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

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

MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES


"While there was some discussion regarding whether or not valknuts were thin-line heraldry, by definition they look like this, and it was our feeling that they should not then fall under the ban on thin-line heraldry in the same way that, say, a compass star voided would." (LoAR 8/90 p.9).


"We are dubious of the acceptability of the 'Moorish hair brooch' as an heraldic charge. The only extant registration was in 1975 to Alysse of Graedon." [The submissions using this charge were returned, but also were returned for name reasons] (LoAR 8/90 p.15).


"There is really no 'proper' for a jester's bauble (or motley)." [Superceded on LoAR 1/91 p.13] (LoAR 9/90 p.17).


"A spiderweb is not a field treatment, it is a charge." (LoAR 10/90 p.12).


"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).


[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).


"A jester's bauble proper would have a white face and brown stick, with the vesting tinctures blazoned specifically." [superceding comments on LoAR 9/90 p.17] (LoAR 1/91 p.13).


"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. We believe, however, that a 'musket proper' would have a brown wood stock and black metal parts." (LoAR 1/91 p.15).


"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).


"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).


"There is no problem with the fess conjoined to a demi-pale; it is definitely a period charge." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


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


"A single 10-year old instance of the prior registration of a 'Celtic Triquetrum brooch' is not sufficient precedent to demonstrate either its compatibility or reproducibility. There is serious question about the recovery of the emblazon from the blazon." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 6/91 p.17).


MODERN STYLE


[Je Nell, a mundane given name, used as an SCA middle name] "While the addition of Je Nell was somewhat intrusive, it was not sufficiently so to cause return of the name." (LoAR 9/90 p.5).


[The name "Joe <Barony name>"] "The formation of the entire name brought modern connotations of 'Joe Cool' to nearly every commenter. As a consequence, we felt that given this overwhelming reaction, that we had to return this for obtrusive modernity." (LoAR 9/90 p.17).


[Sunblocker] "Nearly every commenter remarked on the modern connotations of the epithet, hence we are dropping it because of obtrusive modernity." (LoAR 10/90 p.8).


[A beast tergiant, overall three barrulets indented] "This design (as is almost any 'road kill' heraldry) is obtrusively modern, in violation of RfS VIII.4." (LoAR 10/90 p.15).


[A mask of comedy, between hands, in a particular style...] "The style of this badge is obtrusively modern. {I mean, c'mon, a smiling face sticking its tounge out at the viewer with its thumbs in its ears waggling its fingers?!}" (LoAR 10/90 p.17).


[A tower corked at the top] "The cork in the tower is really not period style, and is by itself sufficient grounds for return." (LoAR 1/91 p.27). [<territory> Tank Corps] "The name here is intrusively modern. The fact that the individual elements may be period (though with different meanings than the submitters are desirous of) is overwhelmed by the modern connotations of the phrase." (LoAR 2/90 p.17).


[A catamount couchant guardant, head lowered...] "The primary here is not in a heraldic posture. Nearly every commenter noted that it appeared in a very naturalistic position, crouched upon an (invisible) rock...Nor was the bordure truly fretty, but a kind of semy of lozenges [no interlace lines]. Were there only one of these problems, we would very likely have registered it and told the submitter to 'draw the X correctly'; as it is we felt that a new emblazon is in order." (LoAR 2/91 p.18).


[Annulets of five mullets conjoined] "The clusters of stars (besides reminding everyone of nothing so much as a five-star general's insignia) are not period style and are intrusively modern." (LoAR 2/91 p.22).


"The 'sea serpent ondoyant emergent' has been returned before for non-period style' (LoAR of June 1990, p.13)."


[Rolling Thunder] "That the natural phenomenon of 'a long drawn-out thunderclap' existed in period has never been an issue in previous returns of this name; the modern connotations of the name have been. The OED does not cite instances of 'roll' with either drums or thunder until well after period (1688 and 1700, respectively). The name is not period style but is obtrusively modern." (LoAR 4/91 p.13).


MONSTER


[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).


"The 'unicorn' is not a unicorn but a 'unicornate horse', which has been disallowed for some time." [one of a number of reasons for return] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).


[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).


[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).


[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).


[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).


[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).


[A horned and winged demon] "There are two issues which came up in the commentary. The first is reproducibility of emblazon. Despite its appearance in the Armorial (one registered in 1978, the second used for a cant), there is some dispute as to whether there really is a standard heraldic depiction of a 'demon', with the majority of those commenting feeling that the wide variety of 'demons' in period art make the reproduction of the emblazon unlikely. The second issue is compatability and offensiveness. It would appear that demon imagery was symbolic of evil in every period religion which used it at all. All in all, the submitter would be better advised to use a different charge." [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 10/90 p.18).


[A "troll", i.e. a headless tailed humanoid with a face in its belly] "There were...a number of questions about the reproducibility of the emblazon from the blazon as there are a number of artistic variants of trolls." [The main reason for return being conflict] (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[A monster composed of the body of a naked man and the head, wings and tail of a dragon] "While this is within the bounds of permissibility (Lord Batonvert came up with some research documenting similar-looking demons and their usage in period heraldry), a number of commenters felt it was pushing at the limits of acceptability." (LoAR 12/90 p.12) "The 'sea serpent ondoyant emergent' has been returned before for non-period style' (LoAR of June 1990, p.13)." (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


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


[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).


"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).


"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." [If not more difference: see the LoAR 1/91 p.19] (LoAR 2/91 p.14).


"Gargoyles do not have a standardized heraldic form and hence cannot be registered." (LoAR 2/91 p.23).


"The principal difference between a mantyger and a manticore... is the manticore has a scoripion'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).


[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). "There is no heraldic monster called a Kirin. There is a similar Chinese charge called a ch'ilin (Chinese unicorn) but it doesn't look all that similar to the submission. As a consequence the blazon does not reproduce the emblazon making this unregisterable." (LoAR 6/91 p.20).


[A "troll": a headless humanoid with a devil's tail and a face in its belly] "This resubmission...does not address the issue... noted at the time of return regarding the reproducibility of the emblazon from the blazon. This particular charge has been blazoned by mundane heralds two different ways, as both a troll and a devil, adding to the problem. Furthermore, it appears that the only instance of this charge in Volborth is post-Period, leaving us with the problem of its compatability with SCA heraldry." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 6/91 p.20).


MOTLEY


"There is really no 'proper' for a jester's bauble (or motley)." (LoAR 9/90 p.17).


"A jester's bauble proper would have a white face and brown stick, with the vesting tinctures blazoned specifically." [superceding comments on LoAR 9/90 p.17] (LoAR 1/91 p.13).


MULLET


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


[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).


"Despite Laurel's personal feelings on the matter, in formal and informal polls taken by a number of heralds (including Laurel) of both heralds and general populace members a significant percentage of Society members (in my poll, over half) had problems with the pentacle on the grounds of offensiveness because of association with black magic and 'Satanism', especially given the recent publicity in relation to events in California in which inverted pentacles (only a 38-degree rotation of the charge) were prominently displayed in a number of newspapers and news magazines. Negative reactions ranged from being uncomfortable with the charge to a forthright 'If I had to face that on the field I would not fight.' As a consequence, I believe that a significant percentage of the populace finds the charge offensive and so cannot register it." [NOTE: further discussions on this topic are found under OFFENSE - Armory] (LoAR 8/90 p.16).


[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).


"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).


[A (standard, six-rayed) estoile] "Conflict with...an eight-pointed estoile... There is one CVD for the addition of the bordure." [implying no difference for change of type] (LoAR 4/91 p.12).


[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).


"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).


"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).


MUSICAL INSTRUMENT


[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).


"Documentation was submitted with the device of [previous submitter] demonstrating the violin to be within the period of study of the SCA, although in very late period." (LoAR 8/90 p.4).


Table of Contents




Jump to Precedents main page
Jump to Laurel main page



maintained by Codex Herald
This page was last updated on $lastmod"; ?>

The arms of the SCA Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.