[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Simplicity or Complexity) |Next Page (Tool - Angle)]
There's ...no difference between a multi-pointed mullet and a sun (Juliana Richenda Trevain, July, 1992, pg. 20)
In counting conflict, we don't consider eclipsing to be a change in tincture, but equivalent to the addition of a tertiary charge. (I.e., a sun vert eclipsed Or and a sun vert charged with a bezant are equivalent blazons.) (Duncan Vitrarius, September, 1992, pg. 31)
There's no difference between a sun and a multi-rayed estoile. (Eirikr Sigurdharson, September, 1992, pg. 38)
I grant a CD between a roundel engrailed and a sun. (Solveig Throndardottir, October, 1992, pg. 10)
[A sun of eight points] There's [not a CD] between a mullet of six points and the sun as drawn here. (Eoghan O'Neill, January, 1993, pg. 23)
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)
[On a sun Or eclipsed sable, an anchor Or] The badge has two problems,
either of which is sufficient for return. The first is the use of
quaternary charges, or charges entirely on tertiaries. A sun eclipsed is
considered equivalent to a sun charged with a roundel; the two are
interchangeable blazons, and yield the same emblazon. The anchor atop the
roundel is therefore a quaternary charge, forbidden per Rule VIII.1.c.ii
[also returned for conflict] (Angus Sinclair, August, 1993, pg. 15)
We grant no difference between a compass star and a rivenstar, and no
difference between a compass star and a sun. (Jacques Gilbert de Gascogne,
September, 1993, pg. 23)
[A garden rose slipped and leaved and on a chief three garden rosebuds] There is a longstanding policy that one may not use two close variants of the same charge in one design. It creates visual confusion, where the whole purpose of heraldry is instant identification. The almost-but-not-quite identical charges need not be a single group; this is not related to our ban on "slot-machine heraldry." (We wouldn't allow, for example, a sun between three compass stars either.) If there's not a CD between the two charges, they should not be used together in the same design. (Joanna d'Oléron, September, 1993, pg. 24)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Simplicity or Complexity) |Top of Page |Next Page (Tool - Angle)]
We grant no difference between mullets of six points and compass stars, nor between compass stars and suns, so all three are considered as variations on the same charge. Using them all in a single device is not acceptable style. (Isabella Julietta Diego y Vega, October, 1993, pg. 19)
The charges on the chief were blazoned as rapiers, but drawn as modern fencing foils. While the LOI noted that the submitter would be told how to draw the charges henceforth, this doesn't make the device, as submitted, acceptable. We can wink at minor emblazonry problems, but not blatantly non-period artifacts. [See also Fernando Juan Carlos Remesal, October 1992 LoAR, pg. 29] (Thorun Geiri, September, 1992, pg. 50)
There should be a CD for sword vs. sword inverted, when the primary charge in the device. (Lothair the Valiant, March, 1993, pg. 13)
The charge ...was blazoned a yin-yang on the LOI, at the submitter's insistence. The term does not appear to be correct. Yin-yang is the Chinese philosophy of opposing cosmic forces; the motif in this submission is a yin-yang symbol, according to the OED Supplement. (The submitter's own documentation refers to the motif as a "yang-yin disc".) The OED Supplement also gives t'ai chi as the name for this fusion of forces, the Supreme Ultimate --- but also as the name for the symbol of that concept. (The martial art characterized as "low- impact aerobics" on the LOI is properly called t'ai chi ch'uan.) The term t'ai-chi is correct for the motif; it's been used in previous SCA blazons; so long as we register the symbol, we will continue to so blazon it. (Randwulf the Hermit, June, 1993, pg. 2)
Tomoe are comma-shaped figures, used in Japanese Mon to represent a whirlpool. Mon designs may have one, two, or (most usually) three tomoe in annulo. They have no equivalent in European armory. (Hawley & Chappelear, Mon: the Japanese Family Crest, p.76) In general, Mon-like designs are acceptable in Society armory only if they can be blazoned in European heraldic terms --- as though a period Japanese, visiting Europe, were attempting to register his Mon with one of the kings of arms. Tomoe cannot be blazoned in European terms, and so cannot be considered compatible with European heraldry. This submission, though a splendid Japanese design, may not be registered in the Society. (Takeo Niro, November, 1992, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Simplicity or Complexity) |Top of Page |Next Page (Tool - Angle)]