Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The wave crest has, by consensus of the College, been barred from general use in Society heraldry since 1983. Given the strong feeling on the part of the commentors that this usage is not acceptable style and the lack of indication of period usage in the citation from Woodward..., there seems no reason to change this precedent. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)
Wavy crested is an out-of-period construct. It was first banned as a line of division by Laurel in 1976. This ban was confirmed by a different Laurel in 1983. Neither the College nor Laurel sees any reason to change that restriction. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 13)
The blades of the Catherine wheel are attenuated, but are there: please ... draw the wheel properly, i.e., with prominent blades which look appropriately vicious. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6)
[The submittor] may file a copy of her "heraldic will" with the [Principal Herald’s] Office and the Laurel Office to take effect in the event of her death, but the heir must be specified as a specific individual by name. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, pp. 2-3)
[The issue was raised of] whether the addition of the wings is indeed a minor point of difference or should be counted as a major point of difference. After consideration of the rulings in similar situations, we have concluded that the determination of difference depends not only [on] the proportion of the charge which is modified but also on the "pattern of recognition" involved. In other words, if the modifications create a beast which has a separate identity of its own, either in period or modern heraldry (e.g., a lion as opposed to a sea-lion), it is feasible for the modifications to produce a major point of difference. If the modifications produce a beast which is clearly derivative (e.g., a winged sheep), then the difference created will be minor. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)
There is no difference derived from specifying the wings as those of an angel. [They were so specified to preserve a cant] (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 5)
By the simple expedient of taking several standard depictions of wings in lure and wings in vol and inverting them, we came to the conclusion that the difference between the lure and the vol is essentially an inversion of the other charge. Therefore, it is our feeling that a clear difference exists between a wing and a vol. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 15
The wing was blazoned on the letter of intent and the forms as proper and is in fact brown so it cannot be reblazoned in any heraldic tincture. If there had been any method of determining what sort of wing this was intended to be, we would have pended this for appropriate commentary and conflict-checking. However, the depiction of the wing is such that ... it was exceedingly unclear what type of wing this should be. As the wing is obviously of great importance to the submittor..., we felt this has to be returned for clarification/redesign. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 25)
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 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)
[A wreath of rosemary, lying as on a bordure, proper] This wreath does bear a strong resemblance to one of the common renditions of the "group laurel wreath", having no fruit or flowers to distinguish it. [Returned for conflict] (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 13)
[On a chief, a laurel wreath between two other charges] The laurel wreath here is just too small to fulfill the requirements of AR9a. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 19)
[A wreath of pin oak foliage] Unfortunately, even when properly drawn, the wreath is too evocative of the laurel wreath required for groups. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 23)
The wreath of clover [is] visually too close to a laurel wreath. Note that, while groups are required to have a laurel wreath on their arms, they may not have one on their badges. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 21)
A wreath of pansies has previously been ruled to be too close to the queens’ wreath of roses to be registered to one who is not entitled to a wreath of roses (April, 1985). (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 9)
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)
After much discussion we decided that the orle of rosemary was visually too close to one of the standard depictions of the required Society laurel wreath. Over many years stylistically aware heralds have struggled to bring a more "bushy" laurel wreath into general use, but the usual laurel wreath has small, semi-paired leaves often as small and narrow as those on [this submittor’s] rosemary. Moreover, after some intensive pawing through the emblazons of group armoury on the part of the Laurel staff, we have come to the conclusion that the "closed" wreath, while unusual, is by no means unprecedented in Society usage, particularly in older coats. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 37)
[A chaplet of roses] While [the submitting herald] noted that the blazon had been selected specifically to distinguish it from the wreath of roses reserved to Queens and Ladies of the Rose, this is a distinction rather than a difference. Not only are chaplets regularly listed under "wreath", but several pieces of royal armoury have the wreath blazoned as a chaplet (most notably that of the Queen of the Middle).... As a territorial princess is not eligible to become a member of the Order of the Rose on the basis of her service to her principality, she may not use the wreath of roses (however blazoned) on her official or personal armoury. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 15)
As an ordinary wreathed of one colour (or "cabled", as the original blazon had it) has previously been disallowed (February, 1985), we have substituted an orle invected: any interior diapering would not contribute difference in any case. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6) (See also: LoAR Jul 88, p. 3; LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 24)
The basis for the limitation on wreathing of two tinctures of the same category is the reduction of identifiability that ensues. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17)
[A bordure wreathed of a metal and a color] The situation here is analogous to that which exists for a bordure compony: you may not use as one of the tincture on the bordure the tincture of the field. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 20)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane