Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
[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).
[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).
[<field> semy of X <tincture>, an X <another tincture>] "An additional problem is one pointed out by Mistress Alisoun in a return of a device using a major charge with a semy of the same charge: 'Such a differentiation is not period style: the size of strewn charges could vary widely in a period emblazon as necessary to suit the design.' Some commenters pointed out cases of '...crusilly...a cross', but even here there is generally a significant change in type of cross between the semy and the primary. The fact that he uses a different tincture here for the primary versus the semy helps a little, but it is not enough." [device returned for this reason and for conflict] (LoAR 9/90 p.16).
"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).
[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).
[<field> semy of X <tincture>, an X <another tincture>] "An additional problem is one pointed out by Mistress Alisoun in a return of a device using a major charge with a semy of the same charge: 'Such a differentiation is not period style: the size of strewn charges could vary widely in a period emblazon as necessary to suit the design.' Some commenters pointed out caes of '...crusilly...a cross', but even here there is generally a significant change in tye type of cross between the semy and the primary. The fact that he uses a different tincture here for the primary versus the semy helps a little, but it is not enough." [device returned for this reason and for conflict] (LoAR 9/90 p.16).
[A cross between four others, two and two] "This is very marginal style, with two different sizes of the same charge. Had the smaller crosses been a semy, it would have been returned. As it is, we felt that it was just within the line of acceptability." (LoAR 11/90 p.1).
[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).
[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).
[<field> a charged engrailed torteau vs. <different field> a charged sun gules] "There is a CVD for the field, but nothing for the change to type only of the tertiary." [implying no difference between the engrailed torteau and the sun] (LoAR 8/90 p.19 - overruled on the LoAR 4/91 p.3).
[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).
"It is not possible to eclipse something 'of the field' on a fieldless badge." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).
"Lord Laurel seems to be in a definite minority in believing that a roundel engrailed is visually similar to a sun. Thus ... [there is a CVD] for the type of primary charge." (LoAR 4/91 p.3).
[A sunburst inverted Or] "As with the device of Baldric the Benevolent, registered February 1991, sunbursts Or are now considered acceptable charges in SCA heraldry." (LoAR 6/91 p.6).
[Four swords fretted] "Conflict with...four arrows fretted...There is one CVD, for changing the arrows to swords." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).