Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
Semy[Returning Azure mullety Or, a vol argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, two wings conjoined argent enflamed between in annulo six mullets of six points Or. In this case there are no CD's for the number or type or arrangement of the mullets and nothing for the enflaming of the wings. [1/94, p.15]
[Returning Per pale sable and argent, five roundels in saltire counterchanged, a chief gyronny argent and sable.] We would expect that in a chief gyronny that the gyrons would issue from the corners of the chief as opposed to the unusual drawing style used here [with the lines at evenly spaced angles, so that the diagonals met the top and bottom well in from the edges]. [5/94, p.16]
[Returning Sable, a compass star elongated gules, fimbriated argent, overall a lion's head cabossed Or ... .] The lion's head is too small; it is just barely overall, which has been reason for return in the past. Another problem is that the "compass star" is drawn almost as a mullet of eight points elongated to base, rather than as a true compass star, compounding the identifiability problem. [3/94, p.15]
[Returning Or, on a lozenge fesswise between three mullets of four points sable a mullet of eight points Or.] The lozenge is throughout to chief and to the sides of the field, which is neither period style nor blazonable. He might try using a more standard lozenge. [3/94, p.16]
[Returning Vert, on a lozenge Or a spray of mistletoe vert, fructed argent, on a chief Or three lozenges vert.] As emblazoned, the berries are clearly drawn as quarternary charges, which have long been disallowed. Were they simply an artistic detail, we would probably ignore them entirely, but here they take up a significant amount of space on the tertiary mistletoe. [3/94, p.17]
The line of division on the device is not really rayonny, but is rather the unregisterable wavy crested. [3/94, p.19]
The primary charge is neither a classic "triskele" or "triskelion pometty", both of which are shown in the Pictorial Dictionary. As something halfway between the two, we are returning this for consultation with the submitter and redrawing as one or the other. [2/94, p.16]
Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner, but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud. [2/94, p.18]
The owl here is not really displayed but rather striking affronty, a posture which has been grounds for return in the past. [2/94, p.19]
[E]narching of [bars] is a period artistic convention to represent the curvature of the shield [and so not worth a CD]. [2/94, p.20]
[E]ven on the large emblazon form, the bend sinister was neither embattled-counterembattled nor bretessed, but somewhere halfway between the two. This needs to be redrawn as clearly one or the other. [1/94, p.15]
[Returning Argent, three gouttes in annulo, in chief a county coronet and on a chief gules two roses argent.] While it is clear what effect the submitter is trying for on the device, it only works with this specific rendition of the gouttes. It has been Laurel practice in the past to return items which only "work" because of a specific artistic rendering. In this case, were the gouttes drawn in a common period style (like icicles) it would vastly alter the triskele effect in the center of the shield. [1/94, p.17]
[Returning Per pale argent and vert, two serpents nowed respectant counterchanged.] There is no reasonable way to blazon the nowing of the serpents here; none of the standard heraldic depictions of nowing seem to apply to this case. [12b/93, p.10]
Additionally, as drawn, the laurel "wreath" isn't, but is two sprigs of laurel conjoined in chevron inverted. Please discuss the circular nature of a laurel wreath with the submitters. [12b/93, p.12]
The gillyflower on the large emblazon, as in the LoI, is drawn in trian aspect. Heraldic charges should properly be drawn "flat", without much three dimensionality. [12b/93, p.13]
The "unicorn" on the large emblazon is clearly drawn as a unicornate horse. Unicornate horses have been disallowed for some years. [12b/93, p.14]
As a general rule, for a complex line of division to be sufficiently "big and bold", along a fess line this most frequently means three "bumps"; along a pale or bend line perhaps as many as five. [12a/93, p.17]
The badge, as drawn, is not a fireball, but a pellet between four separate flames. As such, it violates the ban on fieldless badges consisting of disconnected charges. [12a/93, p.19]
[Returning Sable, a swan migrant between in dexter chief four mullets of eight points and in sinister base one mullet of eight points all within a bordure invected argent.] The device, as almost every commenter noted, is grossly unbalanced and not period style. [5/94, p.14]
[Registering Quarterly azure and sable a lute bendwise sinister between three mullets and a decrescent argent.] This is about as unbalanced as a legal device can get. [4/94, p.10]
[Returning {Fieldless} An annulet of rope nowed in base gules surmounted by a sword and a quill pen crossed in saltire argent.] While overall charges have been allowed in fieldless badges where identifiability of all the charges is maintained and the area of intersection is relatively small (as is the case here, admittedly), this proposal has two overall charges, which goes beyond the pale of the registered examples to date. [6/94, p.14]
[Returning Per fess embattled azure and argent masoned sable, conjoined in cross elongated to base, four double-bitted axes counterchanged argent and azure, hafted proper.] The blazon does not really adequately describe the emblazon, and all of the suggestions to fix it were not much better (see RfS VII.7.b., Reconstruction Requirement). The clear difficulty of creating an adequate blazon serves to underscore the non-period style of the device. [6/94, p.14]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a dove volant, wings addorsed, vert the Arabic words "al-'izz wa'l-baqa wa'l-zafar bi-il-a'da" argent.] The "charge" here is not really heraldry, and cannot be dealt with under heraldry's conventions. And with the "corrective" outline added, it is no longer anything that can be documented from Arabic, Persian or Turkish sources. Most of the commenters could not identify the charge as a dove without the blazon, as is required by RfS VII.7.a. The identifiability problem adds to the stylistic problems the calligraphy represents. The writing here isn't really on the dove; it is the dove. And, finally, as has been noted by Laurels before, the fact that an artistic motif can be found in period (and calligraphic animals in Arabic script are found in late period) does not necessarily make such motif accep le for registration as heraldry. [6/94, p.17]
[Registering Argent, three piles inverted in point and a chief azure.] Piles inverted in point do not seem to be particularly good period style, as they have their widest parts in the narrowest portion of the shield. As this was the only unusual element, however, we did not feel that it was in and of itself sufficient reason for return. [5/94, p.6]
[Registering Azure, a skull argent, on a chief Or a pellet between a decrescent and an increscent sable.] "The three tertiaries are thematically unified, but the 'phases of the moon' are not really period style." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 27 August 1989, p. 22) [5/94, p.12]
[Returning {Fieldless} A tree issuant from a mount couped per pale vert and Or, the sinister half blasted.] [T]he style of the badge, combining as it does what are essentially two variants of a single charge, is not good style and is sufficient grounds for return ... . [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Or, three wolves passant regardant conjoined by the tail in pall within an annulet gules.] There were no period exemplars of either beasts conjoined at the tails or for this type of rotational symmetry to which any of the commenters could point. All of the tricorporate beasts we could find had a single head; conjoining at the tails does not appear to be period style. [5/94, p.18]
[Registering Per fess sable and azure, a comet bendwise sinister inverted and in chief three suns Or.] Several commenters felt that this design violated the ban on using two different but heraldically identical charges (the "sword/dagger" rule). As we generally give a CD between suns and comets, there is not that problem here. [4/94, p.5]
[Returning {Fieldless} A cloudless natural rainbow in the shape of a crescent inverted and overall a phoenix head of flames, proper.] In this case, a phoenix of flames is grandfathered to the submitter, but not a phoenix' head, which is considered an entirely different charge. Additionally, the overall charge is not identifiable as a phoenix' head, and it should probably be reblazoned as an "eagle's head of flames". There was also some question as to whether this arrangement would fall afoul of the ban on overall charges in fieldless badges instituted by Baron Bruce. I believe it would; neither charge is "long and skinny" and the intersection cannot really be characterized as "small". [4/94, p.16]
[Returning Per chevron gules and sable, in chief two dragonflies and in base a lily of the valley Or within an annulet argent.] Technically this violates RfS XIII.1.a by having three different types of charge in what is considered to be a standard type of arrangement. [4/94, p.17]
[Returning Sable masoned, on a pile argent masoned sable between two hawks' heads erased respectant argent, a hawk striking to sinister gules.] The device lacks the symmetry and balance of period style heraldry, which lack the counterchanging of the field treatment over the primary charge only serves to reinforce. In fact, it reminded more than one commenter (and most of those at the Laurel meeting) of "a bird caught against the wall by a searchlight". A number of commenters questioned the propriety of counterchanging a field treatment over a charge in this manner. Certainly no one was able to find any period exemplars of such, bringing into question the propriety of such a counterchange. [4/94, p.17]
[Returning Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Prior Laurel precedent (December 1993 LoAR, p. 12) does not grant a CD between oak leaves and holly leaves. As a consequence this is being returned for the use of two different but heraldically similar charges on a single device. [4/94, p.18]
[Returning Argent, a dragon's head cabossed vert, in base a pansy purpure a chief embattled sable.] The identifiability of the dragon's head is problematical. This, combined with the use of three different types of charges in three different tinctures, puts the device beyond the limits of generally accep le style. [4/94, p.19]
[Returning Argent, a domino mask of leaves vert within a bordure vert semy of mullets argent.] The primary charge is not really recognizable nor have we seen period exemplars of items such as this constructed of leaves. [4/94, p.19]
[Registering Gules, issuant from a tub argent, scaly and banded sable, three demi-arrows bendwise argent and three demi-arrows bendwise sinister Or, all within an annulet argent.] The arrows being in two tinctures is not really good period style, but is not so egregiously poor style as to warrant return here. [3/94, p.6]
[Returning Argent, on a pile sable a Maltese Cross argent, a bordure counterchanged.] We need documentation for the motif of counter-changing a bordure over a pile before we can register this. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning a broadsword inverted quillioned with a holly sprig.] The use of foliage as part of another object creates serious identifiability problems. We need documentation of this sort of motif in period armory before we may register this. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Or,in chief on a fess couped sable a fleur-de-lis Or and in base a horse salient [sic].] No one was able to find any period exemplars of fesses either couped or enhanced so far to chief. Without further documentation we are unable to register this motif. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Sable, an eagle stooping and in base a bow and sword in saltire argent.] [B]y prior Laurel precedent, this is three different charges in a standard arrangement, and thus falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [3/94, p.15]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a sheaf of five lightning bolts Or a pine tree couped proper.] This does not meet the requirements for fieldless badges consisting of one charge surmounting another. The area of intersection is not small and the tree effectively obscures the identification of the lightning bolts. [3/94, p.17]
[Returning Argent, on a cross between in chief two estoiles azure in base an estoile argent, a bordure counterchanged.] No documentation has been found for counterchanging a bordure over an ordinary. That, combined with the unusual arrangement of the estoiles, is sufficient grounds for return. [3/94, p.20]
While a number of commenters noted that all of the chevrons couched they could find were used without secondary or tertiary charges, given the widespread use of secondary and tertiary charges with both chevrons and chevrons inverted, their combined use [with a chevron couched] did not seem to us to be more than a single "weirdness". [2/94, p.14]
The primary charge is not emblazoned as a seahorse, but as a fish-tailed horse head with human arms. As such, it follows no period (or, indeed, post-period) exemplars of which we are aware. [2/94, p.17]
Laurel counted no less than six different suggestions at a reblazon. This variety alone tends to point out the possible non-period style of the [cross of two thornvines wavy]. [2/94, p.18]
The charges on the chief are not really arranged in a manner which lends itself to easy blazon, thus pointing out its probable non-period style. Were he to place the three charges in fess rather then enhancing the central charge (and reblazon the "drinking horns inverted" as simply a "pair of bull's horns"), this would probably be registerable. [2/94, p.18]
Master Bruce, in the Cover Letter of 18 September 1992, had a page-long discussion of fields per bend [sinister] bevilled: the version here matches none of the attested forms, but is the inversion of the accep le form found in Legh's Accidence of Armory. At the very least, this would have to be returned for redrawing. However, it was additionally noted that allowing per bend bevilled fields (which normally appeared without charges) to be charged might be considered if the charges were in a balanced arrangement. Unlike charges on each side of a bevilled line do not appear to meet this criterion. [2/94, p.19]
The blazon here, while marginally better than the one in the LoI, still does not adequately described the outer group of comets: they are disposed in orle, but they are oriented in annulo, and as a result neither blazon is entirely satisfactory. This is an indication that the style of the design itself isn't period. The use of a single charge in what appears to be two separate groups of charges on the field is also an anomaly. And if they aren't two separate groups, then the arrangement of the six identical charges on the field is an anomaly. [2/94, p.20]
Without evidence that ordinaries of flame were used in period armory, or that such are compatible with period armory, we will not register ordinaries of flames. [2/94, p.22]
The use of lightning bolts as charges in and of themselves is an SCA innovation, the use of a lightning bolt in annulo is therefore [two] steps from period practice. This is farther then we are willing to go. [2/94, p.22]
While we have extended the ability to be jessant-de-lys to animal faces other than leopards, the only documented historical animal to have this treatment, extending it to a sun becomes two steps from documented historical practice, which is farther than we are willing to go. [1/94, p.13]
While there are many period examples of animate charges barry or paly of two tinctures, no one could find any precedent for a gyronny treatment. As it stands, the tinctures are not really divided evenly around the charge and the gyronny treatment tends to badly confuse its identifiability. [1/94, p.15]
The submitter's argument that a Maltese star cross is but one step from a recognized period charge, a Maltese cross, is interesting but not particularly compelling. The fact remains that six armed crosses are not a period charge. [12b/93, p.10]
[Returning {Fieldless} A plate, overall a natural panther passant sable.] This violates the restriction on overall charges in fieldless badges (the sole exception to which is a concession to SCA style in allowing "long, slender objects" such as swords, spears, etc. where the "area of intersection" is small). This policy was recently reiterated in the LoAR of 13 June 1993, p. 17. Here, while identifiable, neither of the charges is "long and slender", and the area of overlap is quite large. [12b/93, p.11]
This is just not composed in a period manner. While there are many period examples of "an X and in chief a Y", there are none of "an X and to dexter a Y". This style has the additional problem of making the armory unbalanced. Were the rose drawn much larger, we could have blazoned the charges as "in fess". Here, however, the rose is not much larger than a maintained charge, though it is clearly not being maintained by the dragon. [12b/93, p.11]
As a number of the commenters noted, even heraldically insignificant charges need in general to follow our rules. The bees ("diversely volant") on the emblazon, though heraldically not significant, do, however, contravene the rule requiring that fieldless badges have all of their charges conjoined. [12b/93, p.13]
[Registering Per bend ... a {charge} and three more in bend ... .] We did not believe that the precedent barring the use of two different sizes of the same charge as a semy and as the primary charge was applicable here. The feeling was that in this case there is a single group of charges drawn to adequately fill the space available for them. [12a/93, p.4]
[Returning Per pale gules and sable, two winged cats passant addorsed, and a winged cat sejant affronty wings displayed argent.] As Badger noted: "This looks almost exactly like the 'what not to do - modern symmetry' illustration in Hilary of Serendip's article in the Knowne Worlde Handbook." [Returned for violating RfS VII.1.b.] [6/94, p.15]
[Returning Gules, a triangle inverted between three triangles one and two, all between three broadarrows inverted argent.] The arrangement of the triangles does not appear to be a period arrangement, but a modern artistic style. The device overall is neither good Japanese style nor good European style. [5/94, p.17]
[Returning Per fess embattled sable and azure, on a demi-plate issuant from the line of division a double-bitted axe gules, and in base seven mullets of four points in annulo Or.] The device is right at the edge of the complexity limits of VIII.1.a. That, combined with its very modern "feel" [is grounds for return]. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning {Fieldless} A cross gurgity reversed, interlaced with an annulet argent.] The style of the badge, with its interlaced charges, appears modern rather than period in style. There is also a conflict with ... Azure, a Catherine wheel argent. ... [T]he difference to only the number of "arms" of the "wheel" is insufficient for [a CD]. [4/94, p.21]
[Registering a mullet of six points elongated to chief and to base.] The mullet here is not really period style, but was not so modern as to require return in and of itself. [3/94, p.2]
The star-cross is a modern invention and not a period charge. [3/94, p.14]
The symmetry [of in fess an increscent argent, a bezant and a decrescent argent] is modern, though perhaps not so much so as to warrant return in and of itself. [The registration makes a somewhat stronger statement of accep ility.] [2/94, p.13]
Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner, but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud. [2/94, p.18]
[C]onjoined eighth notes are a post-period form of music notation. [2/94, p.18]
The style of the device with its rotational symmetry is very modern in style, and thus is in contravention of RfS VIII.4., Obtrusive Modernity. While there were some German arms which had rotational symmetry, this was generally three identical charges in pall, bases to center. The use of two charges in pale "respectant" or "addorsed", and two different charges in fess, also "respectant" or "addorsed", is not period style. [12a/93, p.16]
Secondly, the depiction of the comets is very modern in style, in violation of RfS VIII.4.d. Period style tended to be very static, and these comets, as the commentary noted, appear "swooshy". [12a/93, p.17]
The evidence submitted with this appeal goes beyond the bounds of "regional style". Of the forty-eight pieces of armory cited to support this submission, three were from Austria, one from England, twenty-five from the Holy Roman Empire, twelve from Hungary, five from Italy, and two from Portugal. Clearly, then, we are discussing a practice which surpasses the bounds of a single "regional" style.
It was noted that the Rule of Contrast, as codified in VIII.2.b. of the Rules for Submissions, is one of our most inviolate, and that exceptions should only be made to it with due and extremely careful consideration. On the other hand, it is equally true that the Rule of Contrast is our rule, and that just as we chose to adopt it we are equally free to chose to allow exceptions to it, under circumstances of our choosing.
In this case, I believe that the evidence presented adequately demonstrates through multiple period examples that vert trimounts were used on azure fields across Europe. As a consequence, and as you will note in the attached LoAR, we are registering [the device].
The next question, of course, is that having now made one exception to the Rule of Contrast, what are the standards for future possible exceptions? I believe the standards proposed by Master Bruce in his thoughts on this submission are the ones to be applied to submissions requesting an exception to any of our Rules in the future.
[Returning Sable, a sun and on a chief Or, in pale a sword reversed and a sword sable.] Conflict with ... Sable, a mullet of four greater and four lesser points, on a chief Or a spear fesswise sable. There is a CD for the changes to type and number of tertiary charges, but per the precedent set in the LoAR of April 1993, p. 12, nothing for the change between a sun and a compass star ... . [5/94, p.19]
[I]t was the opinion of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that there is sufficient difference between a sun in its splendor and a leopard's head jessant-de-lys [as tertiaries] to apply X.4.j.ii. for the second CD. [2/94, p.5]
While we have extended the ability to be jessant-de-lys to animal faces other than leopards, the only documented historical animal to have this treatment, extending it to a sun becomes two steps from documented historical practice, which is farther than we are willing to go. [1/94, p.13]
[Returning Gules, on a flame Or a mullet gules, a chief embattled Or.] Conflict with ... Gules on a sun Or a cross of St. Anthony gules a chief embattled Or. There is one CD for the change to type of the primary charge, but not a second for the change to type only of the tertiaries [implying that there is not substantial or X.2 difference between a flame and a sun]. [1/94, p.16]
Conflict with ... Sable, a sun eclipsed Or. Normally we would be willing to grant a CD between the default six-armed estoile and a sun, but the addition of the tertiary roundel here leaves us with a nearly overwhelming visual similarity. As a consequence, there is only one CD for fieldless versus fielded, and nothing for the type of primary charge nor the tincture of the tertiary roundel. [12a/93, p.22]
[Returning Argent, a tree eradicated gules between flaunches counter ermine.] Conflict with ... Argent, an oak branch eradicated gules, with one CD for the addition of the flaunches, but by prior precedent nothing for the difference between a branch and a tree. [3/94, p.17]
[Returning Or, a double rose azure and argent pierced by a sword bendwise sable all within a bordure azure.] Though blazoned as a double rose, the primary is emblazoned as a "rose argent, fimbriated azure"; roses are too complex a charge to fimbriate. [6/94, p.15]
[Returning Sable, a compass star elongated gules, fimbriated argent, overall a lion's head cabossed Or ... .] [T]here is a conflict with ... Sable, a sun gules fimbriated Or, surmounted by a panther's head erased reversed Or. There is a possible CD for the changes to the overall charge, but no more than that, as by current precedent there is not a CD between a compass star and a sun [and nothing for the tincture of the fimbriation]. [3/94, p.15]
The compass star meets the guidelines es lished by Master Bruce for voiding and fimbriation. [12a/93, p.1]
Though blazoned as "enflamed argent and azure", the flames were drawn on the large emblazon as "azure, fimbriated argent". We have disallowed fimbriated flames for quite some time. [12a/93, p.15]
Conflict with ... Azure, an estoile argent, and with ... Gyronny argent and sable an estoile of seven points argent fimbriated sable. In each case there is a CD for fieldless versus fielded but nothing for the addition or change in tincture of the fimbriation. [12a/93, p.20]
[Returning {Fieldless} A Catherine wheel azure.] Conflict with ... A wheel, and with ... Dark, a wheel light. In each case there is a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for the tincture of the wheels. [4/94, p.16]
[Returning {Fieldless} A cross gurgity reversed, interlaced with an annulet argent.] The style of the badge, with its interlaced charges, appears modern rather than period in style. There is also a conflict with ... Azure, a Catherine wheel argent. ... [T]he difference to only the number of "arms" of the "wheel" is insufficient for [a CD]. [4/94, p.21]
[Registering Vert, a winged frog salient Or.] Unlike, say, unicorn's horns, there appears to be period precedent for adding wings to beasts which did not normally have them. [4/94, p.6]
[Registering {Fieldless} A Celtic cross within and conjoined to a vol argent.] This is not a visual conflict with ... A winged sledgehammer displayed argent. [3/94, p.5]
[Returning Gules, on a pile Or an eagle displayed sable, overall a laurel wreath counterchanged.] By current precedent, a laurel wreath is considered too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary. [6/94, p.13]
[Returning Or, on a hurt an eagle displayed Or and on a bordure azure a laurel wreath Or.] The laurel wreath is not, and indeed on a bordure cannot be, a wreath, which when properly drawn is nearly a closed circle. Rather, here it is "two sprigs of laurel, stems crossed in base". [5/94, p.15]
[Returning Quarterly argent and Or, a wreath of flowers azure between in bend two dice gules.] A generic wreath of flowers is too close to the reserved wreath of roses. [4/94, p.19]
Though blazoned as a laurel wreath the charge in base is really two sprays of laurel, stems crossed in saltire. This needs to be redrawn with a laurel wreath. [2/94, p.22]
Additionally, as drawn, the laurel "wreath" isn't, but is two sprigs of laurel conjoined in chevron inverted. Please discuss the circular nature of a laurel wreath with the submitters. [12b/93, p.12]
Previous Page
Return to the Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure, Table of Contents Page