Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
[...between a chevronel and a chevronel inverted braced, a <charge>...] "The relative sizes of the charges, not to mention the fact that chevrons and their diminutives are ordinaries, clearly made the chevronels the primaries..." (LoAR 7/90 p.2).
"After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for purposes of X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that the bottommost of three charges, either on the field alone or around an ordinary, is defined as one-half of the group...multiple changes to the basemost of three charges under this definiton will be granted a maximum of one CVD." (CL 9/6/90 p.2).
[Gules, on a chevron Or between a pair of <charges> and a base arched and indented argent, three <tertiaries>] "Conflict with [Gules, on a chevron Or three <different tertiaries>]. There is a CVD for the addition of the secondaries, but nothing for the change of type only of tertiaries. Conflict also with [Gules, on a chevron Or between three <different secondaries> argent, three <different tertiaries> gules], with the same count." [This strongly implies that two charges in chief + a base are a single group of charges, two and one, rather than a group of charges in chief + a separate, "peripheral charge" group] (LoAR 8/90 p.14).
"Consideration of the devices of [submitters] in this LoAR has helped to focus on some of the difficulties in reconciling a relatively simple set of rules with the 'realities' of a visual art. In view of the overwhelming support for [a submitter's] appeal by the commenters, I have been convinced that the wording of Rule X.4.j, 'Generally such changes must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually significant...', gives us some leeway here. As a consequence, in certain particularly simple cases, changes to type or number plus change of tincture of one-half of tertiary charge(s) will be sufficient difference for a CVD. For now this will have to be considered on a case by case basis." (CL 10/16/90 p.1).
"After reviewing carefully what commentary there was on the change to X.2 proposed by Mistress Alisoun, X.2 will be changed as follows, effective immediately:
X.2 Difference of Primary Charges. Armory that consists of: (a) a charge or group of charges alone on the field; or (b) a charge or group of charges which may themselves be charged; or (c) a charge or group of charges accompanied only by a single group of identical charges upon the field; or (d) a charge or group of charges accompanied by a peripheral charge which may itself be charged - does not conflict with similarly simple, protected armory if the type of the primary charge is substantially changed.This wording is a little longer than Laurel himself would have liked, but describes more clearly than a more abbreviated form would the various conditions under which X.2 will apply. Please note the careful placement of the word 'or' between the various subclauses: X.2 will not apply to two devices with secondaries and a charged chief, for instance. The change to the primary charge(s) must be substantial: type variants are not sufficient (a chevron vs. a chevron embattled is not a substantial change in type {both are, after all, the same type of charge, a chevron} for the purposes of this rule); some quadrupeds and crosses, for example, may be too close visually to apply this rule." (CL 10/16/90 pps. 1-2).
[A bimount + charged chief vs. charged chief alone on field] "The bimount, as a peripheral charge, is not a 'primary charge' as defined in the Glossary of Terms, and thus X.1 and X.2 cannot be invoked." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).
"It is Laurel's position that a semy is a group of charges in and of itself, separate and distinct from any other charge or group of charges (the exception being where the semy and the other charge(s) are the same)." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).
[Three mullets in bend between a book and a sheaf of arrows] "The device is visually confusing: were all of the charges the same, it would be blazoned simply as five mullets. As it is, in spite of blazoning the mullets in bend as primary charges, it looks like slot-machine heraldry, having three types of charge in a standard heraldic arrangement (in saltire), for which reason we are returning it." (LoAR 11/90 p.14).
[Gules, three piles in point Or, overall a centaur passant sable...] "While this is a technical violation of VIII.2.b.i. regarding the necessity of overall charges having good contrast with the field rather than the charges they overlie, the fact that the overall charge was primarily on the piles led us to [believe] that in this case such technical violation would be permissible. This is not to be taken as a general precedent for violating VIII.2.b.i." (LoAR 12/90 p.9).
[Azure, within the horns of an increscent a <charge> argent] "Conflict with...Azure a <charge> argent. There is only one CVD, for addition of the crescent. In the case...cited in the LoI, the sizes of the two charges were so disparate that the crescent overwhelmed the <central charge> and was visually the primary charge. Here, the size differential is such that the eye does not necessarily make the immediate evaluation that the crescent is the primary. In such a case, the charge at the visual center of the field will normally be so considered." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).
[A unicorn argent and a dragon Or combattant] "Conflict with...a dragon rampant...Or...there is only one CVD for the addition of the unicorn" [This implies that adding a second charge to result in two combattant beasts/monsters is only one CVD as opposed to change in number + change in arrangement/half change in type/ etc.] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).
"Blazoned in the LoI as 'Sable a <charge> argent and overall a fess counterchanged', an ordinary, when present, is normally considered the primary charge and should be blazoned first. Blazoned this way, it is much clearer that this is in conflict with...Sable, a fess argent, as noted in the LoI. In previous cases where a piece of armory could legitimately be blazoned in either of two ways, if either blazon had a conflict, the submission was returned." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).
[Sable, two <charges> argent and in base a three-towered castle Or] "Clear of...Sable, a castle triple-towered Or, because the visual reality of this device is that the <charges> a clearly the primary charges here, with a diminutive castle in base." (LoAR 4/91 p.4).
[A mongoose and increscent in pale] "Conflict with <a single increscent>. There is one CVD for the addition of the mongoose." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).
[A sword bendwise sinister between dissimilar secondaries] "Because the sword does not visually dominate the field, this exceeds the complexity limits of VIII.1.a in using three different types of charge in what is visually the same 'group'." (LoAR 4/91 p.12).
[A sea-dragon and a label] "Clear of... a sea-dragon erect within a saltire parted and fretted argent. As Morgan's could just as well (or perhaps better) be blazoned Azure, a sea-dragon erect between two bendlets and two bendlets sinister fretted argent, we see two CVDs for changing the type and number of the secondaries." (LoAR 6/91 p.2).
[Two dolphins respectant environing an estoile] "Although the dolphins were blazoned as the primary charge, standard blazon practice would put the estoile first. (This is clearer if you think of adding an annulet... instead of the two dolphins.) Thus this is in conflict with...an estoile... with only one CVD for the addition of the dolphins." (LoAR 6/91 p.21).
[A field-only device, per fess with a complex line of division] "The SCA has long considered a per fess field division to be different from a field and a chief. It is Laurel's position...that our own traditions have to be considered as well as period mundane precedent in considering armory for registration." (LoAR 8/90 p.5).
"The field is not really chauss�; it is not per chevron inverted, it is not a pile, it is not a chief triangular; being somewhere between all of these, we really don't know what it is. Chauss� issues from the corners of the chief and would touch the base point of the shield; per chevron inverted would issue from the sides of the field (rather than the chief corners); a pile would issue from farther in on the chief (rather [than] from the corners) and would almost touch the base point of the shield and would not have room for a charge beneath it; and a chief triangular would not descend the field nearly so far as the one here does. Please have them choose one and reemblazon it properly." [The device was returned for this problem alone] (LoAR 10/90 p.21).
[On a chief a demi-sun issuant from the line of division throughout] "A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same tincture as the field." (CL 11/30/90 p.1).
[A device using a bordure and a charged chief of the same tincture] "A chief should not surmount a bordure (Parker p.112), nor should a chief be used with a bordure of the same tincture, which will have the visual effect of a bordure with a 'fat top'." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).
[A chief charged with a <charge> between a decrescent and an increscent] "The chief is poor style, and borders on 'slot machine heraldry'. Only the fact that the two outside charges are crescent variants keeps it from going beyond the pale of the permissible." (LoAR 7/90 p.10).
"The use of two types of alternating charges on a bordure is very poor style." [one of a number of anomalies leading to a return] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).
[Three mullets in bend between a book and a sheaf of arrows] "The device is visually confusing: were all of the charges the same, it would be blazoned simply as five mullets. As it is, in spite of blazoning the mullets in bend as primary charges, it looks like slot-machine heraldry, having three types of charge in a standard heraldic arrangement (in saltire), for which reason we are returning it." (LoAR 11/90 p.14).
[A fess between a set of dissimilar secondaries and a nebuly bordure] "This is too complex. It is right at the Rule of Thumb limit for charge types and tinctures, and the complex line of division on the bordure pushes it over the line of unacceptability." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).
[Per chevron Or and per pale sable and vert, two bunches of grapes purpure and a Jerusalem cross argent] "While this is technically within the Rule of Thumb for charge types and tinctures, dividing part of a divided field with a different line of division pushes it over the edge of acceptable period style." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).
[Sable, in bend sinister an axe inverted reversed and an axe both bendwise sinister Or between two scarpes, overall a laurel wreath vert, for an augmentation, in chief three mullets argent] "Yes, this augmentation makes their arms much more complex. There are few augmentations (or for that matter arms to which augmentations could be added) which do not make the underlying arms much more complex. This augmentation did not seem to go beyond the bounds of allowable complexity for an augmentation." (LoAR 12/90 p.8).
"The badge has the problem of using two different types of the same charge (pawprints) which has been disallowed for some time (although usually we see this problem with different types of swords)." [the badge was returned for this reason alone] (LoAR 12/90 p.17).
[A complex device using mascles and a double tressure] "With four types of charges and four tinctures, tis is right at the upper limit of the rule of thumb for complexity. Given that most of the charges are then 'voided', the thin-line aspects of this device are enough to push it over the edge into unacceptability." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).
"Placing two different charges in different tinctures on an ordinary is extremely poor style, and may be sufficient cause in and of itself for return." [The device was returned for this reason, conflict, and a general appearance of slot-machine heraldry] (LoAR 1/91 p.26).
[Per pale argent and sable, a <charge> counterchanged on a bordure per pale azure and argent an orle of lozenges conjoined counterchanged argent and gules] "The bordure with its counterchanging of different tinctures pushes at the limits of acceptable style." [The device was registered] (LoAR 2/91 p.3).
"While the [augmentation has] a tendency to unbalance the device somewhat, it is Laurel's feeling that we need to loosen the application of our standards a little with regard to augmentations, which by their very nature will add complexity to and not infrequently serve to unbalance a device." (LoAR 2/91 p.9).
[Azure, a bend sinister erminois between two open books bendwise sinister argent and on a chief Or three fireballs proper] "Although this technically exceeds the rule of thumb as outlined in VIII.1.a., it holds together so extremely well visually through the use of identical charges on each side of the bend and identical charges on the chief that it may be registered." (LoAR 2/91 p.13). [Argent, three piles in point gules, overall an estoile, all within a bordure sable charged with the words 'honesto', 'dignidad', and 'vertud' between three crosses crosslet fitchy, points to center, argent] "While (marginally) simpler than the previous submission, this is still too complex. The rule of thumb outlined in RfS VIII.1.a is simply that, a rule of thumb. Some devices may be too complex by that rule of thumb and yet because of their visual unity be simple enough to register. Others may be 'simple enough' by that rule and still be visually too complex. This particular submission falls within the parameters of the rule of thumb only because the three different words on the bordure are treated as a single type of charge...
In the end, any armory submitted for registration by the College of Arms must be judged by SCA standards, not British, Scottish, French, German, Polish, Russian, Saracenic, or Japanese. This must be so because we do not register British, Scottish, etc. armory - we cannot. That is left by law to the Colleges of Arms of those respective nations. We are the Society for Creative Anachronism, and what we register is SCA heraldry, what we use and display is SCA heraldry, and what we have to use to determine appropriateness are SCA standards. Visually, this submission is still too complex." (LoAR 2/91 p.21).
[A sword bendwise sinister between dissimilar secondaries] "Because the sword does not visually dominate the field, this exceeds the complexity limits of VIII.1.a in using three different types of charge in what is visually the same 'group'." (LoAR 4/91 p.12).
"Proper is not a tincture - it is heraldic shorthand. The badgers' heads are argent, marked sable. That's two tinctures. While vair may be listed in the glossary under tinctures, the fact that it is a neutral fur is because it consists of both a metal and a color. Its visual complexity is such that it looks like two tinctures." [a 'complexity count' was made on the above premises] (LoAR 4/91 p.15).
"The precedents disallowing compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field are all fairly clear, the discussion during the Rules revision seemed in general to support the ban, and most of the examples cited by Brigantia in support of this submission relate to royal armory and are few enough that they may probably be considered exceptions ot the general rule. As stated by several of my precdecessors, we try to follow the general rule, not the exception. The reasons for the original ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field, viz., visual confusion, appear to be more compelling than the reasons for allowing such bordures. The ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field stands." (LoAR 8/90 p.16).
"The precedents disallowing compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field are all fairly clear, the discussion during the Rules revision seemed in general to support the ban, and most of the examples cited by Brigantia in support of this submission relate to royal armory and are few enough that they may probably be considered exceptions ot the general rule. As stated by several of my precdecessors, we try to follow the general rule, not the exception. The reasons for the original ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field, viz., visual confusion, appear to be more compelling than the reasons for allowing such bordures. The ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field stands." (LoAR 8/90 p.16).
[On a chief a demi-sun issuant from the line of division throughout] "A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same tincture as the field." (CL 11/30/90 p.1).
[Male American kestrels striking proper (Falco spaverius)] "The male American kestrels are mostly light buff and tan on the underside, and in this position have good contrast with the [purpure] bend sinister." (LoAR 11/90 p.4).
[Gules, three piles in point Or, overall a centaur passant sable...] "While this is a technical violation of VIII.2.b.i. regarding the necessity of overall charges having good contrast with the field rather than the charges they overlie, the fact that the overall charge was primarily on the piles led us to [believe] that in this case such technical violation would be permissible. This is not to be taken as a general precedent for violating VIII.2.b.i." (LoAR 12/90 p.9).
"The natural rainbow proper has extremely poor contrast with the sable field, enough so that its identifiability is significantly reduced." [returned for this and other reasons] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).
[Per chevron nebuly gules and purpure, three charges 2 and 1, not overlying the line of division] "The complex line of division of the field was almost entirely unidentifiable at any range because of the extremely poor contrast between gules and purpure. This is a color combination which should be avoided when using a complex line of division." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).
[Per pale gules and Or a morningstar and a flanged mace in saltire sable...] "The morningstar loses its identifiability against the low-contrast portion of the field. Were the two charges in saltire identical, this would be less problematic, but as it stands the eye expects both charges to be maces." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 2/91 p.18).
[a charged bend sinister cotised] "Versus [a charged bend cotised] there is a CVD for the orientation of the primary and another for the orientation of the secondaries (the cotises)." (LoAR 10/90 p.6).
[Per chevron gules and Or, upon a sun a laurel wreath all counterchanged, within a bordure...] "The charges here are on the very edge of unidentifiability because of the counterchanging. Only the clarity of the laurel wreath in this design kept it from going beyond the bounds." (LoAR 7/90 p.1).
[A double-bitted axe lying on a per pale counterchanged field] "There was some discussion regarding whether the axe fell under the ban on a long skinny charge counterchanged along its long axis. It was the consensus of the meeting...that the axe was clearly identifiable as an axe even though the haft was counterchanged." (LoAR 8/90 p.8).
"There is no difference between [an ordinary] and [the same ordinary] couped on fieldless armory." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).
[A cat's head couped sable as only charge] "Conflicts with... <different field> a lion's head erased sable...there is only one CVD, for the changes to the field." [implies no difference for cat to lion, or for couping vs. erasing] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).
"There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a lozenge or lozenge throughout." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).
[A fret vert within a bordure gules] "Conflict...with... a fret couped [vert] within a bordure sable, with but a single CVD...for...changing [the bordure's] tincture." [implying that couping the fret isn't sufficient for a CVD] (LoAR 2/91 p.21).
[<field>, in base a <charge>, vs. the same <charge> used as a crest (cited from Fairbairn's Crests)] "There is one CVD, for fielded vs. fieldless, but nothing can be granted against a fieldless badge (which is what we have treated crests as) for position on the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.13 - overruled CL 3/21/91 p.1).
[Boar's heads resting on torses as charges] "The fact that each boar's head rests on a torse makes each one a crest [and thus unregisterable, quoting Master Wilhelm LoAR 26 May 1983 p.19]." (LoAR 1/91 p.26).
"It has been decided that we will NOT check for conflicts against mundane crests. The reasons for this are (not necessarily in order of importance): although the English College of Arms registers crests, and the SCA has in the past treated them like fieldless badges, they are a 'limited use' type of badge (they are not used to identify retainers and property, but are most often seen in an achievement of arms, along with the coat of arms, supporters, etc.); given that identical or nearly identical crests are registered to apparently unrelated families (eleven different families have a Saracen's head for a crest, for example), they do not appear to be a strong mark of specific or familial identity or cognizance (the intent of the conflict rules is to avoid identity. Where there is no apparent strong correlation between a crest and identity, the need to avoid that identity is greatly reduced - conflict checking does not need to occur where the chance for presumption does not exist); there was a reasonably strong consensus among the commenters that while we might consider checking fieldless badges against crests, there was no reason to think that fielded armory ought to conflict (and it might be noted that all of the pended items on this issue were fielded armory), and Laurel does not believe that complicating the rules with a special class of conflict checking is worth the possible benefit that might come from doing so." (CL 3/21/91 p.1).
"A cross clechy is a CVD from a cross flory." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).
[Cross pointed vs. cross moline] "There is a CVD for type of cross, but with all the good will we could muster, we could not find sufficient difference between these two crosses." [That is, X.2 does not apply between moline and pointed] (LoAR 8/90 p.15).
[Three latin crosses clechy, as primary charges] "Several possible conflicts were cited by a number of commenters, noting primarily that clechy is a later term and that this would conflict with a number of '(field), three crosses formy/paty argent.' It was the consensus of the meeting that the combination of the pointed ends of the cross combined with the longer lower arm was sufficient for a CVD here." (LoAR 9/90 p.1).
"The tertiary was blazoned in the LoI as 'a cross resarcelly', which term is not very well defined in the standard heraldic texts, so we have modified the blazon to the closest acceptable form [a cross moline voided]." (LoAR 9/90 p.6).
[A cross of four anchors, as only charge on the device] "Most of the commenters, and Laurel, have no serious problem applying the provisions of X.2 to very different types of crosses. Indeed, applying this standard, we can see this submission clear of [same field, a cross crosslet of the same tincture]. However, we believe that the standards to be applied in X.2 are somewhat stronger than those applied to obtain a CVD between charges. As a consequence, we cannot in good conscience call this clear of [same field, a cross potent of the same tincture] (we see one CVD for the change to type of cross) or [different field, a cross of Calatrava of the same tincture] (with one CVD for the change to the field, but less than a CVD for the change to the type of cross)." (LoAR 9/90 p.16).
"Evidence was presented that period heralds saw no difference between crosses and crosses fitched, nor did the modification of the bottommost limb of four appear to give adequate visual difference to grant a CVD." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).
"[There is] not enough difference between a maltese cross and a cross patonce for [a CVD]." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).
[A tau cross double-crossed, potent at the foot] "[Conflict with] a double-cross (Doppelkreuz)...(it is a Latin cross double-crossed). While we can see granting a CVD with no problem, we do not believe that X.2 can apply in this case." (LoAR 2/91 p.22).
[On a gyronny field, quatrefoils in annulo vs. crusilly counterchanged] "There is a CVD for the type of charge and a CVD for their arrangement on the field. [The crusilly] is definitely a seme, with crosses overlying the lines of division and cut off by the edge of the shield." (LoAR 5/91 p.7).