Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
[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. Even though the SCA has long allowed the use of dovetailed as compatible with our style, and has allowed the use of saltires gyronny, the combination seems obtrusively modern. (See RfS VIII.4.d.: 'Generally modern style in the depiction of individual elements or the total design may not be registered.') 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).
"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).
[Lozengy gules and Or, on a pile gules a <tertiary charge>] "This particular design is just acceptable. Because of the nearly parallel lines of the lozengy field and the pile, the outline of the primary is almost too badly broken up to be identifiable. The best analogy for allowing this is an ordinary counter-compony or checky sharing a tincture with the field. But it would have been better on a field whose division lines did not so closely follow the line of the ordinary." (LoAR 11/91 p.9).
[Per bend sinister paly azure and Or, and argent] "Though submitted as 'Per bend sinister azure and argent, five pallets Or issuant from the line of division' the above blazon much more closely follows the real visual impact of the design." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).
[Gyronny of four issuant from dexter chief, three <charges> in dexter gyron] "The placement of the <charges> on a single portion of the gyronny field is very unusual and not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).
[Per pale embattled barry sable and Or and vert, drawn with each bar fitting exactly into each segment of the embattling] "The matching up of the bars with the embattlements of the per pale line is so unusual as to be disconcerting. Please inform the submitter that it is unlikely that someone else drawing this device from the blazon would match them quite so precisely." [The device was passed] (LoAR 1/92 p.5).
[Per pall inverted checky argent and azure, argent, and vert, in pale <two different charges>] "The style of this device is sufficiently modern to be grounds for return. The triply parted field, one of whose divisions is itself parted, is modern in appearance and unbalanced." (LoAR 1/92 p.15).
"Lord Laurel is unsure of the propriety of registering a dovetailed line of division on a chaussé field." [He registered it and solicited comment] (LoAR 2/92 p.9).
[{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).
[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).
[Gyronny of six per pale... three <charges> alternating with three <different charges>] "Prior Laurel precedent has returned alternating charges on a gyronny field (September 1988 LoAR, p.18). The one example of this style noted by Lord Codex in Italian armory has semys rather than single charges in each gyron. Given the weakness of this evidence, we are hesitant to register a design which has the appearance of being modern style." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).
[Barry and per pale gules and checky sable and argent] "Conflict with ... barry of six argent and gules, per pale counterchanged. There is one CD only for the change from argent to checky sable and argent." (LoAR 2/92 p.22).
[Per bend Or and sable, in pale two linden leaves stems issuant from the line of division between in bend sinister two crosses of five lozenges all counterchanged...] "Although this line of division has been documented (and registered in the SCA) previously, every period instance that we could find lacked other charges. Given the problems demonstrated here in the distortion of the leaves, we can understand why. This line of division with charges on the field appears to be non-Period style." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).
"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).
[Purpure, on a cross quarter-pierced argent four lilies pendant checky purpure and argent slipped and leaved vert] "The identifiability of the flowers is severly hampered by the checky treatment of the blossoms. (See RfS VIII.3. Armorial Identifiability.)" [The device was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 4/92 p.23).
[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).
[Per fess wavy azure and argent, a bar wavy azure, overall <a charge group>] "The visual effect of the bottom half of the field (which is drawn as less than half the field) is of a field per fess wavy azure barry wavy argent and azure. Blazoned this way this is a conflict with <charge group>, with one CD for the field." (LoAR 5/92 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).
[A sword per chevron] "A long skinny charge may not be divided per chevron in this manner. The line of division is not identifiable, thus falling afoul of RfS VII.7.a." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).
"The precedent disallowing the use of the field of Bavaria (Lozengy bendwise azure and argent) of the LoAR of 17 January 1984, p.9, appears to have been based on the use of the field by corporations in Bavaria 'as a sign of the fact that they were in Bavaria.' It does not seem to me that this is sufficient grounds for a restriction on the use of this field similar to that of, say, France Ancient, which is so closely associated with the French ruling house. I am therefore withdrawing the restriction on the use of a field lozengy bendwise or lozengy bendwise sinister argent and azure, so long as there is otherwise sufficient difference from Bavaria." (LoAR 6/92 p.4).
[Per pale lozengy Or and vert, and lozengy argent and purpure] "Using two completely different pairs of tinctures on opposite sides of the per pale line of division seems to go well beyond Period practice here... We need documentation that this many colors on a field is a Period style before we may register it." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).
FIELD TREATMENT (see also FRET/FRETTY)
"Ordinaries of Mail. Commentary on this issue ran mostly between discouraging the practice to banning it. No one seemed to feel that the existence of ordinaries of chain in period were an adequate precedent for allowing ordinaries of mail. As a consequence, ordinaries of mail will no longer be registered by the College." (CL 11/12/91 p.2).
"Maily. There was almost no discussion at all as to whether to continue or ban the registration of the SCA field treatment 'maily'. As a consequence, I am having to assume that the vast majority of commenters have no really strong negative feelings about this, and will continue to allow maily as a field treatment in SCA armory." (CL 11/12/91 p.2).
[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).
[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).
[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).
[Charges blazoned as flames voided in the LoI and emblazoned as gouttes voided] "The gouttes of flame are too complex to void. Voiding (and fimbriation) have been pretty much restricted to ordinaries or similarly simple charges for some time now." (LoAR 10/91 p.18).
[An anvil issuant therefrom to chief flames vs. an anvil enflamed] "The only difference is between fully enflaming the anvil and enflaming it only to chief: a single CD at best." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).
"There is not [a CD] for enflaming the blade of the sword [used as a primary charge]." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).
[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).
"There is no difference for the change from a pike to a sturgeon." (LoAR 12/91 p.19).
[A dolphin urinant contourny proper] "Conflict with... a dolphin urinant vert... There is... nothing for reversing the fish in this position, or for the difference between 'vert', and 'vert, marked gules.'" (LoAR 5/92 p.22).
[A two-tailed scorpion] "Conflict with... a lobster displayed... The visual similarity between this scorpion and a lobster is too great to grant a [CD]." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).
[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).
[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).
"Counterchanging the bordure over the flaunches is not good style." [The badge was registered] (LoAR 1/92 p.3).
[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).
[A daffodil slipped and leaved argent] "Versus..an Easter lily flower, slipped and leaved proper [argent, slipped and leaved vert], fimbriated Or, there is one CVD for fieldlessness and a second for the change to the slipping and leaving which on both flowers amounts to half the charge." (LoAR 7/91 p.15).
[A shamrock bendwise] "Conflict with...a cinquefoil...There is one CVD for the change to type of the primary, but we are not certain that X.2 can be applicable in this case of difference between types of foils." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).
[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).
[A thistle 'flexed-reflexed, head to dexter' vs. a default thistle] "The posture of the thistle is nearly identical [no difference given] with the exception of some waviness of the thistle's stem on the [flexed-reflexed device]." (LoAR 9/91 p.19).
[A morning glory slipped and leaved] "Versus... a daffodil slipped and leaved... there is a CD... (just) for the type of flower." (LoAR 11/91 p.14).
"A shamrock is too complex a charge to fimbriate." (LoAR 11/91 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).
[A four leaved shamrock] "Versus...a cinquefoil... there is a CD for the type of primary." [may overrule a ruling in the LoAR 9/90 p.16] (LoAR 12/91 p.9).
[A water lily slipped and leaved vs. a touch-me-not flower slipped and leaved] "There is a CD for type of flower, but after comparison of the emblazons we did not feel that we could in good faith apply X.2." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).
[Three roses two and one, only charge group on field] "Conflict with... three cinquefoils... There is... nothing for the minor change between cinquefoils and roses." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).
[On a trefoil slipped three hearts points to center] "The radial arrangement of the tertiary charges is not period style, and their placement makes this effectively 'a shamrock... voided...' which is not permissible because it becomes effectively 'thin-line' heraldry." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).
[Purpure, on a cross quarter-pierced argent four lilies pendant checky purpure and argent slipped and leaved vert] "The identifiability of the flowers is severly hampered by the checky treatment of the blossoms. (See RfS VIII.3. Armorial Identifiability.)" [The device was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 4/92 p.23).
[Sable a <charge> sinister facing and on a chief argent three trefoils vert] "Conflict with... Sable a <charge> and on a chief argent three trees eradicated proper... there is one CD for the orientation of the primary charge but the change to type only of the tertiaries is not great enough to apply X.4.j.ii, and comparing the two emblazons graphically demonstrated the overwhelming visual similarity between these two devices." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).
[Two swords palewise, the dexter inverted, and two arrows fesswise, the topmost pointed to sinister, all fretted] "The fretting of two different kinds of charge in four different directions is not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).
[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).
["Ermine, a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper and on a gore azure ermined argent a rose argent, barbed and seeded proper] "While this submission did indeed come out before the institution of the ban on charged gores, the commentary was nearly unanimous that the use of ermining on both the field and the peripheral charge was very complex and not period style." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).