[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Arm, Hand and Gauntlet) |Next Page (Augmentation)]
A few of July's returns were for incorrect emblazonry: a charge was drawn in a non-period style, or couldn't be identified from the emblazon. The College can't be too fussy about emblazonry: most of our clients aren't skilled heraldic artists. But it remains true that charges must be drawn in a period, recognizable style.
At what point, then, will a problem emblazon be returned? When do we no longer feel comfortable with a simple instruction to "Draw the X wider (or bolder, or whatever)"? Several factors contribute to the decision, but the main factor is the recognizability of the submitted emblazon. If, say, a bordure is drawn too narrow, but still recognizably a bordure, I'll blame the problem on the submitter's lack of expertise --- and tell the submitter, through her Kingdom heralds, to "draw the charge correctly". But if the charge is so badly drawn as to be unrecognizable --- worse, as to be confused with some other charge --- then the submission must be returned. The policy already exists for some cases --- e.g. a pile vs. chaussé --- and I have extended it to arrows vs. any long skinny charge in this LoAR.
Modern-style drawings have the same problem of identifiability, with the additional problem of being screamingly non-medieval. This is why we insist that a unicorn be drawn as a medieval unicorn, and why the unicornate horse is banned: not only is the latter too easily confused with the horse, it's a 20th-Century rendition. If we wish to grant the period difference between unicorn and horse, we must insist on the period rendition --- which means returning unicornate horses.
Even when the modern-style drawing is identifiable, its intrusive modernity can be reason enough for return. Trian aspect, "pinking shear" lines of division, lightning flashes (shazams) --- all are non-medieval drawing styles, and all have been grounds for return in the past. Given my druthers, I'd prefer to encourage correct emblazon style through education, not regulation --- but pragmatically, I know that regulation drives the lesson home. (It took years of returning trian-aspect emblazons before our clients stopped submitting them.)
Our touchstone is this: If it can be mistaken for some other charge, it's drawn incorrectly. If it's a flagrantly modern depiction, it's drawn incorrectly. Either of these risks a return. [For examples see others in this section plus Thomas Britton, July, 1992, pg. 18, Aaron de Hameldene, July, 1992, pg. 20, Eirik Ising Stengrim, September, 1992, pg. 38, Jacobo Parige, September, 1992, pg. 43, Urluin le Garlykemongere, October, 1992, pg. 28, and John Wolfstan, January, 1993, pg. 24] (3 August, 1992 Cover Letter (July, 1992 LoAR), pg. 4)
Eagles have ruffled feathers, and a crest atop the head; falcons are sleekly feathered. [device reblazoned] (Dun Fugol, July, 1992, pg. 10)
Cotises should not be as wide as the ordinary they surround; their visual weight, as secondaries, should be much less than the primary's. (Gareth of Wyke, July, 1992, pg. 12)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Arm, Hand and Gauntlet) |Top of Page |Next Page (Augmentation)]
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)
Nowing of the tongue ...must be considered artistic license, as is the exact style of nowing. (Morgan Etienne ap Gwalchmai Gwynedd, August, 1992, pg. 6)
To several commenters the [water-bougets] seemed closer to torii or the Chinese character ch'ien. They are also within the variation seen for period water-bougets, though [overruled August, 1993, pg. 21] (Mochi of the Iron Horde, September, 1992, pg. 20)
[A fess wavy with wave drawn with amplitude �1/4 wavelength] The wavy line was drawn too small to be considered a period rendition. Medieval wavy lines were drawn big, bold (so much that they were sometimes misblazoned nebuly by Victorian armorists). This must be returned for redrawing. (Dervilia O'Shannon, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[Quarterly urdy azure and vert, a bear between <charges> with � 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)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Arm, Hand and Gauntlet) |Top of Page |Next Page (Augmentation)]
[A pile, with �14 indentations on each side] The indentations on the pile are too small to be considered good medieval style. For an example of a medieval pile indented, see the arms of Sire John de Forneus, 1322 (Foster, p.91). (Cailean McArdle, September, 1992, pg. 44)
[Argent, two herons statant counter-statant in saltire, and a bordure flory azure] This is not really drawn in a period style. The ripples around the (couped) legs of the herons, and the Art Deco bordure that doesn't follow the line of the shield, combine to warrant a return for redrawing. (Ander Vargskinn, September, 1992, pg. 47)
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)
[Counter-ermine] There was some debate as to whether the field should be blazoned Sable goutty d'eau inverted. However, examples have been produced showing this to be a valid depiction of ermine spots. It would probably be better, however, if the submitter could be introduced to more standard ermine stylizations. (Adnar Dionadair, October, 1992, pg. 11)
Aspen leaves should be drawn with jagged edges ...not smooth edges. (Barony of Caerthe, October, 1992, pg. 16)
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 might excuse emblazonry problems with a note to the artist; but when all the charges of a submission must be redrawn, we have no compunction about returning it. (Osric Logan, November, 1992, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Arm, Hand and Gauntlet) |Top of Page |Next Page (Augmentation)]
The charge in chief was blazoned on the LOI as an eagle, but even allowing for beginner's artistry, we cannot call that bird an eagle: it has no crest, no hooked beak, and no ornate feathers. We have simply blazoned it as a generic bird; if the submitter wishes an eagle, he'll have to provide us with a correct emblazon. (Hereward Bannerban, December, 1992, pg. 4)
[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)
Please advise the submitter to draw the gem without its "glint" of light. The "glint" is an artistic conceit that's only found in the Pictorial Dictionary (and which I intend to remove from the next edition; too many submitters seem to think that glint is mandatory). (Ælfwynn Elswith, March, 1993, pg. 7)
The Stafford knots were blazoned as inverted on the LOI. Having seen mundane examples of Stafford knots in both orientations --- and since we grant no difference for the orientation of most knots --- we've left the exact posture of the knots to the artist's license. (Ingrid the Crafty, May, 1993, pg. 10)
In period, the normal depiction of a [charge] enflamed showed the charge on the field, with tiny spurts of flame issuant (and also on the field) [for full discussion, see under FLAME] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 5)
The cartouche was drawn in this submission with pointed ends, not the rounded ends normal for the charge. We've registered this variant form in the past, usually blazoned a cartouche with pointed ends; the technical term for the shape is mandorla, or amygdaline aureole. (Metford's Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend) (Order of the Stella Rubra (Kingdom of Meridies), July, 1993, pg. 14)
In heraldic art, the dove is drawn with a small tuft on its head, to promote identification. (Lisette de Ville, August, 1993, pg. 10)
The charges on the bordure are not drawn as recognizable water-bougets. Some commenters felt they resembled torii, other described them as Chinese ideograms; but in fact they are none of the above. However, the lady submitted the charges in good faith, copying the depictions of water-bougets used in the armory of Mochi of the Iron Horde (registered Sept 92). At that time, I stated that the charges were within the acceptable variation of water-bougets found in period armorial art. Upon reviewing my sources, however, I now believe that statement to have been in error. The period water-bougets closest to this form are in the arms of Rose or Ross c.1265 (Anglo-Norman Armory I, p.68); but while the torii-like tops are the same, the bottom limbs of Rose's bougets spread out in the familiar "bag" shape which is characteristic of the charge. Without those bags, this rendition of a bouget simply doesn't hold water [as it were]. [Device pended for redrawing] (Kökejin of the Iron Horde, August, 1993, pg. 21)
Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to occupy no more than the lower portion of the field. (Barony of Blackstone Mountain, September, 1993, pg. 10)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Arm, Hand and Gauntlet) |Top of Page |Next Page (Augmentation)]