[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Period) |Next Page (Sun)]
[Per pale azure and vert, in chief two lozenges conjoined in fess argent charged with two axes in chevron sable, in base a mullet of eight points argent] This is poor style, and not to be encouraged, but it appears to be registerable (Haakon Bjornsson, August, 1992, pg. 20)
[A] rainbow [proper]'s tinctures are counted individually; it could have been solidly tinctured, after all. If that means rainbows proper can only be used in very simple designs, so be it. (Yvon Bater of Darkwood, August, 1992, pg. 29)
[Per bend sinister counter-vairy gules and Or and counter-vairy sable and Or, a dragonfly ermine] The field, though visually complex, is the same as that used on his previous return ...and no objection was raised at that time. Moreover, there are a few period examples of multiply-parted fields of three tinctures: e.g. the arms of von Hohenegk ( Siebmacher, plate 35), Checky sable, argent, sable and gules, a canton Or. So, for a design this simple, this field is not unreasonable. (Ilya Vsevolod Fominich., September, 1992, pg. 25)
[Gyronny wavy azure and argent, a jester's head affronty proper, bearded gules, vested quarterly Or and vert, belled erminois] This device is as busy as we care to see [device registered]. (Thorbrand the Red, September, 1992, pg. 35)
[Argent maily sable, on a chief a scroll charged with quill pens] This was blazoned on the LOI as [Per fess, in chief on an scroll quill pens]. However, the full emblazon didn't quite show a Per fess division, but rather a charged chief. The quill pens are therefore quaternary charges, which are disallowed per Rule VIII.1.c.ii.
The distinction between, say, Argent, a chief gules and Per fess gules and argent was not often observed in early heraldry; indeed, the first examples of Per-fess emblazons were blazoned a chief. (See Wagner's Historic Heraldry of Britain, plate II, for such an example.) However, the distinction was observed by the mid-15th Century, and is observed in the SCA. This may make it easier for us to avoid conflict, but it also requires us to insist on correct emblazons. If this is resubmitted with an undoubted Per fess field, there should be no stylistic problems. (August Kroll, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Period) |Top of Page |Next Page (Sun)]
[A <charge> and in sinister chief three bendlets] The device is excessivly
imbalanced, which is not period heraldic style. A similar device (Penelope
of the Quill, Vert, a quill pen bendwise and three bendlets enhanced Or)
was returned Jan 92 for the same reason. [See also Keridwen of Caermarthen, same letter,
pg. 53; the lowest bendlet in both cases issues from
the center of the chief] (Brendan Hugh Guarin, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[A drawn bow fesswise, nocked of a double-bitted axe, and sustained by two
bears combattant] The device has a single group of charges, of three
different types, in violation of Rule VIII.1.a. This must be returned (Big
Bear of Haven, September, 1992, pg. 48)
[A cubit arm issuant from the mouth of a fish's head couped close, sustaining a crescent] Visually the three charges have equal weight, making this a single group of three different charges. This must be returned for violating Rule VIII.1.a. [badge appealed and later registered -- see Simona Zon d'Asolo, August, 1993, pg. 12] (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
[Per bend sinister argent and sable, a skull sable jessant-de-lys gules and an eagle's foot erased inverted argent maintaining a torteau] While far from ideal, this is registerable style. (Damianus Petrolino, October, 1992, pg. 8)
[Gules, an elephant passant trumpeting, on a chief raguly argent two annulets gules, and for augmentation, in center chief an inescutcheon sable charged with an annulet Or.] We will allow augmentations to use quaternary charges in simple cases, such as this one. The blazon reflects the fact that the device may be displayed either with or without the augmentation; conflict should be checked against both forms. (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, October, 1992, pg. 13)
[Sable, on a pale between two mullets of four points elongated to base argent, a pine tree eradicated proper, on a chief argent three reremice sable] This is too complex. It has four tinctures and five types of charge, which exceeds our rule of thumb for complexity as outlined in Rule VIII.1.a. While this rule of thumb may be waived for a truly period design, the use of mullets of four points elongated to base prevents this from being considered such a design. (Egill Gunnbjarnarson, October, 1992, pg. 29)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Period) |Top of Page |Next Page (Sun)]
[In pale a peacock in his pride, and a rapier and a lute in saltire] This
is a single group of primaries, of three different types, which violates
Rule VIII.1.a. (Fernando Juan Carlos Remesal, October, 1992, pg. 29)
[In chief a boar's head and in base a bow and a sword in saltire] The use
of a single group of three dissimilar charges is not permitted, per Rule
VIII.1.a. The exact arrangement of the three charges within the group
(whether 2&1, a sheaf, or whatever) does not change this (Colin Douglas of
Greysmarch, November, 1992, pg. 14)
[Argent, on a pale azure between two garden roses gules, slipped vert, a garden rose Or, slipped vert, on a chief azure an arrow reversed Or] This is too complex. It has four types of charge in five tinctures, which exceeds our standard for complexity as outlined in Rule VIII.1.a. While that guideline may be waived for a comely period design, the use of garden roses prevents this from being considered such a design. (Katherine of Thorneholde, December, 1992, pg. 20)
[Two straight trumpets in saltire, surmounted by another palewise, the whole ensigned of a fleur-de-lys Nourrie between two lions combattant] Some commenters suggested that, because the charges were conjoined, they formed a single group. That isn't necessarily the case: A mullet within and conjoined to an annulet has an obvious primary charge surrounded by a secondary charge. As drawn here, the lions and fleur-de-lys appear to be a separate group from the trumpets; thus, this does not appear to be a group of three dissimilar types of charge (soi-disant "slot-machine heraldry"). Whether the badge's visual confusion is now at acceptable levels is a separate issue; absent any supporting arguments, this must still be considered unacceptably complex for a fieldless badge. A more standard arrangement of charges would probably solve this. [Badge returned also for presumption, see PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION] (Norrey Acadamie of Armorie (Taliesynne Nycheymwrh yr Anyghyfannedd), December, 1992, pg. 21)
[A bend sinister between in chief a fox and in base a a crescent and a crescent inverted] The secondaries are technically not a group of dissimilar charges ("slot-machine heraldry"), and not ground for return; however, the design isn't the ideal period style, and would be considerably improved by deleting one of the crescents [device returned due to a badly drawn wavy line]. (Morgan Rowantree, March, 1993, pg. 21)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Period) |Top of Page |Next Page (Sun)]
[Per bend sinister, a quill pen issuant from an ink bottle and a rose] The device has a single group of three dissimilar charges, all of equal visual weight. This is disallowed, per Rule VIII.1.a (Astrid Esbjörnsdotter, May, 1993, pg. 15)
[Gules, on a pale sable fimbriated Or between two cubit arms argent, an arrow inverted surmounted by two axes in saltire Or] The device is overly complex. It uses four tinctures and four types of charge, which by Rule VIII.1.a makes it marginal at best; the use of the fimbriation pushes it over the edge. This must be returned for simplification.
Moreover, the arrow was drawn with small, nigh-invisible point and fletching, which has been reason for return ere now. If he uses an arrow in his resubmission, please instruct the client to draw it with large, visible fletching and point. (Brychen Silverfist, May, 1993, pg. 17)
[Per saltire argent, and sable fretty argent, in pale a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper, and a sinister gauntlet aversant clenched sable] Under current precedent, fretyy and a fret are artistic variants of the same charge. The submission therefore contains a single group of four primaries, of three different types: rose, gauntlet, and fretwork. This is disallowed per Rule VIII.1.a. (Tamara the Seeker, July, 1993, pg. 14)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Period) |Top of Page |Next Page (Sun)]
[(Fieldless) A cubit arm proper issuant from the mouth of a fish's head couped close vert, maintaining a crescent gules] This was an appeal of a return on the LoAR of Sept 92. At the time, I'd judged the three charges to be of roughly equal visual weight, and considered this a single group of three dissimilar charges (so-called "slot- machine heraldry"). Such practice is in general disallowed, per Rule VIII.1.a. The appeal provided extensive documentation, intended to support the submitted design in specific and the use of three dissimilar charges in general.
Much of the documentation did not support the concept of three dissimilar charges in a single group: while the examples did show three types of charge, they generally weren't in the same group. (E.g. the badge of Nordham, c.1525: Within a fetterlock argent garnished Or, an escutcheon azure charged with a lion's head erased argent. By our definitions, the lion's head is not of the same group as the fetterlock or escutcheon --- and it's arguable whether they're in the same group.) Others of the examples, such as the rose-thistle-trefoil badge of the United Kingdom, were post-period
At least one of the examples cited, however, exactly matched the form of this submission: the badge of the Lord Chamberlain, c.1525, A cubit arm habited bendy sinister wavy of five pieces argent and azure and issuant out of a rose gules, the hand proper grasping an arrow. Additionally, it has been noted that Rule VIII.1.a describes the ban on "slot-machine heraldry" as a guideline, not an ironclad law. Finally, re-examination of the emblazon shows the crescent to be neither unarguably one of the primary charge group nor unarguably a negligible "held" charge; one could make a case for either ruling. Added to the mort of documentation, I have no qualms in now registering the badge (Simona Zon d'Asolo, August, 1993, pg. 12)
[Argent, three piles sable, overall a rose proper, all within a bordure azure] The device has three types of charge and six tinctures, which would normally exceed our rule of thumb for complexity. Two of the tinctures, however, belong to artistic details, worth no heraldic difference, and the design itself is symmetrical and balanced (with an honest heraldic rose!). Under the circumstances, the visual complexity is acceptable. (Moira MacDonnel White, October, 1993, pg. 1)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Period) |Top of Page |Next Page (Sun)]