Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The form of the label with angled "tags" is period and is a matter of artistic license. The fact that the label is couped, however, must be specified since the default label in Society heraldry is throughout. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 8)
The label charged with two different charges in two tinctures is just too complex. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 14)
The Society has for many years considered labels as charges in their own right as well as marks of primary cadency. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 1)
The examples of "non-royal" use of charged labels adduced from period by [the principal herald] were all used with extremely simple armoury (the most complex consisted of three identical charges on a plain field) with all charges on the label identical. Moreover, all the examples used the labels as claims of pretense, which is not the case here. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 32)
Much debate centered on the propriety of using the term "Arabian" for the lamp depicted. As the precedent for using the term has already been set by the well-known badge of Ithra..., there seems no compelling reason to deny the submittor his preferred blazon. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 5)
[A woman courant, wearing a winged helm, drawn in a "1920’s representation" style] This submission is still not very period in style, but the consensus of the College was that the Law of Toyota should apply ("you asked for it, you’ve got it"). (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 1)
This is clearly four layers, using a charge surmounting a tertiary, which is forbidden. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 20)
[A chevron, surmounted by three piles in point counterchanged, the central one charged] There was a general feeling in the College that this was non-period in style.... It is also overly complex.... "The field is the first layer. The chevron is the second. The piles are the third, and so the [tertiary] is the fourth layer, which is not allowed." (LoAR Aug 87, p. 12)
[An armoured leg, bent at the knee] Human legs [in SCA heraldry] have been used in a variety of postures, some not at all usual in mundane heraldry. To guarantee the submittor the device he wishes, we must forego the most elegant blazon. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 11)
After much consideration (and evaluation of so many pictures of heraldic legs and boots that some accused Laurel of adopting foot fetishism!), we have come to the conclusion that the two cannot be considered adequately different enough to carry this clear.... Certainly, comparisons of the "heraldic boot" and the "heraldic leg" are similar enough in depiction that the two cannot be considered to be fully distinct charges. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 39)
See also, Kanji
[A chevron palewise to sinister couped] The chevron here forms one of the standard runes, as given in Koch’s Book of Signs, and runic characters are forbidden for use in devices, although they have been used on a case by case basis in badges. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)
It was our definite feeling that "initial" badges should be registered only after the most serious consideration, since such usage would prohibit the general use of initials for decoration on personal articles or insignia (e.g., favours), a perfectly period practice which should be encouraged. In this case, the clear intent to use a modern style royal monogram impelled us to return the submission. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 16)
[A pale issuant to base from a chevron throughout] This is merely a reblazoning of a Tir rune throughout and runes are symbols not permitted for use in Society devices. (LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 6)
The new rules technically allow letters and symbols on devices where they can be shown to have been used in period heraldry.... (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 13)
The Norse sun cross was banned some years ago because it resembled an astrological symbol. As symbols may be used on a case by case basis, this ban now seems unnecessary. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 9)
The ban on registry of a single symbol in such a way as to reserve use of that symbol to an individual dates back to 1981, pre-dating its appearance in the rule cited.... It is not necessarily voided by the portion of the rules revision that allows symbols in devices. It should also be noted that there is no evidence for the use of runes in period armoury (unlike alphabetic symbols which are known). (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 18)
The lower portion of the badge is derived directly from the device of [one of the two submittors], passed prior to the current ban on natural lightning flashes, and so we felt it should be covered by the "Grandfather Clause". (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 1)
This badge submission specifically plays against their device which was passed in 1981, well before the ban on natural lightning [flashes] and, according to well-established precedent, would be allowed to claim protection under the Grandfather Clause. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20)
The submittor has thoroughly documented the existence of these sort of "heraldic lightning bolts" on Roman Imperial shields independent of the Jovian "winged cigar and thunderbolt" motif, which should prove comforting to those who have been concerned about the Society’s adoption of this design element to replace the "shazam". (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 12
It was the consensus of the College that the line of division used for the chief [multiply nowed] is too difficult to identify and will inevitably be confused with traditional nebuly or wavy and therefore should not be accepted for use in the Society. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 10)
PRECEDENT AND DEFINITION: For the purposes of AR2c, where it is stated that "in simple cases only, a party field tinctured either all dark or all light may use a complex line of partition", a simple case shall be defined as follows:
1. No charge shall significantly obscure the line of division.
2. The line of division shall be one of those specified in AR2a, i.e., shall divide the field into no more than four parts.
3. Where two colours are involved, they must be of sufficient contrast, i.e., must be a combination of gules with sable, vert or azure. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, pp. 2, 10-11) (See also: LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 2; LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 6)
[Per pale embattled azure and sable with a single large charge] The field contrast here is extremely low and the line of division is partially obscured by the high contrast charge so that it is virtually impossible to determine the precise line of division. Note that two of the three conditions for the use of complex partition lines stated in the case [above] are absent here, making it an excellent antithetical example. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, pp. 10-11)
The line of division was submitted as "erased" and accompanied by documentation from a fourteenth-century Welsh heraldic tract which did indeed show that "erased" was a period form of usage for that partition line that is shown in our standard references as "rayonny". While we agree that, all things being equal, it is better to use a period term than a modern one, in this instance it seems preferable to retain the term "rayonny".... The usage of "erased" as a line of division is so obscure that we were unable to find it in any of the standard tests used by herald artists and local heralds throughout the Society.... This being so, the natural instinct of the heraldic artist will be to consider this as a heraldic neologism, derived from the usage of erased in the depiction of beast’s heads, which would result in a line of partition rather different from that which appears on the emblazon. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 11)
In the Rules published at the end of Master Wilhelm’s tenure as Laurel, it is clearly stated (IX.4) "those partitions allowed to use two colors or two metals should not use complex lines of division, as those will be difficult to discern at a distance, due to poor contrast" and (IX.5) "the basic requirement in all cases is that there be sufficient contrast for clear visibility". (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 23)
Please ... draw the embattling properly. On the emblazon sheet it was drawn so that the battlements replaced the Or portions of the chequy immediately below the primary line of division of the chief. The battlements should be twice as large in order to make clear the identity of the line of division. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 5)
One of the requirements for the use of a complex line of division with two tinctures draws from the same class is that they have "sufficient contrast". Although the rules do make allusion to fields which are all "light", in most cases fields entirely divided of Or and argent do not support most complex lines of division. In this particular case, where the wings of the birds, lying along the line of division, distract the eye from its nature, it is difficult to determine which line of division has been used. (LoAR 26 Jul 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 sizes of the three charges that the submittor clearly desires. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 4)
The [stag’s] attire issuant from the line of division is very poor style. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
We could not find a period example of [a] "bevilled" chief. [Device returned for this as well as other problems] (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 11)
It [is] doubtful whether a full point of difference should be granted for the difference between the partition line indented and the wavy.... Certainly, a comparison of the emblazons suggests a visual conflict. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 21)
The device must be returned because it uses the line of division "wavy crested" which has specifically been ruled to be modern and not compatible with Society style (as of August, 1980). (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 33)
Under the old rules, there is the problem of the use of the line dovetailed with a gyronny of two colours which is problematic at best.... Under the new rules the gyronny of two colours would not be permitted at all, much less with a complex division line. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 40
[A bordure parted bordurewise indented] The bordure is a period usage, as noted by several commentors who adduced a number of examples of bordures and other ordinaries parted in this manner. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 21)
We are inclined to follow modern practise and allow difference for the conversion of indented to one of the rounded division lines, so long as the identifiability of the line of division is clearly maintained (i.e., as long as it is used in such a manner that it can be identified, as would be the case when applied to a primary charge). (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 6)
The basic problem is whether when a line of division is applied to only part of a charge, it should be considered similar to (and thus worth only a minor point from) the same line of division applied fully to the charge. When one considers the lines of division that are specifically stated to be similar in the old rules (e.g., embattled/raguly/dovetailed/urdy), it is clear that the visual weight applied is similar to that which is present when only half of the charge has the line of division applied to it. To look at it another way, the amount of visual difference present between the two [charges] here closely approximates that between a mullet of five points and a mullet of eight points: that is specifically stated to be worth only a minor point of difference under the old rules, even though both have well-defined identities in the Society. After due consideration, the conflict must be held to exist under the old rules. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 16)
We would be inclined to grant difference between an ordinary invected and an ordinary engrailed on the grounds that the two were distinguished in period armoury and have traditionally been distinguished quite well in Society armoury. However, we cannot in conscience grant difference where the ordinary involves both lines of division. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 19)
The lozenge is drawn as fesswise throughout and is therefore neither a standard lozenge nor vetû. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 10)
[A delf and a lozenge, voided and interlaced] Given the visual similarity of the primary charge to a number of depictions of a snowflake in Society heraldry and mundane art, this appears to [conflict with (Name)]. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 13)
[A charged lozenge throughout fimbriated] The lozenge throughout is equivalent to "vetû" and that should never be fimbriated. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
[Vetû vs. a lozenge throughout] Long-standing Society precedent considers the two to be interchangeably depicted. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 16)
Since the "perpendicular" lines of a chequy parallel the edges of a charge (examine the examples of a bend or a saltire chequy in Elvin and other sources), the proper blazon for the division the submittor desires for the bordure would seem to be "chequy", not the "lozengy" of the submitted blazon. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 5)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane