The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
"There is no difference between a bear's paw and a bear's jambe." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).
[A letter 'fleury'] "It was the concensus of the commenters that the ban on 'initial' badges by Mistress Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (LoAR of 25 January 1987, p.16) should be maintained, whatever the 'typeface' or style of the initial." (LoAR 11/90 p.13).
[A quaver (musical note)] "In keeping with prior Laurel rulings on this issue, just as a badge may not consist solely of a single letter, neither may it consist solely of a single abstract symbol." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).
"The difference between raguly and embattled is not sufficient for the second [CVD]." (LoAR 10/90 p.15).
[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).
[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).
[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 bordure parted bordurewise indented] "The bordure was blazoned as 'indented-in-point' in the LoI. The above blazon, though not quite as elegant, is believed to be clearer." (LoAR 2/91 p.12).
[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).
[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).
[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).
"Some lines of division such as embattled/raguly/dovetailed , not being significantly different, are granted no difference." (LoAR 5/91 p.4).
"The chevron is not drawn fracted as blazoned (truly fracted, the 'broken' section's lower edge would touch the upper edge of the 'unbroken' portions of the chevron). As drawn it is not really blazonable and thus not registerable." (LoAR 5/91 p.10).
Copyright © 1995 - 2013 Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.