Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
Since the tertiary charge placed on the primary charge is identical with [Name, whose primary charge differed by shape], complete difference of charge should not technically apply and there is a clear visual [similarity]. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 10)
Many commenters noted a potential conflict.... This is the perfect example of a case where the allowance of a full major point of difference for tertiaries made in DR10 should come into play. In both cases the field ... [and] the tincture of the ordinary ... are identical. There is a clear major for the indenting of the [ordinary] here. A major point of difference can be allowed for the tertiaries not only because the differences between the tertiaries are not only striking in degree [type, number (with the difference in position this causes), and tincture] but also because the tertiaries lie at the visual center of the field of the shield with virtually no visual distractions on the periphery. The same changes places on a secondary charge (for example, a chief) would not attract the eye with nearly the same force. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 7)
The interlacing of the flaunches by the [charge] is not period style and is, in and of itself, too great an anomaly to allow. If [the piercing charge] 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)
Note that DR10 says "at most" a major point may be derived from tertiaries. In such a case as this, where there are prominent secondaries, we should not even consider making that allowance unless there are three clear differences in the secondaries: since the primary tincture of both sets of tertiaries is [the same], there are only two: type and number. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 17) (See also: LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 24; 23 Apr 88, p. 22)
The use of three different tertiaries on each one of three identical charges is not period style: this looks like a collection of badges strewn on a field. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 19)
[Barry of six, in pale on each trait a goutte] while a strict interpretation of the definitions for charges would imply that the gouttes here should be counted as charges, the small size of each charge diminishes the visual impact of each one. There is no doubt that visually they have only the weight of tertiary charges. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 28)
This would seem precisely the case that intended in DR10, which in some cases allows two clear changes to tertiaries on a device consisting solely of a field and a charged ordinary to create a full point of difference. Thus, it is clear of the various mundane coats of "Argent, on a pale gules one X Or.", where X is a charge which is visually distinct from [the one here]. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 8)
Note that the logical distinction between granting full difference for three changes to a group of minors (i.e., a situation where there is functionally complete visual difference of tertiaries) is based on the perception of difference reflected in period cadency. A complete change of type of tertiary or of tincture of tertiary, etc. would be sufficient to create secondary cadency in many heraldic jurisdictions (though admittedly not in all). Changing both could be used to define tertiary cadency (i.e., the second son might use a chief charged with three fleurs-de-lys gules while his son used three fleurs-de-lys azure). (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 6)
A semy on a charge (as opposed to a field) constitutes tertiary charges. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 14)
Charges maintained by a beast are normally tertiary charges at best (some must be considered negligible in counting conflict) and thus worth at most a minor point of difference. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 8)
A major point of difference can be derived from the addition of the tertiary on a single ordinary. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 2)
The addition of the tiny tertiary charge to one of the group of secondaries [is] not really enough to carry this clear. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 19)
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)
Even under the new rules, two changes to the tertiaries are required to derive difference. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, pp. 38-39)
[Sea griffin holding a small charge vs. winged sea-lion] Even if you allow a full major point under the old rules and a clear visual difference under the new for the type of monster, we could not see giving the additional difference needed under either set of rules for the tiny [charge] the monster holds. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)
See also "Fimbriation"
Whether you blazon this as a [charge] fimbriated or a [charge] voided, this is "thin line heraldry" which renders the [charge] unrecognizable and is not acceptable. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 10)
[Quarterly argent and lozengy gules and argent, in bend two pairs of oak leaves pilewise, fructed, vert, overall a fillet cross sable] The fillet cross here is perilously close to "thin line heraldry". (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 18) [Device rejected for this and other reasons]
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)
[Four tablet-weaving cards, each threaded with four threads palewise] This [is] "thin line heraldry". (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 17)
[Three triangles voided and conjoined] The device is "thin line heraldry". (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 18)
[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)
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". (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 20)
[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. In fact, it appears like a complex cross only in outline. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 15)
Fimbriated gores have been banned as excessive "thin line heraldry" since August, 1983. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 18)
The voiding of an inherently complex charge like the mullet of eight points is exacerbated by the elongation of the mullet to base and can be considered "thin line heraldry". (LoAR Jul 88, p. 18)
Despite its simplicity, the voided heart must be considered "thin line heraldry". (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 19)
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)
[The] pall of chain ... is nearly unidentifiable and was felt by many to be tantamount to "thin line heraldry". (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 11)
Henceforth, any plain ordinary which may be placed in the center of the shield may be voided or given equivalent treatment (e.g., fimbriation if it is of the tincture of the field) without this being considered "thin line heraldry" or excessive fimbriation, even if that ordinary is charged, so long as no other voiding or fimbriation is present on the submitted armoury. (CL 20 May 89, p. 3)
[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)
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)
[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 sole charges, we are inclined to cut some slack. [Device registered] (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 5)
The "side" ... is not actually illegal but it is certainly poor style. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 12)
There was almost universal agreement amongst the commenters that [the] lengthy appeal that a side and a dexter tierce should be counted completely differently ignored the visual reality and the current rules of difference in the Society. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 9)
A tierce is a charge, not a field division. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 18)
This charged tierce is very poor style. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 10)
Since ... changes of tincture which are derivative from a change in the tincture of the field are diminished in force, we must conclude that this badge does in fact conflict. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 17)
Please tell the submittor (or her heraldic artist) that peach is not usually considered a valid variant for Or! (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 18)
No evidence has been provided for simple coats with fields quarterly of three tinctures in period. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 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)
Under both the old rules and the new the contrast between the [argent flower] which lies entirely on the erminois portion of the field is not acceptable (note that the section on contrasting tinctures in the new rules allows good contrast between an element equally divided of a color and metal and any other element as long as identifiability is maintained). The back portion of the [monster’s head] and that [flower] just vanish into the field in an unacceptable manner. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 34)
Manuscripts, cloth remnants, descriptions and receipts for dyes make it clear that what we consider purpure was often thought of as azure in period and vice versa. That is leaving aside the fact that colour shifts in dyes often turned purpure to azure or possible to gules, depending on the dye used. That is a very concrete reason why purpure was so seldom used in heraldry. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 15)
See also, Complexity
Note that the five types of charges and four tinctures are marginal under the old rules and clearly violate the Tincture and Charge Limit of the new (VIII.1.a, p. 9). [Device registered under the old rules] (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 4)
The current tradition of generation of alternate titles cannot support the extension of the title of "Don" to be a general title for armigers. (CL 7 May 89, p. 5)
[Barun and Barunin as titles in German for Baron and Baroness, respectively] We see no barrier to usage of these titles and they are hereby sanctioned for use in the Society. (CL 7 May 89, p. 5)
[Imprimatur Pursuivant] Neither the specifically religious overtones of the term nor the hint of censorship seem appropriate for a Society heraldic title. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 11)
Heraldic titles are registered independently of the status of the position (thus it would be theoretically possible to have [Title] Pursuivant, [Title] Herald, [Title] Herald Extraordinary or [Title] Principal Herald). (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 19) (See also: LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 22)
Like the title of pursuivant and the title of herald, the title herald extraordinary is an indicator of rank and is bestowed by the kingdom. From the time the title was created by Master Wilhelm, it has often been used as a "retirement title" for heralds who are still active in Society heraldry at the kingdom or Society level but who no longer hold any administrative position. It is a signal mark of honour and should be bestowed sparingly. If a title is bestowed on someone as Herald Extraordinary, that title is usually retained by the person with Herald Extraordinary rank as long as he or she is active as a herald. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 22)
Any order name or heraldic title which appears on the list of awards and titles or the list of heraldic titles which appears in the 1987 edition of the Armorial and Ordinary published by Free Trumpet Press under the auspices of the Laurel Office shall be considered to be registered for the purposes of section A of the passages on protection in the Administrative Handbook. Any item which does not otherwise appear in Laurel correspondence shall be considered to have an acceptance date of August 1, 1987. (CL, 31 Jul 90, p. 2)
Based both on period practise and modern perception, it is clear that the difference between a single-towered tower and a multi-towered castle should be at most a minor point of difference as we currently count difference. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 20)
The inversion of the tree diminishes its recognizability and therefore its visual force. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 20)
The flora was blazoned as a "scrog" on the letter of intent and this is a term in Scots blazon. However, its obscurity makes it inaccessible for the average heraldic artist and it must be avoided here since a perfectly good "plain language" option [a leafless branch] is available. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 2)
While the inverted tree occasioned much discussion..., in view of the well-known arms of MacGregor, which feature a tree in a distinctly diagonal position, and the natural occurrence of upended trees, this does not seem an unreasonable charge. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 4)
[An oak tree and a fir tree inverted conjoined at the trunk] The conjoining of two different types of tree, taken together with the inversion of the pine tree, [is] too far outside period style. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 20)
[See also, Orle]
The double tressure [flory is] too close to the tressure of Scotland.... (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 9)
[A tressure fleury] The tressure is drawn in a non-standard manner. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 25)
The device was blazoned with a double tressure, but the emblazon showed a bordure gules charged with an orle sable, which would not be licit. (LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 4)
The use of the orle fleury here, particularly given the Or and gules tinctures used, is far too close to the reserved tressure of Scotland. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 13)
[An orle surmounted at its corners by three fleurs-de-lys in pall] The orle is suggestive of the royal tressure of Scotland. [Returned for other conflict] (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 17)
The only charge which appears to have been regularly surmounted by a chief was the bordure (and even then the practice was decidedly variable). Such period examples of orles or tressures in conjunction with a chief that we have been able to locate have the full orle placed below the chief, as in the arms of the Worshipful Company of Musicians. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 13)
Like dice tambourines are allowed quasi-trian aspect. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 11)
[Three triangles in fess, the center one inverted and doubled in size, within a tressure fleury] This is distinctly non-period style.... The central motif, the three triangles, depend for their arrangement on a differentiation in size that is not at all medieval: charges in period generally expanded to fill the available space. The use of triangles as a primary motif is an anomaly, although one [has been] permitted in the past. Taken together with the non-standard arrangement, the modern size differentiation of the primary charges and the unusual rendition of the tressure, it is just too much. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 25)
[Two scalene triangles voided and interlaced in saltire] The primary charge [is] visually not two triangles, but a heavy-duty paperclip.... The scalene triangle is not a "defined shape" and it certainly is not a period heraldic charge. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 18)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane