[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
By SCA precedent, there's no difference between rampant and sejant erect. The only real change is the placement of a hind leg. (Killian Nc Iain VcFarland, June, 1992, pg. 4)
A longship is so nearly symmetric, reversing it cannot count as a ...CD. (Erik the Runt, June, 1992, pg. 4)
[A sea-griffin vs. a sea-griffin queue forchy] There's [not a CD] for the ...number of tails. (Laura de Botelsford, June, 1992, pg. 4)
Prior rulings notwithstanding, there is no difference between naiant and naiant "embowed": the naiant posture often includes a slight embowment. (Aldwin Wolfling, July, 1992, pg. 21)
[Per bend sinister, an willow tree and an llama's head vs. Per bend sinister, an ash tree and a spearhead] In each device, the two charges form a single group of primaries. Changes are counted against the entire group: One cannot count a CD for a change to half a group, and another CD for the same category of change to the other half of the same group. Because both devices contain a tree, Rule X.2 does not apply; there is a single CD, for changing the types of charges of a single group. (Edward of Willowwood, July, 1992, pg. 22)
Neither [Argent, a chief indented purpure] nor [Argent, a sinister canton purpure] armory contains a primary charge, so Rule X.2 does not apply ...I'm unhappy with the latter conflict, but I see no way around it as the Rules currently stand. Rule X.2, subtitled "Difference of Primary Charges", specifically applies only when "the type of primary charge is substantially changed." Neither the chief, nor the canton, nor any peripheral ordinary, can be a primary charge; otherwise, by Rule X.1 Lozengy bendwise azure and argent, a canton gules would be clear of Bavaria, and Gyronny sable and Or, a bordure gules would be clear of Campbell. That would be unacceptable; therefore a peripheral ordinary can't be the primary charge, even when it's the only charge in the design (Tristram du Bois, July, 1992, pp. 23-24)
[Quarterly Or and sable, a lion counterchanged vs. Quarterly Or and sable, in the first quarter a lion] There's a CD for the placement of the lion, from center to dexter chief; but the change of tincture is required by the change of placement, and so cannot be counted as the second necessary CD. (A lion quarterly Or and sable could not be entirely on the sable portion of the field; if the lion is moved there, its tincture must change.)
Or, alternatively, there's a CD for the tincture of the lion, from quarterly Or and sable to Or; but as a solid Or lion could not be centered on the field, the change of placement is required by the change of tincture. Either the tincture or the placement may be counted as a difference; but not both, since to change one requires us to change the other.
I confess not being satisfied with this return, but could find no way around it as the Rules now stand. (Moreach nic Mhaolain, August, 1992, pp. 22-23)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
[A bear sejant erect vs. a bear rampant or a bear erect] In each case, there's [not a CD] for the posture of the bear. (Henry of Three Needles, August, 1992, pg. 24)
[An owl affronty guardant vs. an owl statant guardant] The "blobbiness" of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty. [See also Gundric Fawkes, October 1992 LoAR, pg. 29] (Stanwulf the Stern, August, 1992, pg. 26)
[Gyronny azure and argent, an orle vs. Gyronny azure and argent] The orle, as a peripheral ordinary, is by definition not a primary charge; Rule X.1 cannot be invoked here. (Galen MacDonald, August, 1992, pg. 29)
[A wall vs. a fess embattled] A wall is defined to be a fess embattled and masoned; and as with all charges of stonework, the masoning is an artistic detail worth no difference. Siebmacher gives several examples of related families using either a fess embattled or a wall, where the only difference was masoned diapering. We might grant the addition of masoning as worth a CD, for any charge except a stonework edifice. (Zacharia of Westlake, August, 1992, pg. 31)
[In the doorway of a tower, a lion couchant guardant] The lion in the doorway is effectively a tertiary [in terms of calling conflict]. (Seeker's Keep (Aelfric se Droflic), September, 1992, pg. 1)
[Argent estencely, a cat couchant sable] Though visually similar, this is clear of the arms of Wither (Papworth 75), Ermine, a lion passant sable. There's a CD for posture; and I would grant a CD (at least) between ermine and argent estencely sable. (Though, to judge from the discussion in Brault's Early Blazon, no period difference would be granted between estencely and mullety or estoilly.) (Caitlin Decourcey Corbet, September, 1992, pg. 3)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
[A dragon rampant contourny vs. a dragon statant erect to sinister, wings displayed] There's ...a CD for the posture of the wings (Dana Mac an Ghabhann, September, 1992, pg. 5)
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. [For a full discussion, see under BADGE -- Fieldless or Tinctureless] (10 November, 1992 Cover Letter (September, 1992 LoAR), pg. 6)
[(Fieldless) A narwhale hauriant embowed argent] This is the fieldless version of [the submittor's] current device, ...Per pale vert and sable, a narwhale haurient embowed argent. Several commenters called conflict against [Sable, a whale haurient argent]. The same conflict call was made against his device, during its submission. Lord Laurel explicitly ruled the two armories to be clear of conflict: "There's a CVD for the field and a CVD for haurient embowed versus haurient." [LoAR of May, 1991] Exactly the same point count applies to the badge.
I happen to disagree with that ruling: I don't think there's a CD between haurient embowed and haurient, and I won't be granting it in future. However, I also believe that, given such an explicit ruling, in good conscience we have to call [the submittor's] badge clear ...The Grandfather Clause does apply to conflict, as well as stylistic problems; the badge conflicts no more (and no less) than the device, and if Gest may display the latter, it would be unreasonable to tell him he may not display the former. (Gest Grimsson, September, 1992, pg. 7)
On an undivided field, there is a visible difference between Ermine (a field) and Argent, three ermine spots sable (a field with charges). [See also Edric Winterboren, same letter, pg. 31] (Donal Artur of the Silver Band, September, 1992, pg. 31)
In counting conflict, we don't consider eclipsing to be a change in tincture, but equivalent to the addition of a tertiary charge. (I.e., a sun vert eclipsed Or and a sun vert charged with a bezant are equivalent blazons.) (Duncan Vitrarius, September, 1992, pg. 31)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
[A <bird> debruised by a fess] Under our current definition of primary charges, Rule X.1 brings this clear of [A fess]. (Gregory of Loch Swan, September, 1992, pg. 32)
[Per chevron inverted argent and vert, in chief an oak branch [inverted] fructed proper vs. Argent, an oak branch fructed proper] There's a CD for the field, but none for the movement of the mostly-vert charge to chief (since that's required by making the field half-vert), and in this case, none for orientation (since the visual difference between a branch and a branch inverted is well-nigh invisible). (Judith Anne of Durmast, September, 1992, pg. 43)
[A ferret statant erect vs. a mink rampant] There's nothing for ...posture. (Nadya Gornastaevna Chorkova, September, 1992, pg. 43)
[On a bend sinister argent between an sun and a increscent, a lizard azure] This conflicts with the device of Serena of Bagulay (SCA): [A bend sinister azure fimbriated argent between in dexter chief three lozenges conjoined in fess and in sinister base a bell]. [The latter] device could equally well be blazoned [On a bend sinister between a bar couped and lozenged and a bell, a bend sinister]; and by that blazon, this is a definite conflict under the Rules. There is a CD for type of secondary charges; but because this is not a "simple case" as defined by Rule X.4.j.ii, change of type alone of tertiary is not worth the second CD needed [and by the reblazoning, there is also nothing for number of secondaries]. (Muireann ní Riordáin, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
[A Bengal tiger vs. a catamount] The tiger's marking is worth no heraldic difference (Roland de Mounteney, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[On a bend, an lion's head jessant-de-lys between two acorns sable vs. on a bend, three acorns proper (brown)] The tertiaries' tincture has been changed, from brown to black, but tertiary tincture alone is not worth a CD even under Rule X.4.j.ii. The change of type of 1/3 of the charges, and the inversion of the other 2/3, don't contribute difference; only changes that "affect the whole group of charges" count towards a CD. (Tancred Bras-de-Fer, September, 1992, pg. 47)
[Two orcas sable marked argent vs. two bottlenosed dolphins sable] There is ...nothing for type; and the markings are artistic details, worth no difference. (Tymoteusz Konikokrad, September, 1992, pg. 47)
[A unicorn argent vs. a unicorn argent armed Or goutty] [The second] blazon [from Papworth] suggests that the unicorn's horn, not the entire unicorn, is goutty. (This might simply mean that the unicorn's horn is embrued with blood.) Whatever, we cannot grant a ...CD for the gouts without some indication that they were significant charges. (Ysabell of Snowshill, September, 1992, pg. 47)
Prior Laurel rulings (LoARs of July 91, Nov 91) have granted no difference for the tincture of a ship's sails --- just as we grant no difference for sails furled vs. unfurled. (Lars Gilsson, October, 1992, pg. 26) 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)
[Sable chausse argent, <charges> vs. Argent, on a pile sable, <different charges>] We grant no difference between a charged pile and a chaussé field; there is at most a CD for the change of tertiary charges. (Elgar of Stonehaven, November, 1992, pg. 14)
[Or, a bend sinister, overall a bear] ...this is clear of [Or, a bear]. By our current Rules, the overall charge is considered a secondary, and the underlying charge a primary; Rule X.1 brings this clear (Conrad Erich von Brixen, January, 1993, pg. 6)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
[A hawk's gambes bendwise sinister couped vs. an eagle's leg erased à la quise] The gambes shown here are not inverted: eagle's legs, unlike lions' legs, have their claws to base by default. However, since eagle's legs à la quise are somewhat embowed, they are often depicted with a bendwise sinister slant; so we can't get a CD for posture. (Shire of Blackhawk, January, 1993, pg. 30)
Beginning immediately ...if two submissions at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority, as before. [For the full discussion, see ADMINISTRATIVE -- Misc] (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 2)
There should be a CD for sword vs. sword inverted, when the primary charge in the device. (Lothair the Valiant, March, 1993, pg. 13)
We grant no difference for the artistic distinctions among the vair-type furs. That is, no difference for vair vs. vair ancient (indeed, we don't even blazon this, leaving it to the artist), no difference for vair vs. potent, no difference for vair in pale vs vair in point vs. counter-vair, etc. (Aedhan Brecc, March, 1993, pg. 25)
The orle is considered a peripheral charge (LoAR of Aug 92, p.29), so its addition does not invoke Rule X.1. (Frithiof Sigvardsson Skägge, May, 1993, pg. 17)
We grant no difference between Gyronny of six and Gyronny of eight, any more than we would for barry or bendy of those numbers. (Frithiof Sigvardsson Skägge, May, 1993, pg. 17)
[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)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
[In pale a bird migrant ] Against [A falcon rising, wings expanded], we would grant a CD between migrant and rising, wings displayed [expanded]. (Rowena MacDonald, June, 1993, pp. 19-20)
[Azure, a goblet Or, on a chief argent three roses gules] Between this submission and the arms of Lawrie [Azure, a cup Or with four laurel branches issuant argent, the center ones orlewise, on a chief of the third a lion passant gules between two mullets of the first.], there's a CD for the secondary charges (the laurel branches); but Lawrie's armory is too complex to allow us to get another CD for the changes to the tertiaries [type and partial tincture]. [For the complete discussion, see under SIMPLE ARMORY] (Anne of Carthew, July, 1993, pg. 12)
[Azure, in annulo three cats couchant, each biting the tail of the next argent] This conflicts with [Azure, a lion dormant argent]. There's a single CD, for adding the other two cats; we grant no difference between lions and cats, or between couchant and dormant.
This submission was an appeal of a return by the Midrealm College of Heralds, for the above conflict. The submitter argues that there should be a CD for posture as well as number, since the two added cats are not in their "default" posture --- by which is meant, we assume, not in the same posture as the original cat. I agree with Lord Dragon's analysis: the client evidently feels that the change from the [conflicting] device to her submission is a two-step process (first we add two cats, then we change their posture). This is not the case. It's a single-step process: we've added two charges. They could have been two cats couchant [the whole in annulo] argent, or two cats rampant addorsed argent, or two bezants, or a widget ermine and a wadget checky Or and gules. The amount of difference gained remains the same: a single CD, for the added charges.
This policy has been in place since at least Master Wilhelm's tenure; it was enunciated by Master Baldwin, in his LoARs of 25 Aug 85, p.14, and 15 Sept 85, p.3; Mistress Alisoun and Master Da'ud both followed it. It is logically consistent with Laurel interpretations of the Rules to date. The policy has one strong advantage to commend it: it doesn't encourage our clients, through extra heraldic difference, to add charges at variance (by posture, type, tincture, whatever) from those of the base coat. Submissions get no more difference for such designs than for heraldically desirable designs, with all the charges identical. We may not be able to ban submissions with charges going every which way, but we certainly needn't reward them with extra CDs for the "every which way" part.
This is a valid conflict .. .It must be returned. The submitter might consider changing the tincture of the field. (Elspet NicDhubhghlaise bean Iain MhicThomaidh, July, 1993, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
[A pheon inverted] Possible conflict was cited against the English Royal badge, (tinctureless) A broadarrow. Lord Lion's Blood has noted instances of the badge's use (e.g. the seal of the Royal Butlery, c.1330) where the broadarrow is inverted, and suggests that this is its defined orientation. Other (post-period) uses of the broadarrow show the charge in a variety of orientations: e.g., the clothing used by British prisoners until 1920 was marked with broadarrows --- essentially semy --- in random orientations. However, while the badge might be rotated in use, its default posture would be that of the charge itself, which would be point to base in English usage. (A close examination of the illustration of the Royal Butlery seal [Coat of Arms, July 56, p.93] suggests that it was printed upside down: the Latin inscription around the seal, which starts at its bottom, is depicted at the tope of the drawing.) Pending more definitive evidence, we will assume that the badge uses the charge in its default posture. Against this submission, we thus count a CD for fieldlessness (tincturelessness), and a CD for posture. (Eric Ward of Winchester, August, 1993, pg. 1)
[A sinister mailed fist aversant grasping stalks of grain] This is clear of such armories [a gauntlet]. The stalks of wheat are conceded to be worth no difference; neither is the distinction between dexter and sinister gauntlets, or for aversant vs. not aversant. However, I have to agree that the change from the default apaumy posture (i.e. with the fingers spread) to the clenched posture is worth a CD in this case. That, with the CD for fieldlessness, brings it clear. (Dietrich Kurneck von Hammerstein, August, 1993, pg. 2)
In the case of Seamus O'Donohue (LoAR of Dec 89), the inversion of a triquetra was explicitly ruled to be worth a CD ...(Posture might not be worth a CD for other knots: they might be too complex to permit inversion to be readily identified, or they might have been used in either posture in period. With an explicit ruling for the triquetra, however, the above point count holds.) (Beornheard of Wearmouth, August, 1993, pg. 5)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
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 peacock feather proper is mostly green, with an iridescent roundel near the end. This is therefore [a CD from] A feather azure. (Alena Vladimirovna, September, 1993, pg. 6)
There [is] little difference between a peacock proper and a peacock azure [i.e., not a CD]. (Caitlyn Emrys, September, 1993, pg. 20)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]
[Bendy sinister and per bend gules and Or] Versus [Per bend Or and gules it was argued in the commentary that the addition of the bendy sinister lines resulted in one half of the field tinctures changing and therefore worth a CD. A similar argument can be made against [Bendy sinister Or and gules] that the counterchanging across the per bend line can be considered a tincture change of one half of the field and also worth a second CD. These arguments are fallacious since they assume tincture changes forced by a field division change are independent of the field change itself. A more obvious example is the change from Quarterly gules and Or to Per saltire gules and Or. In this case, one half of the field (alternating gyrons) changes tincture. Yet only one CD is given for the field change because the tincture change is necessitated by the division change. The only difference between this submission and the examples above are the complexity of the field divisions involved. For tincture changes to count as difference in field only submissions, one of the tinctures must be changed to a tincture not involved with the division change. (Cynthia of Oakenwode, September, 1993, pg. 23)
A <charged> nesselblatt is not equivalent to a <charge> within an indented bordure. This would be more apparent if the armory were displayed on a rectangular banner: the nesselblatt would keep its triangular shape, where the bordure would follow the line of the field. (Mielikki Kantelensoittajatar, October, 1993, pg. 1)
We grant no difference between sejant erect and rampant. (Alistrina de Mann, October, 1993, pg. 15)
We grant no difference between argent, three bars wavy azure and barry wavy argent and azure. (Anne Elaina of River's Bend, October, 1993, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Arrangement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial)]