PRECEDENTS OF THE S.C.A. COLLEGE OF ARMS

The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)

CHARGE GROUPS


"It is poor style to use two similar but non-identical charges in a a single group. For example, using a sword and two poinards in a sheaf... has been cause for return in the past. The use of two different types of gauntlets is likewise impermissible." (LoAR 7/91 p.21).


"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).


"Changing the tincture of the topmost of three charges one and two is insufficient for [a CVD]" (LoAR 8/91 p.18).


[A quill pen and a rapier crossed in saltire, and overall a compass star] "[This] is a single group of three dissimilar charges, which violates RFS VIII.1.a." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).


[In pale a <charge> and <two other charges> in saltire] "This is technically just not slot machine heraldry, but only because visually there are two charge 'groups' rather than one group of three different charges." (LoAR 9/91 p.9).


[An owl passant brandishing an axe palewise] "The axe in this submission, nearly the length of the primary charge, is significant enough to contribute to difference." (LoAR 9/91 p.11).


[Three charges, one and two] "There is... [a CVD] for changing both the type and tincture of one [the topmost] of the group of three primary charges." [Note this expands the ruling on the CL 9/6/90 p.2, which only discusses the bottommost of three charges, two and one] (LoAR 10/91 p.6).


"While commentary was somewhat split on this issue, the general feeling was that to modify the Rules to define half a group by line of division or as those charges on either side of an ordinary would only serve to encourage unbalanced armory. On the other hand, there are times when the visual impact of changes to charges which amount to 'less than half the group' should be granted more difference. As a consequence, we are adopting Lady Dolphin's (now Lady Crescent) suggestion of allowing two changes to the minority of a group (i.e., the 'lesser' half of a group of charges lying on either side of a line of field division or an ordinary) being sufficient for a Clear Difference. For example, 'Per bend sinister sable and Or, a decrescent moon Or and three fir trees proper' would be allowed two CDs from 'Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear's head argent and three fir trees vert' with one CD for the field and another for the two changes to the charge in dexter chief." (CL 12/21/91 pps. 1-2).


[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).


[In bend a teasel slipped and leaved Or and a flax flower slipped and leaved argent] "The use of two different types of plants in different orientations [one was somewhat out of the palewise true in the emblazon, although wasn't reflected in the blazon] and different tinctures is not period style. Prior Laurel precedent has indicated that we should not use two different kinds of charges of the same general type in a single charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


[Sable, a fess argent, overall a <charge> within an orle or rope counterchanged] "Only the fact that the orle is considered a peripheral charge and thus not part of the same group as the <charge> prevents this from conflict with ...Sable a fess argent, by X4c." (LoAR 1/92 p.1).


[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).


[On a spiderweb, a spider between three <charges> vs. a spiderweb] "Spiderwebs are throughout by default and thus there cannot be a CD for 'throughoutness' here. A spiderweb is not like any of the other field treatments, in that no part of it reflects the same pattern as the whole. In this way it much more closely resembles a gurges, which is a charge. Thus, there is only one CD... for the addition of the overall charges." [Note: this implies that all overall charges are one group] (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Azure, on a bend between six <secondary charges> bendwise in bend, a <tertiary charge> palewise] "No evidence was presented that this style of device follows any Period exemplars. Normal practice both in Period and since would have been for the tertiary to follow the line of the bend and the secondaries to be palewise. To deliberately reverse the normal defaults for both the secondaries and the tertiary gives this a very post-Period look." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[<field> a rose and on a gore a rose] "The use of two different sizes of the same charge (the primary and the tertiary) has been grounds for return in the past, as they make it harder to identify just what is going on on the field, belonging as they do to two different charge groups." [the main reason for return was non-period ermining on both primary and peripheral charge] (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


"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).


[A mermaid between three sealions] "This device barely avoids having to be returned for the use of two similar but different charges in the same group. It would be helpful if the client would draw the mermaid larger." (LoAR 6/92 p.5).


[In pale a dolphin embowed and a shark embowed to base contourny] "The use of two very similar but different charges in the same group here is not Period style and is in fact not registerable by prior Laurel precedent (see, e.g., LoAR of 30 April 1989, p.6)." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


CHEVRON


[Chevronels, drawn and blazoned 'enarched' in LoI, blazoned simply as chevronels in LoAR] "The enarching of the chevronels is artistic. The 'chevron enarched' as shown in Parker has a normal straight chevron with an arch conjoined to the bottom edge, very much different from those here." (LoAR 11/91 p.1).


CHIEF


"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).


[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).


COMPLEXITY


[Two winged lions dormant respectant and a winged lion sejant affronty wings displayed, two and one] "Several commenters felt that the mirrored orientation of the two lions in chief created a 'de facto' case of slot machine heraldry. While Laurel is personally sympathetic with this position, orienting charges this way has not been cause for return in the past." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).


[A dance overall a griffin segreant queue forché counterchanged] "The counterchanging of the complex overall charge over the complex primary may be considered too much because it breaks up the outline of both charges to an excessive degree." (Device returned for this and administrative reasons.) (LoAR 7/91 p.19).


"It is poor style to use two similar but non-identical charges in a a single group. For example, using a sword and two poinards in a sheaf... has been cause for return in the past. The use of two different types of gauntlets is likewise impermissible." (LoAR 7/91 p.21).


"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).


"Counterchanging complex charges over an ordinary has been cause for return at times in the past. Were the mullet [of four greater and eight lesser points] truly overall [on the chevron throughout], that would very likely be the case here." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


[Per pale argent and Or fretty vert, in dexter a leaved branch issuant from chief proper and <a charged chief>] "The device has several problems. The first is the profound appearance of dimidiated arms, which the addition of the charged chief does not serve to diminish. The device is also right at the very edge of our complexity limits having four types of charge in four tinctures. Given the unusual arrangement and unbalanced design this is simply too much." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


[A quill pen and a rapier crossed in saltire, and overall a compass star] "[This] is a single group of three dissimilar charges, which violates RFS VIII.1.a." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).


[In pale a <charge> and <two other charges> in saltire] "This is technically just not slot machine heraldry, but only because visually there are two charge 'groups' rather than one group fo three different charges." (LoAR 9/91 p.9).


"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).


[In bend a teasel slipped and leaved Or and a flax flower slipped and leaved argent] "The use of two different types of plants in different orientations [one was somewhat out of the palewise true in the emblazon, although wasn't reflected in the blazon] and different tinctures is not period style. Prior Laurel precedent has indicated that we should not use two different kinds of charges of the same general type in a single charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


[Per fess azure and argent, on a pale bretessed counterchanged in chief a mullet sable, all within a bordure counter-compony sable and Or] "Though just within the guidelines of the rule of thumb for complexity, this is awfully busy." (LoAR 12/91 p.15).


[A hammer and tongs in saltire, overall a sword] "Contrary to opinion expressed in the LoI, this is indeed slot machine heraldry, in violation of RFS VIII.1.a. It contains three disparate charges in a standard heraldic arrangement." (LoAR 12/91 p.16).


[A falcon, in chief a comet fesswise, in base two barrulets engrailed and invected] "Given that all of the charges have what amounts to the same visual 'weight', this is effectively 'slot machine heraldry', with three different types of charge in a standard heraldic arrangement." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).


[On a bend between a crescent bendwise sinister and a natural seahorse bendwise three trefoils palewise] "The device is right at the very limits of the rule of thumb for complexity with four tinctures and four types of charge. That, in combination with the nonstandard posture of any of the charges (with the sole exception of the bend) pushes it over the edge of acceptability." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).


[Per pall, two ravens addorsed counterchanged, in chief an estoile in soleil between two sprigs of mistletoe] "This is not Period style and is too close to slot machine heraldry, having three different types of charge in what could be considered a standard heraldic arrangement on a per pall field. The 'estoile in soleil' is not something I think we wish to encourage, nor is the mirror symmetry of the entire device." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


[Checky argent and sable, an apple tree fructed proper and on a chief Or three apples gules] "While this is technically over the rule of thumb for complexity with three types of charge and six tinctures (including the brown and vert of the tree), it holds together so well visually that we do not believe it exceeds the spirit of that rule." (LoAR 1/92 p.13).


[On a sun eclipsed a <charge>] "Because this is effectively '{Fieldless} on a sun... a [roundel] charged with a <charge>', the <charge> is effectively a quaternary charge, and therefore exceeds our layering limits." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


[Per pale sable and argent, a <beast> between three decrescents and in chief a tower all counterchanged] "This is just within the limits of complexity for counterchanging. It would be ever so much better without the tower." (LoAR 2/92 p.11).


[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).


[Two <charges> in saltire surmounted by a column entwined by a snake] "Laurel does not, however, buy the argument made that this is four layers - field, <charges>, column, snake. We do not believe such an argument to be reasonable. A charge entwined about another is more like a held charge than it is an tertiary." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[Argent, a pantheon salient purpure, estoilly Or, between in fess two crescents gules, within a bordure purpure semy-de-lys Or] "Although this pushes the complexity limits of VIII.1.a, it holds together well enough visually to be allowable here. It would, though, be much better without the crescents." (LoAR 3/92 p.2).


[Argent, goutty gules, a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper, and on a chief engrailed gules a falchion reversed proper] "Although a number of commenters noted that the number of types of charges plus tinctures exceeds the rule of thumb complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a., at least one of those tinctures (vert) comes from a part of the primary normally left to artistic license. In fact, the device holds together visually far better than many with complexity 'counts' of only 6 or 7, and hence certainly follows the spirit of the rule of thumb." (LoAR 3/92 p.9).


[Per pall inverted vert, argent and purpure, in chief two chevronels counterchanged and in base a rose between four crescents in cross argent.] "Despite a rule of thumb 'complexity count' of 'only' six (with three types of charge and three tinctures), this device is extremely complex. It does not appear to follow any period style of armory that any of the commenters could find. The counterchanging in chief, along with the unusual field division, places it beyond acceptable style." (LoAR 3/92 p.11).


[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged fimbriated argent] "If I may quote Lord Batonvert: 'This looks to be acceptable, by both SCA and period standards. A recent case (LoAR of Nov. 91, p.23) had a field party sable and gules, with a crescent counterchanged and fimbriated; that case was returned for (among other reasons) fimbriation of a non-ordinary. [This] submission does use an ordinary, for which there are period examples - notably the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550), Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent.

This is about the limit of complexity we should accept for this sort of motif; but it should be acceptable.'

Lord Laurel would note that he believes that this is at the limits of complexity we should accept for this motif, but given period examples of the motif and the College's allowance for the fimbriation of ordinaries, this proposal is registrable." (LoAR 4/92 p.2).


[Augmentation: Azure, a saltire sable rayonny argent and overall a mace inverted argent as an augmentation on an inescutcheon in honor point Or, a mullet of five greater and five lesser points between in pale a crown of three points sable and issuant from base a demi-sun gules.] "The only real issue which would prevent registration here is the complexity of the base device and the augmentation (total complexity count of 11: five tinctures - azure, sable, argent, Or, gules - and six charges - saltire, mace, inescutcheon mullet, crown, and demi-sun). Laurel has said before (LoAR December 1990 p.8) that augmentations by their very nature add complexity to a device, and augmented arms should not be held to comply to the same standards as unaugmented devices. {Indeed, Laurel finds a certain sense of appeal to Lord Codex' suggestion that augmentations consisting of separable units (such as a canton or inescutcheon) should be counted as a single charge for the purposes of the 'rule of thumb' of the complexity guidelines, ignoring the charges and tinctures upon the augmentation. Using such a standard here would give a complexity count of six with three tinctures - azure, sable and argent - and three charges - saltire, mace and inescutcheon. Counting the augmentation as a single charge and its primary tincture (here, Or) may also be a reasonable rule of thumb. Laurel makes no ruling on this suggestion, but recommends it, with thanks to Lord Codex, to the College for their consideration in the development of a more objective standard.}" (LoAR 4/92 pps. 2-3)


[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).


[Vert, two stags rampant addorsed argent and in chief a water bouget, on a chief Or a bar embattled to base sable] "This is at the very edge of acceptable complexity." (LoAR 5/92 p.3).


[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).


[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 opinion of the commenting heralds was unanimous that a maunch is too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).


[A mermaid between three sealions] "This device barely avoids having to be returned for the use of two similar but different charges in the same group. It would be helpful if the client would draw the mermaid larger." (LoAR 6/92 p.5).


[Per chevron raguly Or and sable a raven displayed head to sinister counterchanged] "On the device, the bird is probably just identifiable enough, but this is probably the absolute limit for counterchanging a complex charge over a complex line of division." (LoAR 6/92 p.9).


[In pale a dolphin embowed and a shark embowed to base contourny] "The use of two very similar but different charges in the same group here is not Period style and is in fact not registerable by prior Laurel precedent (see, e.g., LoAR of 30 April 1989, p.6)." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


CONTRAST


[Gyronny sable and argent, a saltire of chains vert] "The contrast between the vert chain and the sable portions of the field are marginal but because of the symmetry and high contrast against the argent portions of the field this is (just) registerable." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).


[Sable, a saltire dovetailed gyronny purpure and argent] "There are two problems with this device. One is that the combination of a dovetailed line on a gyronny saltire is pretty clearly post-Period style... The second problem is RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. The purpure portions of the saltire, with its complex line of division, fade so badly into the sable field that the identification of the primary charge is lost." (LoAR 9/91 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).


"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).


[Per chevron nebuly sable and purpure, in base a <charge> argent] "The complex line of division on the large emblazon was impossible to define at any distance. The very best we could tell was that it was not a plain line of division. RFS VIII.3 requires that all armorial elements be identifiable. The complex line of division here is not." (LoAR 3/92 p.14).


COTISES


"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).


"Several commenters questioned whether there was any documentation for cotising multiple ordinaries. Without such documentation we are hesitant to introduce yet another post-Period practice into SCA heraldry." [The device, with two chevronels cotised, was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


[A pile cotised] "The cotisses should meet in base" (LoAR 2/92 p.9).


COUNTERCHANGING


[A dance overall a griffin segreant queue forché counterchanged] "The counterchanging of the complex overall charge over the complex primary may be considered too much because it breaks up the outline of both charges to an excessive degree." [Device returned for this and administrative reasons.] (LoAR 7/91 p.19).


"Counterchanging complex charges over an ordinary has been cause for return at times in the past. Were the mullet [of four greater and eight lesser points] truly overall [on the chevron throughout], that would very likely be the case here." [The armory was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


[An ermine field, a Celtic uncial T counterchanged] "Additionally, the counterchanging of the ermine spots over the edges of the charge significantly reduces its identifiability." [Returned primarily for use of a single letter or abstract symbol.] (LoAR 8/91 p.24).


[Bendy sinister of eight,a sword bendwise inverted counterchanged] "The counterchanging of the sword on the field renders its identifiability extremely problematical. The silhouette is so broken up by the counterchanging across the bendy field that it becomes extremely difficult to identify, defeating one of the basic principles of period-style heraldry, quick identification." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


[Per pale argent and azure, on a cross a lion rampant maintaining a sword, overall a bordure embattled counterchanged] "The device is counterchanged within an inch of its life. Though only of two tinctures, the entire device is broken up into 19 pieces (the bordure into ten, the field into four, the cross into two and the lion and sword into three). And much of this counterchanging is across a complex line of division. The overall effect is simply too much." [The device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


[Per bend sable and gules, a crescent bendwise counterchanged, fimbriated argent] "There are a couple of problems with this proposal. First, for some time now the College has been drawing closer and closer to mundane armorial practices of only allowing ordinaries to be fimbriated. Second, fimbriating a crescent which is counterchanged of the (low contrast) field across the line of division becomes confusing visually, which the non-standard (though acceptable) orientation of the crescent only exacerbates. This proposal is, as Lord Dragon noted, 'basically thin line heraldry with some confusing counterchanging going on in the background.' " [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


[Quarterly, an increscent within four mullets of four points in cross counterchanged] "The counterchanging of the primary and secondary charges is excessive, and reduces their identifiability to an unacceptable degree." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


"Counterchanging the bordure over the flaunches is not good style." [The badge was registered] (LoAR 1/92 p.3).


[A bend sinister, overall a lion rampant guardant contourny within a bordure fleury counterchanged] "Counterchanging an animate charge over an ordinary greatly diminishes its identifiability. That in conjunction with the counterchanging of the complex bordure is simply too much." [The device was returned] (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


[Per pale sable and argent, a <beast> between three decrescents and in chief a tower all counterchanged] "This is just within the limits of complexity for counterchanging. It would be ever so much better without the tower." (LoAR 2/92 p.11).


[Per pale, a saltire engrailed counterchanged debruised by a <charge> between in pale two <other charges> Or] "The counterchanging, hidden as it is by the <charges> makes it difficult to recognize quickly what is going on with the field and saltire in this device. However, we felt that it was just within acceptable limits." (LoAR 2/92 p.13).


[Quarterly... a mascle counterchanged] "The device is right at the very edge of acceptability, being highly reminiscent of a modern 'op art' style." (LoAR 2/92 p.15).


"Counterchanging a semy over an ordinary appears to be modern and not Period style." (LoAR 2/92 p.23).


[Per pall inverted vert, argent and purpure, in chief two chevronels counterchanged and in base a rose between four crescents in cross argent.] "Despite a rule of thumb 'complexity count' of 'only' six (with three types of charge and three tinctures), this device is extremely complex. It does not appear to follow any period style of armory that any of the commenters could find. The counterchanging in chief, along with the unusual field division, places it beyond acceptable style." (LoAR 3/92 p.11).


[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged fimbriated argent] "If I may quote Lord Batonvert: 'This looks to be acceptable, by both SCA and period standards. A recent case (LoAR of Nov. 91, p.23) had a field party sable and gules, with a crescent counterchanged and fimbriated; that case was returned for (among other reasons) fimbriation of a non-ordinary. [This] submission does use an ordinary, for which there are period examples - notably the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550),Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent.

This is about the limit of complexity we should accept for this sort of motif; but it should be acceptable.'

Lord Laurel would note that he believes that this is at the limits of complexity we should accept for this motif, but given period examples of the motif and the College's allowance for the fimbriation of ordinaries, this proposal is registrable." (LoAR 4/92 p.2).


[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).


[Per pale and per chevron argent and azure, on an eagle displayed a kleestengeln counterchanged sable and argent...] "The counterchanging of the eagle breaks up the outline to such an extent that identifiability becomes problematical. We believe the counterchanging here to be excessive per RfS VIII.3." (LoAR 4/92 p.16).


"The opinion of the commenting heralds was unanimous that a maunch is too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).


[Per chevron raguly Or and sable a raven displayed head to sinister counterchanged] "On the device, the bird is probably just identifiable enough, but this is probably the absolute limit for counterchanging a complex charge over a complex line of division." (LoAR 6/92 p.9).


[Per bend sable and gules, a crescent bendwise counterchanged, fimbriated argent] "There are a couple of problems with this proposal. First, for some time now the College has been drawing closer and closer to mundane armorial practices of only allowing ordinaries to be fimbriated. Second, fimbriating a crescent which is counterchanged of the (low contrast) field across the line of division becomes confusing visually, which the non-standard (though acceptable) orientation of the crescent only exacerbates. This proposal is, as Lord Dragon noted, 'basically thin line heraldry with some confusing counterchanging going on in the background.' " [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


CRESCENT


[Per bend sable and gules, a crescent bendwise counterchanged, fimbriated argent] "There are a couple of problems with this proposal. First, for some time now the College has been drawing closer and closer to mundane armorial practices of only allowing ordinaries to be fimbriated. Second, fimbriating a crescent which is counterchanged of the (low contrast) field across the line of division becomes confusing visually, which the non-standard (though acceptable) orientation of the crescent only exacerbates. This proposal is, as Lord Dragon noted, 'basically thin line heraldry with some confusing counterchanging going on in the background.' " [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


CROSS


[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] "Because of the arrangement of the primaries, we cannot apply X.2 to grant sufficient difference between this arrangement of four fleurs-de-lys and the cross flory." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


[Quarterly gules and argent, in bend two <As> argent and in bend sinister two <Bs> vert, overall a cross sable] "Given that crosses overall were not infrequently used in marshalled arms in period, this has every appearance of the marshalled arms of [Gules, an <A> argent, and Argent, a <B> vert]." [The submission was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 11/91 p.16).


[A cross couped gules irradiated Or] "The badge conflicts with the insignia of the International Red Cross, not by our rules, but by theirs. As stated in Corpora Appendix A, 'the Society recognizes the absolute precedence of law issued by civil authorities over any of its internal rules.' International treaty severely restricts the use of a cross couped gules, and this takes precedence over any of the Rules for Submission, including those for difference, of the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).


"A cross crosslet and a cross bottony are only artistic variations of the same charge, and were used interchangeably in period, so no difference may be granted between them." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).


[A Celtic cross] "Conflict with... {fieldless} an equal armed Celtic cross... There is one CD for fieldlessness, but that is all." [implying equal-arming is worth no difference from standard latinate] (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


"The use of a cross couped gules should probably no longer be allowed in SCA heraldry because of the international treaties and federal law which protect that charge and restrict its use to the International Red Cross (and as a trademark to those who were using it before those treaties went into effect.)" (LoAR 5/92 p.25).


CROWN


"As noted on the cover letter of December 2, 1984, and the LoAR of December 15, 1985, 'There is no 'standard' viscomital coronet, either as a physical entity or an heraldic convention.' Viscounts and Viscountesses may use the default heraldic coronet (a crown indented of three points) if they so choose." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).


CUP


"A goblet is not a simple geometric charge under X.4.j.ii." (LoAR 7/91 p.20).


"[There is a CD] for the change to type of charge (tankard to cup)." (LoAR 1/92 p.4).


Table of Contents




Jump to Precedents main page
Jump to Laurel main page



maintained by Codex Herald
This page was last updated on $lastmod"; ?>

The arms of the SCA Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.