Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
Principal Heralds or Submissions Deputies [should] send a copy of each Letter of Intent to the Laurel Office at the same time that it is sent to the members of the College of Arms. Please do not wait to send the letter with the paperwork for the letter of intent as, if the latter is delayed for some reason, the Laurel Office then will be unaware of its existence and cannot schedule it properly for future meetings. (CL 20 Jun 87, p. 1)
PRECEDENT: Any period form of anchor, including the curved-arm, barbed ancient or straight-armed form, may be used in Society heraldry. (CL 7 Dec 86, p. 3)
The annulet of annulets far too strongly resembles an annulet of chain, which is reserved in Society usage to the Chivalry. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 10) (See also: LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 9)
The annulet of violets might be mistaken for a wreath of roses and [we] suggest using a smaller number of flowers in a resubmission. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 10)
See also, Rule of Excessive Anomaly
The interlacing of the flaunches by the [charge] is not period style and is, in and of itself, too great an anomaly to allow. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14)
Antlers proper have been identified as "white or light yellow brown" (Wilhelm von Schlussel, 26 December, 1983). (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)
The anvils in the position in which they are placed [palewise addorsed] are extremely difficult to identify. Several of those looking at the emblazon without reading the blazon mistook them for mallet or axe heads. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 5)
The default for a single-horned anvil has the business end, i.e. the "pointier" end, to dexter. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 7)
The submittor did not offer new evidence on this point (which means that this was not a valid appeal). (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 1)
The visual similarities between the crab and the scorpion create enough visual confusion that the two cannot be considered clear. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, pp. 16-17)
The "enarching" here is merely one of the standard period methods of depicting a normal chevron and therefore there is insufficient difference from the mundane arms of [Name]. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 14)
The device was judged to be excessively complex [charged primary, secondary in base, and embattled bordure] and poor style to a degree which should not be accepted for group arms which precedent indicates "should set a good example". (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 13)
There is a long-standing precedent in Society heraldry which considered charged sails as being equivalent to arms of pretense and therefore forbidden for Society usage: "You may not charge a sail if the resulting sail conflicts with existing arms".... (The passage of the arms of Eisenmarche cited ... in the letter of intent is a special case ...: the arms of the Society, which the Board has specifically stated may be displayed by any group.) (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 13)
The Kingdom’s arms are the arms of the king and should be worn only by the king himself and his herald, when speaking as the king’s voice. After some consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate that the arms of a Kingdom should be used as an augmentation, even if the recipient is entitled to bear a coronet on his or her arms. The badge of a Kingdom or a rendition of the arms without the laurel wreath can, however, be used. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 16)
The form of the label with angled "tags" is period and is a matter of artistic license. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 8)
No additional difference should be added for the difference in depiction between a dolmen of three uprights and the more usual trilithon: even as a primary charge, the viewer will register "dolmen" and assume that the depiction is artistic license. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 11)
The difference between a tyger and its cub may safely be left to artistic license. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 7)
Rendering ordinaries in a slightly concave manner was a standard artistic variant in mediaeval heraldry so that the proposed device could legitimately be depicted in the mediaeval manner with concave lines without a differing blazon. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 17)
Note: since this augmentation was stated in the letter of intent to have been granted by the Crown to all dukes, it should be registered to the kingdom for that purpose, rather than to the four individuals currently covered by the royal decree. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 1)
[Gules, (with charges), on a canton sable, fimbriated argent, (charges)] This submission points out many of the problems which occur when a "modern" canton of augmentation is added to a period-style device without consideration for the overall design. [Not period style; placement of canton reduces identifiability of low contrast overall charge; fimbriation is thin-line heraldry; unacceptable level of complexity (five layers).] (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
The overall augmentation was so complex that no one in the College who was not already familiar with the submittor was able to determine what the underlying arms were, i.e., to identify the submittor without knowing in advance who he was. The essence of the augmentation is that it is something added to a set of arms to indicate honour. In this case, some thought the original arms were this design minus the complex orle, other interpreted it to be the design minus the gorged head, none automatically assumed that the orle and head (which is in base, the less honourable position, which is generally not used for augmentations) were combined to form the augmentation. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 20)
After some consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate that the arms of a Kingdom should be used as an augmentation, even if the recipient is entitled to bear a coronet on his or her arms. The badge of a Kingdom or a rendition of the arms without the laurel wreath can, however, be used. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 16)
The use of the inescutcheon here for the augmentation would seem to be prohibited by the ban on appearance of pretense in AR10d: note that such usual insignia of augmentation as chiefs, cantons, bases are not included here. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 16)
[Three pallets and three barrulets fretted in sinister base, in dexter chief in pale three roses in chevron and a goblet] [With] the primary charge abased to the sinister base ... the remaining charges [are] consequently diminished so in size as to appear like an eccentric canton of augmentation. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, pp. 18-19)
Pending a demonstration of the positive advantages to be gained from changing the rules to allow such an inescutcheon of augmentation at the honour point, we cannot see changing the current clearly expressed policy. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 16)
The [papal] cross was not used in secular armoury except in those cases where it was granted as an augmentation by the Pope. This being the case, we feel it inappropriate to modify its current status as a reserved charge. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 11)
[Per chevron argent and sable, an annulet counterchanged] This is in conflict with the mundane arms ... ("Gyronny of eight sable and argent, an annulet counterchanged."... All the examples in the Rules for Submission make it clear that the "automatic sufficient difference" for counterchange is intended to apply only between a plain field charged and a divided field with the same charge counterchanged along the line of division. In this case only the line of division is changed. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 14)
The intention [of Rule AR18a] was to allow automatic difference [between Society and mundane or fictional arms] in cases where period (and modern) heraldic practice would not perceive cadency. Thus a Society device which bore "Azure, a unicorn’s head Or, between three swords proper" would not conflict with "Azure, three swords palewise proper" because period heralds would perceive a potential cadet relationship not with the mundane coat cited, but with "Azure, a unicorn’s head Or". In the case of a charge added overall, the same situation does not exist, mundane heraldry does in fact indicate cadency by adding a charge overall. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 4)
On or after August 15, 1989, no submission may be registered which contains any item which is known solely from Australia prior to 1600. (CL 8 Aug 89)
This was originally returned ... because ... the charges were difficult to recognize because of their fretting. Given the items that Society heraldry has fretted in the past, including "six two-pronged forks", fretting two axes seems reasonable. [Device registered.] (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 6)
[A U-form axle bracket] This is a simple and elegant charge. The modifier has been added solely to avoid confusion with the O-form of axle bracket or ring which ... did exist in period. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p 11)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane