The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
[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).
"Another reason for not registering this particular badge, completely aside from the marshalling/dimidiation question, is the lack of identifiability of the charges, per VIII.3, which requires that 'elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability'. As many of the commenters noted, at least some of the charges on this dimidiated submission are almost totally unidentifiable." (LoAR 10/90 p.16).
"There was nothing about the skull which would make it identifiable as a lemming's skull, or indeed as necessarily a rodent's skull of any kind. Given the paucity of small animals' skulls in the Armorial and Ordinary, we question the appropriateness of such a charge." [The device was returned for this reason alone] (LoAR 11/90 p.15).
[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).
[A unicorn rampant guardant] "The unicorn is unidentifiable as such in a guardant posture, as its most unique identifying feature, the horn, is entirely lost against the head." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).
[A ferret's head couped affronty proper] "There were two problems here: one is the identifiability of the 'ferret's' head as distinct from any other kind of beast's head in this position. The other is that ferrets appear to have no single defined 'proper' tincture, but can vary according to the season, etc." (LoAR 2/91 p.19).
[A bend sinister wavy azure on a vairy en point argent and sable field] "The complex line of division of the primary is nearly impossible to identify on the multi-tinctured field." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 4/91 p.11).
"It seems to be the consensus of the College that a fly rampant and clad in motley exceeds the informal 'Rule of two Weirdnesses' and given the College's feelings about birds in a rampant position it is unlikely that a rampant insect would be any more acceptable." (LoAR 5/91 p.11).
"When registered in February 1984, the secondaries were blazoned as 'weaver's sleas', which term has since appeared to be incorrect, weaver's sleas being a much more squared off charge. In the interests of accuracy and consistency...we are reblazoning the secondaries on Marta [Marina's] device [as stick shuttles]." [Note: this was the defining instance] (LoAR 9/90 p.4).
[A delf ... pierced two and two] "There was a lot of discussion about the submitted blazon, which called the charge a weaving tablet. While several of the commenters recognized it (and the submitter has demonstrated its existence well within period), they tended to be those who had used weaving tablets. We have therefore modified the blazon to ensure reproducibility without specialized knowledge or experience in fiber arts." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).
"While sympathetic with those who would blazon these as 'square weaver's tablets' or 'weaving cards', the existence of weaving tablets with five holes made Laurel less willing to do so, and so we have retained the 'delfs pierced two and two' of the earlier registration of this charge." (LoAR 1/91 p.11).
Copyright © 1995 - 2013 Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.