A bordure compony-countercompony is formed with one set of lines following the edge of the shield and the others dividing the space more or less evenly with the starting points lines in saltire issuing from the upper corners of the shield. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 26)
A bordure compony where one tincture is identical to the field should not be permitted.... The "islands" of tincture ... [are] too large to permit the distinction between the plain bordure compony and a bordure embattled being readily apparent. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 8) (See also: LoAR 28 Jun 87, pp. 3-4; LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 20)
When an individual views two devices, apart or together, they go through several phases in processing the information.... The observer usually registers first the colour of the field, usually in terms of metal versus colour, then if it is divided and of what tinctures and only then by what type of line of partition, if one is present. Then the tincture of the charge closest to the center of the device is processed (... there is quite a bit of evidence that [our ancestors] looks at the type of central charge before its colour and a large minority of the populace do that as well). Again, the tincture recognition is usually a two stage thing: first the category and then the specific tincture. Then the overall type of central charge is determined, followed by its number and posture.... Only then will perception pass to the "peripheral" secondary charges, moving from center out and from top to bottom and repeating the tincture, type, number/posture process until all charges which lie directly on the field have been "digested". Then and only then normally does the eye return to the center of the device to consider tertiary charges....
In practice, this means that two devices which are strongly similar in the center will be perceived as being more alike than two devices which differ strongly in the center but are identical on the periphery.... Practically speaking, changes to tertiaries on an ordinary in the center of a device will contribute considerably greater visual difference than tertiaries on a charge which is itself on the periphery.
It must be conceded that these degrees of difference cannot be totally quantified and it is extremely dubious whether they should be.... The "grey areas" of visual conflict often seem to occur more frequently in the more complex the device in its processing ...: so much is required in the digestion and/or so unusual are the patterns that each change has less cumulative effect. It is unavoidable that there will be "judgement calls" in such cases. When this is the case, the final determinant will be the actual emblazons compared by Laurel and anyone else at the meeting. (CL 18 May 87, pp. 4-5)
The addition of the bordure, which is a standard cadency mark, to a badge which was substantially the same seemed to demand a letter of permission. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11) (See also: LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
Since each rose/laurel wreath collocation is essentially a single charge visually, this device is constructed on the pattern of a single primary charge and four identical secondaries. This being so, this is in conflict. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 14)
[Cauldron suspended from tripod vs. cauldron and a base rayonny] If we consider the pot and the tripod to be a single charge, the two [pieces of armory] would be in conflict since the addition of the base would contribute only one difference. In some designs, the trivet could be diminished in importance to a degree that it would not contribute difference. However, in this particular design the tripod has nearly equal weight with the pot and, were it not for the back leg of the tripod, the pot could as well be blazoned "between the legs of and suspended from a chevronel couped and inverted". This being the case, we feel that the new rules would allow the tripod to be treated as a secondary charge, with one difference for the difference in type and another for the difference in color. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 13)
Under both old and new rules there remains a conflict with the arms of [Name]...: there is only the addition of the secondaries which produces a major point or a single clear visual difference, depending on the set of rules you are using. This is not sufficient. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 20)
[Sable, on a triangle Or a pair of batwings displayed sable, all within a bordure] Valid concerns were ... expressed in the College about the use of the conjoint batwings on a gold background (albeit the classic depiction of the "quasi-arms of pretense" of Batman are on an oval fesswise and this is the form recently and aggressively protected). [Returned for conflict (not Batman) and stylistic problems] (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)
[Three piles issuant from sinister] This is also a direct visual conflict with [Name]...: the period depiction of the per pale indented field showed large indentations reaching nearly to the edges of the shield such as appear here. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 17)
[Argent, two gussets gules vs. Gules, a pall argent] Regrettably, this is in conflict.... The removal of the inverted triangular portion of the field from the top of the device does not create enough visual difference to carry the two devices truly clear. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 17)
See also, Brittany
As the person to whom these arms belong is peculiarly prominent, the weight for protection falls with the mundane arms. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 13)
[The arms of Tirol] were felt to be famous enough from their period and modern use to deserve extra protection. (LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 3)
This is very close to the device of [Name] ("[Blazon]"). There is a clear major point for the removal of the [secondary charges], but it is arguable whether the visual differences between the two sets of long [color] objects in saltire should be considered a major point of difference. In view of the extreme simplicity of the devices in both cases, we were inclined to give the submittor the benefit of the doubt but would seriously encourage him not to draw the [primary charges] in too elongated a fashion lest there be confusion with [Name]. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 15)
[A monkey argent vested Or vs. a monkey proper] The overall tincture of the monkey [proper] is as close to Or as makes no difference and the golden clothing covers the monkey to such an extent that it appears to be Or at any distance. The cumulative changes in the detail of the monkey do not make a full "point and a half" required for difference from a Society badge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 18)
[A delf and a lozenge, voided and interlaced] Given the visual similarity of the primary charge to a number of depictions of a snowflake in Society heraldry and mundane art, this appears to [conflict]. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 13)
[The submittor] must draw the upper portion of the field properly as mulletty, i.e., more evenly distributed. As drawn now, the design looks more like an attempt to depict a constellation ... which is not permitted as a charge in Society heraldry. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 9)
The design is unbalanced in the extreme, mostly due to the attempt to counterfeit the effect of a constellation (these are forbidden for Society heraldry). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 22)
The contrast was so poor between the argent [charge] and Or ["markings"] of the [charge] that it was impossible for most to identify clearly what it was at any distance. Although this may be a "[charge] proper", it does not serve well for identification. Perhaps the submittor would consider delineating the identifying markings in a colour? (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 10)
Antlers proper have been defined as "white or light yellow brown" (Wilhelm von Schlussel, 26 December, 1983) so there is insufficient contrast between the antlers and the argent chief. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)
The extremely low contrast level between the [azure charge] and the vert portion of the field renders [it] almost unidentifiable. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 12)
The [copper charges proper], whose default tincture must be heraldically Or, are metal on metal because of their position [against argent and Or primary charge], to the extent that they were unidentifiable at any distance. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 14)
[Fieldless badge, charge color, winged metal] Note that there is no field that this can "legally" be placed upon with adequate contrast (gules would provide adequate visual contrast, but would technically be colour on colour since the [charge] is the primary element here). However, since both tinctures are united in a single charge, this is legitimate according to AR13b. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 3)
It was the consensus of those present at the Laurel meeting that the contrast between the azure portion of the [per saltire] field and the brown and black of the [charge] was so great as to render the position of the beast unclear at any distance. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 11)
[Sword entwined with a rose vine proper, on a party two-color field] This ... has some serious problems with contrast as the portions of the roses and their leafing and vining fall into the field. (In fact, the leaves vert are invisible on the vert portion of the field and almost invisible on the azure portion of the field.) (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 18)
Since human flesh [proper] is a "light" tincture, it has insufficient contrast with the argent field. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 19)
The device [a demi-maiden conjoined to a tree stump] has some contrast problems: the upper portion of the [color] staff and the [color] hair of the maiden disappear into the upper [color] portion of the field. While these are details of the charge, in this case, where the charge itself is so unusual that its identity is not immediately obvious, the lack of contrast seriously affects the identifiability of the charge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 21)
The grape vine [proper] has insufficient contrast with the [gules] field: the brown vine and green leaves are almost invisible, although the grapes themselves, carefully placed on the [primary charge], show up reasonably well. If you consider the vine a major design element, the device must be returned for breaching the Rule of Tincture. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 23)
The contrast between the sable [Charge] and the azure portion of the [per bend] field was so poor that the primary charge was unidentifiable, even at a distance of a foot. We would suggest that the submittor modify the tincture of the primary charge or of the field colour to obtain a better contrast. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 25)
[Tierced per fess of three tinctures, two identical charges and a third charge, all counterchanged] This is not period style. Even were there only two tinctures involved, the visual complexity (these appear to be two different types of charge divided per fess and overlying a fess) would make the effect confusing. This would be far better if the one of the charges were placed on the fess surrounded by three of the other charge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 26)
[A rose overall Or, slipped and leaved vert] It might be argued that in this case the slipping and leaving are non-trivial and should be required to obey AR4 which dictates that charges overall should be required to have adequate contrast with the field, not the underlying charge. However, in this case, ... we elect to allow an exception as specifically provided for in AR4. This exception is peculiar to this submission and should not be taken as setting any general precedents. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 7)
The contrast between the sable portions of the field on which the key portions of the head and body lie and the vert of the beastie [are such] that [it] would ... be unrecognizable. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 16)
The "flaming" Or surrounding the argent blade [of the sword] has insufficient contrast to the point where the blade is nearly invisible. Were the flames proper (i.e., gules against the blade, Or against the field) the contrast would be immeasurably improved. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 16)
There was almost unanimous agreement amongst the commenters that so much of the argent [overall charge] lay on the argent [ordinary] that it would be unidentifiable. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 15)
The contrast between sable and purpure is too poor to permit the use of this complex [wavy] line of division. The overlying barrulet only makes the situation worse since it distracts the eye from such contrast as does exist between the two tinctures. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 15)
Fields checky of two colours have not been permitted for some time. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 16)
The mountain lion [proper] on the emblazon sheet is shown as a dark brown, but all our sources show the beast as a much lighter tincture that could only be blazoned as Or, so the cat would have insufficient contrast with the argent field. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 21)
In the Rules published at the end of Master Wilhelm’s tenure as Laurel, it is clearly stated (IX.4) "those partitions allowed to use two colors or two metals should not use complex lines of division, as those will be difficult to discern at a distance, due to poor contrast" and (IX.5) "the basic requirement in all cases is that there be sufficient contrast for clear visibility". (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 23)
Proper charges must always have "sufficient contrast" [with the field or charges they overlie]. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 24)
After much consideration (and several examinations of the emblazon), there seemed to be insufficient contrast between the argent blade of the sword and the Or flames that surround it. Both the blade and the flames are major design elements and, unfortunately, the argent fades into the Or to such an extent that the sword appears to be "bladed of flames Or: making the flames proper would resolve the problem. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 11)
We felt a fretty must be considered in the same context as a field ermined. In the case of the fretty, even when drawn with very narrow lathes, a greater proportion of the field is covered than is the case for a field ermined. If a field sable, ermined Or (i.e., pean) specifically is permitted to be surmounted by a charge gules, it would seem unjust to deny the same license to a field sable, fretty Or. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 11)
AR2d indicates that "neutral tinctures may be used with any metal, color, or fur, except either of the component tinctures". While it is stated that the component tinctures may be used in simple cases, the underlying stricture is that a simple case only exists where the identity of the overlying charge is clearly identifiable. This is not the case with the Or chief placed on the field which is largely Or at the point where it intersects with the chief. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 16)
After lengthy consideration, we have decided that, given the wording of the current rules on contrast, which specifically allow placement of gules on pean, this submission must be permitted. The submittor should be informed, however, the unusual monster will be virtually unidentifiable since the distinguishing features are almost entirely on a relatively low contrast field. Were the tinctures of the [party] field reversed ..., the [monster] would be much more recognizable. (LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 1)
One of the requirements for the use of a complex line of division with two tinctures drawn from the same class is that they have "sufficient constrast". Although the rules do make allusion to fields which are all "light", in most cases fields entirely divided of Or and argent do not support most complex lines of division. In this particular case, where the wings of the birds, lying along the line of division, distract the eye from its nature, it is difficult to determine which line of division has been used. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)
This badge, while marginally legal since the [color beasts] maintain the [metal charge], would be vastly improved if both types of charges were of [a single] class of tincture. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 9)
[Barry wavy azure and argent, a charged lozenge azure between four secondaries] Under AR1c, the use of one of the component tinctures on a field which otherwise would be neutral is forbidden except in the simplest of cases. This is not a simple case. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 11)
[A bear sable atop a stump Or maintaining a sword argent breathing upon it flames proper] This badge ... clearly violates the spirit of the rules on contrast, as it is difficult [to] imagine any field on which it would display adequate contrast. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 10)
[Sable, a fly agaric mushroom proper] As the mushroom is capped gules, this violates the rule of tincture. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 18)
The exemption from the "Rule of Tincture" extended to a chief in some periods of mundane heraldry is not permissible in Society heraldry. Thus the gules chief on the sable field is "colour on colour". (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 19)
[Per fess pean and argent, a pegasus argent and a branch of roses proper linked by a chain azure] The links of the chain disappear against the black field and, while the azure on an argent field in theory ought to be visible, in practise the links are nearly indistinguishable from the foliage. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
The primary criterion for determining whether a charge proper has sufficient contrast is the visibility of the portion of the charge which identifies it. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 18)
[Or, fretty of a color, a charge argent] There is insufficient contrast between the [charge] and the field which is predominantly Or. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 25)
[Gules, fretty Or, a charge sable] The sable [charge] on the essentially gules field is colour on colour. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 26)
The purpure canton on the sable field breaks the well-established rules on contrast. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 27)
The head is not really identifiable as a pelican’s head, the only indicator to distinguish it being the gouttes de sang placed on the gules portion of the field (thus rendered totally invisible). (LoAR Jun 88, p. 20)
[The principal herald] is correct when he states that the current rules specifically allow the pean [ordinary] to be placed on the vert field. Nonetheless the contrast is still abysmal. [Submission registered] (LoAR Aug 88, p. 11)
Society heraldry does not consider ermine furs to be neutral: rather they are considered to be of the same category as the underlying field.... Counter-ermine must be considered as if it were sable. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17)
The basis for the limitation on wreathing of two tinctures of the same category is the reduction of identifiability that ensues. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17)
The piebald horse is still largely either brown or black and white. In this case, the hose was brown and white with black hooves, mane and tail. The white portions of the horse simply did not have adequate contrast with the argent [field] on which it was laid (the hooves almost look like they are floating in mid-air with no legs attached). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17)
[Sable, a bordure gules] The bordure violates the rules on contrast (Society heraldry does not allow the latitude to bordures of cadency that late mundane heraldry does). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 22)
Although minor details of a charge may break tincture, the crining and furring of the beast here is not minor. The contrast between the sable of the lower extremities of the [monster] and the vert of the field is so dim that the lower portion of the monster fades into the field. [Submission returned] (LoAR Aug 88, p. 23)
Poor contrast with regard to the spears there is indeed, since their [brown] hafts fade into the sable field so that the spearheads appear to float in chief. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 24)
[Per bend gules and ermine, a monster argent, detailed Or] The poor contrast virtually eradicates any visual difference to be derived from the cumulative tincture change in the details and the difference in position of the hooves (the latter lie entirely on the ermine field and are nearly invisible). (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 18)
The [argent] blade of the sword, lying almost entirely on the Or portion of the field, is virtually unidentifiable even when (especially when) entwined by the stems of the roses. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 20)
The style we strive for is that of an earlier period when heraldry was actually used for identification, not book plates and carriage embellishments. This is the underlying principle behind the ban on complexity and the requirements for contrast. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 10)
Or does not have adequate contrast with ermine in our system. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 24)
[Per pale gules and pean, a chief counterchanged] There was some feeling that this "pushed the envelope" for low contrast field/charge combinations, but it is technically legal under the current rules. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 4)
The Or [charge] on the ermine field is "metal upon metal" under our rules. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 24)
The low contrast of the counterermine on the vert is specifically allowed by the old rules (AR1d), but not by the new (Armorial Contrast, VIII.2). [Device registered] (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 10)
Under both the old rules and the new the contrast between the [argent flower] which lies entirely on the erminois portion of the field is not acceptable (note that the section on contrasting tinctures in the new rules allows good contrast between an element equally divided of a color and metal and any other element as long as identifiability is maintained). The back portion of the [monster’s head] and that [flower] just vanish into the field in an unacceptable manner. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 34)
Motley may not be of two colours (it could be a colour and a metal). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 22)
[The submitting herald] is correct when he notes that later period heraldry did place ermine on Or or, more commonly, Or on ermine. Most of the examples cited were granted or confirmed or appeared in rolls from the Tudor period and there is some doubt as to whether the use of ermined furs as a generally neutral colour was all that common in period. Be that as it may, long since the College of Arms decided that the interests of the Society, particularly its need for heraldry recognisable in battle conditions in poor weather or across a large encampment required somewhat higher standards of contrast than prevail in contemporary mundane heraldry. This decision was reviewed and discussed at some length in the course of the rules discussion and there was considerable support for strengthening the requirements for contrast, not weakening them. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 24)
A charge gyronny of two metals is not registerable under either the old rules or the new. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 22)
The gules [semy] on the vert field violate the rules for contrast under both old and new rules ("colour on colour"). (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 22)
Per pall of three colours was disallowed for poor contrast under the old rules. This has been explicitly stated in the new rules in section VIII.2.: "Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must have good contrast between two of their parts." (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 14)
The rules allow good contrast between an element equally divided of a colour and metal and another element "as long as identifiability is maintained". (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 17)
The neutrality of the divided field is only permitted where it does not diminish the identifiability of charges laid upon it. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 17)
The use of the baronial coronet has been disallowed in Society armoury since 1984. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 20)
Technically, however, the cotises are secondary charges and should be counted separately from any other changes that are made to the bend (this appears to be mundane practice, reflected not only in the organization of Papworth’s Ordinary, but also in the fact that cotising could be used to create cadet arms). (LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 1)
It is clear from mundane ordinaries and period armorial treatises that cotises are indeed regarded as secondary charges, rather than merely a variation in the line of the ordinary. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 22)
The cotising gules and the sable charges which lie outside the cotising are two separate groups of secondaries. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 11)
This no longer conflicts ... because of the addition of the cotises to the original device. The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so that an additional point of difference can be obtained from adding them. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 12)
Our ultimate conclusion must be that ... the consideration of the cotise as a sort of complex line of division for purposes of difference [is] not supported by Society or mundane tradition. (CL 23 Dec 88, p. 7)
Cotising a bend in one tincture with another tincture is quite common in period rolls of arms and cannot be considered an anomaly. (Although it is far more common when the field is a colour and the bend and cotises are two metals.) (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 4)
The usual depiction of a cotton hank is as a sort of palewise figure eight bound with a tight loop at the centre. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 5)
[Per pale azure and argent, a fess and overall a roundel, all counterchanged] This submission provided an excellent example of the problem "modern" counterchange designs present when determining difference. In period, it would have been a definite anomaly for a charge overall to share the charges of the field and the primary charge in a counterchange relationship, but counterchange of overall charges, when used in moderation, has become relatively accepted in the Society. This leaves us with the question of the weight to be allowed to tincture changes derived from modifications of the base tinctures (i.e., those of the field). All are agreed that there is a clear major point for the addition of the fess and a clear minor point for the modification of the colour in the field. [One commenter felt] that all changes in the colour of the charges were negligible resulting in a conflict.... [Another] felt that, since any tincture could have been used on the roundel, the change in the roundel should count a full minor point. While [these last] arguments were eloquent, it is impossible to ignore the "derivative" nature of the tincture completely. However, after considering a number of cases in which the issue of the weight to be derived from "derivative" changes to counterchanged charges, it seems that such are not considered "negligible", merely weak, i.e. insufficient even when taken with the minor for the field to provide adequate difference between Society badges or between badges and mundane arms. In this particular case, there are two "hemi-semi-demi-points of difference", one for the change to the fess and another for the change to the roundel. Taken with the other changes, this would seem to provide adequate difference. (Irreverent comment from the Laurel meeting: "If the fighters have to calibrate blows, do the heralds have to calibrate points of difference.") (LoAR 26 Apr 87, pp. 7-8)
[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)
[Quarterly, a bow, drawn and nocked of a sword fesswise, counterchanged] The device does ... run afoul of the ban on counterchanging long, thin objects along their long axis. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 22)
Between Society armoury, counterchanging along a[n added] line of division contributes only a major point of difference, not automatic sufficient difference as it does with the mundane. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 21)
Complex counterchanging involving three [tinctures] is not period style. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 25)
[A sword palewise, winged at the hilt, counterchanged palewise] This run[s] afoul of the ban on long, thin objects counterchanged along their long axis. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 19)
[A pale, overall an antelope counterchanged] It should be noted that the counterchange here significantly diminishes the identifiability of the already unusual animate charge and is therefore highly inadvisable. [Returned for conflict] (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 16)
The device falls afoul of AR6d ("A long skinny charge shall not be counterchanged along its major axis."): even with the axehead, the counterchange of the handle unacceptably reduces the identifiability of the charge. (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 11)
[A pale, overall an orle of leaves counterchanged] The placement of the orle of leaves [is] visually confusing and poor style. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 19)
The counterchanging along the [complex] line of division unacceptably reduced the identifiability of the already unusually placed [charge]. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 9)
[On a fess between two pairs of charges in saltire, a beasts head between two mullets; four tinctures, the tertiaries of two different tinctures] The number of different charges and tinctures combine to make this rather busy. [Device registered] (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 8)
[Per pale, a beast, overall a bend cotised counterchanged] This falls under the prohibition of excessive counterchanging under the old rules and the requirement for identifiability in the new rules (Armorial Identifiability, X.3, p. 11). There was a strong consensus on the part of the College that the complex counterchanging rendered the [beast] virtually unidentifiable. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 40)
[Gyronny, a knot counterchanged] There was a considerable consensus in the College that counterchanging the knot so complexly rendered it virtually unidentifiable. Making the knot a solid colour or simplifying the field division so that the knot was not cut into so many small pieces would remove this problem. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 20)
[On a pale surmounted by a bend embattled on the upper edge counterchanged, a beast’s head and an anvil] The overall design [is] just too complex and unbalanced for period style. The difficulties which were encountered ... in creating a blazon which would guarantee that the "staircase" would never overlie the charges on the pale was indicative of the problem. The counterchanging and the diminished size of the bend required by the [beast’s] head above it on the pale decreased the immediate recognizability of the bend. Additionally, while the number of layers involved here can be reduced to three by reblazoning, the overall effects is visually complex and overly confusing, creating an effect of motion as the eye follows the "staircase" from top to bottom rather than processing the charges in a normal static manner. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, pp. 20-21)
[A chevron, overall a winged beast rampant counterchanged] The complex counterchanging of the [beast] renders it virtually unidentifiable. [Returned] (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 17)
We do not register crests for Society use. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 20)
While we continue to have some difficulty in seeing how we can limit registration of crests if we allow registration of collocations of charges that have the peculiar look and feel of crests (if it quacks...), it is undeniable that there is nothing in the new rules on this issue either way. Although precedent might be held to rule in this case, thus forcing a return in the current instance, we feel that the spirit of the example used under Fieldless Style (VIII.5) of the new rules, the ostrich plumes issuant from the crown, is crestiform enough to lead a reasonable submittor into submitting such a device. [Badge registered] (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 13)
Although they are a documented period charge, the cronals are clearly too close visually to the reserved crown/coronet to be accepted for use in the Society. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 21)
[A cross nowed and fleury] The badge [is not] really period in style. The terminations of the cross are not really fleury either although that is the nearest blazon from standard heraldry. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 17)
The cross overall obscures the underlying cross to such an extent that it is unclear what form the ends of the arms are intended to take. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 20)
The [gyronny] cross overlies the cup to such an extent that the cup’s identity is unclear (and it is not obvious how this problem could be avoided). Moreover, much of the portions of the cross which determine that it is bottonny fade away, the sable against the blue of the field and the argent against the Or. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 13)
[Crusilly conjoined, voided in each arm of a delf] This [is] not period style.... The semy of conjoined elements is not really period and it is almost impossible to distinguish the identity of the rather unusual charge scattered on the field. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 10)
[Crusilly conjoined countervoided] [The submittor] has demonstrated that the design element indeed existed in period, but not that it is appropriate for period heraldry. Note that the use of period design elements in Society heraldry is not mandated but rather allowed on a case-by-case basis. For such usages to be accepted, they must have a single identifiable form and must be compatible with period heraldic style.... No one single design could be derived from any blazon we could concoct to represent this. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 18)
While [the swallowtailed tau cross] is unusual, it has been formed on the model of the Maltese cross and seems acceptable to us for use in the Society. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 3)
[The principal herald] has provided compelling evidence from illustrations of the regalia of the Order of the Knights of Calatrava that what the Society calls a Cross of Calatrava is merely an artistic variant of the cross flory. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 20)
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)
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)
[Three pallets and three barrulets fretted in sinister base] While this resubmission laudably simplifies the device, it does not resolve the problem with the off-center "cross" which produces a distinctly non-period dynamically unbalanced design. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 10)
While many of the members of the College had a major twitch at the use of the burning cross, this form does not resemble any of the forms nor use of any of the colour combinations that we could find used by the KKK or other white supremacist groups and the cross enflamed is a symbol used in religious iconography with some frequency in a positive manner. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 3)
We cannot agree with [the submitting herald] that the mullet of four points should be considered a "form of cross". (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 7)
The crown voided has a very prominent precedent in the arms of the West. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 2)
The crown is reserved to the arms of Kingdoms, Principalities and Royal Peers and may not be used, even with royal permission, by other individuals or groups. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 9)
Although they are a documented period charge, the cronals are clearly too close visually to the reserved crown/coronet to be accepted for use in the Society. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 21)
After much soul-searching and a comparison of the emblazons, we decided that the shapes are too similar for complete difference of charge to exist between a goblet and an hourglass ... under both the old rules and the new. The visual assonance is very clear: the only difference between the two devices with the hourglass drawn in one of its standard Society depictions (i.e., without the posts) is the balance and "fatness" of the lower portion of the goblet. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 36)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane