PRECEDENTS OF THE S.C.A. COLLEGE OF ARMS

The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)

DEFAULT

"Cobras have their hoods expanded by default." (LoAR 8/90 p.7).

"Walls appear to be throughout, masoned, and embattled by default." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).

"In the SCA, thistles are slipped and leaved by default." (LoAR 11/90 p.11).

"Thistles are slipped and leaved by default in the SCA. A rose proper is gules, barbed vert, seeded Or. By using the heraldic defaults, we have been able to shorten the submitted blazon by six words, a substantial savings." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).

"Though the [charges] were blazoned in the LoI as three and two, this should be the normal distribution of five objects around a bend or bendwise objects(s)." (LoAR 2/91 p.14).

DIFFERENCE - Armory

"No difference can be granted for the difference between standard mullets and mullets of seven points: they do not appear to have been considered as separate charges in period, nor are they different enough in outline to be so considered by the College." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).

"There is no difference between [an ordinary] and [the same ordinary] couped on fieldless armory." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).

"[There is not a CVD] between a rivenstar and a standard compass star." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).

"Argent, ermined gules, is a CVD from ermine." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).

"A cross clechy is a CVD from a cross flory." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).

[Spiral trumpet vs. a hunting horn] "...there is a CVD for the type of horn; here, circular vs. crescent-shaped." (LoAR 7/90 p.8).

[Five eagle's heads vs. three griffin's heads] "There is only one CVD for number of charges." [implying no difference between griffin's heads and eagle's heads] (LoAR 7/90 p.11).

[<field> a hawk displayed wings inverted, <tincture> vs. many cases of <different field> an eagle displayed <same tincture>] "In each case, there is only one CVD, for the field" [implying no difference for hawk to eagle, or for inverting wings] (LoAR 7/90 pps. 11-12).

[An arrow inverted vs. a stag lodged to sinister] "...Laurel is inclined to allow a CVD...for orientation (palewise vs. fesswise)." (LoAR 7/90 pps. 12-13).

[A mullet vs. a mullet of five greater and five lesser points] "The removal of the lesser points of the mullet, particularly given the fact of near unidentifiability of the mullet on the [poor contrast] portions of the gyronny field, are not worth the...CVD." (LoAR 7/90 p.13).

[Clenched gauntlet aversant vs. default dexter gauntlet] "There is only one CVD for addition of the <secondary group>." [implying no difference for clenching] (LoAR 7/90 p.14).

"Evidence has been presented that 'a fret' and 'fretty' were considered interchangeable in period, so no difference can be granted between them." (LoAR 7/90 p.16).

"There is a CVD for the difference in type between an heraldic dolphin and a generic fish." (LoAR 8/90 p.1).

[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).

[Marlin vs. default fish or vs. salmon] "We could not see giving another [CVD] for type of fish." (LoAR 8/90 p.14).

[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).

[A winged serpent displayed vs. a wyvern, wings displayed, as primary charges] "The overwhelming visual similarities between this winged serpent and a wyvern (removing the legs and changing the wings from 'bat-like' to feathered), in the same position, are too much to grant another [CVD]." (LoAR 8/90 p.15).

[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).

[A cross pointed charged with a mullet vs. a square-pierced cross moline] There is no difference for the changes to type of 'tertiary.'" (LoAR 8/90 p.15).

[Mullet of nine points vs. compass star] "[difference for changes to other things] but nothing for the change to the mullet." (LoAR 8/90 p.16. [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).

[<field> A heliotrope palewise affronty between two others cojoined in base purpure slipped and leaved vert] "Conflict with ....<same field> a basil flower purpure, slipped and leaved vert, with only one CVD for change of number, and with...<different field> a sprig of three roses of Sharon flowers purpure, slipped and leaved vert, with only one CVD for field." (LoAR 8/90 p.18).

[Dormant lion vs. couchant Egyptian sphinx, both in chief on differing per fess fields] "There is only one CVD, for the change to the field [implying no type difference]." (LoAR 8/90 p.18).

"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.

[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).

[A cross, vs. a cross in chief between two gores] "There is a CVD for moving the cross to chief and another for the addition of the gores." [implying the move to chief isn't forced by adding the gores] (LoAR 9/90 p.1).

[Two swords in pile, hilts crossed, vs. two swords in saltire] "There is another [CVD] for the arrangement of the swords (in pile vs. in saltire)." (LoAR 9/90 p.4).

[(fieldless) a falcon sable jessed sable and Or vs. (various fields) an eagle close sable, a raven sable, a falcon sable hooded, lined and membered Or] "In each case there is only one CVD, for fieldlessness." [implying no difference for bird types and/or accoutrements] (LoAR 9/90 p.13).

[<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).

[A turreted bridge vs. a tower triple-towered and vs. a castle triple-towered] "Given evidence that no difference was granted in period between towers and castles and the very strong visual resemblance of this bridge to a castle, no ...CVD could be granted." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).

"The differences between a buck's skull and a buck's head cabossed are nearly non-existent." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).

"The visual resemblance between an edelweiss flower and an estoile is overwhelming." [note: there was a peripheral charge, so there is no CVD for the difference here] (LoAR 9/90 p.16).

"There is not really any visual difference between quatrefoils and cinquefoils." (LoAR 9/90 p.16).

[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).

[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).

[Ypotryll dormant] "Versus [a dragon with the head and wings of an eagle couchant, wings displayed and addorsed], we believe that X.2 can be applied, even with the 'meatloaf' position here, owing to the very marked changes between the monsters." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).

[Spearhead, charge submitted as an arrowhead] "While the submitter documented the form of a Tudor arrowhead in this shape, most heralds would see it first as a spearhead, hence we have reblazoned it thus. Given the gross changes in outline between a spearhead and a standard heraldic pheon or broad arrow, we do not see calling conflict between this and any of several pieces of armory with pheons inverted." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).

"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).

[Double flowered thistle] "Given the normal emblazon of thistles...wherein the leaves rather than the heads are the most visually prominent element, we could not see giving a CVD for the addition of the second head (not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).

"The difference between raguly and embattled is not sufficient for the second [CVD]." (LoAR 10/90 p.15).

[Winged lion-dragon passant guardant] "It was the opinion of those at the Laurel meeting that while X.2 could be invoked against [a lion passant guardant] (for the addition of the wings and change of lower half of the body), [a griffin passant] (for the change to head and tail), that the similarity of outline was not sufficient to apply X.2 against [a wyvern]. (The default posture for wyverns on the Continent is passant, hence there is no difference for posture.) Given that wyverns were sometimes emblazoned with feathered wings rather than bat-wings, this call became much trickier, with changes only to head and forelegs, the detailing of the lion vs. reptilian torso being of less visual weight. In the end we felt we had to say that while there was clearly a CVD for type, that not enough difference was there to apply X.2." (LoAR 10/90 pps.15-16).

[Paly gules and Or, <a charge group>] "While extremely reminiscent of Aragon, blazoned as either Gules, four pallets Or or Paly gules and Or, this is clear by change of field and change of type, number and tincture of the primary charges from the former and, per X.1, by the addition of primary charge from the latter." (LoAR 11/90 p.3).

"While we do not consider one type of generic fish to be different from another for purposes of difference, the existence of an heraldic dolphin as a separate and distinct charge is well-documented. Hence [there is a CVD] for type of [fish]." (LoAR 11/90 p.7).

"This is clear of <cited conflict>, but only just...We felt that given the normal depiction of squirrels, with very large, bushy tails, that a second CVD could be granted for type from ferrets." (LoAR 11/90 p.9).

"We feel that the second CVD can be gained from the change from courant to passant [should be statant as in blazon], as it changes dramatically the position of all the legs. (Much as a CVD is granted for the change from statant to couchant, which effectively only removes the legs.)" (LoAR 11/90 p.9).

[A bend potenty on the lower edge] "Conflict with [a plain bend]. Were the ordinary in this proposal potenty on both sides, it would be clear, but the majority of the commenters (and Laurel) did not feel that difference should be granted for this non-period treating of only one (and that the less visually important) side of an ordinary. The only period examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).

[A duck displayed guardant] "Conflict with [a dove displayed head elevated]...we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for type between two white birds in an identical position." (LoAR 11/90 p.16).

[Yak vs. bull] "We cannot see granting [a CVD] for the 'hairiness' of the bull." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).

[Six roses as primaries vs. six cinquefoils as primaries] "The visual similarity between roses and cinquefoils is too strong to grant the...necessary CVD." (LoAR 11/90 p.18).

"The following is a revised version of X.4.j. of the Rules for Submissions...The type of substantial change required for this new provision X.4.j.ii to apply is the same general standard in the recently revised X.2...

X.4.j Changes to Charges on Charges.

i. Making two or more visually significant changes to the same group of charges placed entirely on other charges is one clear difference.

Changes of type, number, tincture, posture, or independent changes of arrangement may each count as one of the two changes. Generally, such changes must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually significant, since the size of these elements and their visual impact are considerably diminished. For example, changing the tincture of the wings of such a charge would not be enough of a tincture difference to be one of the two. Charges held or maintained by other charges are generally too insignificant to count towards difference at all.

ii. In simple cases, a clear difference can be obtained from change to type only of charges entirely on other charges. On armory that consists of:
a) an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge alone on the field; or
b) an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge accompanied only by a single group of identical charges upon the field; or
c) an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge accompanied by an uncharged peripheral charge; or
d) an uncharged charge or group of identical charges accompanied only by a peripheral charge which is charged;
Substantially changing the type of all of a group of charges entirely on the ordinary, similarly simple geometric charge, or, in case (d), peripheral charge is one clear difference. In any case changes to a single group of charges on charges cannot be more than one clear difference.

[Per bend sinister counter-ermine and bendy sinister Or and sable, in dexter chief three roses Or] "It was felt that versus...Azure, three roses Or, there was a CVD for the change to the field and a second for the position of the roses on the field. Though the roses would have had poor contrast with part of the field in the standard two and one arrangement, perhaps even returnably so in the SCA, the change of placement to dexter chief is not necessarily forced by the change to the field." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).

"Commentary seemed generally favorable to allowing gemstones as charges, and since Lord Batonvert found period armory using a faceted gemstone, they will be permitted in SCA armory. However, no difference can be counted for them against delfs, billets, pillows, and other gemstones of any cut." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).

"Even were a pile inverted negligibly different from per chevron throughout (and this is most frequently the case), this is clear [for other reasons]." (LoAR 12/90 p.11).

[A default azure feather vs. a proper peacock plume] "There is one CVD...for the change in type of feather. The peacock plume...is quite distinct in shape, with a prominent 'eye', and some difference in coloration from a solid azure feather." (LoAR 12/90 p.11).

[Rounded trees proper vs. gules leaved vert] "We did not find the difference between a red trunk and a brown trunk to be worth a CVD." (LoAR 12/90 p.14).

"There is...nothing for the change to erased contourny from trian aspect to sinister, which is, after all, only a slight turn of the head." (LoAR 12/90 p.15).

"The only real difference between herissony and passant is the arch of the back and position of one paw, so [there is no CVD]." (LoAR 12/90 p.16).

[Azure, fretty Or, in bend sinister <two charges> vs. Azure fretty Or] "Since fretty has been shown to be a charge rather than a field treatment in period, X.1 does not apply. There is only one CVD, for the addition of the <charges>." (LoAR 12/90 p.17).

[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).

"The difference between a pile and chauss� is blazonable, but is worth nothing in terms of difference." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).

[Per bend sinister paly gules and argent and <another tincture>] "Conflict with... Paly of ten argent and gules, as cited in the LoI. Rule X.4.a.ii specifies that a change to the line of division is worth a CVD; this is an addition of a line of division, which is forced by the change to the tincture of half the field and thus cannot be counted separately." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).

"The default helmet appears to be more akin to the classic barrel helm, and we could see a CVD between that and a morion helm." (LoAR 1/91 p.4).

"We have no trouble granting a CVD between a quatrefoil knot and a triquetra." (LoAR 1/91 p.6).

"We have no difficulty with blazoning the specific type of musket, though of course it would not count for difference from any other type of period musket." (LoAR 1/91 p.15).

[A saltire triple-parted and fretted] "Clear of...<a fretty only device>, with [a CVD] for the positioning of the 'laths'. While a medieval fretty field generally had three laths along each diagonal, they were evenly spaced out. The proximity of those here clearly make them a saltire. Also clear of [a saltire parted and fretted]...we can see [a CVD] for the difference between two laths on each diagonal and three" (LoAR 1/91 p.17).

"The passion nails were blazoned on the LoI as fusils, but (i) fusils do not have an independent existence as a charge, and (ii) the asymmetry of the charges here made them to clearly be passion nails." (LoAR 1/91 p.17).

[Winged natural tiger rampant] "Clear by X.2 from...a lion rampant..." (LoAR 1/91 p.19).

[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).

"[There is] not enough difference between a maltese cross and a cross patonce for [a CVD]." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).

[Azure, a raven and a <peripheral charge> argent] "Conflict with...Azure, a goshawk argent. There is one CVD for the addition of the <peripheral charge>, but we could not see a second for the difference between a raven and a goshawk in an identical posture. Regarding the statement made in the return of [a submission in November 1990], it would have been clearer (and more accurate) had I said that there is no difference between two types of birds of similar shape or silhouette in identical postures. Thus this submission does not conflict with... Azure, a sheldrake argent, with CVDs for type of primary and addition of the secondary. (Even Laurel on one of his bad days can tell the difference between a raven and a duck!)." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).

[A dove volant wings addorsed, as only significant charge on device] "Conflict with...a falcon volant... as cited in the LoI. There may possibly be a CVD for bird type here [see LoAR 1/91 p.23]...but certainly not the substantial kind of change required by X.2." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).

[A dragon vs. a unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws] "The visual similarities of the dragon and [the other] monster (changes to head and forepaws only) are simply too great [for there to be a CVD]." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).

[Garden roses in saltire gules slipped and leaved proper] "Conflict with...a rose gules barbed and seeded proper...There is a CVD for the number of primary charges, but neither the slipping nor the difference between heraldic and garden roses has been considered a CVD before." [Note: this seems partially overruled by a ruling in the LoAR 5/91 p.5 in which the slip of a garden rose was considered half the charge. However, this ruling is more in accordance with previous precedent.] (LoAR 1/91 p.24).

"There is no difference between a bear's paw and a bear's jambe." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).

"Because the most distinctive feature of the enfield, eagle's claws for forelegs, are lost against the [maintained charge], there are a number of conflicts with various foxes and wolves...There is only one CVD for the tincture of the beast. Conflict also with...a lion rampant [in same tinctures]...with one CVD for the type of beast." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).

[An arrow bendwise sable] "Versus... four arrows fretted sable...There is one CVD for the number of arrows and a second for the arrangement (one bendwise vs. two bendwise and two bendwise sinister. Had the arrows on the [conflicting] badge all been bendwise, this would not have been the case)." (LoAR 2/91 p.3).

[Comparing two fieldless badges] "There is a CVD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 2/91 p.4).

"There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a lozenge or lozenge throughout." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).

"There was a consensus that, particularly in relatively simple armory, that the addition of wings to a beast which is a primary charge should be worth a CVD." (LoAR 2/91 p.14).

[Three chevronels braced, flory at the points, with charges in chief] "Conflict with...three chevrons interlaced...There is a CVD for the addition of the secondaries in chief, but the addition of the three fleurs to the points of the chevronels, being visually equivalent to 'held' charges, is insufficient for the second." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).

[A sheaf of arrows inverted between a group of secondary charges] "Conflict with...a sheaf of three arrows...There is only one CVD, for the addition of the [secondaries]." [Implying that inverting the sheaf of arrows is worth no difference] (LoAR 2/91 p.17).

[a keythong (male griffin's) head vs. an eagle's head] "I do not believe that X.2, which requires substantial difference, can apply in this case." (LoAR 2/91 p.19).

[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).

[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).

"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).

"After carefully reviewing the research of Lords Crescent, Batonvert, and Yale, I have come to the conclusion that we are going to have to treat mundane mon as tinctureless armory for purposes of conflict checking. I do not do this lightly (or even happily), but the unescapable conclusion from the research is that mundane mon were treated in period as tinctureless: that is to say, they could legitimately have been displayed in any color/metal combination. Because the purpose of our conflict rules is to avoid identity, and because a mon which is black and white in a book could legitimately be displayed and used in any contrasting tincture combination (by our definition, tinctureless), I do not believe that we can allow difference for tincture. (Any other course would leave us open to someone taking the mon of, say, Tokugawa, submitting it in Or and vert, and getting it registered. Yet any Japanese would see it only as Tokugawa, not differenced at all.)." (CL 3/21/91 p.1) [Comparing armory using a per chevron field with armory using a point pointed] "There is a CVD for...modifying the line of division of the field from straight to 'ploy�' or embowed to base." (LoAR 3/91 p.3).

[Four swords fretted] "Conflict with...four arrows fretted...There is one CVD, for changing the arrows to swords." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).

"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).

[A charged mullet of four points] "Per X.4.j.ii [there is a CVD] for changing the type of tertiary" (LoAR 4/91 p.2).

"The principal difference between a mantyger and a manticore... is the manticore has a scorpion's sting for a tail. It is doubtful that there is a CVD for the difference, but it is a blazonable distinction." (LoAR 4/91 p.3).

[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> are clearly the primary charges here, with a diminutive castle in base." (LoAR 4/91 p.4).

"The weight of the commentary was clearly in favor of granting a CVD between an heraldic panther's head and a lion's head." (LoAR 4/91 p.10).

[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).

"It was felt that we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for the difference between a generic bird and an eagle." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).

[Demons vs. griffins] "The overwhelming similarities between the two types of 'winged monsters', right down to their positions, were such that we do not feel that X.2 can be applied here." (LoAR 4/91 p.12).

[Three piles in point and an overall charge, vs. 3 piles] "Addition of the overall charge is only one CVD." [This implies no difference between piles and piles in point] (LoAR 4/91 p.13).

"Mullets of four points, mullets of five points, and possibly mullets of six points may be considered 'simple geometric charges' for the purposes of this rule. (Mind you, I also consider mullets of four, five, and possibly six points to be the outer limit of acceptable complexity to be considered a 'simple geometric charge'." (CL 6/13/91 p.2).

[Whale] "There is a CVD for hauriant embowed vs. hauriant." (LoAR 5/91 p.1).

"Some lines of division such as embattled/raguly/dovetailed , not being significantly different, are granted no difference." (LoAR 5/91 p.4).

[As tertiaries, a garden rose gules slipped and leaved vert vs. a gules castle] "[there is a CVD for change in] type and change of half the tincture of the tertiary." [Overrules previous precedent on LoAR 1/91 p.24 and before] (LoAR 5/91 p.5).

[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).

"[There is] nothing for the difference between seme of roses and seme of cinquefoils." (LoAR 5/91 p.10).

"The issue of whether to register or return this proposal fell upon whether or not we are to grant difference between a mullet and an estoile. Lord Batonvert presented ample evidence that the two were considered equivalent throughout our period of study by all heraldic jurisdictions which used both.

While Lord Laurel (a secret sympathizer of the dreaded Authenticity Police) can see much educational and re-creative benefit to doing SCA heraldry in such a way as to most closely follow period heraldry, he honestly believes that there are very few heralds in the Known World who would be willing to look a person submitting a device in the face and tell them that a five pointed star and a six-rayed estoile are the same thing...

I believe that there are times when the visual reality (the '20th Century visual reality', if you will, but we are dealing with people untrained in any other century for the most part) is so strong as to overcome period heraldic practice, whether it be in granting difference or in permitting none. I also believe this to be one of those instances. Hence this submission is clear of <submitter's> device with one CVD for tincture and another for type of the primary charge." (CL 7/16/91 pps. 1-2).

"In the device submission <field, in fess two falcons close sable>, the LoI counted difference versus...Or, two ravens in fess proper, for type of charge on the grounds that period heralds saw them as different charges. (Both devices have the birds in their default position, close.) However, in the SCA, we have to take into account, as Lady Dolphin noted, not only 'Clear Historical Differences', but 'Clear VISUAL Differences'. This issue is the flip-side, if you will, of the Estoile/Mullet question [also in CL 7/16/91]. Should we allow difference for two charges which look alike but which period heralds considered to be different (falcons and ravens, both sable), while not allowing difference for two charges which clearly look different but which period heralds did not treat as different (estoiles and mullets)? I would have a harder time explaining to a submitter that two birds which look almost exactly alike are really considered to be different heraldically than I would explaining to that same submitter that estoiles and mullets are really alike heraldically. Thank you, no." (CL 7/16/91 p.2).

[Sable a fess gules fimbriated between a <secondary group> argent] "Conflict with...Sable, a fess gules. There is one CVD for the addition of the secondaries." [this implies that the interior color is the main color of the fess: see related ruling on p.20 of this LoAR] (LoAR 6/91 p.17).

[Rounded trees vs. fir trees] "There is only one CVD, for the change to type of the primary charges. X.2 (Sufficient Difference) cannot apply between two types of trees." (LoAR 6/91 p.18).

[Gules, a latin cross pomelly sable fimbriated and an <overall charge> Or] "Conflict with...Gules, a cross pommetty voided Or. There is a CVD for the addition of the overall charge, but changing the tincture only of what is effectively a tertiary charge (the voided area of the cross) is insufficient for the second." (LoAR 6/91 p.20).

[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).

DIFFERENCE - Names

"<Given Name> the Breton should no more conflict with <same Given Name>, Duke of Brittany, than Richard the Englishman would with Richard, King of England." [Note that this overturns a precedent of Master Baldwin's regarding Wladislaw Poleski] (LoAR 10/90 p.2).

"Applying what I have come to term the 'Auda/'Ali' test, Arian <bynames> should be sufficiently different from Aron <same bynames>." [the submitter had a Letter of Permission not mentioned in LoAR but mentioned in the Letter of Intent] (LoAR 10/90 p.5).

[<Given name> Skala-Bjornsson] "This is sufficiently different from <given name> Bjornsson by the addition of an element. This is functionally and aurally equivalent to '<given name>, son of Bjorn the Bald." (LoAR 11/90 p.7).

"The name is in conflict with the period site from which it was documented. Were the group actually located in the Barony of Duffer, County Down, Ireland, they would be able to use this name." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).

"To respond to Lord Trefoil's... request for clarification of the registration of <given name> Skala-Bjornsson, I was applying V.2, Addition of One Phrase, versus <given name> Bjornsson. It was my feeling that since both names consisted of three phrases or less and <given name> Bald Bjornsson would not be considered to conflict with <given name> Bjornsson in English that the same standard should apply in Norse (or any other language), subject of course to audial conflict and correct grammar for the language." (CL 1/4/91 p.3, referring to the LoAR of 11/90 p.7).

[Wulf Thorunsson] "This is clear of Wulf Thoraldsson...There is a significantly sufficient change in the pronunciation of the patronymic to consider these clear." (LoAR 12/90 p.12).

[Katriona an Brionna] "There is...an aural conflict with the registered Caitriona ni Bhriain." (LoAR 12/90 p.16).

[<given name> the <epithet>] "Conflict with the submitter's legal name, <given name> <epithet>. Society names should not be the same as the members' legal names. (See Administrative Handbook, Protected Items I.) Addition of the article 'the' is insufficient. (See RfS, V.4.) Addition of a given, surname, adjective or adjectival phrase would clear this." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).

[Morgan de Grey] "Aural conflict with the registered name of Morton the Grey." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).

[Gryffn <bynames>] "Aural conflict with the already registered Tryffin <bynames>." (LoAR 2/91 p.21).

[Gerard <bynames>] "While Laurel has some qualms about this versus the already registered Gerald <bynames>, the majority of the commenters felt it passed the 'Auda-'Ali test' by changing the 'l' to an 'r' and accenting the second syllable of the given." (LoAR 4/91 p.3).

DIFFERENCE - Permission to Conflict

"Principal Heralds may give permission for submitted items to conflict with heraldic items registered to their kingdom, though it is strongly recommended that they consult with the Crown to obtain their consent (whether written or verbal) as well before doing this." (LoAR 6/91 p.4).

FIELD DIVISION

"Charges should not overlie chap� lines of division." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).

"...the chap� comes too far down the sides of the shield to truly be considered chap� (not to mention the fact that the chap� portions of the field should not be charged). It is visually 'per chevron throughout', so we have reblazoned it thus." (LoAR 7/90 p.7).

"...the SCA considers chap� to be a field division [as does Woodward]." (LoAR 7/90 p.14).

[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).

[Paly gules and Or, <a charge group>] "While extremely reminiscent of Aragon, blazoned as either Gules, four pallets Or or Paly gules and Or, this is clear by change of field and change of type, number and tincture of the primary charges from the former and, per X.1, by the addition of primary charge from the latter." (LoAR 11/90 p.3).

"Even were a pile inverted negligibly different from per chevron throughout (and this is most frequently the case), this is clear [for other reasons]." (LoAR 12/90 p.11).

"The difference between a pile and chauss� is blazonable, but is worth nothing in terms of difference." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).

[Per bend sinister paly gules and argent and <another tincture>] "Conflict with... Paly of ten argent and gules, as cited in the LoI. Rule X.4.a.ii specifies that a change to the line of division is worth a CVD; this is an addition of a line of division, which is forced by the change to the tincture of half the field and thus cannot be counted separately." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).

"There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a lozenge or lozenge throughout." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).

[Comparing armory using a per chevron field with armory using a point pointed] "There is a CVD for...modifying the line of division of the field from straight to 'ploy�' or embowed to base." (LoAR 3/91 p.3).

FIELD TREATMENT

(see also FRET/FRETTY)

[A field Argent, honeycombed vert, vs. a field Or] "The field treatment here is a part of the field and not considered the addition of a group of secondaries to the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.14).

[A chief of mail] "Previous submissions of ordinaries of mail (a pall, a bend sinsiter) have been justified on the basis of period examples of ordinaries of chain (most notably navarre, with a cross, saltire and orle of chain all conjoined). That analogy does not apply here. One could have a chain fesswise in chief. One could not have a chief of chain." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 6/91 p.20).