[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Mascle and Rustre) |Next Page (Monster - Sea)]
[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)
[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)
Just as I would grant Complete Difference of Charge between a griffin and a pegasus, so is there Complete Difference between a griffin and a winged beagle; the only thing they have in common are the wings. (Gwenhwyfar de Hwytinton, December, 1992, pg. 11)
[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)
There is no defined "proper" coloration for a griffin. (Gavin Gamelson, October, 1993, pg. 16)
The illustration in the glossary section of Rietstap shows that he considered the harpy/frauenadler to be displayed by default. (Barony of Red Spears, September, 1993, pg. 25)
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)
[A slip eradicated joined to a snake's head] The monster doesn't appear to have been formed in a period style; the only comparable example in period (non-armorial) art was the vegetable lamb, a tree that bore sheep as its "fruit". It was described by Sir John Mandeville, c.1371, and was evidently an attempt to describe cotton, not a mythical beast. The example of the vegetable lamb does not support the monster shown here. (Brian di Caffa, September, 1992, pg. 51)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Mascle and Rustre) |Top of Page |Next Page (Monster - Sea)]
[A slip eradicated joined to a snake's head] The College of Arms was nearly unanimous in declaring this monster to be obtrusively modern: the references to triffids (from Day of the Triffid) and Audrey (from Little Shop of Horrors) were very strong. Laurel hasn't seen any of the productions of either, but is willing to accept the opinions of those who have. (Brian di Caffa, September, 1992, pg. 51)
[A dragon with lion's hindquarters] The dragon-lion monster is unusual -- the accepted period hybrid of those creatures is the lion-dragon, with a lion's forequarters and wyvern's tail -- but would probably be acceptable by itself (Dafydd ap Bleiddudd, October, 1992, pg. 32)
[A musimon sable] The charge ...was submitted as a Jacob ram, a breed of sheep noted for its piebald coloration and double horns. (The name comes from a story in Genesis, chapter 30, where Jacob indulged in a remarkable feat of early genetic engineering.) Unfortunately, the breed dates only to the 18th Century; and since a Jacob's sheep is piebald by definition, it loses its distinctiveness when made a solid tincture, as here.
We've reblazoned this as the heraldic monster known as the musimon, defined to be a cross between a ram and a goat, with the horns of both. It is described in Guillim's Displaie of Heraldry, 1632. (Deborah bat Yosef, September, 1992, pg. 5)
The orm is a charge unique to the Society, more complex than a simple serpent, not as complex as the Norse serpent nowed. It has been registered recently (Elina Grimmsdottir, June 91); without stronger evidence than has yet been presented, I hesitate to disallow a charge that was so recently accepted. (Canton of Fjarska Holt, September, 1992, pg. 20)
Just as I would grant Complete Difference of Charge between a griffin and a pegasus, so is there Complete Difference between a griffin and a winged beagle; the only thing they have in common are the wings. (Gwenhwyfar de Hwytinton, December, 1992, pg. 11)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Mascle and Rustre) |Top of Page |Next Page (Monster - Sea)]
[A phoenix gules, enflamed proper] The phoenix was blazoned on the LOI as proper, with the 12th Century Cambridge Bestiary cited as the authority (via Dennys' Heraldic Imagination). While the Bestiary describes the phoenix as "reddish purple," I would hesitate to define that as its heraldically proper tincture. As it turns out, there's at least one period heraldic example of a phoenix proper: the crest of the Worshipful Company of Painters, granted 1486, is blazoned a Fenyx in his propre nature and coloure. That phoenix is colored mostly gold, with red highlights and details. (Bromley & Child, Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London, p.184 and plate 39)
As the phoenix in this submission is not tinctured like the phoenix proper in the Painters' crest, I have reblazoned it gules. (Astrid of Flanders, October, 1992, pg. 1)
[On a flame Or a salamander gules] Possible conflict was ...cited with the [A salamander proper]. Technically speaking, the medieval heraldic salamander would have been a reptile with spurts of flame, or at most lying on a bed of flame; in any event, the reptile would have been the primary charge. Here, the flame is the primary charge, and the salamander a tertiary. We might still have called a visual conflict, all other things being equal, had we been able to ascertain the tincture of a salamander "proper". We still aren't sure what that might be, but it doesn't seem to have been gules: Franklyn & Tanner, for instance, state that the salamander is "Generally argent or Or, and occasionally vert." In any event, we can give the submitter the benefit of the doubt on this conflict [badge returned for a separate conflict]. (Balian de Brionne, July, 1993, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Mascle and Rustre) |Top of Page |Next Page (Monster - Sea)]