The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
Drawer-handles are found in Japanese Design Motifs (compiled by the Matsuya Piece-Goods Store) and Dower's Elements of Japanese Design; but neither of these works describe actual Mon, but simply designs suitable for Mon. Dower's book, however, notes the origin of the charge: kan (handles) seem to be an artistic variant of the mokko, a slice of segmented melon. Hawley's Mon, p.18, gives several examples of actual use under that blazon. We don't object, in this case, to using a modern term for a period charge, and it does make the blazon more readily renderable. (Kimura Tetsuo, March, 1993, pg. 1)
[Boar's heads colored brown] Unfortunately, [this tincture is] unblazonable: they aren't proper, for boars in nature are dark-grey to black in color. Nor does there seem to be such a thing as a brown boar that could be rendered in this coloring. With no way to blazon the tincture of the heads, this must be returned. (Nils Rixon, October, 1992, pg. 27)
[A ram's head cabossed vs. an ox head cabossed] There's ...a CD for the type of head. (Indeed, we'd say that Rule X.2 applies between an ox head and a ram's head. This is well clear.) (Riordan Robert MacGregor., December, 1992, pg. 5)
[A tyger's head erased] Possible conflict was cited against [A wolf's head erased within a bordure rayonny]. There's a CD for the bordure; the question was raised on any difference between a wolf's head and a tyger's head. Rule X.4.e specifically grants a difference between a lion and a [heraldic] tyger; but even assuming the same between a wolf and a tyger, that doesn't necessarily require difference between their heads. (By analogy, we grant difference between a dragon and an eagle -- but none between a dragon's foot and an eagle's foot.) The heraldic tyger is described as "having ...the maned neck of a horse, and the head of a wolf, but the upper jaw develops into a frontal horn" ( Franklyn & Tanner 334); there's no way that the heads could be deemed Substantially Different, but I can see granting a CD for the frontal horn and the mane. (Laeghaire O Laverty, August, 1993, pg. 5)
There's a CD (at least) between a horse's head and a unicorn's head. (Richard Cheval, October, 1992, pg. 7)
[A compass star and overall a lion's head cabossed] As drawn, the compass star is almost completely obscured by the lion's head, rendering it unidentifiable. Charges must be drawn so as to be recognizable, per Rule VIII.3. Visually, the star's rays blend with the lion's mane, making it almost a sun in splendour Or; as such, it's very close to [a charged sun].
Some of the commentary mentioned possible conflict between this "irradiated lion's face" and a lion's face jessant-de-lys --- e.g. [a leopard's head jessant a fleur-de-lys]. I believe there's a visible difference between the straight rays shown here and a fleur-de-lys' curved petals. (Tirlach Kinsella, September, 1992, pg. 44)
A leopard's head, by definition, is cabossed [blazon from Papworth] (Talan of Hastings, September, 1992, pg. 50)
[A lion's head azure jessant-de-lys vert vs. leopard's head jessant-de-lys gules] After much thought, we decided that the leopard's head jessant-de-lys was common enough in period armory to be considered a single charge, in the same way a penner and inkhorn would be. It could equally well be considered a single group of conjoined charges. Either way, there's a single CD, for the tincture of the primary charge group. (Ginevra Cecilia da Firenze, October, 1992, pg. 25)
[A ram's head cabossed vs. an ox head cabbosed] There's ...a CD for the type of head. (Indeed, we'd say that Rule X.2 applies between an ox head and a ram's head. This is well clear.) (Riordan Robert MacGregor., December, 1992, pg. 5)
[A compass star and overall a lion's head cabossed] As drawn, the compass star is almost completely obscured by the lion's head, rendering it unidentifiable. Charges must be drawn so as to be recognizable, per Rule VIII.3. Visually, the star's rays blend with the lion's mane, making it almost a sun in splendour Or; as such, it's very close to [a charged sun].
Some of the commentary mentioned possible conflict between this "irradiated lion's face" and a lion's face jessant-de-lys --- e.g. [a leopard's head jessant a fleur-de-lys]. I believe there's a visible difference between the straight rays shown here and a fleur-de-lys' curved petals. (Tirlach Kinsella, September, 1992, pg. 44)
[A lion's head azure jessant-de-lys vert vs. leopard's head jessant-de-lys gules] After much thought, we decided that the leopard's head jessant-de-lys was common enough in period armory to be considered a single charge, in the same way a penner and inkhorn would be. It could equally well be considered a single group of conjoined charges. Either way, there's a single CD, for the tincture of the primary charge group. (Ginevra Cecilia da Firenze, October, 1992, pg. 25)
[Or, a leopard's head gules jessant-de-lys between three fleurs-de-lys sable] Possible conflict was cited against [Or, a leopard's head jessant a fleur-de-lys gules]. There's a CD for the secondary charges; the issue turned on the difference to be granted for partial change of tincture of the primary charge group. We've opined previously (LoAR of Oct 92) that a head jessant-de-lys was effectively a single charge, in the same way a penner-and-inkhorn is a single charge; we also left open the possibility that it might be a group of two conjoined charges. Under either interpretation, we see granting a CD for change of half of the primary charge group.
This is corroborated by the arms of Braunch, c.1586, one branch of which (Papworth 911) bore Gules, a leopard's head jessant-de-lys Or and another of which bore Gules, a leopard's head Or jessant-de-lys argent. It's reasonable that the change in tincture of the fleur-de-lys should count for difference: the origin of the leopard's head jessant-de-lys was as a cadence from the fleur-de-lys, in the arms of Cauntelo/Cantelupe (Wagner & London, p.120). (Maelsnechtain de Gaston, June, 1993, pp. 15-16)
[A skull argent, vested of a jester's cap Or] This is returned for visual conflict with [a leopard's head argent jessant-de-lys Or]. The jester's cap is split in three points, looking much like a fleur-de-lys. It's also visually close to [a woman's head couped proper crined Or]. (Gareth Shieldbane, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Three bear's heads erased] Rule X.2 applies between most types of beast head, just as it does between most types of beast. This is clear of such armories as [three buck's heads erased]. (Damon the Grim, October, 1992, pg. 1)
When considering a full beast or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge. (Crown Principality of Avacal, September, 1993, pg. 5)
[A dragon's head vs. a water lizard's head] This is clear ...with a CD ...for type of head. (Aethelthryth of Acleah, September, 1992, pg. 22)
[A tyger's head erased] Possible conflict was cited against [A wolf's head erased within a bordure rayonny]. There's a CD for the bordure; the question was raised on any difference between a wolf's head and a tyger's head. Rule X.4.e specifically grants a difference between a lion and a [heraldic] tyger; but even assuming the same between a wolf and a tyger, that doesn't necessarily require difference between their heads. (By analogy, we grant difference between a dragon and an eagle -- but none between a dragon's foot and an eagle's foot.) The heraldic tyger is described as "having ...the maned neck of a horse, and the head of a wolf, but the upper jaw develops into a frontal horn" ( Franklyn & Tanner 334); there's no way that the heads could be deemed Substantially Different, but I can see granting a CD for the frontal horn and the mane. (Laeghaire O Laverty, August, 1993, pg. 5)
There's a CD (at least) between a horse's head and a unicorn's head. (Richard Cheval, October, 1992, pg. 7)
[A dragon's head vs. a water lizard's head] This is clear ...with a CD ...for type of head. (Aethelthryth of Acleah, September, 1992, pg. 22)
The heraldic heart is considered a heart, not a medium for armorial display (in the way an inescutcheon would be). (Fridrich Eisenhart, July, 1992, pg. 4)
[Four hearts voided conjoined in cross, points outward] Per the new outlines of acceptability for voiding (LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93), these hearts may be considered equivalent to four hearts conjoined in cross ..., each charged with a heart .. .--- and therefore registerable. (Ali abd ar-Rashid, January, 1993, pg. 1)
[A seeblatt] Lord Leveret (now Lord Brachet) has brought up a possible conflict with the badge of Douglas, Earls of Douglas (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges): [A heart]. His staff has found evidence that the blazon seeblatt could be emblazoned either in its standard form, or in a form indistinguishable from a heart (in the arms of the Duchy of Engern, 16th Century). I've found corroboration in Neubecker & Rentzmann's 10000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, pp.147, 285: the arms of the Bishopric of Vyborg, in Finland, were blazoned (and emblazoned) either as three hearts conjoined in pall inverted or three seeblätter conjoined in pall inverted.
There are still enough distinct renditions of seeblätter and hearts in period (e.g. the Armorial de Gelre, or Siebmacher) that I hesitate to rule them purely artistic variants. However, there can clearly be cases of visual conflict involving the charges, and the [submitter's badge] is such a visual conflict [returned for this and also for conflict with a water-lily leaf]. (House Windsmeet (Caitlin Davies), May, 1993, pg. 17)
[Or semy of whips sable, a feather bendwise and on a chief gules, a pair of manacles Or] The majority of the commenters found the design offensive, with its overwhelming connotations of bondage and degradation (B&D). While each of the charges may, by itself, be acceptable -- scourges, for instance, were used as martyrs' symbols in period -- the overall effect is excessive. This must be returned, per Rule I.2.
Additionally, many found the semy of whips unidentifiable. Period armory used scourges, with several lashes, to increase recognition; as drawn here, the charges look more like the ends of shepherd's crooks. (Hans the Gentle, July, 1993, pg. 11)
Current precedent does not permit the heart to be considered a "simple geometric charge" for the purposes of Rule X.4.j.ii; therefore, only changing the type of the tertiary is not worth a CD. (Margaret Menteith, September, 1993, pg. 21)
[a "Mongol helm"] We were given no evidence to support this form of helm as a "Mongol helm", or indeed as any nationality of helm. Such examples of Mongol helms as we could uncover did not show the submitted helm's fur trim or the hanging drapery; our best contemporary example (from an illustrated history of the Mongols by Rashid ad-Din, c.1300) showed a plain pointed cap with "ear muffs" on either side. Since this submission would be the SCA's defining instance of a Mongol helm, it's important that it be documented in this form. (Raven Helmsplitter, December, 1992, pg. 15)
Arrows fesswise have their points to sinister by default, just as arrows palewise have their points to base. (Alain ap Dafydd, July, 1992, pg. 2)
Hares, rabbits and coneys are sejant by default ( Parker 306). (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, July, 1992, pg. 22)
In heraldry, a foot is a human foot by default. (Eoin Eardstapa, August, 1992, pg. 11)
An heraldic dolphin proper is vert with gules details. (Aodhan Doilfin, September, 1992, pg. 18)
[Sea-urchins] (= "fish-tailed demi-hedgehog") has been registered before, in the armory of Rufus the Short of Burgundy. In Society armory, "the sea-urchin should be assumed to be a heraldic sea-urchin unless otherwise specified." [AmCoE, 25 Jan 87] (Order of the Sea Urchin (Kingdom of Atlantia), September, 1992, pg. 18)
Elevated and addorsed is the default wing posture for winged monsters statant, passant or couchant. (Stanislav von Neuland, September, 1992, pg. 21)
Cotises follow the line of their central ordinary by default; thus a bend wavy cotised will have wavy cotises, parallel to the wavy bend (Custódia de Montemor, September, 1992, pg. 30)
Gyronny of ten is symmetric around the horizontal line, not the vertical line. (Iestyn ap Cadfael ap Ianto ap Danno ap Richard ap Owen ap Rhys o'r Cwm, September, 1992, pg. 33)
The lion of St. Mark is characterized by a halo, as well as wings; it is usually, but not invariably, also shown with a book. (Vinycombe, Fictitious and Symbolic Creatures in Art, with special reference to their use in British heraldry, 1906, pp.53-55.) (Anastasia dello Scudo Rosso, September, 1992, pg. 44)
A leopard's head, by definition, is cabossed [blazon from Papworth] (Talan of Hastings, September, 1992, pg. 50)
Unicorns are rampant by default. [see also Theodora Delamore, September, 1993, pg. 21] (Davyd Wyndwarde, October, 1992, pg. 9)
Eagle's legs, unlike lions' legs, have their claws to base by default. (Shire of Blackhawk, January, 1993, pg. 30)
The heraldic swan is rousant by default. (Estrella de La Trinite, March, 1993, pg. 11)
Scythes have their blades to chief by default, judging by the emblazon of Sneyd (Foster 179). (Li Kung Lo, May, 1993, pg. 9)
The blanking shears, like scissors, have their handles to base by default (Ian Cnulle, June, 1993, pg. 1)
Wyverns are statant (or sejant; for wyverns, the postures are the same) by default. See the examples in Parker , pp.122-123, and Franklyn & Tanner 354. (Gylis Kingston, August, 1993, pg. 5)
While the English default for panthers is guardant, the German default is not. As it's easier to specify guardant than not-guardant (facing forwards, whatever), the SCA has not adopted the English default. (Russell Jervis, September, 1993, pg. 4)
The default wing posture for courant, passant or statant winged beasts is elevated and addorsed. This, therefore, is superfluous in the blazon and can be omitted. (Kathleen O'Connor, September, 1993, pg. 24)
The illustration in the glossary section of Rietstap shows that he considered the harpy/frauenadler to be displayed by default. (Barony of Red Spears, September, 1993, pg. 25)
Note that in heraldry, the owl is guardant by default, even when the rest of the posture is blazoned. (Deborah of Gryphon's Lair, October, 1993, pg. 2)
Recall that falcons default to the close position, both mundanely and in the SCA. (Jamie Amalthea Rowan, October, 1993, pg. 4)
The jew's harp has its opening to chief by SCA default. (Rabah az-Zafir, October, 1993, pg. 4)
Crayfish, like lobsters and scorpions, are tergiant by default (Eckhardt zu Westfilde, October, 1993, pg. 6)
Adding horns to inanimate objects doesn't appear to have been a period treatment; certainly, we would like to see some evidence of what is, at first glance, a highly improbable usage ...the reason for its improbability --- the fact that the elk-horned mask cannot be identified as such --- is ...grounds for return. (Erc Mortagh the Pict, August, 1992, pg. 24)
[A heart attired of stag's attires reblazoned to a stag's massacre surmounted by a heart] As noted in the case of Erc Mortagh the Pict (LoAR of August 92), adding horns to inanimate charges doesn't appear to have been a period usage; certainly, I'd like to see some evidence for the practice. In this case, the visual effect is of a set of antlers and a heart overall, and that's how we've blazoned it. (Gabriel Gertrude Gyles, September, 1992, pg. 7)
Grafting unicorn's horns onto random animals is not period practice. It has been decried by previous Laurels (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.15), and always discouraged; I am taking the final step and, except for Grandfathered cases, disallowing it entirely. (Sorcha ni Mhurchadha, October, 1992, pg. 22)
The stag's horn or stag's attire --- singular, as opposed to the full rack of antlers -- is a period charge; the arms of the Duchy of Wuerttemberg are the most famous example of its use. (Alberto Accorsi, July, 1993, pg. 7)
The demon is a period heraldic charge, as found in the arms of the city of Brussels (Gules, the archangel Michael Or vanquishing a demon underfoot sable). (Asher Truefriend, September, 1992, pg. 30)
[Nude angels , originially blazoned as cupids] The charges are angels, not cupids, as they aren't carrying a cupid's traditional bow and quiver of arrows. (Meghan Pengwyn of Wynterwood, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Two angels bendwise sinister, passant to sinister guardant, originially blazoned as rising] The angels' posture is not particularly heraldic, as evidenced by the number of suggestions for reblazoning them; neither volant nor rising is appropriate to humanoids. The above blazon was the closest we could devise, and it isn't all that accurate. The angels need to be in a blazonable posture. (Meghan Pengwyn of Wynterwood, September, 1992, pg. 46)
Technically, a melusine proper is considered neutral, and acceptable on argent; in practice, its contrast with an argent field is borderline [device returned for other contrast problems and for conflict]. (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
There's no difference granted for melusine [two-tailed mermaid] vs. mermaid. (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
When a human figure's vesting is not part of its definition (e.g. the savage, the Saracen), the vesting or lack of same is normally blazoned. (Austrechild von Mondsee, December, 1992, pg. 11)
According to Franklyn & Tanner, a maiden in her modesty is nude, with one arm flexed across and covering the breasts. (Taliesin O Sionnaigh o Pholl na tSionnaigh, June, 1993, pg. 2)
[On a <charge> argent, three infants swaddled azure, heads proper] The infants' bodies are swaddled in blue, with only their heads showing. The charge is often found in medieval armory; and the contrast in this case is acceptable. (Michaela Nuernberger, June, 1993, pg. 4)