[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bow) |Next Page (Charge - Documentable)]
The dovetailed line is currently allowed, as compatible with period practice. We grant it no difference from embattled or raguly, however. (Ariel Giboul des Montagnes, July, 1992, pg. 4)
This sort of wavy ordinary, with the waves opposed instead of parallel ("wavy bretessed" instead of "wavy-counter-wavy"), was returned on the LoAR of Dec 91 as a non-period depiction. The strangeness of the motif would have been more obvious here, had the wavy lines been drawn in a bold medieval style; the fact that they weren't contributes to the non-period depiction. (Brighid Aileen O'Hagan, July, 1992, pg. 17)
The [mascle-knot] is unique to Society armory, defined in the device of Leonard the Younger [Gules, within the head of a mjolnir inverted and voided, a mascle-knot argent]. This is a case where an SCA-invented charge is still acceptable: the name does not apply to any other charge in mundane heraldic texts (not even Elvin ), the charge is not readily confused with any other, and it is conceptually similar to period charges (i.e. angular Bowen knots, 1530; v. the Oxford Guide to Heraldry, p.149). (Cynthia Tregeare., August, 1992, pg. 11)
The Norse serpents (or "Norse twisty-beasties", as they're sometimes called) currently defined for SCA use are still permitted; the Laurel precedent that everyone half-remembers (LoAR cover letter of 12 July 86, p.3) banned any new types of Norse serpent. (Katherine Dun na nGall of Westmeath, August, 1992, pg. 12)
[Leonard the Younger: Gules, within the head of a mjolnir inverted and voided, a mascle-knot argent] This is the defining instance of the SCA charge, the mascle-knot. When the device was registered back in Oct 76, it was blazoned Gules, a Mjollnir-pendant inverted, pierced, and within the head a mascle-knot of six corners argent. It was reblazoned Feb 89 by Mistress Alisoun as Gules, on the head of a Mjollnir inverted gules, fimbriated, a mascle-knot of six corners argent. Both blazons specified the mascle-knot as having six corners; but after a little experimentation, it's hard to see that it could have any other number. A "mascle-knot of four corners" would be blazoned a Bowen cross in SCA armory, or four mascles-fretted by Elvin; a mascle-knot of eight corners would actually be a saltire parted, voided and interlaced; and a mascle-knot of more than eight corners would probably not be permitted.
I am therefore restricting the definition of "mascle-knot" to six corners, no more or less, and reblazoning the orginal registration accordingly. The mascle-knot, so defined, is still acceptable for SCA use. (Leonard the Younger, August, 1992, pg. 16)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bow) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Documentable)]
A "chief indented singly" is not, to the best of our knowledge, a period charge. Nor could we, in good conscience, reblazon this "Per chevron sable and erminois:" not only does it not seem to be the submitter's intent, the point is too high and shallow to be a real per-chevron division. This is being returned for redrawing. (Gryphon ap Bedwyr, August, 1992, pg. 22)
Neither the period discussions of Per bend bevilled nor an extrapolation from a bend bevilled would support the emblazon shown here; nor can it be accurately blazoned without resorting to barbarisms such as Per bend sinister bevilled fesswise. I'd be willing to accept Per bend (sinister) bevilled, as being one logical step from period evidence --- if drawn in a correct manner, with the middle "zag" palewise. The form shown here is two steps removed from the evidence, which is correspondingly harder to swallow. Given evidence that such bevilled fields were never used with charges, the whole becomes unacceptable. (Radulfr Arnason, August, 1992, pg. 25)
The one registration of a "dragon's tongue" in the SCA, back in 1973, does not make it an identifiable charge. Nor does it seem in keeping with period armory: tongues were not used as charges, so far as I know.
Several commenters suggested that these be reblazoned "dragon's tails." Conceptually, this would be much more acceptable: lion's tails and fox's tails were used as period charges, and I'd have no problem with correctly drawn dragon's tails. But the feature that marks these charges as dragon's tails are the barbs at the ends --- which were not found on period dragons. (See the dragons and wyverns in Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, pp.190-191 and the plate opposite p.177; or the Oxford Guide to Heraldry, pp.102, 109, and plate 16.) I might consider tail's barbs to be artistic license, when the tail is part of a full dragon; but I cannot accept a charge whose identifying feature is a post-period artistic detail.
Either as dragon's tongues or dragon's tails, the charges here may not be registered. Dragon's tails drawn in a period style should be acceptable. (Aaron Clearwater, August, 1992, pg. 27)
[A rainbow emitting lightning flashes] There are indeed lightning flashes in this submission. The fact that they are worth no heraldic difference does not mean they aren't there. Modern comic-book lightning flashes (so-called "shazams") have been disallowed for a decade. (Yvon Bater of Darkwood, August, 1992, pg. 29)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bow) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Documentable)]
The commentary was strongly in favor of disallowing the rivenstar (save only to the Barony of Rivenstar, to whom it would be grandfathered), as a non-period charge. Lord Pale suggested that the charge continue to be permitted, for the sake of residents of Rivenstar who wished to show their allegiance in their armory. This suggestion would carry more weight if some Rivenstarites had ever actually registered armory with rivenstars; but according to Lord Morsulus, except for the armory of the Barony there's only one SCA registration of a rivenstar. Consequently, we have no qualms about disallowing the charge, pending evidence that it's period, or at least formed in a period manner. (Galen O'Loingsigh, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[A heart attired of stag's attires reblazoned to a stag's massacre surmounted by a heart] As noted in the case of Erc Mortagh the Pict (LoAR of August 92), adding horns to inanimate charges doesn't appear to have been a period usage; certainly, I'd like to see some evidence for the practice. In this case, the visual effect is of a set of antlers and a heart overall, and that's how we've blazoned it. (Gabriel Gertrude Gyles, September, 1992, pg. 7)
[Sea-urchins] (= "fish-tailed demi-hedgehog") has been registered before, in the armory of Rufus the Short of Burgundy. In Society armory, "the sea-urchin should be assumed to be a heraldic sea-urchin unless otherwise specified." [AmCoE, 25 Jan 87] (Order of the Sea Urchin (Kingdom of Atlantia), September, 1992, pg. 18)
The orm is a charge unique to the Society, more complex than a simple serpent, not as complex as the Norse serpent nowed. It has been registered recently (Elina Grimmsdottir, June 91); without stronger evidence than has yet been presented, I hesitate to disallow a charge that was so recently accepted. (Canton of Fjarska Holt, September, 1992, pg. 20)
[A slip eradicated joined to a snake's head] The monster doesn't appear to have been formed in a period style; the only comparable example in period (non-armorial) art was the vegetable lamb, a tree that bore sheep as its "fruit". It was described by Sir John Mandeville, c.1371, and was evidently an attempt to describe cotton, not a mythical beast. The example of the vegetable lamb does not support the monster shown here. (Brian di Caffa, September, 1992, pg. 51)
Grafting unicorn's horns onto random animals is not period practice. It has been decried by previous Laurels (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.15), and always discouraged; I am taking the final step and, except for Grandfathered cases, disallowing it entirely. (Sorcha ni Mhurchadha, October, 1992, pg. 22)
[A dragon with lion's hindquarters] The dragon-lion monster is unusual -- the accepted period hybrid of those creatures is the lion-dragon, with a lion's forequarters and wyvern's tail -- but would probably be acceptable by itself (Dafydd ap Bleiddudd, October, 1992, pg. 32)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bow) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Documentable)]
[A Maltese star cross] While SCA-variant charges are often considered acceptable ("period-compatible", as it were), we draw the line at variants of SCA-variants. This submission is a case in point: the star-cross is a Society invention, unattested in medieval armory. While it's still acceptable for SCA use, variations of it are two steps removed from medieval armory, which is an unacceptably broad leap of faith. Without evidence of period compatibility, the Maltese star-cross is unacceptable [see also Elgar of Stonehaven, January 1993 LoAR, pg. 23]. (Elgar of Stonehaven, November, 1992, pg. 14)
[A monster ccomposed of the head of a wolf, the forelegs of a hawk, and the body and hindquarters of a stag] The monster is similar enough to the heraldic enfield to be considered acceptable style (Serafina de Kalais, December, 1992, pg. 3)
[A "firebird"] The ...charge does not appear to be a valid period usage. It is not a Russian firebird; that is essentially a variant of peacock, is found in period art, and has been accepted for SCA use. As drawn here, the bird is composed of flame, which is unattested in either period art or period armory. Since it is so easil yconfused with either a bird or a flame, I must rule this "firebird" unacceptable, pending solid evidence of itsperiod use [returned also for conflict] (Katharina von der Waldwiese, December, 1992, pg. 18)
[A mullet pierced, the points moline] The "mullet moline" is unorthodox, to put it mildly. Before we can accept this, we need some evidence of its period use -- at the very least, that the moline treatment could be applied to anything other than crosses (and of course millrinds). Pending such evidence, this must be returned. (Roland Witt, December, 1992, pg. 18)
[A chief triangular embattled] With very rare exceptions (e.g. in combination with enarched lines), the use of two or more complex lines on the same charge is confusing, and unattested in period armory. (Wavy raguly? Embattled rayonny? I think not.) In this case, the chief could be either embattled or triangular --- but not both. (Johann Götz Kauffman von Erfurt, December, 1992, pg. 20)
The bog beast is a charge unique to Society heraldry, with a talbot's head, boar's tusks, dragon's body, cloven forefeet, lion's hindfeet, and a housefly's wings. As the submitter has one in his registered device, its use here is Grandfathered; otherwise I wouldn't be inclined to permit the charge. (Nikolai Andreeov, January, 1993, pg. 2)
There was a strong feeling in the College that the double tressure dancetty braced was non-period style, and at first I was inclined to agree. On reflection, however, I found I couldn't put a name to exactly why I felt so. Visually, this is not so different from an orle masculy, or saltorels couped and conjoined in orle, either of which would have raised far less objection. It's balanced, blazonable, and reproducible. The College has in the past registered bars dancetty braced (Katherine d'Argentigny, July 86), so we even have a precedent for this.
I suspect most of the College's objection arose from our long-standing ban on Celtic knotwork, which sometimes extends to anything even resembling Celtic knotwork. As noted in the commentary, though, this isn't Celtic knotwork: the sharp corners and lack of braiding make that clear.
With no substantive reason to return the motif, I've decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm open to further arguments for or against it, and I would definitely count it a "weirdness" --- but not reason for return. (Shire of Otherhill, January, 1993, pg. 4)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bow) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Documentable)]
Pending evidence one way or the other, we will assume that flaunches are as susceptible to complex lines of division as any other ordinary or subordinary. Papworth's citation of the arms of Daniell (Sable, two flaunches indented argent) is inconclusive: he doesn't date it from 1404, but rather cites it from Harleian MS number 1404. (Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry gives the same armory as Argent, a pile indented sable, affording much food for speculation...) (Brandwyn Alston of the Rift, January, 1993, pg. 5)
The Norse sun cross had at one time been treated as an alphanumeric symbol (that of the planet Earth), and so unacceptable for use in SCA devices. Under the current Rules, such symbols are now acceptable; indeed, a Norse sun cross was registered to Etain MacDhomhnuill on the LoAR of April 90. (Kenneth MacQuarrie of Tobermory, January, 1993, pg. 12)
[On a pale, a <charge> beneath seven mullets points in chevron] When compressed on the pale in this manner, the mullets in chevron strongly resemble an arch of mullets. This motif has been returned before now (in the LoARs of Sept 84 and Feb 91), and there seems to be no reason not to continue this policy. (Johann Mathern, January, 1993, pg. 33)
While we have no period evidence for the use of lips as charges, we do have examples of other body parts: hands, arms, feet, legs, heads, eyes, teeth and mustaches. On the basis of these, we've registered ears and toes in the SCA. Lips thus appear to be compatible with period armory, though I'd be willing to count them a "weirdness" pending better documentation. (Saundra the Incorrigible, March, 1993, pg. 1)
[A pig rampant, its dexter hind limb a peg-leg] Several commenters wondered whether the porcine prosthesis was compatible with period armory. I consider this on a par with the arms of Finland (Gules semy of roses argent, a lion rampant crowned Or, its dexter limb an armored arm brandishing a sword, standing atop a scimitar fesswise reversed argent). There should be no problem with the peg-leg [device returned for other reasons]. (Inigo Needham Bledsoe, March, 1993, pg. 26)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bow) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Documentable)]
[Per pale Or and sable, a monster composed of the body of a horse with lion's feet rampant purpure] While newly-invented chimerical monsters are usually permitted, they must be recognizable in all their parts. This monster is unidentifiable, and so unacceptable. Half the monster has extremely poor contrast against the black half of the field. The part with good contrast, against the gold half of the field, has its outline obscured by the non-standard stylization of the mane. That might not have been fatal, had this been a horse or a lion; but when the creature is a composite of the two, identifiability is paramount. This must be returned. (Lachlan O'Sheridan of Falconhold, March, 1993, pg. 26)
The charges in chief were blazoned as unicorns on the LOI. In fact, they are unicornate horses, which have been disallowed since at least Feb 85. Unicornate horses are not only a 20th Century fantasy rendition, they blur the distinctions between horses and genuine unicorns; for both reasons, they are unacceptable in SCA armory. Please have the client resubmit with genuine medieval unicorns: with beards, lions' tails, and tufted cloven hooves. (Meaghan Catherine McKenna, May, 1993, pg. 20)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bow) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Documentable)]
[On an annulet of flame sable an annulet Or] This submission engendered considerable discussion at the Symposium; many felt that the badge was post-period in style ...The full-sized emblazon did not show an annulet "fimbriated of flame", as some commenters described it, but a ring of fire charged with a gold annulet. The question was whether an annulet of flame was an acceptable motif. Our standards regarding charges made of flame have tightened over the years, but we still accept simple cases (the base of flame being the prime example). The annulet of flame seemed simple enough to accept, on a case-by-case basis. (Barony of Wiesenfeuer, June, 1993, pg. 3)
[Two towers, between them a pair of swinging doors] The charge ...was blazoned as a gateway on the LOI. The gateway is a Society invention, defined the arms of the Shire of Stormgate. As such, it does not appear to follow the medieval exemplars of gates. We will blazon the charge by parts for this submission, but do not intend to accept it in the future. (Rian MacFinn, August, 1993, pg. 8)
Some commenters have urged that the valknut be disallowed. However, it's been quietly but continuously registered, during my tenure and those of my two immediate predecessors (v. the armory of Thorhalla Carlsdottir Broberg); it's a documented period artistic motif that has been accepted for Society armorial use. To disallow it at this point would require some better documented reason than "we don't like it". (Halvdan Stormulv, September, 1993, pg. 3)
The use of astrological glyphs heraldically in period can be seen on the crest of Bull, watchmaker to Queen Elizabeth I: On a wreath argent and gules, a cloud proper, thereon a celestial sphere azure, with the circles or; on the zodiac the signs of Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer (Parker, A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry, p. 547). It has long been the College's policy to allow the use of elements from crests and supporters, if period usage is documented, as charges for SCA armory although there is no documentation of their use as charges in period armory (cf. yales). (Cadell ap Hubert, September, 1993, pg. 11)
Though blazoned on the LOI as rayonny, the bordure is in fact wavy crested. This line of division was introduced to heraldry in the 20th Century, and is thoroughly modern; it has not been accepted in Society armory for over a decade. (Luisa of the Willows, September, 1993, pg. 21)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bow) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Documentable)]