Precedents of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - National) |Next Page (Style - Simplicity or Complexity)]


STYLE -- Period


[Per bend sinister, a demi-panther guardant and a demi-panther inverted guardant, both issuant from the line of division] The style of this device has been registered before (Dairine Mor Ó hUigin, April 89). Similar designs are found in late-period German armory, as in the arms of Burgkmair, 1516 (Per bend sinister Or and sable, the line in the form of two bear's heads interlocked, the one in base inverted); see von Volborth's Art of Heraldry, p.55. So long as there are no other complexities (e.g. other charges), the motif is acceptable for Society use. (Michael David of Aran Island, September, 1992, pg. 29)


There are examples from Continental armory of birds displayed and rotated from the vertical: e.g. von Eptingen ( Siebmacher, plate 129), Or, an eagle displayed and fesswise sable. (James d'Orleans, October, 1992, pg. 2)


There are period examples of gyronny fields, where alternating gyrons were charged: e.g. the arms of Stoker, Lord Mayor of London in 1484, Gyronny of six azure and argent, each argent gyron charged with a popinjay proper. (Ginevra d'Altieri, October, 1992, pg. 9)


It has been ruled that an arch of charges is not period heraldic style. The ruling was originally for an arch of stars : "Stars surrounding only part of a charge is fantasy art." [BoE, 28 Sept 84] It has since been extended to any charges "in arch". (Michaela de Romeny, October, 1992, pg. 30)


When a bordure and chief are used together, the chief almost invariably overlies the bordure (Parker 73). The rare exceptions generally don't have tertiaries on the chief; they would be crowded by the bordure, rendering them harder to identify. The handful of SCA registrations with bordures surmounting charged chiefs have subsequently been disallowed as precedent (LoAR of Oct 91, p.17); far more often, such designs have been returned as non-period practice. [Device also returned for conflict] (Justin of Kent, December, 1992, pg. 20)


[, in dexter chief four <charges> in cross] The displacement of the charges to dexter chief may be seen in the period arms of the Canton of Schwyz, Gules, in dexter chief a cross couped argent. (Ali abd ar-Rashid, January, 1993, pg. 1)


[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - National) |Top of Page |Next Page (Style - Simplicity or Complexity)]

In one of the March submissions (Wulfgar der Krieger [pg. 15]), I've ruled that gyronny of six palewise will no longer be permitted (after the standard four-month grace period, of course). Parker, p.301, states that gyronny of six should be symmetric around the horizontal axis, not the vertical axis; and this is borne out by such period examples as I've been able to uncover. Gyronny of six palewise is purely an SCA term for what is, as far as I can tell, a non-period rendition of the field. I can usually manage to reblazon it Per pale and per saltire; but sometimes (as with Wulfgar's submission) there's no way to reblazon it. I would prefer to see correct emblazons for this field, rather than have to resort to circuitous or torturous reblazon. If someone can provide evidence that gyronny of six palewise was used in period armory, I will continue to accept it; failing such evidence, I will begin returning it at the Oct 93 meeting. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)


[Argent, four scarpes alternately gules and sable, on a chief <charges>] Though blazoned on the LOI as Bendy sinister argent and alternately gules and sable..., the full emblazon showed an argent field with four scarpes. Even considered as a Bendy sinister field, however, this is compatible with European armory. A period example may be found in the arms of von Schreibersdorf, c.1600 (Siebmacher, plate 166): Bendy argent, gules and sable. (Robin of Rhovanion, July, 1993, pg. 3)


[Per chevron Or crusily botonny and azure, in base a cross botonny Or] The use of a charge of the same type as a semy on the shield has previously been ruled unacceptable. "The most serious [stylistic problem] is the fact that a single secondary charge is placed on a field strewn with the same charge (in the same tincture!). Such a differentiation is not period style..." (AMoE, LoAR 2/25/90, p. 19) This was extended by Master Dau'd to include a charge of a different tincture from the semy. (LoAR 9/90, p. 16). (Barbara ni Sheaghdha of Tir Chonall, September, 1993, pg. 22)

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - National) |Top of Page |Next Page (Style - Simplicity or Complexity)]