Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
[Fieldless, an ermine spot, drawn with "balls" not conjoined to the "tail" ] "It is Lord Laurel's considered opinion that an ermine spot should be considered a single charge, and so this does not fall under the ban on fieldless charges consisting of disconnected charges." (LoAR 8/91 p.13).
"Lord Laurel is confused by the misunderstanding some commenters seem to have regarding the difference between fieldless and tinctureless armory. Fieldless armory gets a CD for fieldlessness; tinctureless armory (SCA, not mundane) acquires one CD for fieldlessness - the other CD must come from a class other than tincture (RfS X.4.d). Japanese mon, while tinctureless, are not fieldless; thus, they cannot be granted the fieldlessness difference. Addition or removal of charges, field and charge divisions (since mon appear only to have used solid fields and solid charges), complex lines, all contribute difference from mon. Fieldlessness does not, unless the SCA armory being considered against it is fieldless, in which case the SCA armory, not the mon, gets a CD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 1/92 p.15).
[{Fieldless} A fleur-de-lis per pale] "Versus <mundane nobility>, {Fieldless} A fleur-de-lys, there is a CD for fieldlessness and another for the addition of a line of division on the charge. The assumption (until proven otherwise) is that mundane badges were displayed only in solid tinctures (including the furs). It is therefore reasonable that the addition of a line of division should count for difference, as here." (LoAR 2/92 p.10).
[{Fieldless} a bendlet crossed by two scarpes] "It is not possible to have ordinaries or diminutives of ordinaries on a fieldless badge. Blazoning them as couped will normally permit this; however, these cannot be blazoned as couped due to the unusual nature of the couping (horizontally.)" (LoAR 5/92 p.24).
"The Rules for Submissions, VIII.5. is revised to read:
VIII. 5. Fieldless Style - Fieldless armory must form a self-contained design. A fieldless design must have all its elements conjoined, like three feathers issuing from a crown used by the Heir Apparent to the throne of England. Since there is no field in such a design, it may not use charges that rely on the edges of the field to define their shape, such as bordures and orles, nor to cut off their ends, such as ordinaries or charges throughout.
The [italicized] phrase replaces 'Ideally, a fieldless design will have all its elements linked together.' " (CL 6/18/92 p.1).
[A fret conjoined in saltire with four mice tergiant sable] "The large number of suggested reblazons for the primary on this device (including a 'fret vermined') is indicative of its non-Period style. We have seen no evidence at all for a fret terminating in a beast of any kind." (LoAR 8/91 p.24).
"The use of two bendlets way up to one side [in sinister chief] severely unbalances the device. With four tinctures and four types of charge this is right at the limit of complexity. Combined with the use of what are normally central ordinaries as peripheral charges and the unusual treatment in the 'veiling' of the cross, this must be returned for complexity and for non-Period style." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).
[Per bend sinister, two scarpes enhanced] "The style of this badge is very unbalanced and obtrusively modern in design, in violation of RfS VIII.4.d." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).
[Sable, on a vested arm fesswise embowed issuant from dexter holding a sword argent, a compass star sable, in chief a lit candle argent] "The badge is very complex in that it is unbalanced and appears to have no cohesiveness or unity of design. As such it must be considered a non-period design." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).
[Charge blazoned as 'a flame issuant from base'] "Although the LoI noted the submitter has been advised to draw more yellow in the flame, this is effectively a 'base rayonny gules, fimbriated Or'. Similar charges tinctured in this fashion have been returned in the past. If he wishes to redraw it with areal base of flames (gules with yellow throughout as well as along the edges of the rayonny) we will be happy to reconsider this proposal." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).
[Per fess gules and argent, a fess counterchanged between a <charge> and a <different charge atop a mount>] "Conflict with... per fess gules and argent, a fess counterchanged. There is one CD for the addition of the secondaries." [This implies that the mount is considered part of the same secondary group and the charges surrounding the fess, as opposed to a separate peripheral charge.] (LoAR 5/92 p.22)
"Just as one should not have a charge overlying a chief or flaunches, a charge overlying a base is not registrable." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).
"[At the Huntington Library, in Pasadena, CA] there was there a Spanish book printed in 1560 which had a very large drawing of what was quite clearly an American Bison." (LoAR 8/91 p.14).
"There is a CVD for changing the lamb to a sea-lamb but the consensus among the commenters was that X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 8/91 p.17).
"The consensus of the commentary was that X.2 applies between ferrets and hedgehogs." (LoAR 9/91 p.2).
[A winged wolf] "Conflict with... a wolf... there is only one CVD for adding the wings." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).
[A horse's head couped argent maned gules fimbriated Or] "There are simply too many problems with the emblazon here to register this and tell the submitter to 'draw the X properly.' The greatest difficulty comes with the mane of the horse's head which, rather than being of flames proper, is gules, fimbriated Or. The mane is far too complex to fimbriate. (And there is some question as to whether 'maned of flames' is acceptable SCA style.) The suggestion by Lord Trefoil that we simply blazon the mane gules and tolerate its low contrast against the field as an artistic detail worth no heraldic difference will not work here. On this horse's head the mane is easily as significant as a pair of wings would be, and we would not allow them to break tincture either." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).
[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).
[Two wingless griffins combattant] "Conflict with... two lions rampant combattant... The only difference in the large emblazon between these wingless griffins and lions is to the nose of the animal. If the submitter would use either griffins with wings, or male griffins (with the spikes), [there would be a CD for type]." (LoAR 1/92 p.17).
"While I do not believe that X.2 would apply between a dog and a sea-dog, I do not have a problem with granting a CD, especially given the separate heraldic existence of a sea-dog from any other kind of dog." (LoAR 2/92 p.9).
[Two horses forceny salient addorsed] "Versus... two levriers rampant addorsed... it is not at all clear that X.2 does apply between the two types of beast as is stated in the LoI. However, [another conflict] makes that question moot." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).
[A rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attire] Conflict with... a coney. Given that the default posture for a rabbit is sejant, there is at best one CD, and many commenters did not find that much for the addition of the antlers." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).
[A cat sejant] "Conflict with... a fox sejant... There is one CD for the change to the type of primary, but X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).
"There are some fairly obvious differences to the head and body outline between doves and cocks; sufficient for a CVD." (LoAR 7/91 p.12).
[A hummingbird rising] "Conflict with...a falcon... There is a CVD for the change to type of bird but X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 8/91 p.15).
[A griffin displayed] "Versus...a double headed eagle displayed... there is...[a CD] (barely) for the differences between a griffin and an eagle in this position. The primary visible differences between an eagle and a griffin in this position are the griffin's ears and tail, as the forelimbs are almost invisible against the wings." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).
[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).
[Request for reblazon from "owl argent" to "snowy owl proper"] "It has long been the practice of the College that when a standard blazon using heraldic tinctures is available that that blazon is preferable to using naturalistic propers. In this case, the only difference between the registered owl argent and the client's snowy owl proper is some of the internal detailing in sable. As this is exactly the level and kind of artistic detail that has always been left to the whim of the artist, we do not see sufficient reason to change the blazon here." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).
"There is more than sufficient documentation for the kleestengeln, which are representations of the wingbones found in German armory. They are blazonable, though they should probably not count for difference." (LoAR 4/92 p.16).
"Passant is not a bird position, so we have reblazoned the bird in the closest avian position, as 'rising, wings inverted and addorsed.' " [Actually, passantis a bird posture, and refers to a bird walking with one foot raised.] (LoAR 4/92 p.20).
[Firebird vs. Peacock] "After comparing the two emblazons, we found we could only grant one CD for the change to the posture [leaving no difference for type]" (LoAR 4/92 p.21).
[A bend charged with three martlets vs. a bend charged with three owls] "The change in type only from martlets to owls is insufficient to apply X.4.j.ii." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).
[Three martlets within a peripheral charge] "Conflict with... three parroquets... There is one CD for the addition of the <peripheral charge> but the differences between martlets and parroquets, which are more or less a generic bird, are too small to grant the necessary second." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).
[A martlet] "Conflict with... a falcon close... After a comparison of the emblazons we did not feel that a CD could be granted for type only of bird." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).
[Per fess indented of five points] "Because the emblazon requires blazoning the number of points of the line of division of the field to make the design work, this is not particularly period style, but is not poor enough style to return." (LoAR 7/91 p.5).
"It should be noted that cotises follow the line of the ordinary they flank by default. When they do not (for example, a fess wavy cotised plain), it must be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).
[Per bend sinister paly azure and Or, and argent] "Though submitted as 'Per bend sinister azure and argent...' the above blazon much more closely follows the real visual impact of the design." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).
"Generally, when there is a problem with a blazon in a LoI, that submission is pended by Laurel, not returned." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).
[Per fess indented of two points] "It is not terribly good practice to blazon the number of points of the indented line, but seems within the bounds of SCA practice." (LoAR 1/92 p.8).
[A pale convex] "While the submitter has fixed one of the problems [of the previous return], the other remains. The notes made by Laurel in the file at that time state that 'a pale convex is not a heraldic charge.' The blazon submitted for it in the LoI, 'embowed', does not accurately describe the emblazon." (LoAR 1/92 p.18).
[Request for reblazon from "owl argent" to "snowy owl proper"] "It has long been the practice of the College that when a standard blazon using heraldic tinctures is available that that blazon is preferable to using naturalistic propers. In this case, the only difference between the registered owl argent and the client's snowy owl proper is some of the internal detailing in sable. As this is exactly the level and kind of artistic detail that has always been left to the whim of the artist, we do not see sufficient reason to change the blazon here." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).
"Passant is not a bird position, so we have reblazoned the bird in the closest avian position, as 'rising, wings inverted and addorsed.' " [Actually, passant is a bird posture, and refers to a bird walking with one foot raised.] (LoAR 4/92 p.20).
"As a number of commenters noted, we normally do not blazon the number of traits in a paly field unless there is some overriding need to. Paly fields are most commonly of six or of eight, and neither needs to be blazoned." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).
[On a flame an <A> charged with a <B>] "Although this was blazoned as an <A> enflamed, the visual reality is as reblazoned above. A good, proper, Period enflamed has a few gouttes of flame scattered around the edge of the charge being enflamed. Where the flame completely surrounds an object, that object is said to be 'on a flame.' As a consequence this device has four layers: field, flame, <A> and <B>." (LoAR 5/92 p.26).
"The use of two similar but non-identical charges in a group has been cause for return many times in the past. A scroll is one kind of book and a book is another." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).
[An impaled-style device, with a charged bordure] "There was some disagreement at the Laurel meeting as to whether the addition of a charged bordure removes the appearance of marshalling. That most of the commenters seem to think that it does or have said nothing leads us to believe that the College feels that the addition of a charged bordure does, in fact, remove the appearance of marshalling." (LoAR 7/91 p.4).
"In spite of the registration of a bordure and chief in the same tincture some time back noted in the LoI, a similar combination was disallowed in the LoAR for the January 1991 Laurel meeting [p.27]. It was noted there that a chief should not be used with a bordure of the same tincture as it will give the visual effect of a bordure with a fat top. Nor does period armory give much precedent for such a combination, as the vast majority of exemplars there go out of their way to demarcate the two charges by tincture, line of division, or both. As has often been noted, we follow the general practices, not the exceptions." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).
"Just as you may not have a compony bordure that shares a tincture with the field, neither may you have a plain bordure which shares the tincture with a gyronny field as here." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).
[Two <charges> in fess and a base] "This is clear of... three <charges>, with a change to the number of primaries and the addition of the subordinary. Peripheral charges such as chiefs, bordures, bases, flaunches etc. are not considered to be a part of the primary charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.3).
"As has been stated many times in the past, Society practice follows the general rule, not the anomaly. While Lord Brigantia did find one instance of a mundane coat of arms which had a bordure and chief of the same tincture, the general rule appears to be that while bordures and chiefs are sometimes found, they are of different tinctures, and frequently have differing lines of division to further differentiate them. This is therefore returned for having the chief and bordure of the same tincture." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).
"Counterchanging the bordure over the flaunches is not good style." [The badge was registered] (LoAR 1/92 p.3).
[A gurges... overall on a sinister gore a <charge>] "This is four layers (field, gurges, gore <charge>). There is serious doubt as to whether peripheral charges (e.g., bordures, chiefs, gores, etc.) may be used as an overall charge in this manner. Certainly we would much prefer to see some evidence of its acceptability in Period before registering it in the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.18).
[Argent, vêtu ployé gules, a <charge> within a bordure] "As drawn, the emblazon shows the bordure overall. If the client would redraw this so that the corners of the vêtu are not cut off by the bordure, this design would be acceptable." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).
"The division of the bordure (per saltire) of two colors makes it very hard to recognize what is going on with the bordure. We would prefer some documentation that bordures were divided this way in Period before we register it in the SCA." (LoAR 4/92 p.17).
[A bordure gyronny vs. a bordure compony] "There is one CD for the posture of the primary" [which implies no difference for the bordure tincture] (LoAR 4/92 p.24).