Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
Only a minor point of difference can be derived from the eclipsing of the sun, whether you consider it as using a different tincture for part of a charge (analogous to using Or for the wings of an argent pegasus) or a permutation of the main charge (it is analogous to the example of the charge pierced vs. unpierced). (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 9)
The usual depiction of a sun, or any rayed entity, eclipsed has a roundel placed on that entity with the edges of the roundel not extending beyond the point where the rays join one another, i.e., the eclipsing, which is generally of the same category as the field on which the charge is placed, does not break tincture because the edges of the underlying charge lie between the roundel and the field. (LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 6)
What is registered is the emblazon, not the blazon; as the original sheets showed a [monster] couchant, rather than the clearly dormant [one] of the new emblazon sheets, this is technically a change of device rather than a blazon correction. A blazon correction exists when the original blazon does not correctly reflect the registered emblazon or the verbiage does not reflect the intent (e.g., for canting purposes) of the submittor and the new blazon will not be heraldically different from the registered emblazon: since a minor point [of difference] can be derived from a major charge which is dormant rather than couchant, this cannot be merely a blazon correction. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 11)
We can only register what we see. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 18)
There are several aspects of the submitted badge, as emblazoned (which is what we must judge by), which are non-period in style. (LoAR Aug 87, pp. 11-12) [Badge was returned]
We register the emblazon, not the blazon. (LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 6)
While we do not penalize gentles for their artistic insufficiencies, we can only judge the relative position of charges, etc. from the emblazon they submit. On the submitted emblazon, the [charge] is not much larger than on the original returned submission (as [one commenter] put it a "token micro-enlargement"). (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 16)
While not denying that there could be legitimate differences in the depiction of a cross of ermine spots, there was a fairly strong focus in commentary on the fact that the College has to consider the submitted emblazon and that emblazon is almost identical to a cross fleury, save for the frou-frou at its center. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 23)
Between an escarbuncle of six spokes and one of eight there is a distinction not a difference. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 12)
There is not a full point of difference between [a] shooting star and an estoile. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 17)
The primary charge was shown in the blazon on the letter of intent as an estoile, on the emblazon on the letter of intent as a compass star, and on the emblazon sheet provided by the submittor as [a billet surmounted by a lozenge fesswise surmounted by a lozenge palewise]. What the submittor has provided is four layers, even though the surmounting charges are of the same tincture.... It is not at all clear whether the submittor would prefer a compass star, an estoile (which would have six wavy rays) or neither of these. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 15)
Given the traditional depiction of the mullet of six points in the Society, we felt that there was at least a minor point of difference from an estoile when primary charges were involved. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 1)
A great deal of discussion [was occasioned] as to the relationship between the estoile and mullet in period and Society heraldry. While [one commenter] presented some interesting evidence that the two charges may have been interchangeable in period heraldry, there is a long tradition of their being considered a differencing element in Society heraldry as well as modern English heraldry. This is reflected in the fact that both Society ordinaries and Papworth list mullets and estoiles as separate charges.... Under certain circumstances, if diminished enough in size or modified in a non-standard manner there might be a visual coincidence between mullets and estoiles that would create a confusion.... Otherwise, we had to agree with those who felt that enough visual difference exists between the two charges for the purposes of Society heraldry. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 12)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane