[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Augmentation) |Next Page (Badge - General)]
The ermine spot is considered a single charge, and is acceptable for fieldless badges (Eduard Halidai, July, 1992, pg. 3)
The heraldic heart is considered a heart, not a medium for armorial display (in the way an inescutcheon would be). [Thus it can bear a tertiary when it is the sole primary charge in a fieldless badge] (Fridrich Eisenhart, July, 1992, pg. 4)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Augmentation) |Top of Page |Next Page (Badge - General)]
A couple of this month's returns (Rosario di Palermo, Thorvald Redhair) involved counting difference against tinctureless badges: badges with no defined coloration, either of the background or of the charges. Such badges are occasionally found in mundane armory (the Stafford knot being the classic example), and for a short while they were registered in the Society as well. For many years the College assumed that, because tinctureless badges had no defined tinctures, they could be displayed in any tinctures --- including party tinctures. As the 1982 Rules for Submission put it (Rule XII.8): "A fieldless badge without tinctures specified for its charges is even harder to register, as both field and tincture of charges are unavailable for obtaining the necessary points of difference." The "point of difference" for tincture was defined in Rules XIV.1 and 2 as "The tinctures and/or the partitions of the field" [XIV.1] or "charges" [XIV.2].
Even after we stopped registering tinctureless badges, the principle was retained (for fieldless badges) that unspecified coloration was granted no difference against party tinctures: "Since a fieldless badge may legitimately be displayed on a divided field, the field contributes no difference." [BoE, 20 Oct 85, p.22] The current Rules for Submission state (Rule X.4.d) that "Tinctureless armory may not count difference for tincture of charges"; and the same Rule defines "the tincture or division of any group of charges" as the same type of change, with at most 1 CD for all changes (coloration and division) to a single group. Lines of division are considered part of the tincture of a charge, as of a field; so tinctureless badges could not count difference for adding or removing lines of division on a charge.
Master Da'ud altered this policy somewhat, in his LoAR of Feb 92, p.10. SCA tinctureless badges would be treated as before; but mundane tinctureless badges would now be granted difference for lines of division on the charge. "The assumption (until proven otherwise) is that mundane badges were displayed only in solid tinctures (including the furs). It is therefore reasonable that the addition of a line of division should count for difference."
Evidence on the period display of tinctureless badges is hard to come by under the best of circumstances. Most period badges had a defined tincture (the black bull of Clarence, the red rose of Lancaster, the white swan of Bohun); many of the badges blazoned without tinctures in Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges testify to Fox-Davies' lack of knowledge, not the tincturelessness of those badges. Once a truly tinctureless badge is identified, sufficient period examples of its display must then be found to give a good indication of the limits to that display. Even combining the Laurel library with my own personal library, such examples are extremely limited.
I have nonetheless managed to find instances of tinctureless armory displayed in divided tinctures. The badge of the Lords de la Warre is A crampet (that is, the metal ferrule at the end of a scabbard), commemorating the capture of the French king at Poictiers. My edition of Legh's Accedence of Armory, 1576, was originally owned by John, Lord de la Warre; he may have been one of Legh's patrons, for the de la Warre achievement and badges are prominently mentioned in the book. Legh gives the de la Warre badge as A crampet, and his illustration of it is colored Or. The frontispiece of the book, personalized by the original owner, likewise shows the de la Warre achievement and badges --- and the crampet is Party azure and argent. The same badge, tinctureless by definition, was borne either as solid metal or party metal and color.
This usage is corroborated by examples of tinctured badges whose charges were given a line of division when depicted in a tinctureless medium. The seal of William Innes, c.1295, showed his badge of A star azure with a gyronny line of division. The seal of Philip II of France, c.1200, showed his badge of A fleur-de-lys Or with a per-pale line of division. The usage may be seen at the end of period as well, with devices: the argent fess of Austria depicted Per pale, the gules cross of the Archdiocese of Trier depicted Gyronny, and the gules saltire of the Earldom of Lennox also depicted Gyronny. There's even a case (Sir Thomas Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter) where a device that should have been party was depicted in the tinctureless medium without the line of division. Plainly, when rendering a charge in a tinctureless medium, any interior lines of division must have been considered artistic license --- and therefore worth no difference. (An excellent collection of seals may be found in Siegelkunde ("Sigillography"), by Wilhelm Ewald, 1914. Other sources for the above examples are Boutell's English Heraldry, 1902; von Volborth's Art of Heraldry, 1987; Eve's Decorative Heraldry , 1908; and St.John-Hope's Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers, 1929.)
Having different standards of conflict for SCA and mundane badges is awkward, to put it mildly. With evidence in hand that period tinctureless badges were depicted with party charges, I have decided to simplify the Rules and return to our previous policy. Henceforth, all tinctureless badges receive a CD for fieldlessness (tincturelessness), and the second necessary CD must come from some category of difference that doesn't involve tincture. As lines of division and partition are included as part of the tincture of a charge, per Rule X.4.d, they will not count for difference against tinctureless badges.
There've been some complaints about this ruling in the commentary, even before it was made --- and certainly before the complainers had heard the evidence. Apparently, there's a strong perception that the lines of a party charge are "structural", integral to the design; they are shown in an uncolored outline drawing of the badge; they separate tincture within the charge in the same way the charge's edge separates its tincture from the field's. By this interpretation, the charge's division should count for difference, even against a tinctureless badge. There's an equally valid perception, however, that a charge's division is simply part and parcel of its tincture; that between a crescent gules and a crescent per pale Or and argent is one change, not two, and that the division is a direct result of the choice of coloration; and that interior lines can be added at whim, and should not therefore count for difference. The examples cited above, and the Rules, both support the latter perception. Pending further research on this topic, that's the interpretation we'll follow. Against tinctureless armory, we will not count difference for lines of division --- either of the field, or of the charges. (10 November, 1992 Cover Letter (September, 1992 LoAR), pp. 5-6)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Augmentation) |Top of Page |Next Page (Badge - General)]
Placement on the field cannot be counted against a fieldless badge. [See also Gawain Blackthorne, same letter, pg. 53] (Ariel de Courtenay, September, 1992, pg. 42)
One can't grant difference for placement on the field against a fieldless badge. (Gawain Blackthorne, September, 1992, pg. 53)
On a fieldless badge, charges cannot issue from the edge of the field; there is no field. (Yusuf Ja'bar al-Timbuktuwwi, October, 1992, pg. 24)
Rule X.4.a.i is amended to read:
(15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)
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 thistle purpure] was returned Feb 92 for conflict with the badge of Clan Stewart (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges , p.146): A thistle [proper]. At the time, it was assumed that the Stewart badge was tinctureless. However, in blazoning the Scots plant badges, Fox-Davies did not account for their most common use: as sprigs actually worn on the person. This makes the Scots plant badges' coloration proper in correct usage. The original submission was therefore returned in error; [the submittor] might consider resubmitting it. (Fionna Goodburne, December, 1992, pg. 19)
[Two straight trumpets in saltire, surmounted by another palewise, the whole ensigned of a fleur-de-lys Nourrie between two lions combattant] Some commenters suggested that, because the charges were conjoined, they formed a single group. That isn't necessarily the case: A mullet within and conjoined to an annulet has an obvious primary charge surrounded by a secondary charge. As drawn here, the lions and fleur-de-lys appear to be a separate group from the trumpets; thus, this does not appear to be a group of three dissimilar types of charge (soi-disant "slot-machine heraldry"). Whether the badge's visual confusion is now at acceptable levels is a separate issue; absent any supporting arguments, this must still be considered unacceptably complex for a fieldless badge. A more standard arrangement of charges would probably solve this. [Badge returned also for presumption, see PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION] (Norrey Acadamie of Armorie (Taliesynne Nycheymwrh yr Anyghyfannedd), December, 1992, pg. 21)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Augmentation) |Top of Page |Next Page (Badge - General)]
[Two wooden staves in saltire proper surmounted by a palmer's scrip or] This is acceptable under our current standards for overall charges in fieldless badges: the underlying charges are long and skinny, and readily identifiable. (Sean ua Neill the Staffmaker, March, 1993, pg. 17)
If a charge can be considered a medium for heraldic display, it may not bear a tertiary in a fieldless badge: such a design is interpretable as a display of arms, with the tertiary as a primary. For instance, we don't permit (fieldless) On a lozenge argent a fleur-de-lys gules: since the lozenge is a medium for heraldic display, this looks like a display of Argent, a fleur-de-lys gules. Such arms-badge confusion is reason enough for return, even if the display in question doesn't conflict. In this case, the triangle inverted must be considered such a medium, comparable to the escutcheon, lozenge, or roundel. It may be considered either an early-style shield (Neubecker's Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meanings, p.76), or a lance-pennon [returned for this reason and also because the armory obtained by considering the badge displayed on a triangular shield was in conflict]. (Barony of Dragonsspine, March, 1993, pg. 25)
The College does not register crests (LoAR of 20 Sept 81), partially to avoid having to decide who may or may not be entitled to them, and partially to save ourselves work. This submission is a crest by virtue of its being set atop a torse. (A joscelyn is simply a torse with bells added. On a "joscelyn fesswise", those bells are invisible, and count for nothing.) (Faustina von Schwarzwald, March, 1993, pg. 26)
[A feather palewise surmounted by a gryphon's head] Fieldless badges may no longer use overall charges, except in cases where the overlap area is small; this is usually restricted to long, skinny charges such as a sword (LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93). As drawn [the feather is a wide as the gryphon's head minus the beak and ears], the feather in this badge doesn't meet that standard. (Order of the Golden Feather (Principality of Artemisia), May, 1993, pg. 14)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Augmentation) |Top of Page |Next Page (Badge - General)]
[(Fieldless) A cubit arm proper issuant from the mouth of a fish's head couped close vert, maintaining a crescent gules] This was an appeal of a return on the LoAR of Sept 92. At the time, I'd judged the three charges to be of roughly equal visual weight, and considered this a single group of three dissimilar charges (so-called "slot- machine heraldry"). Such practice is in general disallowed, per Rule VIII.1.a. The appeal provided extensive documentation, intended to support the submitted design in specific and the use of three dissimilar charges in general.
Much of the documentation did not support the concept of three dissimilar charges in a single group: while the examples did show three types of charge, they generally weren't in the same group. (E.g. the badge of Nordham, c.1525: Within a fetterlock argent garnished Or, an escutcheon azure charged with a lion's head erased argent. By our definitions, the lion's head is not of the same group as the fetterlock or escutcheon --- and it's arguable whether they're in the same group.) Others of the examples, such as the rose-thistle-trefoil badge of the United Kingdom, were post-period
At least one of the examples cited, however, exactly matched the form of this submission: the badge of the Lord Chamberlain, c.1525, A cubit arm habited bendy sinister wavy of five pieces argent and azure and issuant out of a rose gules, the hand proper grasping an arrow. Additionally, it has been noted that Rule VIII.1.a describes the ban on "slot-machine heraldry" as a guideline, not an ironclad law. Finally, re-examination of the emblazon shows the crescent to be neither unarguably one of the primary charge group nor unarguably a negligible "held" charge; one could make a case for either ruling. Added to the mort of documentation, I have no qualms in now registering the badge (Simona Zon d'Asolo, August, 1993, pg. 12)
Fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as escutcheons, lozenges and delfs, are not acceptable since in use the "shield" shape does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field itself. This presents an entirely different armory for view. (Stephen Wolfe, September, 1993, pg. 25)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Augmentation) |Top of Page |Next Page (Badge - General)]