Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
[A sash in annulo, knotted in base, sable] "The sash is not a recognized heraldic charge. Additionally, the submitter's form indicates that the precise form of sash is to be 'a karate belt with the white stripes'. We need evidence that this belt has not only been earned by the submitter, but that it is a Period charge." [overruled in the LoAR 5/92 p.19] (LoAR 9/91 p.20).
[Two spurs fesswise conjoined at the rowel] "The identifiability of the spurs conjoined in this manner is marginal." [The armory was registered] (LoAR 12/91 p.9).
"No evidence was presented that a sai is a period artifact, and it is likely that it is a post-period artifact." [The main reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 12/91 p.22).
[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).
[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).
"As Lord Trefoil noted, the 'lion's pelt' does not appear to meet the identification and reconstruction requirements of VII.7.a and b in the Rules for Submission. Pelts are normally displayed as hides rather than like a fleece, as here. Yet we could not bring ourselves to allow an invented new charge, the 'lion's fleece'. And calling it a lion would not help because of the very unusual 'posture' of the beast (which is essentially unblazonable. The closest anyone could suggest was 'herissony', which really doesn't describe it." (LoAR 2/92 p.24).
[Snowflake vs. Escarbuncle] "[There is] one CD... for the difference in the type." (LoAR 4/92 p.10).
"The majority of the commenters seemed to feel that squirrels' hides are as identifiable as any other kind of hide." (LoAR 4/92 p.12)
[A device using three points] "Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts, in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and not in conjunction." [The device was returned for this reason in conjunction with complexity and a difficult-to-identify semy] (Loar 4/92 p.19).
"We do not believe we can grant any difference between a cupping glass and an inescutcheon, as the cupping glass is in exact outline of one of the standard escutcheon shapes... (An inescutcheon, or a cupping glass, is not an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge for the purposes of [X.4.j.ii])" (LoAR 4/92 p.24).
"Despite Lord Laurel's (and Lord Batonvert's) remaining questions regarding the use of a sash as a Period heraldic charge, nearly all of the other commenters wholeheartedly supported the appeal to allow its use." [overruling the LoAR 9/91 p.20] (LoAR 5/92 p.19).
[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).
"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).
"The commentary was nearly unanimous that the charge of a 'dragon's eye' is no longer acceptable for registration in the SCA." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).
"As drawn in the large emblazon the primary is not really recognizable as an astrolabe. It has cutouts in it through which the field shows which are not found on a real astrolabe. Drawn correctly as an astrolabe, this conflicts with...[a roundel, with] nothing for the internal diapering of the primary (similar to the conflict between a moon in her plenitude and a plate.)" (LoAR 6/92 p.15).
"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).
[Two chevronels, one sable and one azure, between secondary charges] "[In addition to the conflict problem,] there is also the problem that we have no evidence that multi-colored diminutives of ordinaries were ever used in Period." (LoAR 8/91 p.14).
[Two chevronels cotised] "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 was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 8/91 p.20).
"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).
[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).
[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)
[Four stafford knots in saltire tassels inward between four crescents in cross horns inward] "The four-fold symmetry of the submission is not period style and violates the strictures of Rules for Submission VIII.4. and VIII.4.d., Obtrusive Modernity." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).
[A horseshoe inverted each end ensigned with a fool's cap] "Aside from its general shape, there is nothing to distinguish this horseshoe from the letter 'U'. {Ensigned with fool's caps, that would make this a 'fooled U'.} We would prefer to see some evidence that this is period style, rather than modern, before we register it." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).
"With not one but two artistic problems with the device, we did not feel comfortable in registering it with the instruction that the submitter draw the 'X' properly." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).
[In pale three triangles inverted each within a triangle voided] "Though apparently based on Japanese 'fish scales' (Hawley, p.86), the overall design is obtrusively modern (see RFS VIII.4.d). A much better design would have the three charges two and one on the field, or one and two. Placing them in pale makes them look like a modern corporate logo rather than a form of heraldic display, either European or Japanese." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).
[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 beast statant affronty] "The <beast> is in an heraldically unusual position; that, combined with the three-dimensionality of the charge as drawn, pushes it beyond the informal Rule of Two Weirdnesses." [The badge was returned] (LoAR 11/91 p.21).
"As several commenters noted, having the unicorn [salient] and sword in saltire is not good style." [However, despite this and some artistic problems, the device was still registered] (LoAR 12/91 p.2).
[A three-eared coney rampant holding a stick palewise ensigned with a reremouse displayed] "The 'bat-kabob' is a serious 'weirdness', which the three-eared bunny almost pushes over the edge of acceptability." (LoAR 12/91 p.11).
[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).
[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).
[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 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).
"No evidence was presented that a sai is a period artifact, and it is likely that it is a post-period artifact." [The main reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 12/91 p.22).
[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).
[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).
[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).
[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).
[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).
[A bull courant affronty] "The primary is not in an heraldic position. The effect is of a bull charging out from the shield, which is a very modern style. If we might suggest the client consider 'statant affronty'?" (LoAR 2/92 p.22).
"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).
"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 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).
["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).
[A rampant monster overlapping a bar in base so it appears to be standing on it, were it drawn in 3-d perspective] "The biggest problem here is the partial overlaying of the primary charge on the bar. Medieval armory does not show perspective in this fashion." [The device was returned for this reason in combination with borderline complexity and the use of the forceny posture]. (LoAR 4/92 p.16).
[Argent, a saltire quarter-pierced vert, overall a cross crosslet within a mascle sable] "The very precise placement of the overall charges as well as their very thin line nature gives a very modern look to the entire device, bringing this afoul of RfS VIII.4.d, Modern Style. (If drawn to a proper size, however, the mascle and cross become cramped and hard to recognize, losing identifiability.)" (LoAR 4/92 p.24).
[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).
[A reef knot bendwise sinister throughout between two <charges>] "We would have preferred to see some documentation that knots throughout are a Period style, but since none of the commenters mentioned any problems with this we did not feel comfortable returning it for modern style at this time." (LoAR 6/92 p.5).
[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).
[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).
[Wovenwood] "No documentation was presented to show that it was constructed on a Period pattern per RfS II.2." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).
"The problem is that 'Newest South Wales' [the translation of the submitted place] presupposes a 'New South Wales', which is a provably post-period place." (LoAR 8/91 p.24).
"While the English term 'iceberg' is clearly post-Period, given the large number of cognates in so many northern European languages we feel that the name is probably acceptable." (LoAR 9/91 p.10).
[Latin Household name, meant to mean "Dead Historian's Society"] "In addition to the name being, even in Latin, an obtrusively modern take-off of a movie title and not Period in style, the grammar is incorrect...(All this leaving aside the question, of course, as to whether the household's members are all dead.)" (LoAR 9/91 p.15).
"Moonsea is not a period style name. Barring documentation of similarly constructed names in English, this must be returned." (LoAR 9/91 p.18).
[Willowind Manor] "We have also dropped the 'coined place name'. We need some kind of documentation that Willowind is formed in a period manner or otherwise based in period practice." (LoAR 11/91 p.14).
"Lynnea is a post-period Swedish name from the surname Linnæus." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).
"RFS II.4 states that 'elements of the submitter's legal name may be used as the corresponding part of the Society name if such elements are not excessively obtrusive and do not violate other sections of these rules.' Unfortunately, Deyrni is 'excessively obtrusive', owing at least in part to the great popularity of Kathrine Kurtz's Deryni series. (That she is well known as a Countess in the SCA doesn't help, either). Nearly every commenter who had anything to say about this name noted the problem of reading the given as 'Deryni'." (LoAR 11/91 p.19).
"No documentation at all was submitted to demonstrate that Willowspoon makes sense as an occupational byname or that it is formed in a period manner or follows period name construction practices, as required by RfS II.3." [The name was returned for this reason] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).
[the Stonewise] "We have modified the name to drop the questionable byname. No documentation was presented for either this epithet or for a pattern of similar epithets." (LoAR 12/91 p.14).
"While 'Sea' is a reasonable byname element, there is nothing given in the LoI to indicate that 'Seawalker' is reasonable or formed in a Period manner. Would the client consider the byname 'Gobythesea', formed in the manner of Period exemplars found in Reaney's origins, p.289?" [the epithet was returned] (LoAR 12/91 p.18).
[Order of the Legion of the Sword of Honor] "The order name here does not appear to follow any Period order name that anyone could find. The use of multiple nouns modifying other nouns creates a semantic nightmare. Depending on how one interprets the structure of the various phrases in its name, this could be considered to conflict with the Order of the Sword or with the Legion of Honor." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).
[<Norse name> "the Runesayer"] "The name has been modified to drop the intrusively modern epithet. 'The Runesayer' is not a Norse expression nor does it appear to be formed on a Period exemplar. Runes are not something that needed 'saying,' and the byname appears to be a modern fantasy idiom." (LoAR 2/92 p.1).
[The Foehammer] "The name has been modified to drop the epithet. Foehammer is not formed in the same pattern as the period names 'Bloodaxe' or 'Longsword.' Such epithets were normally formed along fairly literal lines; he carries a 'bloody (or blooded) axe', or carries a 'long sword.' This byname does not follow that pattern." (LoAR 2/92 p.7).
[Stormcrow] "No justification or period precedent was included in the documentation for combining two surnames in this manner. (Smith and Jones appear in Reaney's dictionary of British Surnames, too, but we would not then register Jonesmith.) (LoAR 3/92 p.12).
"Sunhair is not a period style epithet, in that it does not appear to be formed in a Period manner. The closest that anyone could find for a similar epithet is Sherlock." (LoAR 4/92 p.19)
"'Fire-lock' does not appear to be an epithetical name constructed on Period patterns of naming. Most descriptive epithets are much more literal, such as Dustiberd. As noted by one commenter, 'fire-hair' would appear to describe a cooking accident much more than a hair color." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).
[A winged hammer] "Conflict with...a hammer crowned... There is a CVD for the addition of the wings, but deletion of the small crown is insufficient for the second." [Note that the difference between a winged natural tiger and a lion was given X.2 difference in the LoAR 1/91 p.19.] (LoAR 7/91 p.23).
"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 differences between a cockatrice and a sea-cockatrice are nearly non-existent, consisting primarily of the detailing of the tail." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).
"Antelopes and yales are almost identical [no CVD was given]. (See for example Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, pages 148 and 165)." (LoAR 8/91 p.21).
"There is...[a CVD] for the difference between a keythong [male griffin] and a griffin." (LoAR 10/91 p.9).
"There is also some question as to the propriety of registering a seahorse to someone with the name Rhiannon, given the long-standing ban on registering horses in combination with the name Rhiannon." [Note, the sea-horse was white, and Rhiannon was a middle name. The main reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 10/91 p.16).
[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).
"In the September 1991 LoAR we registered a charge blazoned 'a devil decapitated statant affronty, his head affronty on his chest'. It has been pointed out to me that I should have made some comment about it, especially as regards its acceptability in the SCA. The weight of the research and commentary lead me to believe that this monster is compatible with period-style armory (based on period citations of the Acephali, a mythical people who had their faces in their chests) and other documentation which indicated that this particular charge is probably period. It is thus allowable for registration in the SCA." [This overrules returns of this charge most recently in the LoAR 6/91 p.20] (CL 12/21/91 p.3).
[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).
[A three-headed, five-tailed, bird winged dragon] "Conflict with... a dragon. It could reasonably be argued that the cumulative changes to the number of heads and tail plus the type of wings could allow as much as one CD. However, we need two." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).
[Unicorn/Horse Hybrids] "The sparseness of commentary on this issue was somewhat worrisome - I dislike making decisions on limited commentary. However, what commentary there is seemed pretty well in agreement. Thus, we will retain the ban on unicornate horses, unicornate seahorses, and unicornate pegasi. (Winged unicorns are considered allowable, so long as they are drawn as unicorns with wings, not the modern 'winged unicornate horse.')" (CL 1/6/91 p.2).
"There is no defined volant posture for quadrupeds." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).
"There is a CD... for the differences between a sea-griffin and a griffin." (LoAR 1/92 p.6).
[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).
[...on a pile rayonny argent a sea-ounce sable, its head argent marked sable, crested and finned azure] "The identifiability of the 'sea-ounce' is severely reduced by both the azure 'crest' and the fact that the head is primarily argent on the argent pile. It thus does not meet the requirements of RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).
[Butterfly-winged woman] "Butterfly winged creatures have been disallowed since the LoAR of 26 May 1983, when Laurel returned a butterfly winged Bengal tiger." (LoAR 4/92 p.20).
[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).
"Given that the piping beast is registered only twice in the SCA (both registrations dated August 1979 - can you say 'Heraldicon'?), we do not believe this charge to be any more appropriate for registration than the many variant norse twisty beasties that have been disallowed." (LoAR 5/92 p.26).
[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).
"[There is no difference] between a wyvern and a dragon. (This overturns the precedent of December 1989, which granted a CD between the two charges on the bases of SCA historical distinction. It appears that the terms 'dragon' and 'wyvern' were used interchangeably throughout Europe through most of our period of study, and this distinction in the SCA does not appear to be well founded.)" (LoAR 6/92 p.17).
"It is Lord Laurel's contention that a mullet of five points qualifies as a simple geometric charge under [X.4.j.ii]. (It is also Lord Laurel's contention that a mullet is probably the most complex charge which will so qualify.)" [overruled CL 1/6/92 p.1] (LoAR 7/91 p.11).
"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).
[Mullet of eight greater and lesser points vs. mullet of ten points] "There is not a CVD between the two mullets." (LoAR 8/91 p.21).
"The 'rivenstars' were drawn so offset as to be nearly unrecognizable as such, and several commenters questioned the acceptability of this charge for use by anyone besides the Barony of Rivenstar." [The main reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 9/91 p.19).
[A charged mullet of six points] "Changing the type only of the tertiary is insufficient here. Lord Brigantia assumed too much from Laurel's June 17 Cover Letter statement that 'possibly mullets of six points may be considered simple geometric charges' for purposes of X.4.j.ii. That we do not distinguish between mullets of five points and mullets of six points when counting conflict is not the point here. We do distinguish between them on stylistic issues." (LoAR 10/91 p.18).
"The commentary on [X.4.j.ii] seemed to be reasonably clear. As a consequence, the application of X.4.j.ii. for the granting of a Clear Difference for substantial change of type of a tertiary will be applicable only to tertiaries on an ordinary or simple, geometric shape such as a lozenge, delf or roundel. It will not be applied to charges on mullets, suns or hearts." (CL 1/6/92 p.1).
[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).
"The badge, which would more properly be blazoned '[fieldless] a mullet of eight points...charged with a <charge>', conflicts with...on a mullet a <different charge>, and... on a mullet of six points throughout...a <different charge>. In each case there is one CD for the fieldless difference, but X.4.j.ii does not apply to tertiaries on mullets, nor is there any difference for the various number of points to the mullets." (LoAR 1/92 p.17).
"The charges... are not estoiles but rather eight-armed asterisks. If the client would redraw them as estoiles [then this might be registerable]" (LoAR 2/92 p.21).
"A number of commenters questioned the acceptability of a 'mullet of three points', noting that it is in outline much nearer to a caltrap with a 'leg' missing than it is to any kind of mullet. That it has only been registered once before lends weight to this argument. It is Laurel's opinion that the 'mullet of three points' should be added to those charges no longer registered by the College." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).
"Most of the commenters felt that a mullet of eight points was too complex a charge to void or fimbriate." [The device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 4/92 p.21).
[Mullet of eight points eclipsed, charged with a <charge>, compared to a sun eclipsed charged with an identical <charge>] "There is at very best one CD for change of type of primary, and it is questionable whether we should even allow that much for the difference between a mullet of eight points and a sun." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).
[Compass star] "Versus... a mullet of four points distilling a goutte, there is...[a CD] for the difference between a mullet of four points and a compass star. Given the recognized independent heraldic existence of a compass star in the SCA, noted by its separate name, Laurel sees no problem in granting a CD between them, especially when used as the primary charge. Versus... a mullet of five greater and five lesser points distilling gouttes, the same reasoning and point count applies." (LoAR 5/92 p.5).
"[There is a CD] for the difference between a compass star (a well-defined SCA charge with a distinctive outline) and a sun." (LoAR 5/92 p.5).
[A comet bendwise sinister, head to chief] "Conflict with... an eight pointed estoile... There is one CD for the change to the primary, but we cannot in good conscience apply RfS X.2." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).
[A mullet of seven points charged with another] "Several commenters noted that the primary charge is effectively a mullet fimbriated and that under RfS VIII.3 a mullet of seven points is too complex a charge to fimbriate." (LoAR 6/92 p.15).
[A drinking horn, compared to a bugle horn or a straight trumpet] "There is a CVD for type of horn, but there is not enough difference between the two for X.2." (LoAR 7/91 p.23).
[A harp reversed] "Versus...a Greek Lyre...there is [a CVD] (just) for the difference in type of primary charge." (LoAR 9/91 p.7).
"The primaries as drawn are not lutes: they are mandolins, a post-period artifact... This must be returned." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).