Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
"Counterchanging a semy over an ordinary appears to be modern and not Period style." (LoAR 2/92 p.23).
[A drakkar sailing to sinister proper, sailed gules] "Conflict with...a galley proper." [Discussion of addition of secondaries implies that there is no tincture difference or posture difference given here.] (LoAR 7/91 p.20).
[A galley proper vs. a ship reversed proper sails gules] "There is one CD for the field, but nothing for the orientation of the ship or for changing the tincture of the sails which amount to approximately one third of the primary charge. No evidence was presented that period heralds allowed any difference for changing the tincture of the sails on a ship." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).
[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).
[<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 treturn was non-period ermining on both primary and peripheral charge] (LoAR 3/92 p.15).
"Give that tenné is one of the standard heraldic stains, we believe that it should be granted the same difference from Or and gules as purpure is from gules and azure." (LoAR 10/91 p.1).
"Based on the commentary, for purposes of X.4.j.ii, we are specifically adding a sun as an underlying charge which qualifies for a CVD to change of type only of a tertiary." [overruled in the CL 1/6/92 p.1] (LoAR 7/91 p.8)
"We have not registered a sun eclipsed of the field since 1985, and it is questionable whether we want to start now." [Primary reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 11/91 p.16).
"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." [overruling decision in the LoAR 7/91 p.8] (CL 1/6/92 p.1).
[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).
[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).
"[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).
"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).
"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).
"There is not [a CD] for enflaming the blade of the sword [used as a primary charge]." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).
[Per pale... two arrows counterchanged] "Conflict with... two swords palewise... While there is a CD between swords and arrows, Laurel cannot in good conscience apply RfS X.2 to them." [This elaborates a precedent in LoAR of 3/91 p.7, in which the compared swords and arrows were fretted and might have their type obscured thereby] (LoAR 4/92 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).
[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).
[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).
[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).