While abstract symbols may be used in badges, AR10c specifically states that "a badge shall not consist solely of one abstract symbol". Any kanji character must be considered an "abstract symbol" in the sense that the Rules intend. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 9)
Even amongst those weapons mavens who were aware that a katar is a peculiarly Indian two-handled dagger, there was a general consensus that the charge was not identifiable. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14)
"The Societys convention, the opposite of that in most mundane heraldry, is that the wards of the key, though they are drawn to dexter, are shown downward." (Precedents I, p. 13) (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 4)
The "Solomons knot" is not a standard heraldic charge and no documentation has been provided for its use. Several commentors noted that from the blazon many heraldic artists would depict the "Solomons seal" which is quite a different thing. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 19)
[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)
The orle is in essence a form of Celtic knotwork, which has been ruled illicit for Society use ("Knotwork is not, by and large, heraldic." Karina of the Far West, July, 1979). (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 15)
By long-standing Society precedent braided knotwork is not permitted for Society armoury, however common it may be in Society artwork. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 12)
[A pall hummetty, each arm terminating in a unicorns head and the upper arms elongated and fretted] The pall not only violated the ancient ban on knotwork, but could not be reconstructed from the blazon, ingenious as it was. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 21)
The primary issue here ... is whether the pall of [many] Wake knots could be considered acceptable for heraldic use in the Society or should come under the long-standing ban on "knotwork". The issue is not merely whether the charge or charges can be blazoned..., but whether the charge or charges can be readily identified by the casual observer to be what they are.
Commentary in the College, which was substantially opposed to dropping the ban on knotwork, reflects a reality here. While the conjoint charge can be easily blazoned, it cannot be readily identified without already being aware of the blazoning. Viewed at a distance, the central design element is as likely to be interpreted as a pall invected with some peculiar internal diapering as it is to be interpreted correctly as a conjoining of otherwise identifiable knots. When the separated knots are placed in a standard heraldic position, their familiar outline renders them identifiable. When this outline is diminished, as it is here, by reduction in size and conjoining, they are no longer clearly identifiable. This is the case with virtually all "knotwork", no matter how easily blazonable, and that is the most cogent reason for not permitting it in the Society. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 14)
[A three-strand Sennet braid] It was our feeling that this fess of braid must fall under the long-standing ban on knotwork. As the interwining of the strands is so important an element of the overall design, it is not really reasonable to blazon the charge as a fess invected and to consider the interior markings as elaborate diapering. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 13)
[Three Wake knots conjoined in pall throughout] The original ban on knotwork was based as much on the problem of its irreproducibility and identifiability as on any question of its use in period.... The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be "no". Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased ... as to diminish the size seriously. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 9)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane
Copyright © 1995 - 2013 Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.