[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
We have hitherto granted no difference for type of ship [galley vs. longship] (Erik the Runt, June, 1992, pg. 4)
The dovetailed line is currently allowed, as compatible with period practice. We grant it no difference from embattled or raguly, however. (Ariel Giboul des Montagnes, July, 1992, pg. 4)
There is a CD between an oak tree and a pine tree. (Duncan Alaric MacDonald, July, 1992, pg. 6)
Urdy (or champaine) is a period line of division, meant to represent a line of palisades (and thus deriving from the same source as the line on the crown palisado). After some thought, we decided we had to grant a CD between it and embattled. (David Thames., July, 1992, pg. 11)
We agree there's a CD between a camel and an ypotril. (Guthfrith Yrlingsson, July, 1992, pg. 12)
There is indeed a CD between a cinquefoil and a shamrock. (Principality of Lochac, July, 1992, pg. 14)
A number of commenters complained about the common use of annulets on fieldless badges, comparing them to bordures on devices (and, in some comments, granting no difference from bordures). I agree that annulets are added to SCA badges for the same reason bordures are added to SCA devices: to provide a quick, easy CD that doesn't greatly change the central design. Beyond that, annulets and bordures are quite different charges: the annulet is always round, where the bordure follows the outline of the display surface. The background shows on both sides of the annulet (even a fieldless badge is usually set against some background), but only on the inside of the bordure. A design may have multiple annulets, but only one bordure. And so forth.
If someone can present evidence that the use of annulets encircling other charges is non-period design, we can discuss the issue again. But as far as conflicts are concerned, an annulet and a bordure are separate charges. (Neil Greenstone, July, 1992, pg. 14)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
The main difference between a wolf and an enfield is in the front legs; when one of the beasts is holding a charge with those legs, it becomes impossible to tell the two creatures apart. We cannot give a second CD for type of primary here. (Briana ní Óda, July, 1992, pg. 17)
There's ...no difference between a multi-pointed mullet and a sun (Juliana Richenda Trevain, July, 1992, pg. 20)
[Four oak leaves in cross vs. four holly leaves conjoined in cross] We have hitherto granted a CD for type of a single leaf: oak leaf vs. maple leaf (Karl the Meek and Mild), or oak leaf vs. elm leaf (Siobhan O Riordain). But this is offset here by the identical motifs: the arrangement and conjoining in cross add to the visual similarity. [returned for visual conflict] (Anne Chavelle of Silver Oak, July, 1992, pg. 22)
I count no difference between hautboys and recorders (Jame the Heyree Harry's son, August, 1992, pg. 24)
I would grant a CD between a thistle and a pomegranate. (Magdalena Aeleis MacLellan, August, 1992, pg. 24)
[A pall Or fimbriated of flame vs. a pall Or] The complex fimbriation of the pall is worth no difference. (Theodric Alastair Wulfricson, August, 1992, pg. 29)
[A pall between <charges>] This conflicts with [a pall fimbriated of flame]. There's a CD for the secondary charges, but the fimbriation is worth no difference (Marian Loresinger, August, 1992, pg. 31)
[a cubit arm gauntleted vs. an arm embowed and armored] After comparing the emblazons, we really couldn't grant a difference between an armored cubit arm and an armored arm. (Deryk von Halberstadt, August, 1992, pg. 31)
Excepting ordinaries, there is no difference for drawing a charge throughout, or not. (Griffith Dragonlake, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[A pansy vs. an ivy blossom] Comparing the emblazons showed no visible difference in the shapes of the two flowers [thus there is not a CD for type]. (Catherine Elizabeth Anne Somerton, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[A pansy vs. a rose] I cannot grant another CD for type of flower in this case. It's true that flowers of genus Viola have three large petals and two small ones; but in the case of the pansy, the size change is very hard to see. The petals' shape is the same for pansies as heraldic roses. Pansies don't seem to have been used as charges in period, so I must fall back on visual difference; and I must rule that pansies and roses are too close to yield a CD.
The same arguments bring this clear of [a sunflower] and [a rue flower]. (Catherine Elizabeth Anne Somerton, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[On a mullet of four points a sea-lion vs. on a mullet a cross crosslet] Change of type only of tertiary charge is worth no difference, per Rule X.4.j; and we grant no difference between a mullet of four points and a mullet of five points.
The only way I might have called this clear was to redefine a mullet of four points as a type of cross; and if I could have found such a cross in period armory, I might have done so. But I saw no point in replacing an SCA variation of a period charge with another SCA variation of another period charge; and the thought of reblazoning all the four-pointed mullets in the A&O did nothing to soothe my weary brow. (Ilse vom Rhein, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[a garden rose slipped and leaved vs. a rose] [There is not a CD] for heraldic rose vs. garden rose; and we have hitherto granted no difference for slipping and leaving. (Roselynd Ælfricsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[a garden rose slipped and leaved vs. a cinquefoil] I agree there's no CDs between cinquefoil and (heraldic) rose; and no CDs between (heraldic) rose and garden rose; and no CDs between garden rose and garden rose slipped and leaved. But as Lord Crux Australis notes, conflict isn't necessarily a transitive operation; "A conflicts with B" and "B conflicts with C" doesn't guarantee that, by logical concatenation, "A must conflict with C". Thank Deity I don't have to decide the issue just now...[device returned for other conflict] (Roselynd Ælfricsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[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 - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[A portcullis between and conjoined to two towers] The primary charge is blazoned [as noted] for the sake of the cant [with Gate's Edge], but is indistinguishable from a castle (Canton of Gate's Edge, September, 1992, pg. 7)
[A schimäre] Schimäre is the German word for "chimera". The chimera of German heraldry has the forequarters of a lion, the hindquarters of a goat, a dragon's tail (often ending in a dragon's head), and often the head and breasts of a woman. (It's illustrated in von Volborth's Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles, p.47.) It looks very little like the chimera of English heraldry, which has a lion's head, a goat's head and a dragon's head all issuant from the shoulders of a goat's body (illustrated in Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, p.154, which in turn is from Bossewell's Armorie of 1572); and neither of these is much like the classic "Homeric" chimaera from ancient Greek drawings.
Were the German form and the English form not intended to be the same mythological monster, we wouldn't hesitate to grant at least a CD between them. The two forms are intended to be the same monster, though; and we don't normally grant a CD for drawing style (e.g. no difference between the Italian-style fleur-de-lys and the French-style fleur-de-lys), nor even distinguish style in blazon.
In this case, the two monsters share nothing in common but the name; it seemed safest to define them, for our purposes, as different charges. As was done for the schnecke, I've taken the German name for the German charge, to distinguish it from the English chimera. (Kevin Burnett, September, 1992, pg. 10)
There is at least a CD between a horse and a correctly drawn (i.e. medieval) unicorn (William Palfrey, September, 1992, pg. 14)
We grant a CD between a dolphin and a generic fish. (Deirdre of Shadowdale, September, 1992, pg. 18)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[A dragon's head vs. a water lizard's head] This is clear ...with a CD ...for type of head. (Aethelthryth of Acleah, September, 1992, pg. 22)
[A mullet vs. a compass star] Prior rulings on this point were a bit ambiguous, but in general, when there's a small change (5 vs. 6) in the number of points, we grant no difference for type of mullet --- and we do grant difference when there's a large change (5 vs. 8 or more). In this case, we have a specific precedent (LoAR of Dec 89, p.30) granting a CD between mullet and compass star, which matches the general policy. ...Pending [new] evidence, I will continue the current policy. (Steven of Mountain's Gate, September, 1992, pg. 35)
[An antelope vs. an ibex] According to Franklyn & Tanner ( Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 179), "the heraldic ibex is indistinguishable from the heraldic antelope and may even be merely an alternative term." [Thus there is not a CD between them] (Alaric Liutpold von Steinman, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[An antelope vs. a deer] I would grant a CD between a correctly drawn antelope and a deer; the two charges were distinct in period armory (unlike, say, the heraldic dolphin and the bottlenosed dolphin, between which we grant no difference). [Device returned for different conflict] (Alaric Liutpold von Steinman, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[An eagle close vs. a dove close] Prior Laurel precedent (LoAR of Nov 90, p.16) has granted no difference for bird type, when the birds are in identical postures. In this case, when the eagle isn't displayed, it loses most of the traits that let it be identified as an eagle. Almost the only such trait visible on an eagle close is its head crest --- and the heraldic dove has one, too. (Cecilia MacInnes, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[An eagle displayed vs. owl displayed] The owl and the eagle are both raptors, and the main difference between them --- the head posture --- is specifically worth no CDs per Rule X.4.h. [See also Keja Tselebnik, May, 1993, pp. 16-17] (Cecilia MacInnes, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
There's no difference between a sun and a multi-rayed estoile. (Eirikr Sigurdharson, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[Three crosses crosslet fitchy vs. three crosses botonny] There's ...no difference for fitching the crosses, and no difference for crosslet vs. botonny. (Geoffroi de la Marche, September, 1992, pg. 39)
[A gurges vs. five annulets one within the other] As seen from the examples in Parker (p.299), Woodward (p.193), and Papworth (p.1122), a set of concentric annulets is simply an alternate method of drawing a gurges or whirlpool [therefore there is not a CD between them]. (Iago al Hasan, September, 1992, pg. 39)
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)
[A branch of rosemary vs. sprig of three bluebells] There's [not a CD] for type of sprig.
There were also a number of other conflicts, all based on granting no difference for type of sprig: e.g., [a slip of three leaves], or [a sprig of parsley]. (Mairin ferch Howell, September, 1992, pg. 40)
[A chevron rompu between three grenades vs. a chevron between three fireballs fired] There's a CD for making the chevron rompu, but not another for type of secondary charge. (Ragnar of Moonschadowe, September, 1992, pg. 41)
We see no heraldic difference between a roundel and an egg. (Sarah Rumoltstochter, September, 1992, pg. 41)
[A ferret vs. an otter] There's ...nothing for [type of beast]. (Stevyn Gaoler, September, 1992, pg. 42)
The only difference between a wyvern and a sea-dragon is the exact shape of the tail's flukes, not enough for a CD. (Dugal MacTaveis, September, 1992, pg. 44)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[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)
There's [not a CD] for castle vs. single-arched bridge. (John Quartermain, September, 1992, pg. 50)
There is no heraldic difference between a gillyflower and a carnation (Luciano Giovanni di Churburg, September, 1992, pg. 50)
There's no difference granted for melusine [two-tailed mermaid] vs. mermaid. (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
While we're willing to blazon [the charge] as a hollyhock, we note that there's no heraldic difference between it and a rose. (Megan Althea of Glengarriff, October, 1992, pg. 2)
Legh, 1568, mentions the octofoil ("double quaterfoyle"), though citing no examples of its use. Given that it was described in period, I'm willing to grant a CD between it and a cinquefoil. (Sibylla Penrose of Netherhay, October, 1992, pg. 2)
There's a CD (at least) between a horse's head and a unicorn's head. (Richard Cheval, October, 1992, pg. 7)
I grant a CD between a roundel engrailed and a sun. (Solveig Throndardottir, October, 1992, pg. 10)
[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ...for the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Máel Doraid, October, 1992, pg. 16)
There's a CD between dolphins and most kinds of fish. (Alethea of Fair Isle, October, 1992, pg. 16)
There is a CD (at least) between a brazier and a beacon (Anastazia Winogrodzka, October, 1992, pg. 16)
There is no difference for tower vs. castle. (Irwyn of Hartwich, October, 1992, pg. 21)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[A saltire parted and fretted vs. a saltire gules charged with another humetty of the field] [The charge] in both armories is essentially a saltire voided. I can't see granting difference for the tiny changes at the intersection of the saltire (Gunnar Birkibeinn, October, 1992, pg. 25)
There's no heraldic difference between a tower and a castle. [See also Irwyn of Hartwich, same letter, pg. 21, Sela nic a'Phearsoin of Clan Chattan, January, 1993 LoAr, Pg. 29, and Maelgwn McCain, August, 1993 LoAR, pg. 20] (Konner MacPherson, October, 1992, pg. 27)
[A fess wreathed Or and purpure vs. a fess Or] Wreathing is a single treatment of the fess; the evidence suggests it's considered a tincture change (Or vs. bendy Or and purpure, in this case), with the "invected line" considered artistic license. The only period examples of wreathing are to be found, naturally enough, on the charge known as the wreath or torse: it could be drawn with the folds of cloth bulging the edge, or as an annulet compony. See the examples in Foster , p.121; Parker, pp.308, 631; and Guillim, p.291. If, for the definitive case of wreathing, the invected edge is considered artistic license, then it cannot count for difference here. The wreathing of the fess is worth a single CD. (Margaret Sayher, October, 1992, pg. 30)
There is no difference between multi-pointed mullets (Susanne Grey of York, October, 1992, pg. 31)
[Argent, a swan displayed sable] Against the ...possible conflicts cited (Argent, [some type of bird] displayed sable, etc.), I'd grant a CD between a swan and the birds in question. (Sveyn Egilsson, November, 1992, pg. 3)
There should be a CD between three stalks of barley and a garb. (Siobhan Chantoiseau de Longpont sur Orges, November, 1992, pg. 5)
[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)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[A mullet of eight points vs. a mullet of five greater and five lesser points] While the five lesser points are "lesser", they are still points; [the second] mullet is technically of ten points, from which we grant no difference from a mullet of eight points. (Anna Dimitriova Belokon, November, 1992, pg. 17)
We can certainly see granting a CD between a cross moline and a cross patonce. (Dyryke Raleigh, November, 1992, pg. 19)
[A ram's head cabossed vs. a ox head cabbosed] There's ...a CD for the type of head. (Indeed, we'd say that Rule X.2 applies between an ox head and a ram's head. This is well clear.) (Riordan Robert MacGregor., December, 1992, pg. 5)
[A male griffin vs. a griffin] Despite its name, the male griffin is not the male of the griffin species, with the default griffin the female; they are different monsters, both usually depicted with male organs. (The male griffin is sometimes blazoned a keythong, to emphasize its distinction from a griffin.) There's a CD between the two monsters. (Jovan Greyhawk, December, 1992, pg. 6)
[Two maple leaves in chevron inverted, conjoined at the stems] Against the various possible conflicts cited in the commentary (e.g. [four holly leaves in saltire, stems to center]), in each case I count a CD for number and a CD for type of leaf. (Angelina Foljambe, December, 1992, pg. 6)
Period heralds seem to have distinguished between a teazel and a thistle, despite the similarity of the nouns. For armory as simple as this [(fieldless) A teazel slipped and leaved vs. <Field>, a thistle], we can see granting a CD for type of flower. (Ealdgytha of Spalding Abbey, December, 1992, pg. 12)
We can see granting a CD between a comet and a mullet. (Barony of Three Mountains, January, 1993, pg. 3)
I am willing to grant a CD between a rose and a correctly drawn daisy. (Arielle le Floer, January, 1993, pg. 7)
Mundane armory seems to consider a flame proper as streaked of gules and Or, in equal proportions. Society armory considers a flame proper (on a dark field) as the same as a flame Or voided gules (or, alternatively, a flame Or charged with a flame gules). Either way, when used as the primary charge, there's a CD between a flame proper and a flame Or. (Helena of Durham, January, 1993, pg. 8)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[On a chevron three mullets of four points vert vs. On a chevron three estoiles of four rays gules] ...since we currently distinguish between mullets and estoiles [there's] a CD for type and tincture of tertiaries (Johanna Ljubljana, January, 1993, pg. 19)
We're willing to grant a CD between a bezant and a hawk's bell, although perhaps not Complete Difference of Charge. (Meurisse de Blois, January, 1993, pg. 20)
[A Maltese star cross] This conflicts with [a snowflake]. The visual similarity between the Maltese star cross and a snowflake is too large to ignore. It also conflicts with [six sets of arrow fletchings in annulo, points conjoined]. Again, the visual similarity is too great to permit a CD to be granted. (Elgar of Stonehaven, January, 1993, pg. 23)
[A sun of eight points] There's [not a CD] between a mullet of six points and the sun as drawn here. (Eoghan O'Neill, January, 1993, pg. 23)
The previous submission was returned Aug 92 for drawing the bend too narrow, the indentations too small. She's corrected those problems, but introduced another: the bend is indented on the sinister base end, but dancetty on the dexter chief end! The bend must be one or the other, if for no other reason than to check conflict.
One of the heralds at the meeting offered to redraw the submission, sending a copy to the client. The difficulty lay in not knowing the submitter's intent: did she want a bend indented, or a bend dancetty? We were given no clue, and since there's a CD between the two, it's not something to be left to chance or telepathy. (Melisend de Chartres, January, 1993, pg. 25)
[A wa'a outrigger sable, a bordure] This conflicts with [an antique galley with sails furled ]. There's a CD for the bordure. Previous returns have granted no difference between a galley and a drakkar (LoAR of July 91, p.20); evidently, type of ship is left to artistic license. We'd welcome some further evidence on whether this is a reasonable policy to maintain; for now, we'll uphold precedent. (Barony of Western Seas, January, 1993, pg. 27)
[Three leaves conjoined in pall inverted within a annulet vs. A trillium and a chief] There's a CD for changing the annulet to a chief, but the central charges are indistinguishable. (Jaric de l'Ile Longe Sault, January, 1993, pg. 28)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
There's ...no difference between a castle and a tower. (Sela nic a'Phearsoin of Clan Chattan, January, 1993, pg. 29)
[A trilithon [type of dolmen] vs. a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintels] Just as there is no difference between a tower and a castle, there is no difference between trilithons and "pentalithons". (Fiacha Suileach, January, 1993, pg. 31)
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. (Styvyn Longshanks, January, 1993, pg. 34)
I will ...continue to grant a CD between invected and engrailed, and between invected and indented. In the interests of continuity, I will also continue (for the moment) to grant a CD between engrailed and indented, but I will not hesitate to reverse that policy should I find evidence that Tudor armorial usage used them interchangeably, in defiance of the tracts. [For the full discussion, see under LINES OF DIVISION -- Engrailed and Invected](8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[A cross swallowtailed] I'd grant a CD between this cross and a cross flory or a cross patonce (which were considered the same charge by medieval heralds). I might not have granted difference against a Maltese cross or a cross fourchy, but no conflicts were cited containing such crosses. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, March, 1993, pg. 17)
We grant no difference between mullet of four points and mullet of five points. (Bengta Rolfsdatter, March, 1993, pg. 19)
[An ounce rampant Or spotted of diverse tinctures] The creature is not a panther, as blazoned on the LOI (for it isn't incensed of flame), but an ounce or maneless lion. As such, it gets no difference from a standard lion; and its spots here count for no more than the spots on any other spotted cat (e.g. a natural leopard). If she resubmits with a genuine panther, charged with large roundels --- better yet, with a Continental panther --- it should [be a CD from a lion]. (Alysandria of the Fosse Way, March, 1993, pg. 22)
[A wingless dragon "displayed"] The displayed posture is not applicable to non-winged creatures, just as rampant is no longer applicable to birds (LoAR of May 91). No other blazon adequately describes this posture (although if the dragon's back were to the viewer, instead of its belly, it might be tergiant).
Moreover, since the dragon's posture (however blazoned) is indistinguishable from tergiant, this conflicts with [a natural salamander tergiant] ...putting the dragon in this posture greatly reduces any difference to be granted for type of reptile. (Balthasar of Eastwick, March, 1993, pg. 22)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
While I would consider dovetailed to be negligibly different from embattled, I'd grant it a CD from urdy (champaine) [device returned for unrelated reasons]. (Eleri Langdoun, March, 1993, pg. 23)
[A tree eradicated and in chief a <charge>] This is clear of [A tree blasted and eradicated]. There's a CD for the charge in chief, and a CD for the blasting of the tree. (Sileas ní Chinaíd, May, 1993, pg. 4)
We would grant a CD between a fool's cap and most other types of hat (Catherine the Merry, May, 1993, pg. 11)
[A two-headed double-queued eagle-winged wyvern displayed vs. a double headed eagle displayed] The changes to the wyvern (notably, the use of eagle's wings) prevent finding difference between the primary charges. (Alex of Kintail, May, 1993, pp. 16-17)
There's ...no difference for garden rose(bud) vs. heraldic rose, and we've yet seen no evidence that period heralds granted difference for slipping and leaving. (Anna de Battista, May, 1993, pg. 17)
[A seeblatt] Lord Leveret (now Lord Brachet) has brought up a possible conflict with the badge of Douglas, Earls of Douglas (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges): [A heart]. His staff has found evidence that the blazon seeblatt could be emblazoned either in its standard form, or in a form indistinguishable from a heart (in the arms of the Duchy of Engern, 16th Century). I've found corroboration in Neubecker & Rentzmann's 10000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, pp.147, 285: the arms of the Bishopric of Vyborg, in Finland, were blazoned (and emblazoned) either as three hearts conjoined in pall inverted or three seeblätter conjoined in pall inverted.
There are still enough distinct renditions of seeblätter and hearts in period (e.g. the Armorial de Gelre, or Siebmacher) that I hesitate to rule them purely artistic variants. However, there can clearly be cases of visual conflict involving the charges, and the [submitter's badge] is such a visual conflict [returned for this and also for conflict with a water-lily leaf]. (House Windsmeet (Caitlin Davies), May, 1993, pg. 17)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
There's ...no difference between suns and multi-pointed mullets --- which includes compass stars. (Friedrich von Rabenstein, June, 1993, pg. 18)
The torii is still permitted in Society heraldry, due to its modern familiarity among Occidentals (for instance, the word is found in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) and its valid reblazon as a Japanese gateway. However, since no heraldic difference can normally be obtained from regional drawing style, we grant no difference between a Japanese gateway (torii) and a standard heraldic gate --- any more than we grant difference between an arch and a dolmen. (Ihashi Hidezo, June, 1993, pg. 22)
Just as we grant a CD between a sun and a mullet (of 5 points), so do we grant a CD between a sun and an estoile (of 6 rays). (Monica Eve le May, July, 1993, pg. 6)
The difference between a fess embattled (top edge only) and a fess counter-embattled (both edges) is as great as that between a fess embattled and a plain fess [i.e. worth a CD]. (Lothar Freund, July, 1993, pg. 10)
We have granted no difference in the past between a bridge and a castle, considering both to be stonework surmounted by towers. (Canton of Pont y Saeth, July, 1993, pg. 15)
[A rose per pale Or and vert vs. Hirayama ( Hawley 27): Dark, a cherry blossom light] There's ...no difference between Hirayama's rendition of a cherry blossom (complete with five petals, barbing and seeding) and an honest heraldic rose. (Oriana d'Auney, July, 1993, pg. 17)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[Knots of four loops and four tassels vs. cotton hanks] After looking at the examples of cotton hanks in Parker and Elvin, I've decided there is a CD between them and [the submitter's] knots of four loops and four tassels: even assuming the hanks were drawn with their loops slightly separate, Rowan's knots could be considered equivalent to "demi-hanks". (Rowan O Curry, August, 1993, pg. 4)
[A tyger's head erased] Possible conflict was cited against [A wolf's head erased within a bordure rayonny]. There's a CD for the bordure; the question was raised on any difference between a wolf's head and a tyger's head. Rule X.4.e specifically grants a difference between a lion and a [heraldic] tyger; but even assuming the same between a wolf and a tyger, that doesn't necessarily require difference between their heads. (By analogy, we grant difference between a dragon and an eagle -- but none between a dragon's foot and an eagle's foot.) The heraldic tyger is described as "having ...the maned neck of a horse, and the head of a wolf, but the upper jaw develops into a frontal horn" ( Franklyn & Tanner 334); there's no way that the heads could be deemed Substantially Different, but I can see granting a CD for the frontal horn and the mane. (Laeghaire O Laverty, August, 1993, pg. 5)
[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] The previous return (LoAR of Sept 91) determined that there was not Sufficient Difference between this arrangement of fleurs-de-lys and a cross flory. Had it been intended that the difference be negligible, however, I suspect the then-Laurel would have come out and said so. I believe there is a CD for type of primary charge group in this case. (Cara Michelle DuValier, August, 1993, pg. 6)
[An opinicus vs. a griffin] The difference between the griffin- variants is too small to be worth a ...CD. (Bleddyn Hawk, August, 1993, pg. 15)
[An owl affronty vs. an eagle displayed] There's a CD for the change in the bird's posture, but nothing for its type: eagles and owls are both raptors, and the main heraldic difference --- the head posture --- is specifically worth no difference under the Rules (as well as having been subsumed into the rest of the posture change). (Stanwulf the Stern, August, 1993, pg. 17)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[A Cavendish knot] The badge conflicts with the badge of the House of Savoy ...A Savoy (or Cavendish) knot. The two knots are identical; as the badge is tinctureless, we can get but a single CD between it and this submission ...Conflict was also cited against other "knotty" badges: e.g. [A Wake knot] and [A Bourchier knot]. In the cases of charges nowed (e.g. serpents nowed, or lions with nowed tails), we've held that "knots is knots" and granted no difference for the exact form of knotwork. In cases where the single primary charge is a recognized heraldic knot, however, we can see granting a CD between certain types of knots. In particular, the Savoy/Cavendish knot is sufficiently different from any other standard knot that I would call this submission clear of the cited conflicts. (Order of the Cavendish Knot (Kingdom of the Middle), August, 1993, pg. 19) The current Rules grant no difference between a tower and a castle. (Maelgwn McCain, August, 1993, pg. 20)
The mandrake is a plant of the genus Mandragora and is native to Southern Europe and the East. It is characterized by very short stems, thick fleshy, often forked, roots, and by fetid lance-shaped leaves ( OED). Of the two examples cited in Parker, p. 390, one (de Champs) blazons them as plantes de mandragore (plants of mandrake). The other cited example, the only one in English armory, is actually shown in Rodney Dennys' The Heraldic Imagination, p.130, as more humanoid. Dennys states that "the Mandrake is not, of course, a monster or chimerical creature in the strict sense of the term, but in heraldic art it has acquired such anthropomorphic characteristics that it can be rated as one of the more fanciful of the fabulous creatures of heraldry" (p. 129). We feel there is a CD between a mandrake and human figures as there is between other fanciful heraldic creatures (e.g. angels) and human figures. (Leandra Plumieg, September, 1993, pg. 12)
[A chief Or vs. On a chief double enarched Or, three mullets] There is clearly a CD for the addition of the mullets, but is the double arching of the chief worth a second CD? It has been previously ruled that there is not a CD between a chief singly arched and a plain chief: "the arching here is virtually identical to that shown on period renditions of a plain chief and adds almost no visual difference" (AMoE, LoAR 19 March 1988, p. 12)
Chiefs double arched have been acceptable in the S.C.A. for over twelve years. According to J.P. Brooke- Little, the first use of this line of partition seems to have been in 1806 in a grant to William Proctor Smith: Gules, on a chief double arched Or, three trefoils proper. (Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 1969 revision, footnote, p. 75) Therefore, there is no period evidence upon which to base a decision. However, from this example, we can infer that nineteenth century heralds viewed double arching to be different from a straight line of partition; at least a blazonable difference.
From a visual perspective, single arching has been used to give representation to the curvature of a shield, especially with bends. Double arching does not appear to be an artistic method of denoting curvature. It involves a distinct action in the drawing of the line of partition in the same way as bevilling. This makes it one step removed from a plain line of partition. Therefore, we feel a clear difference can be counted between a chief plain and a chief double arched. (Richard Stanley Greybeard, September, 1993, pg. 13)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
There is a CD ...for the difference between a goose and a swallow (though not between a goose and a generic bird). (Brighid of Lindisfarne, September, 1993, pg. 16)
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)
We grant no difference between a compass star and a rivenstar, and no difference between a compass star and a sun. (Jacques Gilbert de Gascogne, September, 1993, pg. 23)
Note: the fact that [the harpy or frauenadler] were considered distinct charges in period allows us to grant a CD against eagles. (Barony of Red Spears, September, 1993, pg. 25)
There [not a CD] for the difference between nebuly and wavy: there are simply too many examples of these lines being used interchangeably, even in late period. (The arms of Blount: Barry nebuly/wavy Or and sable (Dictionary of British Arms, p. 96) are the best known example.) Even the late period tracts, the first citations of nebuly as an independent complex line, give wide variation in its depiction: Bossewell, 1572, gives a number of different forms of nebuly (fo. 29, 56 and 76), two of which are indistinguishable from his depictions of undy or wavy (fo. 100 and 123). If wavy and nebuly were so indistinguishable in period, we can grant no CDs between them in the SCA. (Tristram Telfor, September, 1993, pg. 26)
[A lion Or vs. a Bengal tiger Or marked sable] There is no heraldic difference between a lion and a Bengal tiger, and no difference for the markings on the tiger. (Isabeau Celeste de la Valliére, October, 1993, pg. 18)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]