[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Documentation) |Next Page (Field - Ermined)]
There's no difference between a sun and a multi-rayed estoile. (Eirikr Sigurdharson, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[Azure, two mullets of six lesser and six greater points and a swan naiant within a bordure argent] This conflicts with Iver of the Black Bow ...Azure, two estoiles and a unicorn's head cabossed, all within a bordure argent. Even granting difference between mullets and estoiles, I don't believe there is Substantial Difference as required by Rule X.2. There is thus a single CD, for type of primary charge group; we cannot grant a CD for type of half the group, and another CD for type of the other half of the same group. (Enid of Crickhollow, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[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)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Documentation) |Top of Page |Next Page (Field - Ermined)]
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)
[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)
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)
[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)
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)
[ Per fess wavy azure and barry wavy Or and azure, two scythes in saltire argent] ...although the LOI blazoned this again as a per fess field with a wavy bar in base, the visual effect is still of a per fess azure and barry wavy field. It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules and Argent, three bars gules ( Dictionary of British Arms, pp 59, 88; Foster, p. 145). The distinction is even less noticeable when covering only a portion of the shield, as here; see, for example, the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distiction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference.
This remains a conflict with [Gules, two scythes in saltire argent] (Aidan Aileran O'Comhraidhe, September, 1993, pg. 18)
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 (Documentation) |Top of Page |Next Page (Field - Ermined)]