an example of a type of canting badge called a rebus, where the name is phonetically represented by the emblazon. It was especially popular in medieval England: a beacon issuant from a tun was the rebus of Thomas Beckynton in the 15th C. Rebuses often included letters, as in Catherine's badge. A 16th C rebus for John Oxney showed an eagle (the symbol of the evangelist John), an ox, and the letters "ne". The rebus badge of Sir John Peeche was a peach charged with the letter "e". (Examples taken from Parker's A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry under Rebus.) [Catherine Anne Applebey, 07/03, A-Calontir]

CARD PIQUE

[card pique vs. crabapple leaf] A crab apple leaf (as per this emblazon, and for that matter, the local apple tree) is a standard leaf shape (slim pointed oval) with a finely serrated edge. A crab apple leaf appears to be a non-period charge and thus, under RfS X.4.e, the difference from a card pique must be determined on visual grounds. There is significant difference (a CD) between this leaf shape and a card pique but not substantial (RfS X.2) difference. [Quentin de Rougemont, 11/03, R-Ansteorra]

[card pique vs. seeblatt] No evidence has been presented, and none has been found, indicating that seeblatter and card piques were interchangeable in period. Prior precedent holds that a seeblatt and a card-pique-shaped leaf inverted are different enough on visual grounds to merit a CD. Per the LoAR of June 2003: "Since an aspen leaf is not a period heraldic charge, the difference between an aspen leaf inverted and a seeblatt must be determined on visual grounds per RfS X.4.e. There is sufficient visual difference between these two charges for a CD. A seeblatt is a heart-shaped leaf with the tip of the leaf to the base of the shield, and with some sort of notch (often, but not always, trefoil-shaped) taken out of the part of the leaf which is to chief. An aspen leaf inverted is also a leaf with the tip of the leaf to the base of the shield, but it has a very distinct stem issuant to chief rather than a notch removed from the leaf." Barring further information, it seems appropriate to rule, analogously, that there should be a CD between a seeblatt inverted and a card pique. [Quentin de Rougemont, 11/03, R-Ansteorra]

CASTLE and TOWER

There is no difference between a tower and a lighthouse given the varying depictions of towers and similar architecture in period [Dun an Chalaidh, Shire of, 08/01, R-An Tir]

[Sable, a chess rook argent] This is clear of conflict with ... Sable, a tower argent. There is substantial difference between a tower and a properly drawn chess rook, so RfS X.2 applies.

In the LoAR of October 1996, it was stated that there was "nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook". This precedent is hereby overturned: a tower and a chess rook were considered different charges in period and have substantial visual difference. The period heraldic chess rook is drawn consistently in a form where the top is forked into two prominent curled points. This was a standard depiction for the period chess piece, as illustrated in Caxton's 1474 "Game and Playe of the Chesse". The period heraldic chess rook does not resemble any sort of fortification and cannot be mistaken for a tower. On examining the collated commentary for the October 1996 ruling, it appears that perhaps the commenters mistakenly believed that the particular chess rook in the possible conflict was drawn as a tower, rather than as a period chess rook. [William fitzBubba, 12/01, A-East]

[Or, on a tower pean a hawk's head erased Or] Conflict with ... Or, on a tower per pale gules and azure, a compass star Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of the tower but nothing for changing the type only of tertiary charge by RfS X.4.j.ii, because a charged tower will not qualify for this rule. According to X.4.j.ii, "A charge is suitable for the purposes of this rule if (a) it it simple enough in outline to be voided, and (b) it is correctly drawn with an interior substantial enough to display easily recognizable charges." Towers are not simple enough in outline to be voided. [Hawk's Rest, Shire of, 07/02, R-Atenveldt]

[a castle argent] The castle was originally blazoned as a tollgate. The castle as drawn here is similar to most two-towered castles except that it has a crossbar across the portal. It is thus almost indistinguishable from a standard castle, and may be considered an acceptable artistic variant of a castle.

We might have been willing to blazon this castle as a tollgate, as the submitter desired, had documentation been provided supporting such a blazon. However, no such documentation was provided to Laurel. Such documentation would need to indicate that a period tollgate would have a form that is standard enough to allow recreation of the emblazon from the blazon. The one named example of a period tollgate mentioned in the LoI, the Micklegate Bar in York, is not described as a tollgate by the current City of York. A picture of the Bar and a discussion of its history may be found at http://www.york.gov.uk/walls/1214th/micklegate.html, which is a portion of the Web page discussing the city from the 12th through 14th centuries. The defining crossbar in this emblazon's tollgate is not discussed in this Web site either. It appears that access through the Bar was controlled, as usual for gatehouses, by a portcullis. [Ian Cradoc, 09/02, A-Atenveldt]

[two walls couped with portals] We have reblazoned the castles as walls, because a castle by default has a tower at each end, and these charges do not have any towers. According to the Pictorial Dictionary, walls are throughout and embattled by default, so it is necessary to blazon these walls as couped. It is also necessary to blazon the portals explicitly. [Hans Schneckenburg, 09/03, A-Caid]

CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained

[A lion's jambe erased bendwise argent] A possible conflict was called against the badge of Berhtrad Athalbrand von Strassburg, (Fieldless) A lion's gambe bendwise erased argent, sustaining by the blade a sword bendwise sinister sable. We were asked to check the form to see that the sword was sustained, rather than maintained (which is not worth difference). Berhtrad's form shows that the sword is correctly blazoned as sustained. Recall that the criterion for a sustained charge, unchanged since the introduction of the term sustained into SCA blazon, has been:

Either sustaining or supporting will be used when a "held" charge is of comparable size to the beast holding it; maintaining will continue to be used when the held charge is of negligible heraldic difference. (Brayden Avenel Durrant, July, 1992, p. 6)

[Gala Cunningham, 09/01, A-Ansteorra]

[a sea-lion sustaining a sword bendwise sinister] The sword in this emblazon is as long as the sea-lion is tall. The sea-lion has notably more visual weight than the sword because the sea-lion is many times wider than the sword. This lead some members of the College to question whether the sword should be considered a maintained charge rather than a sustained charge. However, there is precedent indicating that the sword in this emblazon should be considered a sustained charge:

[a bear rampant contourny sustaining a halberd] Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as Green Crown noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny handle will always have difficulty matching the visual weight of other charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about the same as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. (LoAR September 1994 p. 9)

In arms with a sea-lion and a sword in fess, the sword would be as long as the sea-lion is tall. Therefore, this sword should be considered a sustained charge. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 02/02, A-Atlantia]

[Azure, a camel rampant Or wearing a hat gules and maintaining in its mouth a bottle fesswise reversed vert] The hat (which functions as a maintained charge) and the maintained bottle both have insufficient contrast with the field. This is acceptable for maintained charges, which are not worth difference, as long as the charge in question has some contrast with the field. [Xenos the Butcher, 06/02, A-Ansteorra]

[Purpure, a wyvern sejant maintaining a sword bendwise and in chief two thistles argent] The sword is drawn in an unrecognizable fashion. While the recognizability of maintained charges is not expected to be as good as the recognizability of primary or secondary charges, here the identifying hilt of the sword lies entirely on the wyvern, which is the same tincture. [William Cormac Britt, 07/02, R-Meridies]

[a sword proper supporting on its point a pair of scales] Note that the LoAR of July 1992 gives both supporting and sustaining as equivalent terms used to identify co-primary charges: "Either sustaining or supporting will be used when a "held" charge is of comparable size to the beast holding it; maintaining will continue to be used when the held charge is of negligible heraldic difference." [Conrad Tolbert Regnault, 10/02, A-Atenveldt]

[an arrow Or sustained by two stags combatant] The arrow is much thinner than the stags, but it is as tall as the stags, and the three charges could easily be blazoned as in fess. Prior precedent indicates that because these charges are about the same size as a group of charges in fess, the arrow is therefore a sustained charge rather than a maintained charge:

[registering Azure, a bear rampant contourny sustaining a halberd between, in chief, two mullets of eight points argent.] Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as Green Crown noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny handle will always have difficulty matching the visual weight of other charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about the same as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. (LoAR September 1994)

[Gearoid MacEgan, 08/03, A-Artemisia]

This does not conflict with ... (Fieldless) A wyvern erect supporting by its hub a wheel Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness and a second CD for the supported charge. Per the LoAR of July 1992, "Either sustaining or supporting will be used when a 'held' charge is of comparable size to the beast holding it; maintaining will continue to be used when the held charge is of negligible heraldic difference." [Godwin of Edington, 10/03, A-Ansteorra]

[a talbot passant maintaining a cross of Calatrava] The talbot was originally blazoned as sustaining the cross of Calatrava. Per the Cover Letter to the LoAR of October 1996, "Maintained charges are small and do not count for difference. Sustained charges are large - large enough in fact that if they were not being held that they would be considered a co-primary, and do count for difference." In this case, while the cross of Calatrava is not a miniscule charge, it is not large enough to be considered a co-primary charge. It is smaller than the talbot both vertically and horizontally and has notably less visual weight than the talbot. Because the SCA's only choices for held charges are to consider them to be sustained co-primary charges, or to consider them maintained insignificant charges, and this cross cannot be considered a co-primary charge, it must be considered a maintained charge. [Susannah Griffon, 12/03, R-Calontir]

CHARGE -- Miscellaneous

[Sable, three braziers Or enflamed proper] This submission is clear of conflict with Seamus Gillemore, Sable, a brazier argent flaming Or. There is one CD for changing the number of the braziers. In both these armories the brazier pan is half the charge. Therefore, three-fourths of the charge tincture has changed: all of the brazier pan and half the tincture of the flames. Changing half or more of the tincture of the charge group is a second CD. [Sigmund Spelmann, 10/01, A-Lochac]

[tennis racket] There is a strong pattern of use of constructed artifacts from all walks of life in period heraldry. The type of tennis racket drawn here is late 16th C and, as the defining example in the SCA, is now the default tennis racket. [Bertrand du Beaumanoir, 11/01, A-Æthelmearc]

The College could not find evidence for round artist's palettes in period heraldry or as a period artifact. Without documentation for a round palette, this charge may not be registered. [Manuela Ponçe, 11/01, R-Atlantia]

[An open penannular brooch bendwise sinister Or] Conflict with a badge of Brendan Mad, Vert, a round buckle Or. There is one CD for the field. With the best will in the world we could not give a CD between a round buckle and a penannular brooch, when the outlines are so close to identical. Recall that the direction of the pin of the buckle is artistic license. [Bríd uí Chon na Mara, 11/01, R-Caid]

[an arm embowed and couped above the elbow] The arm as drawn here blurs the distinction between a cubit arm and an arm embowed. A cubit arm is couped just below the elbow, and an arm embowed is couped just below the shoulder. This should be resubmitted with a standard form of arm. [Anne Balfour of Markinch, 12/01, R-Atlantia]

[a fanged tooth] As noted in the Pictorial Dictionary, "In mundane heraldry, the tooth is normally depicted as a human molar, with the roots extending to base [736]; it is blazoned (somewhat confusingly) as a 'fanged tooth'." [Owein Deykin, 01/02, A-Meridies]

[(Fieldless) A saltcellar shedding salt argent] ... given the period canting badge of a daisy (also known as a marguerite) for someone with the given name Marguerite, quite appropriate. (It makes sense that canting badges, which are personal, might refer to the given name, while canting arms, which apply to whole families of people with different given names, apply to the surname.)

According to the Pictorial Dictionary, when a saltcellar is drawn shedding salt, the salt must be explicitly blazoned, and so we have added that information into the blazon. We wish the submitter better luck than we had in clearly enunciating the phrase "Yseulte's saltcellar shedding salt by the seashore". [Yseulte Trevelyn, 02/02, A-Atlantia]

[tripod pipkins] The charges in chief were blazoned as pots on the LoI, and as pipkins by the submitter. An SCA default pot lacks the prominent side handle and legs on this charge. We have thus reblazoned them as tripod pipkins. Tripod pipkins are small to medium sized pottery vessels used for cooking from the 15th C. They are round vessels with a horizontal handle and three legs in a tripod configuration. The handle is to dexter by default.

For an easily available reference on pipkins, see The Medieval Ceramic Industry of the Severn Valley, Alan Vince, specifically chap. 7 (Pottery forms and Typology, subheading Food Preparation Vessels, Pipkins). This unpublished thesis may be found on-line at http://www.postex.demon.co.uk/thesis/thesis.htm. Also according to this thesis, the same shaped vessel made of metal (rather than of pottery) would be called a tripod skillet by archeologists. A picture of a tripod skillet, which is the same shape as these pipkins, may be found on p. 162 of The Medieval Household, Geoff Egan, Medieval Science from Excavations in London: 6, to describe a vessel of this shape. [Artemisia di Serena, 02/02, A-Caid]

[Gules, in pall inverted three feathers conjoined at the quill argent] This is also clear of conflict with ... Gules, a feather fan argent, handled Or. There is substantial difference for purposes of RfS X.2 between a feather and a feather fan. [Nakano Zenjirou Tadamasa, 02/02, A-Calontir]

After due consideration, the visual differences between tankards and mortars and pestles are sufficient for a CD. [Elizabeth Rea, 02/02, A-Meridies]

[a chaine shot] This depiction of the chaine shot is from the 1611 edition of Guillim's A Display of Heraldrie, which is within our grey area for documentation. The chaine shot was found as a period item before 1600: the term chaine-shot is found in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (new edition) dated 1581 under the heading chain-shot. This emblazon matches Parker's depiction of the same charge, showing that it became a standard depiction. [Víkingr Járnhauss inn Hárlangi, 02/02, A-Merdies]

[a coffin] Coffins have only been registered twice in the SCA, the last time in 1985. The coffins in this submission, as in the previous submissions, are six-sided shapes following the outline of the top of a hexagonal coffin palewise. Thus, the basemost side ("foot") is narrower than the chiefmost side ("head") and the wide point separating the other four sides is at shoulder height. A number of commenters asked whether this was a period coffin shape and whether coffins were found in period heraldry.

No evidence was presented, and none could be found, for coffins as charges in period heraldry. Given the wide diversity of constructed items found in period heraldry, a coffin should be an acceptable charge as long as it is drawn so that it would be recognizable to a period viewer as a coffin.

No evidence was presented, and none could be found, that the shape in this submission was a period coffin shape. Some documentation for coffins was found, consisting of pictures of coffins in illuminated manuscripts showing funeral services, pictures of existing funeral palls in embroidery references (used for draping over a coffin), and a description of one existing child's coffin c. 1400. These references all showed coffins with four-sided tops. The tops were mostly rectangular, but some coffins had trapezoidal tops, so that the "head" was wider than the "foot". Without documentation for the shape of coffin in this submission, it may not be registered.

The coffins in illustrations of funeral services were all shown from the side (during the service, or carried by pallbearers). The top-only view of the previous coffin registrations therefore seems somewhat unlikely. Future attempts to register coffins should not only address the shape of a period coffin, but should address how a period coffin would be drawn so that a period viewer would recognize it as a coffin (rather than another sort of box or chest). [Constance MacLeod, 02/02, R-Ansteorra]

[a pickaxe argent hafted ... proper] The pickaxe, following the proper defined for axes in the Pictorial Dictionary, has a haft of wood proper. [Óláfr Ljótarson af Øy, 02/02, R-Meridies]

[an aeolipile argent and in base a flame proper] The aeolipile is a primitive steam engine, described (and possibly invented) by Hero of Alexandria in his Pneumatica, written in approximately 150 B.C. This work was translated into Italian by Aleotti in 1547, although the work became best known through a Latin translation by F. Commandine in 1575. An English translation of this work is available at http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/index.html. Section 50 shows the steam engine and the translator's preface provides useful information about the history of the manuscript.

The aeolipile has a small sphere on the top. The sphere rotates due to jets of steam which issue from two bent tubes on opposite sides of the sphere. The sphere rests on a large closed basin which is heated to produce the steam. The basin is generally drawn in a form resembling a covered footed cauldron. The basin is apparently heated by a fire placed under the basin, between its feet.

In all the illustrations provided in the documentation provided with the submission, and in the excellent citations provided by Eastern Crown, the basin is larger than the sphere. In this submission, the basin is much smaller than the sphere (and would probably not generate enough steam to rotate the sphere). The basin in this emblazon is not only small, but it has an unusual shape: it is shaped like a shallow, wide trapezoid, without any supporting feet. The overall outline of the charge is therefore substantially different from those in the illustrations of the aeolipile, and it cannot be considered an acceptable emblazon of an aeolipile.

The illustrations of aeolipiles in the documentation are consistent enough that a correctly drawn aeolipile should be acceptable for registration. The exact disposition of the steam shooters on the sphere should be left to the artist rather than explicitly blazoned. The flame under the basin is not an integral part of the aeolipile charge: it is present in some illustrations and omitted in others. If present in the armory it should be explicitly blazoned, as was done in this submission. [Ann of Banningham, 04/02, R-Æthelmearc]

[Sable, a flint between four furisons in saltire steels to center Or] The flint emits small tongues of flame, which are part of the standard depiction of the flint. The exact nature and disposition of the flames is artistic license. The easiest place to find the combination of furisons and flints in period heraldry is in items of Burgundian origin, because the furison and flint combination is a Burgundian badge. See, for example, the picture of a Burgundian Standard from 1476-1477 (although painted in 1616) in Colin Campbell's Medieval Flags, p. 17, where the flint and steel are shown around the picture of S. Thomas at the hoist and incorporated elsewhere on the standard. In that example, as with this armory, the flames emitting from the flint are strewn to quite some distance away from the flint itself. The flint and furison also are used in the collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece. The collar is of linked flints and furisons. Each flint is between the steels of two respectant furisons. Due to the limitations of the metal medium of the collar (which requires that all the pieces be conjoined), the flames are only conjoined to the flint in the livery collar instead of being strewn out to a further distance. One nice portrait showing the collar of the Order is that of Antoine the "Grand bâtard" of Burgundy by Rogier van der Weyden in 1449, which is figure 250 of Lorne Campbell's Renaissance Portraits. [Julianna Neuneker Hirsch von Schutzhundheim, 05/02, A-Caid]

[a trebuchet at full release] ... please note that the trebuchet drawn here is not the SCA default sort of catapult or in its default posture. As noted in the Pictorial Dictionary:

The type [of catapult] in most common use in medieval times was called a "trebuchet" or "swepe": powered by gravity, it used a long lever arm and a heavy counterweight. This is the most common type in Society heraldry... All types of catapult are depicted by default in their "rest" position, with the arm neither cocked and ready, nor at full release.

The catapult here drawn here does appear to be of the trebuchet variety, but it does not have a "long lever arm". Other catapult research has shown that the Pictorial Dictionary is correct in its statement that trebuchets have long lever arms. The illustration in the Pictorial Dictionary shows a lever arm that is roughly three times longer from the pivot to the basket (for the projectile) than the length from the pivot to the counterweight. The trebuchet in this submission, in contrast, has a short lever arm. The length of the arm from the pivot to the basket is less than than the length from the pivot to the counterweight. This changes the overall visual proportions of the charge (as well as, we strongly suspect, its physics) so substantially that in order to register this emblazon we would need documentation for this form of catapult.

The posture of the catapult is also not the default "rest" position (with the lever arm bendwise sinister, with the counterweight in dexter base and the basket in sinister chief), but at full release (with the lever arm palewise, with the counterweight to base and the basket to chief). We have thus blazoned the posture of the catapult explicitly. [An Tir, Kingdom of, 05/02, R-An Tir]

A ribbon is not an acceptable heraldic charge. To quote the summary of the September 1994 analysis: "There seems to be no compelling reason to register the ribbon as an heraldic charge" (LoAR 9/94, pp. 15-16). Please see that LoAR for more details about the ribbon as a heraldic charge. [Ophelia Osborne, 05/02, R-Meridies]

The Pictorial Dictionary notes that a scourge has three lashes and the handle to base by default. This scourge is drawn with the lashes separated widely, so the three lashes and handle form somewhat of a cross, although the tips of all three lashes bend towards the chief. The usual depiction of a scourge (as in the Pictorial Dictionary) shows the lashes closer together, mostly pointing to chief. This seems like a reasonable artistic variant of the default scourge, particularly given the space this charge must fill. [Laura de Givet, 06/02, A-Atlantia]

[Sable, a valknut inverted argent] The Letter of Intent asked us to rule on whether the valknut should continue to be registered. As noted in the LoAR of September 1993, the valknut is a period artistic motif which was not used in period heraldry. It was incorporated into SCA heraldry and has been registered infrequently but steadily thereafter. The September 1993 argument in favor of the valknut's registration appears to continue to hold true. It is identifiable when inverted, just as a triangle is identifiable when inverted.

Would-be users of the valknut should take note of the fact that its "thin-line" nature can make it difficult to identify. Poor contrast, small size or overlying charges are all likely to render it unidentifiable. Since this device uses the valknut as the only charge on a high contrast field, it maintains its identifiability splendidly. [Esteban de Quesada, 06/02, A-Lochac]

[bear's paw prints] There were some other concerns about the artwork. Pawprints do not show this degree of disarticulation in nature: generally the 'toes' may be separated from the 'pads' but there is no separation between the joints of the toes in the pawprint. This emblazon shows too many separate pieces of the toes to be a pawprint. Charges should be drawn either in a period heraldic stylization (where available) or in a recognizable naturalistic style. Since pawprints are not found in period heraldry, it is all the more important that they be drawn recognizably. [Dagun Karababagai, 07/02, R-Atenveldt]

[a hawk's bell] The bell was originally blazoned as a crotal bell. A crotal bell, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "small globular or pear-shaped bell or rattle, the nature and use of which are obscure". The word crotal dates from the 12th C. Because the term crotal bell is not found in most common dictionaries of the English language, and because it is not a standard heraldic term, we have blazoned the bell as a hawk's bell, the standard heraldic term for this charge. [Remus Fletcher, 08/02, A-Æthelmearc]

[Or, a pair of eyeglass frames sable] The defining eyeglasses in the SCA are in the armory for the Order of the Grey Beard (originally registered in Meridies in August 1984, since transferred to Trimaris): Per pale sable and azure, in saltire a crutch Or and a sword inverted proper, in chief a pair of eyeglasses argent, stringed Or. The eyeglasses in that submission have solid argent lenses and Or strings for the earpieces and nosepiece. This indicates that the default SCA eyeglasses have solidly tinctured lenses, rather than transparent lenses. This matches other SCA practices for glass charges, as noted in the following precedent: "The lantern with its transparent 'glass' is not done in a period manner. As was noted in the commentary, the College has a long history of disallowing transparent objects." (LoAR August 1991 p.22).

A pair of eyeglasses blazoned with a single tincture should thus be emblazoned with the lenses and the frames in that single tincture. It is also acceptable to have the frames of eyeglasses in a different tincture than the lenses. A standard SCA blazon for such a design would be (for an example with an Or frame and vert lenses) A pair of eyeglasses Or lensed vert. Note that research on period eyeglasses shows that early eyeglasses invariably had frames: it does not appear that the eyeglasses in the badge for the Order of the Grey Beard, without any frame to rigidly hold the lenses in place, are a period sort of eyeglasses. As a result, a pair of eyeglass frames is also an acceptable charge. In such a charge, there would be no lenses present, and the field would show through where the lenses would ordinarily be.

This submission could either be blazoned as a pair of eyeglasses sable lensed Or or a pair of eyeglass frames sable. Since the submitter also has a fieldless badge using black eyeglass frames and missing (or transparent) lenses, the latter term has been used for both pieces of armory. [Edward Glass, 08/02, A-East]

[on a chamfron azure a cross patonce argent] Please advise the submitter to draw a more standard chamfron. Chamfrons in heraldry generally have a more distinct "scoop" where the eyes are. Chamfrons in heraldry generally have rounded bottoms to follow the outline of the horse's nose, rather than squared bottoms as in this emblazon.

Most chamfrons in period heraldry do not include pieces covering the horse's ears. While the SCA accepts chamfrons with ear pieces, the ear pieces hamper the identifiability of the charge and should be drawn with care.

In this emblazon, both the chamfron and the charge on it maintain their identifiability. Therefore, this submission may be registered, even though in the past a particular piece of armory was returned because the charge on the chamfron interfered with the identifiability of the underlying chamfron. As a general rule, adding a tertiary charge to an underlying charge should not interfere with the identifiability of the underlying charge, and any such interference may be a reason for return. [Constancia Tattersall, 09/02, A-An Tir]

[a toy top Or charged with a bar embowed to base purpure] This is the SCA's defining instance of a toy top. It is shaped, roughly, like an inverted onion dome. This shape of top is shown in the Brueghel painting of 1560, "Young Folk at Play (Children's Games)", which can be seen at http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~museum/Brueghel/tops.html.

The bar on the top was originally blazoned as a "stripe", with a suggestion that it be an artistic detail. Because the stripe is so prominent, much more prominent than the stripes on tigers or other animals for which striping is an acceptable artistic detail, the stripe functions as a tertiary charge and must be blazoned accordingly. [Máire of Skye, 10/02, A-East]

[an hourglass] The College of Arms generally felt that the hourglass would be more recognizable with vertical posts on the sides of the frame. This hourglass is drawn with the standard top and bottom plate, but without any vertical side posts holding the top and bottom plates together. However, hourglasses without side posts were noted to be a "standard Society depiction" of an hourglass, so this depiction is acceptable: "...with the hourglass drawn in one of its standard Society depictions (i.e., without the posts)" (LoAR 26 November 1989). We encourage the submitter to draw future renditions of the hourglass with the posts to enhance the identifiability of the charge. [Nathaniel Grendel the Red, 11/02, A-Atenveldt]

[an eye] The eye was drawn with an arc of dots hovering over the top of the eye roughly where one would expect the lashes to end. We know of no way to blazon these dots, but they were so small that they are being treated as an unblazonable artist's detail. [Nadira bint Rashid, 12/02, A-Atenveldt]

[a two-man cross-cut saw] The saw in this submission is not the default frame saw as shown in the Pictorial Dictionary. This saw has a fesswise blade with teeth at the bottom and a handle at each end extending up over the back of the blade. This sort of saw is illustrated in Hans Sachs and Jost Amman's 1568 Book of Trades for der Zimmerman (the carpenter). In the 1973 Dover edition of this book, the illustration is on p. 95. The Book of Trades does not name this saw; other research suggests that it be termed a two-man cross-cut saw and we have so blazoned it. [Tancred of Tangewood, 12/02, A-Ealdomere]

The cloud is not drawn in a period manner and is not acceptable: "Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner, but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud." (LoAR February 1994 p.18). [Mara Fae, 12/02, R-Outlands]

The nail was originally blazoned as a glazier's nail. The standard SCA term, which matches the term used in the blazon of the Worshipful Company of Glaziers, is closing nail. [Alianor atte Red Swanne, 01/03, A-Atlantia]

[Sable, a lion's tail nowed in a Cavendish knot Or] The College had significant concerns with the identifiability of the lion's tail as drawn here. Lion's tails are mostly identifiable due to the prominent tuft at the end of the tail. This nowed tail does not have a prominent tuft at the end. There is some "feathering" along the rest of the tail, but this is insufficient to allow the charge to be identified as a lion's tail. This needs to be redrawn with an identifiable lion's tail.

The Cavendish knot is a standard knot for a nowed tail, but the exact type of knot is generally artist's license. Because in a tail-only charge the type of knot has significant visual impact, we have blazoned the type of knot explicitly.

This does not conflict with ... Pean, a lion's tail queue-forchee erect Or. There is one CD for changing the field. When the tails are charges by themselves (rather than being attached to a lion), there is CD for the difference between a tail nowed and a tail queue-forché that is not nowed. [Sadb ingen uí Cherbaill, 01/03, R-Calontir]

No documentation was presented for a piece of paper as a heraldic charge. The charge drawn here is a four-sided charge at an angle between palewise and bendwise sinister. The chiefmost and basemost sides of the charge are slightly embowed-counterembowed, and the other two sides are straight. This therefore cannot easily be reblazoned as a lozenge, billet or other standard heraldic charge. Without documentation for this charge, and because of its intermediate orientation between the standard heraldic orientations, it may not be accepted. [Jacobina of White Moor, 01/03, R-East]

Baker's peels are wood-colored when proper. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 02/03, R-Atlantia]

[two brushes in saltire sable bristled "brown"] The brushes in the Letter of Intent were blazoned as sable handled proper. However, the brushes in the emblazon have sable handles and brown bristles. There is no defined default tincture for an artist's brush. Thus, this is not a reasonable depiction of a proper brush. As the brush cannot otherwise be blazoned accurately, it must be returned. [Dorothea Manuela Ponçe, 02/03, R-Atlantia]

[a candle fesswise] With the best will in the world, we could not identify the charge in chief as a candle or as any other heraldic charge. This is not acceptable by RfS VII.7.a. A lit candle is much easier to identify, as the flame helps the overall identifiability of the charge. It is possible to draw an unlit candle in an identifiable fashion but this candle is drawn unusually, with spiky shapes at the wick end (possibly meant as wax drippings) that confuse the outline of the charge. Candles are almost always depicted palewise, so the unusual orientation of the charge may also contribute to the difficulty in identifiability. [John Chandler, 02/03, R-Middle]

[beacons enflamed] The submitter has drawn the beacons with the standard fire-basket on top and the standard supporting poles. The beacons do not include a ladder from the base of the charge to the basket.

The ladder is mentioned as part of the charge in all the period real-world sources we have found that illustrate or describe a beacon, and also in the Pictorial Dictionary. Please advise the submitter to draw the beacons with a ladder.

The submitter has also drawn the beacons with a small flat piece of ground under the legs of the beacon. We were not certain whether this should be an acceptable variant of the charge. None of the sources stated that a beacon should have ground beneath the legs of the tripod. H