[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Chief) |Next Page (Compass Star)]
I consider the choban [Japanese gong] to be distinct from an escallop, certainly enough to be worth a CD of difference. (Roberto de Jerez, November, 1992, pg. 9)
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)
|Previous Page (Chief) |Top of Page |Next Page (Compass Star)]
We would grant a CD between a fool's cap and most other types of hat (Catherine the Merry, May, 1993, pg. 11)
The consensus of the College was that a coiled match is visually too similar to an annulet to grant a CD between the two. (Kazimir Petrovich Pomeshanov, September, 1992, pg. 40)
In period, coins could be depicted in one of several ways. Plain bezants originally represented Byzantine gold pieces; bezants charged with crosses couped were a more exact representation, used in the arms of the Latin Kingdom of Constantinople c.1275. (Brault's Early Blazon, p.160) Finally, there's an example in late-period English armory of penny-yard pence proper (in the canting arms of Spence); these had cruciform designs stamped on them, without being explicitly blazoned. The pattern on the pence is considered detailing, of no more heraldic import than diapering. (Ian Cnulle, August, 1992, pg. 22)
We can see granting a CD between a comet and a mullet. This therefore does not suffer from the stylistic problem of using the same charge in both the semy and the primary groups. (Barony of Three Mountains, January, 1993, pg. 3)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Chief) |Top of Page |Next Page (Compass Star)]
[A comet bendwise sinister, head to chief] This had been returned on the LoAR of May 92 for conflict with the arms of [an eight-pointed estoile]. The submitter has appealed this decision, arguing that (a) estoiles and comets are separate charges, so Rule X.2 should apply here; and that (b) even if X.2 doesn't apply, there should be a CD for type of charge and a CD for placement on the field. (Honsard's estoile is centered on the shield, while the submitter's comet has its head in sinister chief.)
On the first point, I find no evidence that an estoile and a comet are so distinct charges as to permit Rule X.2, the Sufficient Difference Rule, to apply between them. All my sources define the comet as a modified estoile: an estoile with a flaming tail appended. ( Parker 130; Woodward 310; Franklyn & Tanner 82) Indeed, Lord Crescent notes examples from Papworth suggesting that the change from estoile to comet is a single cadency step: e.g. Waldock (Or, an estoile flaming [i.e. a comet] sable) and Waldeck (Or, an eight-pointed estoile sable). I am willing to grant a CD between the two charges, but I cannot see granting Sufficient Difference between them.
On the second point, the submitter overlooks the fact that, if we elongate the charge, parts of it must be displaced; that's included in the definition of elongation. One cannot count one CD for the first change, and another CD for the second: the second follows automatically from the first. It's analogous to the change between, say, a compass star and a compass star elongated to base, or a Greek cross and a Latin cross. So long as both charges are drawn to fill the available space, the change in type (from symmetrical to elongated) cannot also be counted as a change in placement. (Styvyn Longshanks, January, 1993, pg. 34)
There's [not a CD] for comet vs. mullet elongated to base. [charge actually attempted was a compass star elongated to base] (Ysmay de Chaldon, September, 1993, pg. 20)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Chief) |Top of Page |Next Page (Compass Star)]