[Pine needles] It should be noted that this distinctly gives the appearance of "thin line heraldry" by Western standards. However, as these needles have been documented to be a well-defined charge in Japanese emblazons and are [the] sole charges, we are inclined to cut some slack. [Device registered] (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 5)
[A table cut gemstone] 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 27 Aug 89, p. 22; LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 8)
Precedent ... dictates that a piece of jewelry is not as such registerable: "We all recognize that beautiful piece of jewelry; there are people making a living out of selling reproductions of it; in some senses it is copyright and in others it is in the public domain, and you cannot register it." This ruling seems as valid now as when Karina of the Far West first issued it ten years ago. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, pp. 8-9)
This [per pale field, two identical charges counterchanged, on a point pointed three annulets interlaced] skates perilously close to "slot-machine heraldry".... (Ed. Note: Yes, that is a judgment call.) (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 13)
This is very close to the device of [Name].... 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)
The visual similarities between the fret and the snowflake ... were so strong that we felt there was infringement. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)
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)
Whether the overall effect of the "given name" is intrusively modern is admittedly a judgement call: on either side some element of the subjective must be present.... The determination that the name was excessively modern was based on "test exposure" to a fairly large sampling of gentles in the street (i.e., those not members of the College of Arms) who uniformly had problems with the name. [Registered for other reasons.] (LoAR Jul 88, p. 3)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane