Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
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)
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)
The charge combination in chief [a cross argent surmounting four hearts in cross Or] is unidentifiable at any distance. The cross ... is metal on metal in fact and disappears into the Or to such an extent that it cannot be determined what it is. The hearts are so ill-defined ... (and so obscured by the overlying charge) that at first glance they appear to be some sort of obscure four petalled rose. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 15)
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)
[A seal displayed erect, tail sufflexed] The seal has intentionally been placed in a posture where it is indistinguishable from a mullet.... That this is the effect has been field-tested by Laurel staff on several non-heralds who knew nothing of the device.... A charge must be identifiable without the blazon and this is not. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)
[The] appeal raised the question of potentially differing standards of identifiability for charges on badges because of their theoretically short-range usage in the Society. Leaving aside [the] fact that we are trying to encourage period usage of insignia, not the bookplate approach to heraldry, the fact remains that in the Society badges are - or should be - used to identify the individual, not the other way around. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27) (See also: LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 13)
So much of the argent [overall charge] lay on the argent [ordinary] that it would be unidentifiable. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 15)
[Harp issuant from a harp bag, all inverted] This [is] not period heraldic style and ... the identity of the charges would be indistinguishable at any distance. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 21)
This was originally returned by Master Baldwin because the blazon was "tortuous" and 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)
The primary charge [a sword proper, blade enflamed gules, entwined by a rose vine argent slipped and seeded Or] is just too complex and displays too poor contrast to be acceptable. The hilt Or ... fades into the argent field and the vine of roses is such a minor detail combined with the visual distraction of the flames gules, that it is difficult to determine precisely what it is. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 13)
Although documentation was provided for the form of the primary charge’s being a legitimate one for Viking figureheads, it is by no means the only form of Viking figurehead. Therefore, the charge could not be reconstructed by a competent heraldic artist from the blazon and may not be used for Society heraldry. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 12)
In the latter case a single beastie in a relatively standard position is placed on [a] large goutte of flame (almost a cartouche rayonny ...): both beast and flames are clearly identifiable. In this case, the recognizability of the salamanders is materially diminished by the unusual posture and the visual confusion created by the counterchanging. (LoAR 24 May 87, pp. 13-14)
The bird’s footprint [is] not an identifiable charge. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 12)
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)
Since the charge has previously been registered by the College in this gentle’s device, it would seem pedantic to refuse to register it in her badge, although valid questions were raised concerning the recognizability of the shoe. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 1)
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)
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)
[Fieldless, a tabard vert] Some expressed concern that the charge was insufficiently identifiable (many of the alternatives were rather amusing), although we had to agree ... that in the hands of a competent artist the tabard would be easily identifiable. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, pp. 11-12) [Badge returned for other reasons]
The 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). (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 13)
[On a fess per fess sable and argent, a bar counter-compony argent and sable] There was ... a consensus that 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)
While footprints have been registered in the past, all have been more or less identifiable as such. There was a general feeling that buffalo hoofprints were not identifiable enough (even as being hoofprints) to be used as a charge in the Society. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)
The wreath of holly here would inevitably be taken to be a laurel wreath: the berries are just not that prominent on a holly wreath and, given the wide variations in rendition of the wreath required for group arms, the leaf shapes are not distinctive enough to make it obvious that this is not a laurel wreath. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
The collocation of charges in base [a bezant, pierced sable, between four plates within an annulet argent] is too complex to be identifiable as a component of this device. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 12)
The laurel wreath is not only too small, but also fades into the argent portion of the field to such an extent that it was virtually unidentifiable at any distance. Making the wreath larger and in a tincture like gules with acceptable contrast with both argent and sable, would resolve the problem. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 13)
[Crusilly conjoined, voided in each arm of a delf] It is almost impossible to distinguish the identity of the rather unusual charge scattered on the field. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 10)
The origami crane is in trian aspect and, if it were placed in profile, there is a serious question whether it would be at all identifiable (it is marginal now). [Returned for conflict] (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 12)
[A two-horned fool’s cap conjoined to another inverted at their brims] The fool’s caps are totally unidentifiable. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 10)
[Three geese naiant in pall, heads conjoined at the center] The geese were functionally unidentifiable largely because of their unusual posture. [Submission returned] (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11)
[Two foxes salient respectant in annulo] The beasties [are] ... not in an identifiable heraldic position and [are] consequently extremely difficult to identify. The attempt to force the beasts into an annulate arrangement forces them out of any identifiable salient or rampant posture. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 13)
[A wolf’s upper jawbone] This charge is basically unidentifiable for what it is, even at a close distance. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 13)
[A harp bag disgorging a wooden harp] The collocation of charges is ... not clearly identifiable at a distance.... The theory that a scabbard or a quiver derive their identifiability from the items contained does not seem to be supported by the evidence.... The design depends on a specific form of harp bag, which is not reconstructible from the blazon.... Many forms of harp bag or case are possible, but the design depends on using this particular form. Unlike the quiver or the scabbard, the identifiability of this charge depends on the clear identification of the harp which is seriously diminished by its fesswise posture and the fact that a considerable part of the visible wooden harp, which is brown, lies on the vert lining. [Submission returned] (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 13)
[Four tablet-weaving cards, each threaded with four threads palewise] Concern was ... expressed as to the identifiability of the table-weaving cards: several people thought them to be dice before reading the blazon. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 17)
[A bordure, semy of fountains] There ... is a problem since virtually no one who looked at the device was certain that the charges on the bordure were fountains. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 21)
[An inescutcheon, entwined by a two-headed serpent] The serpent is vital to the ... design, but is virtually unidentifiable. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 25
[Per bend sinister, a bend sinister, overall a charge counterchanged] The parts of the [overall charge] on the field are [color] and the portion of the [overall charge] on the bend is divided per bend sinister [of two metals]: the general effect is to make the charge overall unrecognizable at any distance. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 25)
[Per bend sinister wavy, on a bend sinister wavy counterchanged a scarpe wavy counterchanged] The visually confusing bend/bendlet counterchanged effect of the device also caused stylistic twitches: at first and even second glance it is difficult to determine precisely what is going on along the line of division. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 16)
[A double-headed eagle issuant from a pair of antlers] The lack of internal definition in the emblazon ... is not really a problem in itself, since it is typical of much early armory. However, it creates a further problem with the identifiability of the conjoint charge. The antlers are not really identifiable as such (several commenters took them for flames or a poorly drawn laurel wreath). (LoAR Jun 88, p. 19)
[Tressure triskele] It is not possible to figure out what this is from the blazon "triskele" (one person suggested that this could be an orle semy of triskeles). (LoAR Jun 88, p. 20)
Since the submittor is a member of the Order of the Pelican, the use of the Pelican would be legitimate, but 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)
[In pale a candle enflamed upon a flat candlestick, the latter between two natural rosebuds, slipped and leaved in chevron inverted, all within a mullet of eight points voided] Not one but three charges are framed within this voided mullet and they are so arranged as to minimize their identifiability. [Device returned] (LoAR Jul 88, p. 18)
[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)
[A roundel surmounted by four talons in cross] It is notable that virtually nobody in the College could determine what the charges were surmounting the [roundel] without looking at the blazon (several heralds in different kingdoms blazoned them first as four ice cream cones in cross!). (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 17)
[Per pale and per bend of two colors] In the case of ... gyronny, there is at least the "presumption of identity" since the tinctures are evenly divided in a standard field division. In this case the field division is not standard and so is much less identifiable (there was an overwhelming desire to blazon it as quarterly when looking at the device quickly). (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 15)
The cradle is drawn in trian aspect and is nearly unidentifiable. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 16)
The [charges in canton] are so diminished in size that they are nearly unidentifiable. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 19)
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)
While the two grape bunches do lie on the [primary charge] in the emblazon, the identifying leaf portions of the [vert] vine lie almost entirely on the [color] field. Additionally, the vine adds an extra level of complexity of tincture and design that is ... "awfully busy". (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 17)
[A stag salient through a heart voided] Joined to the voided heart is the design which depends on the beast "doing a circus stunt" ..., i.e., jumping through the heart. This posture inevitably obscures some of the identifying features of both the stag and the heart, since the head and antlers of the stag overlie the indentation of the heart to chief. Thus the shape of the upper portion of the heart is obscured and, since the [metal] antlers lie largely along the [metal] curve of the heart, so are the identifying antlers. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 18)
[A unicorn’s head and a pegasus’ head] The conjoining of two such similar charges ... in a mirror image arrangement reinforced by the counterchanging reduced the identifiability of each and was not period style. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 18)
The use of two different varieties of dog’s heads in a single group of charges reduced the identifiability of each to the point where the device was unacceptable. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 25)
The counterchanging along the [complex] line of division unacceptably reduced the identifiability of the already unusually placed [charge]. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 9)
[Two bendlets disjointed fimbriated] The addition of the fimbriation here adds an unacceptable degree of confusion to the visual effect which seriously reduces the overall identifiability of the unusual bend. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 10)
[A table cut gemstone] This does not seem to meet our current standards for identifiability of charge. As has frequently been noted before, not all items documented in period are suitable for heraldic charges and this seems to fall into that category of exceptions. In effect, without the interior markings, this is a peculiar billet ... and not really identifiable without the blazon as the gemstone [the submittor] desires. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 10) (See also: LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 8)
The enflaming of the laurel wreath rendered it unidentifiable enough that it is not really a "significant" part of the design. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 21)
[On a table-cut gemstone, a sea-serpent ondoyant emergent] This ... [submission] combines two charges which are difficult to impossible to readily identify at a distance: the gemstone and truncated sea-serpent.... It is not emerging from anything and so there is little or no logic to the incompleteness of the serpent. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 22)
The three tiny charges of two types and two tinctures packed into the compartment below the chevron are very difficult to identify. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 23)
The squirrel pelts are not standard heraldic charges and are not identifiable without the blazon (one member of Laurel staff blazoned this as "three Caspers in fess"!). (LoAR 30 Sep 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)
[A fret couped within and conjoined to a heart voided] After much consideration we were compelled to the opinion that the charge ... is just not clearly identifiable enough to be considered period style. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 33)
The device is pushed over the edge of complexity under both rules by use of the four tinctures and four different charges with one type (the [ordinary]) diminished in identifiability because it is defined entirely by its fimbriation. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, pp. 33-34)
A bordure compony gules and Or may not be placed on a field Or: under both sets of rules, this would reduce the identifiability of the bordure to an unacceptable degree. (Note that the submittors intuitively grasped this problem: the field and the bordure are depicted in radically different shades of Or.) (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 34)
[A saltire parted and fretted, the points of intersection fretted with four annulets] The diminution in size of the saltire-annulet combination brings it under the ban on "thin-line heraldry" in the old rules and the requirement for identifiability in the new rules (Armorial Identifiability, X.3, p. 11). (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 40)
[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)
The ... "hooded veil" ... was only identifiable after reading the blazon (like [one commenter], we took it at first to be a form of helm). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)
The question arose as to whether the [Arabic] inscription met the requirements for identifiability which are set by present and past rules. After some discussion, we decided that they did given the limitations on differencing noted by [the submitting herald] and others: that all that is protected is "... blocks of Arabic script...". The inscriptions are readily identifiable to even one without any expertise in things Arabic as being Arabic script. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 13)
[Per pale, in saltire a sword and a trumpet between four quill pens tergiant, nibs to center] This [is] overly complex, particularly for a badge: three types of charges, four tinctures and quill pens in a position (tergiant!) which almost guarantees unrecognizability. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 22)
The crystal point is ... unidentifiable as such and therefore may not be used. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 21)
The use of two types of fleurs-de-lys in the same group was stylistically confusing, diminished by the identifiability of the aberrant fleurs and was just not period style. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 22)
[A wingless dragon passant, its body nowed in a Hungerford knot] While the "standard" nowing makes the posture somewhat more blazonable..., it is still not a standard position for such a beastie. In point of fact, it renders the identification of the wingless dragon nearly impossible. This being the case, it cannot be registered. (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 15)
[Three flames of fire between two wings conjoined, displayed and inverted] The flames are so reduced in size by the design that they are virtually unidentifiable. Moreover, there is really no way to guarantee that this design will be drawn in this particular manner, even through a long and precise blazon. These two facts together clearly point to a design that is not period style. (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 16)
[Per pale and barry wavy argent and sable, on a chief triangular sable ...] As [the design’s] identifiability is undiminished by its being depicted in one of the field tinctures, there is no problem with this device under either set of rules. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 3)
[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)
There are three distinct charges conjoined which diminishes the identifiability of them all, save perhaps the [demi-monster].... The basic concept of the design requires an abnormal elongation of the fret to chief to allow it to be fretted with the chevron while being couped rather close to base. This is just visually too confusing. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 21)
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)
As has been well established in the past by a considerable body of mundane scholarly research, as well as by Society precedent, period usage appears to have reserved the term "dancetty" for ordinaries rather than lines of division: the distinction between "dancetty" and "indented" when applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, ... but a distinction parallel to that between counterembattled and bretessed. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 10)
The charged delf appeared to be arms of pretense of [mundane arms]. [Submission returned] (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 17)
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)
See also Presumption
[Fieldless, a tabard vert] Unfortunately, as the tabard has been traditionally the herald’s identifying garment, both mundanely and in the Society, and green has been the traditional Society tincture for heralds, the consensus was that this would infringe on the traditional insignia of the Society. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, pp. 11-12)
The difference in shape between the moth and the dragonfly were not tantamount to a major point of difference. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 12)
An earwig was registered after both the bans on "tiny insects" like fleas.... It was our feeling that the famous "Rule of Toyota" applied here. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 10)
An emmet is the period form for ant: we have retained this term to preserve the cant. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 7)
[Half moon knife] Documentation [has been] provided for a knife/axehead of essentially this shape used in German heraldry prior to 1483 (in the arms of Frankenstein!!!). (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 3)
As the mouthpiece is to sinister, this [flute] is not reversed. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 3)
[A wasp-waisted epinette des Vosges] The submittor desired a mountain dulcimer of the "hourglass" type that is familiar to many of us as a more accessible version of the period French "epinette des Vosges" or the German "Scheitholt" (which is usually more like the classic "cigar box dulcimer"). Her documentation noted that the period form of the dulcimer is the epinette des Vosges, although the form shown on the particular page photocopied was squarer. However, the documentation provided for the submission of Gwidia Arrowcastre in 1986 provides support for this form. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 11)
Like dice tambourines are allowed quasi-trian aspect. The frame is dark wood and the "jingles" are argent which is usual for such things and may be covered by the terms "proper". (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 11)
[Rioghbhardan (a documented given which means "royal bard"), and on the device a rainbow and a harp] The harp is problematic when taken with the given name. [Name registered, device returned] (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 15)
Vis-a-vis the default position for hunting horns..., Woodward (p. 385) says "In Scottish Heraldry it is the invariable practice to represent the hunting-horn with the mouthpiece on the dexter side of the escutcheon. In England and on the Continent, the reverse is the case." In point of fact, most standard heraldic references depict hunting horns as they are oriented here.... To avoid confusion, the blazon has been modified ... to specify that the bell is to sinister. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 8)
The submittor provided documentation, both from his own research and from Munrow’s Instruments of the Middle Ages and Renaissance for the use of the violin in the sixteenth century, including citations for the instrument as far afield as Scotland where Mary Queen of Scots was serenaded by them as early as 1561. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 1)
There was a general consensus that the two [identical charges] conjoined [at their bases on a per fess line of division] were neither period style nor identifiable, even at close range. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 16) (See also: LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 10)
The use of ermine tails inverted in a semy is not period style. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 16)
Note that the inversion of the tree diminishes its recognizability and therefore its visual force. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 20)
The overall effect would be much more period if both [charges] were oriented in the same direction. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 19)
[Azure, a lucy between three lozenges argent] Sorrowful Irreverent Comment from a member of the Laurel staff: "The Beatles may not be period, but they date to at least A.S. I; why does it make me feel so old when only Berkeley and the Laurel staff got the cant?" (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 5)
[Two moose’s heads respectant, horns locked] Irreverent comment from Laurel staff: "But that is the real badge of the College of Arms!"] (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 5)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane