The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
[A clenched gauntlet aversant] This is probably the least identifiable posture for a hand, glove or gauntlet; it's currently acceptable for SCA use, but only barely. Such charges were normally apaumy in period. (James Falconbridge, July, 1992, pg. 1)
Portcullises in heraldic art are generally identified by their square grillwork and their dangling chains. Omitting one of those aspects might be dismissed as artistic license; omitting both of them renders the portcullises unidentifiable, and so unregisterable. (Bronwen O'Riordan, July, 1992, pg. 18)
Charges must be drawn in their period form (per Rule VII.3), so that they can be identified (per Rule VIII.3). This is especially true when a wrongly drawn charge can be mistaken for some other charge (Federico Arcière dal Fióre, July, 1992, pg. 18)
[A bear's head erased affronty erminois] In general, beasts and beast parts should not be of an ermine fur, unless the silhouette is distinctive (as with a lion rampant). The bear's head cabossed does not meet that criterion, and is unidentifiable when erminois. (Alistair of Avalon, July, 1992, pg. 19)
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)
Purpure and sable are the darkest of heraldic colors, and there's insufficient contrast between them to permit idenitification of the embattled line. Rule VIII.3 requires all elements of the design --- including complex lines of division, if any --- to be identifiable. The Rule goes on to give examples of cases that wouldn't be identifiable: "For instance, a complex line of partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if most of the line is also covered by charges." Those examples are just that: examples, not an exhaustive list. It is quite possible for a complex line of partition to be unidentifiable, even if not covered by charges; that is the case here. [For a full discussion, see LINES OF DIVISION -- General] (Landric Dægmaer, August, 1992, pg. 25)
[Per pale potenty, in pale three roundels counterchanged] The device is at the verge of over-complexity, with charges counterchanged across a complex line of partition. However, a visual check showed that the roundels were simple enough to remain identifiable, even counterchanged. (Duncan MacKinnon of Tobermory, September, 1992, pg. 19)
The ladybug is a charge difficult enough to identify, even when properly drawn; when drawn without legs, and not in its proper tinctures, it becomes that much more unidentifiable We have reblazoned this a scarab, as found in Egyptian art; the submitter may resubmit with a ladybug with legs, if she wishes. (Lavinia of Catmere, September, 1992, pg. 20)
[A pomegranate slipped and leaved, surmounted by a cross] When obscured by the cross, the pomegranate becomes unidentifiable -- the moreso since the seeding, a principal trait of the heraldic pomegranate, is entirely overlaid. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Isabella del Bosque, September, 1992, pg. 39)
A wreathed ordinary must be of two tinctures with good contrast (Eliada of Thun, September, 1992, pg. 43)
[Quarterly urdy azure and vert, a bear between <charges> with about 20 "waves" across each side] The urdy line of division is drawn far too small, which would be reason for return even if the portions of the field had good contrast with one another. When the field is of two colors, the line of division is even more unidentifiable; when the line has a charge overall, more unidentifiable still. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Sigeferd Bjørnen, September, 1992, pg. 44)
[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)
[Per pall inverted arrondi a threaded needle inverted bendwise, the needle extending to cover about half the distance possible] As drawn, the needle is completely unidentifiable. It is far too small for the available space; while this normally requires only an admonition to "Draw the charge larger", the flaw is fatal on this field. (Even a correctly-sized needle would be hard pressed to be identified on a field per pall inverted arrondi; the curved lines of the field and thread, and the thinness of the needle, combine to cause confusion rather than clarity.)
If the needle were drawn larger, this might be acceptable; but the submitter would be better advised to choose another field as well. (Hannah Graham, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Volant affronty] This is an inherently unidentifiable posture, and so unsuitable for heraldry. (Robin Telfer, September, 1992, pg. 48)
[Per bend embattled gules and sable, an Egyptian sphinx rampant to sinister] The sphinx overlies the complex division between low-contrast colors, making it even harder to identify. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Edward of Yarborough, September, 1992, pg. 49)
[Per bend embowed counter-embowed sable and gules, a horse courant contourny] Per Rule VIII.3, a two-color field with a complex line of partition should not have the partition obscured by charges. The horse does obscure the line (unlike the [submitter's] device, which uses a skinny lightning flash), and is therefore not permitted. (Dark Horde, September, 1992, pg. 50)
Sejant tergiant is not an heraldic posture, previous registrations notwithstanding. It renders the <beast> unrecognizable, where the whole purpose of heraldry is identification (Catraoine ni Risteaird, September, 1992, pg. 52)
I hold identifiability to be the criterion for judging a submission, not necessarily the school of its style. So long as the hound is recognizably a hound, it may be drawn with suggestions of "Book of Kells" style; too many such suggestions, however, can make the hound unidentifiable, and be reason for return [device returned for unrelated reason]. (Connor Malcolm O'Maoilbhreanainn, September, 1992, pg. 52)
[Per bend wavy gules and sable, three lozenges in bend sinister within a bordure argent] The nature of the motif mandates a center lozenge small enough to leave the line of division unobscured; therefore, this does not run afoul of Rule VIII.3. (Alisaundre of Greyhame, October, 1992, pg. 12)
Volant affronty is not a recognizable posture. (Eirikr Eyvindarson, October, 1992, pg. 23)
[A whip nowed] The nowing of the whip renders it unidentifiable. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Eriu Morgana Nic Dhubhghlaise Crawford, October, 1992, pg. 29)
[Per fess engrailed with 13 points, each about 1/4 as high as the distance between points] The engrailed line is drawn far too small to be visible at any distance. Complex lines should be drawn in a bold heraldic manner, so they can be recognized, per Rules VII.7.a and VIII.3. This must be returned for redrawing. (Anastasia Germain, October, 1992, pg. 31)
The hounds are drawn with a strong "Book of Kells" stylization, which makes them difficult to identify; and though blazoned on the LOI as azure, they are in fact multi-colored in blue, green, red and yellow, again as in the Kells style. Motifs from period art must be used sparingly at best; if they interfere with identification, they become ipso facto non-heraldic, and reason for return. (Diarmait mac Alasdair Chaomhanaigh, October, 1992, pg. 32)
We can use the equivalence between voiding and adding tertiaries to determine when voiding is acceptable: if the voided charge can be reblazoned as On a [charge], another --- that is, if the inner line and the outer line of the voided charge are geometrically similar --- then it's simple enough to void.
For instance, in the illustrations below, figure A could equally well be blazoned a delf voided or a delf charged with a delf; either blazon is correct for that picture. Figures B and C, on the other hand, are definitely a griffin's head voided and a griffin's head charged with another, respectively; the emblazons are quite dissimilar, and the inner line of figure B is not the shape of a griffin's head. The delf voided, then, is acceptable, but the griffin's head voided is not.
By this guideline, mullets, hearts and triangles are all simple enough to be voided or fimbriated. This is only a rule of thumb, of course, not an ironclad law, but it helps us decide a thorny question, it's consistent with how we (and some period heralds) view voiding, and it eliminates the need to collect reams of case law. I shall be employing it henceforth. (15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pp. 2-3)
I've ...decided not to implement a comprehensive ban on fieldless badges with overall charges. I will be returning cases where the underlying charge is rendered unidentifiable, per Rule VIII.3; this will include the most egregious cases of overall charges (e.g. A pheon surmounted by a hawk's head). But this can be done as an interpretation of the current Rules, and needn't involve a new policy. In cases where identifiability is maintained --- where one of the charges is a long, slender object, and the area of intersection small --- overall charges will still be permitted in fieldless badges. [For complete discussion see under CHARGE -- Overall] (15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pg. 3)
[A sinister gore argent and a bordure ermine] The lack of contrast between the gore and the bordure causes them to blend together, reducing the identifiability of both. It's true, as Lord Crescent notes, that since contrast of each charge is measured against the field, they cannot have good contrast with one another. But, if anything, that argues against any use of a gore with a bordure whatsoever.
This case might have been acceptable had the bordure been, say, Or; there would still have been enough contrast to allow its distinction from the gore. But the contrast between argent and ermine is exactly the same as between argent and argent goutty sable: nonexistent. We cannot concede that the two charges will be distinguished from any distance. This must therefore be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Khasar of the Keshik, November, 1992, pp. 15-16)
[Azure, a cross moline purpure fimbriated, overall a rose argent] Between the fimbriation and the overall charge, the cross ceases to be identifiable. The LOI's citation of a previous registration (Annyse Lionstone, June 91) doesn't support this: Annyse's device used a sable cross fimbriated on a gules field, which has better visibility than azure and purpure; and only one limb of Annyse's cross was overlaid, as opposed to the entire cross here. We have precedents (LoAR of 9 March 86) disallowing fimbriated ordinaries to be debruised by overall charges; that applies as strongly here. This must be returned for lack of identifiability. (Dyryke Raleigh, November, 1992, pg. 19)
[Or, an open book argent bound sable] the book is essentially argent on Or, in violation of the Rule of Contrast. The black binding does not remove the problem, as fimbriation might --- for it doesn't completely surround the charge. (Caelina Lærd Reisende, December, 1992, pg. 15)
[A snake involved and in chief three annulet] The use of almost-but-not-quite identical charges is unacceptable style; it confuses the eye, where the wholepurpose of heraldry is visual recognition. This has been grounds for return ere now (v. the LoAR of 21 May89, pp.18, 25). (Denewulf Ringmaker, December, 1992, pg. 17)
Counterchanging a vair field isn't an acceptable practice: there is no heraldic difference between vair and "vair counterchanged", and the result is as visually indistinct as, say, Per pale checky Or and gules, and checky gules and Or. In each case, except for a discontinuity in the center of the shield, from any distance it looks like a single field. (Richard Foxcroft, December, 1992, pg. 18)
The dormant posture should be used carefully, as it can all too easily render a beast unidentifiable. In this case, the wolf's head, paws and tail are neatly tucked in, making him indistinguishable from a meatloaf. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Vladimir Andreivich Aleksandrov, January, 1993, pg. 24)
The 1984 Rules for Submission did not permit semy charges to be fimbriated, proper, or of divided tinctures (IX.2). While that specific clause is not found in the current Rules, those usages remain poor style, and in extreme cases may be grounds for return under Rule VIII.3. The submitter would be well advised to use single-tinctured rams in her semy, when she resubmits [device returned for using a charged canton]. (Aurora Ashland of Woolhaven, January, 1993, pg. 25)
[Per chevron embattled azure mullety of six points Or, and sable, in base a <charge> argent] The low contrast between azure and sable renders the embattled line indistinguishable from any distance. As with the recent case of Per pale embattled purpure and sable (LoAR of Aug 92, p.25), I must return this for lack of identifiability, per Rule VIII.3. (Elspeth of Oxfordshire, January, 1993, pg. 30)
[Per bend sinister nebuly vert and azure, two <charges> argent] The low contrast between vert and azure renders the nebuly line indistinguishable from any distance. As with the recent case of Per pale embattled purpure and sable (LoAR of Aug 92, p.25), I must return this for lack of identifiability, per Rule VIII.3. (Margaret of Galashiels, January, 1993, pg. 30)
[Two spears in saltire argent hafted proper, surmounted by a serpent in annulo, with a head at either end argent.] The overall charge is acceptable in this design, per the LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93: the charges are slender, and the area of intersection small [badge returned for unidentifiably drawn spears] (Christof Gately, January, 1993, pg. 31)
[Two quill pens in saltire sable surmounted by a butterfly argent] The overall charge renders the pens unidentifiable, in violation of Rule VIII.3. Indeed, this submission is a textbook example of why I suggested a ban on overall charges in fieldless badges, in my cover letter of 3 Aug 92: the pens, far from being identifiable as pens, instead look like extensions of the butterfly's wings. The visual effect would be blazoned A butterfly argent, wings tipped sable; and therefore, this conflicts with [A butterfly argent, wings tipped gules]. (Sidonia of Seven Oaks, January, 1993, pg. 32)
[A sea-serpent "erect"] The sea-serpent is not drawn in a style that would allow it to be reproduced from the blazon: it isn't really erect, but muliply coiled and queue-fourchy. Although we allow a certain amount of artistic leeway, reproducibility from the blazon is a requirement. (Tyne of Lostwithiel, January, 1993, pg. 35)
[A bordure indented, with > 50 indentations] The indentations on the bordure are too small to be identified from a distance. This must be returned for redrawing, per Rule VIII.3. (Gabrielle Antoinette Dubois, March, 1993, pg. 19)
As has been noted in the past, the dormant posture should be used cautiously, as it all too often obscures the beast's head, tail and feet, rendering it unidentifiable. (Anderewe Fouchier of the White Dove, March, 1993, pg. 22)
[Per pale Or and sable, a monster composed of the body of a horse with lion's feet rampant purpure] While newly-invented chimerical monsters are usually permitted, they must be recognizable in all their parts. This monster is unidentifiable, and so unacceptable. Half the monster has extremely poor contrast against the black half of the field. The part with good contrast, against the gold half of the field, has its outline obscured by the non-standard stylization of the mane. That might not have been fatal, had this been a horse or a lion; but when the creature is a composite of the two, identifiability is paramount. This must be returned. (Lachlan O'Sheridan of Falconhold, March, 1993, pg. 26)
[A bend sinister, overall a wolf's head caboshed, grasping in its mouth an arrow] The counterchanging of the complex charges over the ordinary is visually confusing, and disallowed per Rule VIII.3. This interpretation has been in force since April 90; it was most recently reaffirmed in the case of the Shire of Blackmoor Keep, LoAR of Oct 92 [For the full discussion, see under CHARGE -- Overall] (Grethfurth Wulfstan, May, 1993, pg. 15)
[Paly argent and gules, a wooden drakkar's prow proper] The brown drakkar's prow has insufficient contrast on this field. Partially, this is due to the similarity in tinctures: none of the heraldic colors is as close to brown as gules. Partially, it's due to the elongated vertical charge on the vertically striped field. The combination renders the prow unidentifiable. The submitters might consider using a standard heraldic tincture for the prow. (Barony of Storvik, May, 1993, pg. 15)
[A cross wavy, with at least 7 "waves" on each arm] The waves on the cross are drawn far too small to be identifiable at any distance. This must be returned for redrawing, per Rule VIII.3. When she resubmits, please be sure that the wavy lines are parallel ("wavy counter-wavy" rather than "wavy bretessed") (Christobelle Andrea atte Layne, May, 1993, pg. 15)
As drawn, the charge was not identifiable as a cleaver. Various guesses, by commenters and Laurel's staff, included crescent wrench, half-eaten ice cream stick, plastic oil can, and a spout from a gasoline hose. If it can't be identified, it can't be used as an heraldic charge.
Most of the cleavers shown in period documents (including Jost Amman's Ständebuch, cited in the LOI) have a massive, square blade. The sole exception was the submitter's source, Workers in the Mendel Housebook by the Nuremburg Masters, c.1436: it showed a cleaver similar (though not identical) to that in this submission. However, the documented cleaver had a proportionately broader blade, with a smaller notch, than the submitted emblazon; and we note that even a misshapen cleaver is more readily identified when shown in a butcher's hand, in the process of hacking meat.
We suggest the submitter use a more standard form of cleaver when he resubmits. (Erich Küchengehilfe, May, 1993, pg. 16)
The arrow was drawn with small, nigh-invisible point and fletching, which has been reason for return ere now. If he uses an arrow in his resubmission, please instruct the client to draw it with large, visible fletching and point [returned for this and also for over-complexity] (Brychen Silverfist, May, 1993, pg. 17)
[Per chevron Or and azure, a pall inverted between three <charges> counterchanged] The previous submission (Per chevron inverted sable and Or, a pall counterchanged Or and gules between in chief a bezant charged with a cross formy fitchy at the foot, and in base two crosses formy fitchy at the foot gules, each within an annulet sable) was returned Sept 83 for over-complexity and non-period style. Laurel suggested at the time that the submitter "Please use a simple pall gules", implying that the counterchanging of the pall over the field division was part of the non-period style.
This resubmission, though greatly simplified, still has a pall (this time inverted) counterchanged over a Per chevron field division. We have in the past registered solidly-tinctured palls inverted over Per chevron divisions (or the same motif inverted); the pall is then understood to overlie the line of the field. The same understanding cannot apply when the pall is counterchanged: the line of the field could legally be under the center of the pall, under one of its edges, or even extending beyond the pall on the other side.
Moreover, the visual effect is that of a pall inverted (the lower limbs narrower than that in chief) and a point pointed azure, all on an Or field. The visual confusion, combined with the problems of reproducibility, combine to make this motif unacceptable. (Allen of Moffat, June, 1993, pp. 20-21)
[On a chief four arrows fretted "in cross"] The arrows are not in a blazonable heraldic posture. They aren't fretted "in cross", as blazoned on the LOI, but more like "in crosshatch" --- with two arrows fesswise and two bendwise sinister. Moreover, because the arrows are pointing in four different directions, the blazon required to describe it would be so complex as to clearly show the non-period style of the submission. (Llywellyn MacLamont, July, 1993, pg. 12)
Lord Crescent is correct in noting that the same rationale banning unicornate horses should also ban hornless unicorns [horses with lion's tail, cloven hooves and a beard]. In either case, the distinction between genuine horses and honest unicorns is blurred; if we wish to grant period difference between these charges, we must insist on period emblazons. (Parthalán MacPhail, August, 1993, pg. 16)
[Per pale, a pale compony counterchanged] The use of a compony ordinary that shares a tincture with its field has been disallowed since at least the LoAR of July 85; the precedent was confirmed Sept 87, April 89, and Aug 90. This submission is an excellent illustration of the reason for the ban: the visual appearance is not of a pale, but of a group of billets straddling the field division. The lack of identifiability is sufficient reason for return. We suggest making the pale a solid tincture. (Darius of Jaxartes, August, 1993, pg. 20)
One of September's returns sparked commentary on an application of Rule VIII.3. This application is found in precedents set (or confirmed) by Mistress Alisoun: "Two types of sword [a cup-hilted rapier and a broadsword] should not be united in a single visual whole here: it is very poor style and has been grounds for return in the past." [AmCoE, Dec 86] "The difference between the types of bladed weapon [two poignards in saltire surmounted by a rapier] was a distinction rather than a difference and a distinction that would not have been made normally in period heraldry." [AmCoE, April 88] For this reason, the policy is usually called the "sword-dagger ruling" (although I've seen it described as the "shark-dolphin ruling"; de gustibus...). However it's called, the idea is simple:
If two charges are artistically distinct, but heraldically identical, they should not be used in the same armory.
The reason for this is the raison d'être of heraldry: instant identification. When the eye first sees a design such as, say, Sable, two lions and a Bengal tiger Or, it will be fooled for a moment into seeing three lions, or three tigers. There'll be a moment of confusion until the eye sorts out the almost-but-not-quite-identical charges ...and that confusion is exactly what we try to avoid.
The charges, be it noted, need not be in a single group for confusion to arise. Sable, a sword between three daggers argent will suffer the same lack of ready identifiability, despite the sword being primary and the daggers being secondary. Nor need the charges necessarily be "artistic variants" of one another, although that is the most common application of the rule: any too charges that are visually indistinct may run afoul of this policy (for instance, Sable, in pale a horseshoe and a torc Or). In general, if there's a CD of difference between the charges, the "sword-dagger" ruling won't apply; less than that, and one takes one's chances. (30 November, 1993 Cover Letter (September, 1993 LoAR), pg. 5)
[A garden rose slipped and leaved and on a chief three garden rosebuds] There is a longstanding policy that one may not use two close variants of the same charge in one design. It creates visual confusion, where the whole purpose of heraldry is instant identification. The almost-but-not-quite identical charges need not be a single group; this is not related to our ban on "slot-machine heraldry." (We wouldn't allow, for example, a sun between three compass stars either.) If there's not a CD between the two charges, they should not be used together in the same design. (Joanna d'Oléron, September, 1993, pg. 24)
[Per bend sinister nebuly gules and sable, a cross moline and an increscent argent] Note that the complex line of partition on this badge is between black and red, which have perhaps the best contrast of any two colors, and that nothing obscures the line of partition [badge registered]. (Theodric von Rostock, October, 1993, pg. 10)
[Per bend potenty Or and argent, a <charge> sable and a <charge> gules within a bordure potenty sable] The complex line of division is indistinguishable from any distance. As in the case of Landric Dægmaer (LoAR of Aug 92), a complex line of division between two metals or two colors may be returnable for unidentifiability, per Rule VIII.3, regardless of whether the line is obscured by a charge. It only matters that the field portions have so little contrast that the complex line cannot readily be identified from a distance. That appears to be the case here. (Mikhail the Varangian, October, 1993, pg. 14)
We grant no difference between mullets of six points and compass stars, nor between compass stars and suns, so all three are considered as variations on the same charge. Using them all in a single device is not acceptable style. (Isabella Julietta Diego y Vega, October, 1993, pg. 19)
[Sable, six locusts displayed vs. Gules, semy of bees volant] There's a CD for the field, but not for number or type of insects. (Aethelwine Aethelredson, November, 1992, pg. 17)
[A bumblebee proper] The bee in this submission is tinctured sable and Or, with argent wings. Bees are sometimes blazoned proper in mundane armory (Papworth, p.957), so there must be a defined tincture --- but none of my sources say what that might be. The coloration of this submission, however, is the SCA's most common attempt at "proper"; I shall henceforth adopt it as the Society's definition of a bee proper. (Aideen the Audacious, September, 1993, pg. 1)
The ladybug is a charge difficult enough to identify, even when properly drawn; when drawn without legs, and not in its proper tinctures, it becomes that much more unidentifiable We have reblazoned this a scarab, as found in Egyptian art; the submitter may resubmit with a ladybug with legs, if she wishes. (Lavinia of Catmere, September, 1992, pg. 20)
[Sable, six locusts displayed vs. Gules, semy of bees volant] There's a CD for the field, but not for number or type of insects. (Aethelwine Aethelredson, November, 1992, pg. 17)