[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Royal Armory) |Next Page (Simple Armory)]
[Per saltire gules and sable, a saltire counterchanged, fimbriated argent] Much of the commentary opposed this submission, as over-complex and having insufficient contrast. However, it's acceptable by both period and SCA standards: period, as illustrated by the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Per pale azure and gules, three chevronels counterchanged, fimbriated argent); SCA, as illustrated by the acceptance of Tristan Blackmoor of Darkwoods, April 92 (Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged, fimbriated argent). This submission meets the same standards of simplicity: an ordinary, no complex lines, straight counterchanging, a choice of colors that (for two dark tinctures) maximizes visibility, and no other charges (or even types of charges) in the design.
Moreover, if necessary, this could be reblazoned "Per saltire gules and sable, a saltire argent charged with another per saltire sable and gules;" by that blazon, this would have raised far fewer objections. We opted for the more elegant blazon. [See also Nov. 1992 LoAR, pg. 2] (Nesta Gwilt, June, 1992, pg. 2)
[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)
[In chief an eagle displayed, facing sinister, and in base a saltire, overall a <charge>] This raised some question in the commentary as to whether the saltire could legitimately be "abased" (not issuant from the corners of the chief), as in this submission. Normally, the placement of a saltire is fixed by the points of the shield: the upper limbs issue from the corners of the chief, as would bends and bends sinister. However, using the 13th Century arms of FitzWalter (Or, a fess between two chevrons gules) as a model, we decided that a hypothetical Or, a fess between two saltires gules would be acceptable style --- which would therefore argue that a saltire need not automatically issue from the corners of the chief, but might move to chief or to base if the design dictated. We also decided that such movement should be noted in the blazon, either implicitly (as in our hypothetical example) or explicitly (as in this submission). (Angus Ulrich, July, 1993, pg. 8)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Royal Armory) |Top of Page |Next Page (Simple Armory)]
The blanking shears, like scissors, have their handles to base by default (Ian Cnulle, June, 1993, pg. 1)
Scythes have their blades to chief by default, judging by the emblazon of Sneyd (Foster 179). (Li Kung Lo, May, 1993, pg. 9)
Moreover, considering this as a display, on a round shield, of [Or, a Celtic cross], this would conflict with [Or, a Celtic cross, overall a <charge>]. There would be a single CD, for deleting the overall charge. (Kierano Chonnacht, September, 1992, pg. 40)
We have hitherto granted no difference for type of ship [galley vs. longship] (Erik the Runt, June, 1992, pg. 4)
A longship is so nearly symmetric, reversing it cannot count as a ...CD. (Erik the Runt, June, 1992, pg. 4)
The seal of the town of Bergen, c.1300, shows a double-headed drakkar, with genuine dragon-head prows. Whether or not the Vikings actually sailed such a ship, they were depicted doing so in medieval art. (Ingvarr Vikarsson, August, 1992, pg. 5)
[Lozengy vert and argent, three ships sable] Possible conflict was cited against the armory of the town of Wexford; Papworth (p.1092) blazons it as Three three-masted ships two and one, without the ellipses he normally uses to indicate unknown tinctures. However, the current arms of Wexford have an argent field and proper ships, according to Lord Crescent (who cites Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms). The citation in Papworth would appear to have been taken from a tinctureless depiction of those arms, a seal or church carving. Under the circumstances, we're willing to grant the submitter the benefit of the doubt here. (Eskil Eskilsson Örn, August, 1992, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Royal Armory) |Top of Page |Next Page (Simple Armory)]
[A demi-drakkar couped palewise reversed vs. an antique galley] There's a CD for the change to the ship, but we can't see granting Sufficient Difference per Rule X.2; and as both the drakkar and the antique galley (i.e. lymphad) are nearly symmetrical charges, there's no difference for which half of the boat is cut away. (Lars Gilsson, October, 1992, pg. 26)
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)
[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)
Oars proper are understood to be made of brown wood. (Alberic of Seawall, December, 1992, pg. 13)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Royal Armory) |Top of Page |Next Page (Simple Armory)]