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).
[A bend vs. a bend fimbriated] "[There is] nothing for the fimbriation of the bend." (LoAR 9/91 p.15).
[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).
"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).
"A shamrock is too complex a charge to fimbriate." (LoAR 11/91 p.16).
[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).
[On a sun eclipsed a <charge>] "Because this is effectively '{Fieldless} on a sun... a [roundel] charged with a <charge>', the lion's head is effectively a quaternary charge, and therefore exceeds our layering limits." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).
[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).
[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).
"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).
[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).
[Maidenhair Fern proper (vert, stemmed sable)] "Conflict with... a slip of three leaves vert and with...a sprig of parsley vert." [no type difference was given.] (LoAR 7/91 p.18).
"X.2 (Sufficient Difference) cannot apply between two types of trees." [the specific trees in the ruling were oak and fir] (LoAR 7/91 p.21).
[A pine tree vs. a blasted tree] "While there is clearly a CD for the difference between types of trees, X.2 does not apply between trees. That X.2 should not apply between blasted and regular trees should be even more apparent given that in period many trees were drawn with empty branches each terminating in a single oversized leaf, rather than the 'cotton candy' form of leafy foliage we see more commonly today." (LoAR 11/91 p.22).
[On a chief, three linden trees proper] "Versus... on a chief argent a grove of seven fir trees proper, there is... [a CD] for the change of both type and number of the tertiaries." (LoAR 1/92 p.9).
[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).