Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
[On a fess per fess sable and argent, a bar counter-compony argent and sable] The central charge, whether it be blazoned as a charged fess or a parted fess fimbriated, was too complex to readily identify "on the field". (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)
Society tradition does not protect the ermine field of Brittany unless it appears in the context of quartering or attached to a name which is strongly redolent of Brittany. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 2)
We felt a fretty [field] 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)
By the current rules a barry field may not consist of two colours (AR2a). (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 10)
While the principle that a plain (i.e., undivided) tinctured field was not protected was written into the old rules, this principle existed by precedent long before it was added to the rules. We do not feel that this precedent has been voided by the new rules. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 6)
[Per fess azure, mullety Or and purpure, crusilly Or vs. Purpure, crusilly Or] Since half the field and half the charges are changed, there are two visual differences. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 1)
The ermining in [Name]’s device is not addition of a strewn charge under the new rules (or the old for that matter) and does not add to the difference already derived from the difference in field. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 9)
See also, Lines of Division
Please ... draw the field with an even number of vertical divisions (i.e., add another pallet [metal] to the [color] field). Since the intent of the submittor was clear (and matched the blazon), it seemed unfair to penalize him because the artist who rendered the emblazon could not count.
NOTE: We considered at some length whether it would be proper to issue a general ruling rescinding the current ruling which makes fields divided of [an] even number of pallets or bars "neutral" where an odd number is not. After drawing up several examples of fields divided evenly and unevenly, it became clear that contrast of overlying ordinaries such as chiefs and bordures of the same class as the dominant tincture (i.e., the one with an even number of ordinaries on an uneven field) is considerably poorer when the field is unevenly divided. The distinction between the neutral field evenly divided and the "field plus ordinaries" which is unevenly divided is drawn from mundane heraldic tradition. It is, however, applied with far less vigor since the charges which come into conflict with the Rule of Tincture in the Society because of the distinction (the chief and the bordure) are largely exempt from that restriction in mundane heraldry. Our conclusion was that it would not be feasible to drop the even-uneven distinction at this time without also modifying Society practice with regard to a chief or a bordure to follow mundane precedent. We are not prepared to do that at this time. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 9)
Please ... draw the [per bend sinister] field division properly issuant from the sinister chief corner of the shield. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 11)
What is drawn ... is neither a proper pile inverted nor a field per chevron nor a true point pointed. If it were drawn properly as a pile inverted, there would not be space for the [charge] in chief. If properly drawn as a point pointed, there would be inadequate space for the three [tertiary charges] in pale. Even with a field per chevron the [charges] would be cramped for space except in a more usual one and two orientation (and even that would be tight!). (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20)
Fields checky of two colours have not been permitted for some time. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 16)
[Per chevron inverted] Please ... draw the field division properly with the chevron intersecting the sides of the field. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 9)
While [it is correct] that the precise location of the per chevron line of division should be adapted to allow the charges to fill the field, it is probably necessary here to specify the line of division as being enhanced to obtain the relative sized of the three charges that the submittor clearly desires. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 4)
[Argent, a point pointed sable] In appearance this is a variant of a field "per chevron argent and sable". (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 19)
The letter of intent used an unnecessarily complex blazon for the field: "barry bendy bendy sinister". We have opted to use the blazon which Woodward uses for the arms of Gise [lozengy couped in fess]. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 1)
[Per pale and per bend gules and sable] This is quarterly "within the meaning of the act" and thus is not entitled to the exemption granted quarterly under AR2.a. against the ban of fields party of two colors. In this case, where the [primary charge] obscures so much of the field, it is particularly difficult to determine the nature of the non-standard field division. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 15)
[Pily bendy] [The submitting herald] errs in referring to the field as involving a field treatment. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 19)
Note that this is not "chevronelly inverted", as submitted, since the field is not evenly divided of the two tinctures (i.e., there are four [metal] sections and three [color]). (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 7)
No evidence has been provided for simple coats with fields quarterly of three tinctures in period. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 34)
The blazon stated the design to be "per fess rayonny enhanced". As many in the College noted, there is no such thing. What we have here is a chief, properly enlarged in the period manner to allow the harp to be clearly visible. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 1)
[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)
The field is not a proper field "per chevron inverted" which would have the line of division issue from the sides of the shield, not its upper corners. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 21)
The field division quarterly en equerre has been banned by the College as non-period since 1976 and no new evidence has been presented for its use prior to the late seventeenth century. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 21)
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)
Chequy of nine panes is, by definition, not evenly divided as to tincture: one tincture must be dominant and in this case it is [color]. This being the case, this must be treated as if it were a [color] dominant field, not an evenly divided (and hence neutral) field. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 16)
On the correction letter this was reblazoned as "per pile", a field division that does not exist. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 17)
The Society traditionally considers "chaussé" as a field division variant. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 21)
PRECEDENT: The field treatment "honeycombed", consisting of a variation on masoning in which the "cells" are equilateral hexagons, as in a honeycomb seen edge on, is hereby accepted for use in the Society. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 8)
The effect is of salamanders [in annulo] fimbriated rayonny and these are too complex to fimbriate. (LoAR 27 Sep 86 p. 11)
The plate fimbriated is poor style. (LoAR 30 Nov 86, p. 18)
However this is blazoned, in appearance it includes a fimbriated chief, which is not permitted for Society usage. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 18) (See also: LoAR Aug 88, p. 23)
The compass stars, whether blazoned as fimbriated or voided, are predominantly [metal on a metal field]. This produces "thin line heraldry" which is not period in style and cannot be accepted. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 17)
The rainbow is too complex a charge to fimbriate. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20)
Fountains really should not be fimbriated. As they should not be placed on either an azure or argent field, they especially should not be fimbriated in azure on an argent field. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 13)
A compass star is too complex a charge to fimbriate. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)
It did not seem that the fimbriation of the crescent was enough per se to cause the submission to be returned. However, it was felt that the fimbriation in an already relatively complex design ... added an unacceptable complexity to the design. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 8)
This is "thin line heraldry": even a plain chief may not be fimbriated, fimbriating a chief wavy is even more a solecism. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 13)
The fimbriated t’ai-ch’i constitutes "thin line heraldry." (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 13)
[Argent, a saltire vert between a pile and a pile inverted sable] The blazon does not really correctly describe the device as the sable is not really pile-shaped. The nearest blazon probably is "Per saltire sable and argent, a saltire vert, fimbriated argent...." However, this is not permissible since much of the "fimbriation" will fade into the argent portion of the field. [Submission returned] (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11)
Fimbriation should never be reduced to the point that it becomes merely delineation and the ordinary fimbriated is in fact colour on colour! (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 3)
The "bordure" about the canton of augmentation is clearly there only to avoid breaking tincture and ill succeeds for it is so small as to be nearly invisible at any distance and in any other context would be decried as "thin line heraldry". (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
[A lozenge throughout fimbriated, charged with, among others, a gout fimbriated] The excessive use of fimbriation [is] a non-period feature of the device: the lozenge throughout is equivalent to "vetu" and that should never be fimbriated. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
[Two piles issuant from base, fimbriated] Blazoned with two piles, they [are] neither truly voided nor truly fimbriated and, in either case, constituted "thin line heraldry". (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 21)
The "voiding" or "fimbriating" of a bordure is not permitted. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 18)
[A] hammer is too complex a charge to fimbriate. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 21)
[A pile bendwise sinister fimbriated] The fimbriation here is naught but "thin line heraldry" and it is difficult to see how it could be drawn with proper thickness without diminishing the identifiability of the [overall charge]. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 14)
[A cross crosslet fitchy fimbriated] The cross here ... is really "thin line heraldry": the [color cross] has so little contrast with the [color] field that the [metal] fimbriation is all that delineates the cross. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 15)
Fimbriated gores have been banned as excessive "thin line heraldry" since August, 1983. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 18)
The fimbriation of the cross on the [primary] is excessive. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 19)
[The appeal stated] that there is a difference between a [charge] fimbriated and one voided because in the case of fimbriation the metal here would be narrower than is the case.... Even if period blazon practice were reflected in this distinction, if one had to use calipers to tell whether an ordinary was fimbriated or voided, then no difference could be derived from the issue and there is no point to quibbling over blazon. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 16)
The fimbriation of the book on the chief [is] excessive. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 17)
Although we must admit that bordures of flame have been registered before, ... what is depicted on the emblazon is in fact a bordure fimbriated (actually a bordure rayonny gules, fimbriated Or). It seem inconsistent to ban fimbriated bordures as non-period practice when they are plain and not to do so when they are more complex. Moreover, the additional fimbriation on of the compass star here can only add to the impression of "thin line" heraldry. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 26)
While there was some disagreement in the College on the legitimacy of fimbriating a cross crosslet, there was a considerable body of thought which held that this badge was covered by the "Grandfather Clause" since it was a simplification of one previously registered to the submittor.... After some soul-searching, we were compelled to agree. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 2)
In the cover letter to the March letter of acceptances and returns, it was ruled that fimbriation and voiding would not be considered excessive if it were applied to a "plain ordinary" placed in the center of the shield. In this case the [latin cross in sinister chief] is plain enough, but is visually peripheral and, taken with the other anomalies [on this submission], pushes this submission over the edge of acceptable style. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 15)
Fimbriation with [a] tincture of the [divided] field is not permitted. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 18)
Fimbriation of the small and peripheral crescent [is] excessive, particularly for a badge. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 23)
The fimbriated charged lozenge gives the appearance of a lozenge ... with a [charge] and a bordure ... which would too greatly resemble arms of pretense under AR10d. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 23)
For a long time, we have banned fimbriated chiefs (particularly where the chief is the same tincture as the field!) and the reblazon of this visual effect to consider it a "bar enhanced", etc., does not ameliorate the visual effect. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 14)
While a considerable number of commentors appeared to feel that the heart was a "simple" enough charge to fimbriate, this falls in conflict with previous commentary which favoured limiting the use of fimbriation to ordinaries at the center of the field (for instance, in opposing the use of fimbriated crescents). While we grant that the heart is an essentially simple charge, the fimbriation here adds a degree of complexity that is inappropriate for a badge, diminishing as it does the immediacy of the identifiability of the gules heart. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 21)
While the degree of commentary on the issue of fimbriating and voiding complex ordinaries has not really been adequate to allow a clear-cut general precedent, there does seem to be a sort of queasy acceptance of such designs as this when the fimbriation gives the appearance of a diminutive of an ordinary and there are a limited number of tinctures involved. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 2)
Martlets are too complex to be voided or fimbriated. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 14)
For the purposes of the rule on Armorial Identifiability, any ordinary placed at the center of the shield (e.g., a pale, pall, bend, fess, etc.) may be fimbriated, even if it uses a complex line of division, provided that the identifiability of the charge and the line of division are not significantly reduced by the voiding or fimbriation or any other element of the design (e.g., the placement of superimposed charges). (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 23) (See also: CL 20 May 89, p. 3)
A horse certainly is too complex an image to fimbriate under either set of rules. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 35)
We have to agree with those who felt that the modification of tincture of fimbriation should contribute no difference here. Indeed, in view of the minimal visual impact of fimbriation, even when drawn properly, it is very difficult to imagine a situation where the addition of fimbriation or the change of the tincture of fimbriation should contribute to difference. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 40)
The cloves were too complex a charge to void (or chase or fimbriate, depending on how you were looking at the cloves).... They become classic "thin-line heraldry" when voided. This is a problem not only under the old rules (AR6c, Complexity Limit) but also under the new (Armorial Identifiability, VIII.3: "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design."). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 22)
Long-standing Society precedent disallows fimbriation or voiding of gores. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 21)
The voiding/fimbriation of the mullet unacceptably diminished its identifiability and, taken with its peripheral position, ... was just not period style. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 15)
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 form 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)
1. All names and armoury registered for use in the Society shall be compatible with the mediaeval environment created by the Society.
2. No name or armoury shall be registered which is offensive to a significant proportion of the Society membership, whether the offensiveness is innate, contextual, or derives from an expressed or implied claim on the part of the submittor to be someone or something that he/she is not.
NOTE: An example of innate offensiveness might be the scatological or obscene. Contextual offensiveness involves that which is offensive because of its associations or context (e.g., a Swastika). Offensiveness through presumption might involve an expressed or implied claim to be more (or less) than is actually the case (e.g., a duke, a Norse god, Harald Hardraada, etc.).
3. Any submission, once registered, is not subject to review or revocation of the registration, even if later research demonstrates the original registration was made in error. (CL 22 Jul 87, p. 4)
I have always felt that Society heralds, like their period predecessors, were adequately numerate to count above six. While it is certainly legitimate to depict a field semy with no more than seven charges, it is clear that period heraldry acknowledged up to nine or ten charges set in a standard arrangement without considering them a semy (indeed, the fact of the standard arrangement, e.g., four, three, two and one, may be the criterion for selecting a blazon of ten X rather than semy of X). (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 2)
[Carp embowed vs. dolphin embowed] The fish on both pieces of armoury are virtually identical. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)
The visual similarities between the crab and the scorpion create enough visual confusion that the two cannot be considered clear. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 16-17)
[A pall between a dolphin uriant, a dolphin hauriant and a crescent] The differences in the position of the dolphins make them visually different charges. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 25)
[Carp embowed vs. dolphin embowed] The fish on both pieces of armoury are virtually identical. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)
[Or, two bottlenosed dolphins proper] The dolphins are grey (i.e., argent) which breaks tincture by being placed on the metal field. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 20)
[Octopus tergiant displayed blazoned as "displayed"] The defining instance in Society heraldry (Geoffrey d’Ayr, "Azure, an octopus displayed argent." [badge]) indicates that this posture is correctly blazoned as displayed in Society heraldry. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 9)
There is a precedent in Society usage for the unusual bordure [of flames proper] with the device of [Name] ("[Tincture], a bordure of flames proper") (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 2)
What appeared on the emblazon sheet were not flames proper. It was a base of flames Or, with the line of delineation from the field gules (it was not thick enough to call it fimbriation). This is an improper use of proper. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, pp. 15-16)
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)
There is a standing precedent against the use of bordures of flame. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 18)
The bordure of flame does not even stand as the only anomaly, but is accompanied by the three swords proper with enflamed blades in an unusual position.... The general effect is not period style under either the old rules or the new. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 18)
The interlacing of the flaunches by the [charge] is not period style and is, in and of itself, too great an anomaly to allow. Additionally, if the [charge] is considered the primary charge, it breaks tincture where it overlies the ... field. If it is considered mainly a tertiary charge, the device is insufficiently differenced [from another device with the same field and flaunch tinctures). (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14)
It was ruled some five years ago that flaunches should not be surmounted by charges (Wilhelm von Schlüssel, April, 1983) and we see no reason to reverse that ruling. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16) (See also: LoAR 21 May 89, p. 24; LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 20)
Although the flaunches were blazoned on the letter of intent as "[color] voided" they are in fact thin partial arcs of [color] placed on [the metal] field: an almost classic instance of "thin line heraldry". In fact, ... the voiding or fimbriating of flaunches has been banned since September, 1981: "Flaunches voided and flaunches cotised are both non-period..." (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 20)
Flaunches are by definition visually more complex than a bordure or chief. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 17)
While the fleam is a particularly appropriate charge for those with a medical background, it is not so closely associated with medics that it should be reserved. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 13)
Period heraldry certainly does distinguish between an iris or fleur-de-lys and a thistle! (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 4)
[One commenter] has shown there was apparently a difference noted by heralds in period between the stylized fleur-de-lys and the natural lily flower since the arms of Eton College contain both used in a cadency context. Under the new rules this is enough to determine that a difference of type may be granted, assuming no real possibility of confusion. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 4)
[Experience] seems to indicate that modern sensibilities, as much as period perceptions, would consider the fleur-de-lys completely different from any variant of human or beast head. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 7)
See also, Cinquefoil
[A cinquefoil within and conjoined to five cinquefoils in annulo] The possibility of confusion between this lovely, but visually confusing, design and a snowflake is very strong. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 18)
The red rose of Lancaster, like the white rose of York, deserves extra protection versus Society badges which should differ by more than one major point from this particularly famous royal badge. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14)
The [roses] in chief actually appear to be much closer to "roses proper, fimbriated argent" and are uncomfortably close to the "Tudor rose". (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 9)
The partial change in the tincture of the [tertiary] roses from seeded sable, barbed argent to seeded and barbed gules is negligible. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 17)
By tradition the Society has distinguished between the heraldic rose and the natural rose and, lacking any specific evidence to the contrary we must assume that the rose on the [conflicting] arms was the heraldic rose which is quite different in appearance from the natural flower. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 8)
There is no compelling reason to consider the six-petalled rose with alternating argent and gules petals a legitimate variant of the (restricted) Tudor rose. While it is true that the Tudor rose did appear in period divided per pale and (more rarely) quarterly, we could find no instance of its appearing as a six-petalled flower with alternating white and red petals. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 19)
The almond flower is very similar to the heraldic rose in appearance. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 28)
The standing precedent in the College (stated by Baldwin of Erebor, February, 1985) dictates that the name Corwin may not be used in conjunction with roses of any tincture. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 35)
While we appreciate the comments of [commenters] on the interchangeability of the cinquefoil and the heraldic rose in the early period..., it is a fact that the Society has for lang and lang distinguished between them, as a glance at the Armorial or even the Pictorial Dictionary ... will reveal. (Now fraises and cinquefoils, on the other hand.) (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 10)
[A chaplet of roses] While [the submitting herald] noted that the blazon had been selected specifically to distinguish it from the wreath of roses reserved to Queens and Ladies of the Rose, this is a distinction rather than a difference. Not only are chaplets regularly listed under "wreath", but several pieces of royal armoury have the wreath blazoned as a chaplet (most notably that of the Queen of the Middle).... As a territorial princess is not eligible to become a member of the Order of the Rose on the basis of her service to her principality, she may not use the wreath of roses (however blazoned) on her official or personal armoury. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 15)
[A three-headed thistle proper flowered gules vs. a three-headed thistle proper flowered purpure] So unusual is the tricapitate thistle that the arrangement overrides any minor difference added by changing the tincture of part of the thistle to purpure. Note also that this change of tincture is severely weakened because of the small portion of the plant affected and the indifference with which heads gules and heads purpure are interchanged in Scots herald (in this context many period Scotsmen seem not to have perceived any difference between the two tinctures). (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 18) (See also: LoAR 24 May 87, p. 16)
This depiction [of two thistles] which shows a flower alternating with each leaf on a branch similar to a laurel branch has no precedent in period or Society heraldry. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 25)
The ford is not drawn properly but rather as a "base wavy azure charged with four barrulets wavy argent." (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 10)
No blazon appeared on the emblazon forms to verify whether the coloration of the [charge] was intentional or an omission. All paperwork should include the proposed blazon on the forms! (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 25)
I was extremely distressed by the number of submissions with acceptable armoury that I was compelled to return in their entirety ... because the submission forms specifically stated that no changes, however minor, could be made to the spelling or grammar of the name. Unless there is some indication that a holding name would be acceptable, I am compelled to take statements that no changes may be made to the name literally and return the submission as a whole.... There are several options open to consulting heralds to resolve this situation: advise submittors not to prohibit changes to the name, request them to state on the forms if a holding name is acceptable, or to ... add a line to the forms requesting the submittor to indicate if formation of a holding name is not acceptable. Of all the options, the latter is probably the most satisfactory and I heartily recommend it to all Kingdoms. (I hate returning a beautiful armorial submission because of technical problems with the name!) (CL 20 Mar 87, p. 2)
Note that what was drawn on the emblazon was not a fountain which is, by definition, composed of an equal number of bars wavy (usually six). However, ... we had to assume that a fountain was indeed intended and, under Rules AR1c, may not be placed on either an azure or an argent field: the visual effect is that of three barrulets wavy couped azure floating isolated on the argent field. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 18)
Fountains really should not be fimbriated. As they should not be placed on either an azure or argent field, they especially should not be fimbriated in azure on an argent field. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 13)
[Sable primary, charged with a fountain] Were the fountain to be drawn properly (on the emblazon it is a plate charged with three barrulets wavy azure), it would not appear at all round since the azure tends to fade into the sable. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 18)
[A bordure, semy of fountains] The fountains are banned because of the ban on charges semy which are fimbriated, proper, fur or divided tinctures (AR1.c). (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 21)
In period a delf pierced would not ... serve as a "frame" for another charge. However, ... the "frame" effect [has] been previously established in Society usage for mascles, which are no more complex visually, so it would appear pedantic to object to such a usage here. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 1)
The use of a voided charge as a frame for another charge, whether or not that other charge is the primary charge is more than a trifle eccentric by mundane standards, period or modern, but it has been done frequently [enough] in Society heraldry to be accepted if the design is simple as it is here. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6)
After comparing the emblazons and considering the matter at some length, we concluded that ... the visual similarities between the fret and the snowflake ... were so strong that we felt there was infringement. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)
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. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 6) [Device registered]
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)
[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)
Although the letter blazoned the "decoration" of the chief as "five saltires", the visual effect is one of the standard depictions of a chief fretty and is more simply blazoned in this manner. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 7)
Examination of period and modern sources makes it clear that "fretty" is not a field treatment in the sense that term is used in the Society, but rather a "semy of frets" and as such contributes difference (X.4.b. Addition of Charges on the Field). Period treatises make it clear that the fretty was seen as placed upon the field in the same way that fleurs-de-lys or mullets or other charges semy were strewn.... Unlike "normal" field treatments, but like secondary charges, a "fretty" can be itself charged (Woodward, p. 97). (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 10)
"Fretty" must be considered to be a form of semy and thus entitled to add difference under section X.4.b of the Rules for Submission (Addition of Charges on the Field). (CL 13 May 90, p. 2)
A number of early rolls of arms show a common alternation in blazon (and emblazon) between what is now commonly blazoned as "fretty" and "a fret" indicating the change in number of "frettings" was seen as a form of generating cadency. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 10)
The name Idunn may not be used with apples any more than Rhiannon may be used with horses. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 11)
Traditionally, we have considered a fur a "tincture" for the purposes of counting difference. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 5)
Ermine furs are not "neutral" in Society heraldry, counter-ermine is classed as a dark tincture. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 21) (See also: LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16; LoAR Aug 88, p. 17)
Since [the submittor] apparently wants specifically three ermine spots, it would not be appropriate to modify the lower portion of the field to semy (which is by definition sans nombre). (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 2)
The ban on erminites for Society use, which is one of the oldest precedents in the Society (dating back nearly twenty years to Harold Breakstone in 1970), is well founded on the absence of this ermine variant in period sources and should continue. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 23)
We do not normally consider the ermine spots of the fur [to be] tertiary charges "within the meaning of the act". (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 27)
[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)
The ermining in [Name]’s device is not addition of a strewn charge under the new rules (or the old for that matter) and does not add to the difference already derived from the difference in field. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 9)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane