Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
"The lantern with its transparent 'glass' is not done in a period manner. As was noted in the commentary, the College has a long history of disallowing transparent objects." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).
[Oak leaves vs. leaves of Ladies Mantle] "There is a CD... for type." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).
[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).
[Three hawk's legs couped contourny] "Conflict with... three eagle's legs erased.. There is one CVD for [a different change - implying that no difference between a bird's leg and a bird's leg contourny.]" (LoAR 9/91 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).
"There is not [a CVD] for the enarching of the fess." (LoAR 8/91 p.16).
"The bend invected on one edge [upper] and engrailed on the other is not very good style, though it is probably within the parameters of acceptability for the SCA." (LoAR 9/91 p.4).
"Versus...a chevron raguly of two bastons couped at the top.. there is... [a CVD] for the difference between a chevron embattled (throughout its length) and one with 'two bastons couped at the top.'" (LoAR 9/91 p.14).
[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).
"Engrailed, Invected and Indented. The period evidence regarding whether or not heralds granted difference between these three lines of division is not entirely clear. It would appear that certainly in early heraldic history that indented and engrailed were used interchangeably. However, invected is a later period line of division, apparently considered different from engrailed and indented. There is also some evidence that in late period engrailed and indented had achieved separate identities. As a consequence, I feel it behooves us to continue granting a Difference between engrailed, invected and indented lines of division." (CL 11/12/91 p.12).
[Per pale indented, the points ending in mullets, vs. per pale indented] "There is... [a CVD] for modifying the line of division with the mullets." [see related ruling LoAR 2/91 p.16]. (LoAR 10/91 p.3).
[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).
[A fess bretessed] "Please tell the client that the fess should have at least three embrasures, as opposed to the two on the emblazon." (LoAR 12/91 p.2).
"Submitted on the LoI as 'wavy bretessy', a better blazon would be 'wavy counter-wavy'. However neither really describes this non-Period treatment of a bend nor has such a treatment been previously found to be compatible with Period practice (see RfS VII.2 and VII.6)." (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 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).
"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).
"The 'saxonized' line of partition on the primary is a modern invention which has not been deemed compatible with SCA practice." (LoAR 3/92 p.13).
[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).
[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).