Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
"We do not feel that the ban on fieldless badges containing disconnected charges of both metal and color, written into the old rules in AR13b, has been overturned by the new rules." (LoAR 8/90 p.17).
[<field> in base a <charge>, vs. the same <charge> used as a crest (cited from Fairbairn's Crests)] "There is one CVD, for fielded vs. fieldless, but nothing can be granted against a fieldless badge (which is what we have treated crests as) for position on the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).
"The reason I place '{Fieldless}' at the beginning of the blazons of fieldless badges is to make it clear that the field tincture has not been left off in error. I do not consider '{Fieldless}' to be a part of the 'real' blazon, but an administrative notation which may sometimes prevent confusion or the belief that the lack of a field tincture is due to a typographical error. {Not that I ever make typogrephical erors, mined yu!}" (CL 11/5/90 p.3).
[(Fieldless) A charge between three other charges of a different type in pall inverted, all in same tincture class] "It was felt that the overall design of this badge did not form a 'self-contained' design as within the meaning of RfS VIII.5." [The badge was returned for this reason] (LoAR 10/90 p.20).
[Azure, a <charge> Or] "This was submitted as '{Fieldless} Upon a hurt a <charge> Or'. As noted by Master Baldwin, fieldless badges should not have as their primary charge a charged convex geometric shape, as it then appears to be a display of arms...[quotes Master Baldwin from the 8 June 1986 LoAR p.7]...Accordingly, we have modified the blazon to better match the visual reality of this submission" [Also see LoAR 2/91 p.19] (LoAR 1/91 p.3).
"On and after June 1 of this year, the College will no longer register fieldless badges consisting of disconnected charges. This ban will include charges 'framing' another charge, unless such charges are conjoined...I do not believe that this ruling will require a change to the wording of the rules, since it is really only a stricter interpretation of the current wording of Rule VIII.5, Fieldless Style ('Ideally, a fieldless design will have all its elements linked together.')." (CL 3/8/91 p.1).
[Comparing two fieldless badges] "There is a CVD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 2/91 p.4).
"It is not possible to eclipse something 'of the field' on a fieldless badge." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).
[A quaver (musical note)] "In keeping with prior Laurel rulings on this issue, just as a badge may not consist solely of a single letter, neither may it consist solely of a single abstract symbol." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).
[(fieldless) on a delf Or a charge] "The precedent set by Master Baldwin in 1986 regarding the style of '{fieldless} on a (billet, roundel, delf, etc.)...' has not been abrogated by the new rules. This appears to be a display of arms... on a rectangle. The fact that such arms would be in conflict... is beside the point. A fieldless badge should not have a charge placed on a convex geometric shape which is used for armorial display." [the badge was returned] (LoAR 2/91 p.19).
[<field>, two charges in saltire, a dexter tierce, in chief three <other charges> counterchanged] "It was the consensus of the commenters that this was not so excessively unbalanced a design as to warrant return, but it does come close." (LoAR 9/90 p.2).
"While the [augmentation has] a tendency to unbalance the device somewhat, it is Laurel's feeling that we need to loosen the application of our standards a little with regard to augmentations, which by their very nature will add complexity to and not infrequently serve to unbalance a device." (LoAR 2/91 p.9).
[Gules, on a chevron Or between a pair of <charges> and a base arched and indented argent, three <tertiaries>] "Conflict with [Gules, on a chevron Or three <different tertiaries>]. There is a CVD for the addition of the secondaries, but nothing for the change of type only of tertiaries. Conflict also with [Gules, on a chevron Or between three <different secondaries> argent, three <different tertiaries> gules], with the same count." [This strongly implies that two charges in chief + a base are a single group of charges, two and one, rather than a group of charges in chief + a separate, "peripheral charge" group] (LoAR 8/90 p.14).
[A bimount + charged chief vs. charged chief alone on field] "The bimount, as a peripheral charge, is not a 'primary charge' as defined in the Glossary of Terms, and thus X.1 and X.2 cannot be invoked." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).
[Comparing armory using a per chevron field with armory using a point pointed] "There is a CVD for...modifying the line of division of the field from straight to 'ploy�' or embowed to base". (LoAR 3/91 p.3).
[Dormant lion vs. couchant Egyptian sphinx, both in chief on differing per fess fields] "There is only one CVD, for the change to the field [implying no type difference]." (LoAR 8/90 p.18).
[A beast tergiant, overall three barrulets indented] "This design (as is almost any 'road kill' heraldry) is obtrusively modern, in violation of RfS VIII.4." (LoAR 10/90 p.15).
[A bear sitting with its legs forward in the style of a teddy bear, blazoned as 'sitting' in the LoI and 'sejant erect' in the LoAR] "We felt that the depiction of the bear was within the limits of artistic variation for sejant erect, and did not feel that a new term ('sitting') was necessary for this posture." (LoAR 12/90 p.13).
[Winged lion-dragon passant guardant] "It was the opinion of those at the Laurel meeting that while X.2 could be invoked against [a lion passant guardant] (for the addition of the wings and change of lower half of the body), [a griffin passant] (for the change to head and tail), that the similarity of outline was not sufficient to apply X.2 against [a wyvern]. (The default posture for wyverns on the Continent is passant, hence there is no difference for posture.) Given that wyverns were sometimes emblazoned with feathered wings rather than bat-wings, this call became much trickier, with changes only to head and forelegs, the detailing of the lion vs. reptilian torso being of less visual weight. In the end we felt we had to say that while there was clearly a CVD for type, that not enough difference was there to apply X.2." (LoAR 10/90 pps.15-16).
"This is clear of <cited conflict>, but only just...We felt that given the normal depiction of squirrels, with very large, bushy tails, that a second CVD could be granted for type from ferrets." (LoAR 11/90 p.9).
[A request for change of blazon from domestic cat to catamount] "The emblazon in the files clearly shows a domestic cat." [The blazon was not changed] (LoAR 11/90 p.16). [Yak vs. bull] "We cannot see granting [a CVD] for the 'hairiness' of the bull." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).
[Winged natural tiger rampant] "Clear by X.2 from...a lion rampant..." (LoAR 1/91 p.19).
"Because the most distinctive feature of the enfield, eagle's claws for forelegs, are lost against the [maintained charge], there are a number of conflicts with various foxes and wolves...There is only one CVD for the tincture of the beast. Conflict also with...a lion rampant [in same tinctures]...with one CVD for the type of beast." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).
[Reblazon of bat to reremouse] "Regarding the creature blazoned a 'bat' in the LoI, the Fool of Arms said it best, in Motley Heraldry: You may say to bats in a belfry 'You're bats.' They won't mind, 'cause they are; But you mustn't say 'Bats' to the ones in shields - You'd better be silent by far; For the bat in a shield is a reremouse (You may call him a flittermouse, too) And if you say 'Bats' to the reremice proud They'll answer, 'And bats to you!' " (LoAR 3/91 p.3).
"Commentary seemed generally favorable to allowing gemstones as charges, and since Lord Batonvert found period armory using a faceted gemstone, they will be permitted in SCA armory. However, no difference can be counted for them against delfs, billets, pillows, and other gemstones of any cut." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).
[<field> a hawk displayed wings inverted, <tincture> vs. many cases of <different field> an eagle displayed <same tincture>] "In each case, there is only one CVD, for the field." [implying no difference for hawk to eagle, or for inverting wings] (LoAR 7/90 pps. 11-12).
[(fieldless) a falcon sable jessed sable and Or vs. (various fields) an eagle close sable, a raven sable, a falcon sable hooded, lined and membered Or] "In each case there is only one CVD, for fieldlessness." [implying no difference for bird types and/or accoutrements] (LoAR 9/90 p.13).
[Crane blazoned in LoAR as 'standing on one foot'] "The crane was blazoned in the LoI as 'in its vigilance', but that definiton includes a stone held in the raised foot of the bird, which was not present in the emblazon." (LoAR 10/90 p.7).
[Double flowered thistle] "Given the normal emblazon of thistles...wherein the leaves rather than the heads are the most visually prominent element, we could not see giving a CVD for the addition of the second head (not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).
[Male American kestrels striking proper (Falco spaverius)] "The male American kestrels are mostly light buff and tan on the underside, and in this position have good contrast with the [purpure] bend sinister." (LoAR 11/90 p.4).
[A duck displayed guardant] "Conflict with [a dove displayed head elevated]...we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for type between two white birds in an identical position." (LoAR 11/90 p.16).
[Azure, a raven and a <peripheral charge> argent] "Conflict with...Azure, a goshawk argent. There is one CVD for the addition of the <peripheral charge>, but we could not see a second for the difference between a raven and a goshawk in an identical posture. Regarding the statement made in the return of [a submission in November 1990], it would have been clearer (and more accurate) had I said that there is no difference between two types of birds of similar shape or silhouette in identical postures. Thus this submission does not conflict with... Azure, a sheldrake argent, with CVDs for type of primary and addition of the secondary. (Even Laurel on one of his bad days can tell the difference between a raven and a duck!)." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).
[A dove volant wings addorsed, as only significant charge on device] "Conflict with...a falcon volant... as cited in the LoI. There may possibly be a CVD for bird type here [see LoAR 1/91 p.23]...but certainly not the substantial kind of change required by X.2." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).
"It was felt that we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for the difference between a generic bird and an eagle." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).
"There appear to be some very strong feelings that birds should not be registered in quadrupeds' positions. As a consequence of this attitude (which Laurel has long shared): PRECEDENT: Henceforth, we will not accept rampant birds." (LoAR 5/91 p.5).
"In the device submission <field, in fess two falcons close sable>, the LoI counted difference versus...Or, two ravens in fess proper, for type of charge on the grounds that period heralds saw them as different charges. (Both devices have the birds in their default position, close.) However, in the SCA, we have to take into account, as Lady Dolphin noted, not only 'Clear Historical Differences', but 'Clear VISUAL Differences'. This issue is the flip-side, if you will, of the Estoile/Mullet question [also in CL 7/16/91]. Should we allow difference for two charges which look alike but which period heralds considered to be different (falcons and ravens, both sable), while not allowing difference for two charges which clearly look different but which period heralds did not treat as different (estoiles and mullets)? I would have a harder time explaining to a submitter that two birds which look almost exactly alike are really considered to be different heraldically than I would explaining to that same submitter that estoiles and mullets are really alike heraldically. Thank you, no." (CL 7/16/91 p.2).
[Per bend sinister argent and gules, a gules charge in dexter chief] "It was our feeling that since the gules <charge> could not overlie the gules portion of the field, that its position would be intuitively obvious and therefore did not need to be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/90 p.12).
"The reason I place '{Fieldless}' at the beginning of the blazons of fieldless badges is to make it clear that the field tincture has not been left off in error. I do not consider '{Fieldless}' to be a part of the 'real' blazon, but an administrative notation which may sometimes prevent confusion or the belief that the lack of a field tincture is due to a typographical error. {Not that I ever make typogrephical erors, mined yu!}" (CL 11/5/90 p.3).
[Spearhead, charge submitted as an arrowhead] "While the submitter documented the form of a Tudor arrowhead in this shape, most heralds would see it first as a spearhead, hence we have reblazoned it thus. Given the gross changes in outline between a spearhead and a standard heraldic pheon or broad arrow, we do not see calling conflict between this and any of several pieces of armory with pheons inverted." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).
[A delf ... pierced two and two] "There was a lot of discussion about the submitted blazon, which called the charge a weaving tablet. While several of the commenters recognized it (and the submitter has demonstrated its existence well within period), they tended to be those who had used weaving tablets. We have therefore modified the blazon to ensure reproducibility without specialized knowledge or experience in fiber arts." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).
[A request for change of blazon from domestic cat to catamount] "The emblazon in the files clearly shows a domestic cat." [The blazon was not changed] (LoAR 11/90 p.16).
"Thistles are slipped and leaved by default in the SCA. A rose proper is gules, barbed vert, seeded Or. By using the heraldic defaults, we have been able to shorten the submitted blazon by six words, a substantial savings." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).
[Azure a <charge> Or] "This was submitted as '{Fieldless} Upon a hurt a <charge> Or'. As noted by Master Baldwin, fieldless badges should not have as their primary charge a charged convex geometric shape, as it then appears to be a display of arms...[quotes Master Baldwin from the 8 June 1986 LoAR p.7]...Accordingly, we have modified the blazon to better match the visual reality of this submission." (LoAR 1/91 p.3).
[A German version of the gurges, a.k.a. a snail, a.k.a. (and finally blazoned as) a schneke] "Given that the College of Arms has already adopted such German charges as the seeblatt and nesselblatt into its blazonry, we saw no reason not to accept the German blazon for this charge as well." (LoAR 1/91 p.7).
"While sympathetic with those who would blazon these as 'square weaver's tablets' or 'weaving cards', the existence of weaving tablets with five holes made Laurel less willing to do so, and so we have retained the 'delfs pierced two and two' of the earlier registration of this charge." (LoAR 1/91 p.11).
"We have no difficulty with blazoning the specific type of musket, though of course it would not count for difference from any other type of period musket." (LoAR 1/91 p.15).
"Blazoned in the LoI as 'Sable a <charge> argent and overall a fess counterchanged', an ordinary, when present, is normally considered the primary charge and should be blazoned first. Blazoned this way, it is much clearer that this is in conflict with...Sable, a fess argent, as noted in the LoI. In previous cases where a piece of armory could legitimately be blazoned in either of two ways, if either blazon had a conflict, the submission was returned." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).
[Reblazon of bat to reremouse] "Regarding the creature blazoned a 'bat' in the LoI, the Fool of Arms said it best, in Motley Heraldry: You may say to bats in a belfry 'You're bats.' They won't mind, 'cause they are; But you mustn't say 'Bats' to the ones in shields - You'd better be silent by far; For the bat in a shield is a reremouse (You may call him a flittermouse, too) And if you say 'Bats' to the reremice proud They'll answer, 'And bats to you!' " (LoAR 3/91 p.3).
[A device using a bordure and a charged chief of the same tincture] "A chief should not surmount a bordure (Parker p.112), nor should a chief be used with a bordure of the same tincture, which will have the visual effect of a bordure with a 'fat top'." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).
[A bordure parted bordurewise indented] "The bordure was blazoned as 'indented-in-point' in the LoI. The above blazon, though not quite as elegant, is believed to be clearer." (LoAR 2/91 p.12).
[A bordure triple-parted and fretted] "Bordures cannot be parted and fretted in this manner. (Picture doing it on a roundel, for example...Where would the fretting be?)." (LoAR 4/91 p.14).