Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
[a wine amphora vs various charges] There
was general agreement that there is a CD between a wine amphora and a goblet,
cup, tankard, and ink flask, the only potential conflicts that could be
found. (Lina Hen, 5/95 p. 2)
[returning "a quadruply-towered Eastern castle"] No one could create an adequate blazon for the primary charge, and it does not appear to follow any specific architectural type that could be blazoned. An "Eastern castle" does not appear in any of the general reference books of heraldic charges Laurel was able to consult, nor has it been registered before in the SCA. Laurel would note that the castle does not appear to match any middle eastern or Indian architecture he has seen in his studies of those areas (though he remembers seeing a not too dissimilar edifice in one of the early Sinbad movies.) As a consequence, this must be returned because the primary charge cannot be reconstructed from the blazon (as required by RfS VII.7.b), nor can it be readily identified from its appearance alone (as required by RfS VII.7.a). (Fucha de la Rua, 8/95 p. 19)
Though no columns fracted have been registered before, this seems a reasonable extension of the already-registered sword fracted. (Shimshon Aryeh ben Avraham, 11/95 p. 9)
[registering a bridge of three
arches throughout...the streams transfluent gules] This motif of water
flowing through the arches of a bridge, though unusual in the SCA, is both
period and more common in mundane heraldry (Grímr Víthfari,
5/96 p. 6)
An unfletched arrow is visually
and heraldically indistinguishable from a lance (Trimaris, Kingdom of,
2/96 p. 21)
[an armillary sphere vs an astrolabe or a sphere] There is in each case a CD (at least) for the change in type. (Brian Caradoc Walsh, 9/94 p. 11)
The difference between this astrolabe
(which is missing its chart, the back plate) and an armillary sphere, which
amounts to another round thing with openwork tracery, is insufficient to
grant [a CD]. (Malcolm of Fife, 6/95 p. 26)
The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the Dragon Principal Herald is ... troublesome for a couple of reasons. One is that we have not previously allowed armory, even as an augmentation, to be an identical version of the armory of a group or office, whether or not a letter of permission to conflict existed. (See, e.g., the discussion of the proposed augmentation for Jan w Orzeldom, LoAR April 1992, p. 17: "There is also some question whether an individual or a group can grant the right to their undifferenced arms for use by someone else. The use of letters of permission to conflict (which is what Laurel considers the petition by the members of the Barony of Bjornsborg to be) in the College has always been to allow a reduced standard of difference, not to allow the use of arms undifferenced. It is Laurel's belief that the only way the use of arms registered to one party may be granted undifferenced to another is to transfer those arms, with the appropriate letters signed by both parties transferring the arms and accepting them.") (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
...it was a period practice for
the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal
arms. This does not appear to apply to
former holders of the office,
but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to
be a claim to be the current Dragon Principal Herald, which does then fall
afoul of our rules against the claim to "status or powers the submitter
does not possess" (RfS XI). (Fiona Averylle
of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
[registering a reremouse inverted] While the inversion of the bat is unusual, it remains (even at a distance) identifiable... Because of the bird-like nature of the bat, we believe that it should be allowed a posture which is not so very different from "migrant to base", which posture has not been disallowed under the ban on "inverted creatures" noted in the September 1993 LoAR. [The badge was registered.] (Devora Risee de Apors, 9/94 p. 5)
[returning a bat close inverted] The bat is not at all identifiable in this posture. (Kiera Nighthawk, 9/94 p. 18)
[a panther rampant guardant argent spotted sable incensed gules vs. a lion rampant argent] There is a CD for type for the difference between the cats, but that is all. [I.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference.] (Ulfhethinn the Bold, 8/94 p. 15)
[a snow leopard spotted vs various unspotted cats] [There is a CD] for the addition of the spots (effectively a semy, and worth the same CD as any addition of a tertiary charge or tertiary charge group). (Marke von Mainz, 5/95 p. 2)
[a lion passant vs a cat
s'elongeant] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated the overwhelming
similarity of the postures of the two cats. (Anthony Navarre, 4/96 p. 18)
[a hare vs a rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attires argent] [There is a CD] for the removal of the attires, which a comparison of the emblazons showed to be the visual equivalent of removing wings, for which we also grant a CD. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, 5/95 p. 9)
[an otter couchant vs a ferret statant guardant] It is extremely hard to tell the difference between statant and couchant on very short-legged critters like otters and ferrets; so much so that a visual comparison of the emblazons showed very little difference between them. [No CD was given.] (Iain MacDhugal Cameron of Ben Liath, 5/95 p. 10)
A cameleopard, or giraffe, proper
is Or marked brown/tan; as such, it lacks sufficient contrast against
the argent field. (Ceridwen Alianora McInnes, 6/95 p. 21)
The bear was blazoned as statant displayed in the LoI, but there was a consensus among the commenters that displayed is an avian posture inappropriate for beasts (as, for example, rampant is a quadrupedal posture inappropriate for birds). [It was blazoned as statant erect affronty] (Grimhun Hroth, 7/95 p. 1)
[returning a sloth pendent] RfS
VIII.4.c. notes that "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable
charges may not be registered. Excessively natural designs include those
that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures, ..." The sloth here
appears to be simply a photocopy of a drawing of the natural animal. It
is certainly in no heraldic posture, even inverted, and no one was able
to suggest either (1) a blazonable posture for it, or (2) that this would
be the default posture for a sloth. (Sven
Örfendur, 10/95 p. 18)
[a mouse vs a gopher] [There is] nothing
for type between two rodents. (Roisin Rhys, 11/95 p. 15)
[a hornless goat's head vs a mountain goat's head] There is a clear point for...the addition of the very prominent horns. (Tinoran's charge is a mountain goat, drawn with horns nearly as long as a gazelle's, and not a mountain sheep with the circular "Princess Leia bun" circular horns, which would not have as great a visual impact). (Lucia del Mar, 2/96 p. 14)
[a stag vs an ibex] There [is]
a CD between a stag and an ibex, though X.2., Sufficient Difference, [does]
not apply between the two. (Declan de Burgo, 6/96 p. 6)
[registering a zebra proper] Though several commenters recommended blazoning the charge here as argent, striped sable, it seems that this is a "widely understood default coloration" and is therefore permissible to blazon as proper. (Sarmasia Lakadaimoniote, 5/95 p. 3)
[a zebra proper vs a horse argent] [There
is a CD] for the addition of the stripes, which are
easily equivalent to the addition of a tertiary charge, which is given
a CD in the Rules for Submissions. (Sarmasia Lakadaimoniote, 5/95
p. 3)
Though blazoned as a dove on the LoI, the bird here has none of the distinguishing features of a dove. There is a CD for the field but nothing for type of primary charge between a generic bird and any other specific bird. (Anna of Eichenwald, 8/94 p. 14)
The Japanese crane displayed in annulo was returned for being not identifiable some time ago, having more in common with roundels and crescents than European renditions of birds. (Patrick Donovan of Warwick, 9/94 p. 16)
[a peacock vert vs a peacock proper] Conflict with...only one CD for the addition of the [secondary charge]. (As noted before, a peacock proper has a vert body). [I.e. there is no CD for tincture.] (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 12)
[a bird striking vs a bird rising, wings elevated and displayed] ...there is a CD ...for the dramatic change in the posture and orientation of the bird's wings (elevated and addorsed vs displayed). (Sasha Dmitrievich Dozortsev, 12/94 p. 4)
[corbies close respectant vs doves respectant] The difference in type of bird is insufficient for [a CD]. (Ástrídr Oddsdóttir, 12/94 p. 12)
[a falcon dexter wing expanded and inverted vs an eagle rising, wings displayed] Particularly when applied to the primary charge, "close, dexter wing expanded and inverted" is a significant outline change from "rising, wings displayed". (Friedrich der Falkner, 1/95 p. 5)
[returning Per pale gules and sable, an eagle checky Or and gules] The checky Or and gules eagle is completely unidentifiable on the gules portion of the field. While we have allowed checky ordinaries to share a tincture with the field, their simple outline makes it obvious what they are and identifiability is not lost. Here, because of the complex outline of the charge, that is not the case. (Rolland von Fries, 1/95 p. 13)
Regarding the potential conflict with Knowles (Papworth, p. 310), Azure, a hawk seizing a partridge argent on a chief of the last three bolts of the first, there is a CD for the changes to the tertiaries, and because we are unable to find any definition of the posture "seizing", which could as well be similar to striking (which would be a CD from rising) as trussing (which would not), we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt here. (Mairghread Sgoilear, 4/95 p. 6)
[a goose displayed vs an eagle displayed] The goose displayed is insufficiently different from an eagle displayed to grant a CD. (Thosheim, Canton of, 5/95 p. 12)
[a parrot vs a falcon] Though X.4.e. would normally grant a CD for difference between charges considered different in period, the bird here is drawn so that it appears to be more falcon-like than parrot-like, making this a visual conflict. (Aleksandr the Traveller, 6/95 p. 25)
[geese enraged vs martlets] There is a CD for the change in posture (enraged has the wings expansed, and bodies in more of a "rising" posture), and another, given the clearly separate heraldic identity of the two birds in period, for type of bird. (Ceri of Caermarthen, 9/95 p. 4)
[a bird rising wings displayed vs a bird displayed] [There is a CD] for the posture of the primary charge; rising is basically bendwise while displayed has the body clearly palewise. (Lucia Ottavia da Siena, 9/95 p. 14)
[returning a red-tail hawk proper] Though under the new precedent for animals proper, we could have registered this had it been emblazoned as brown or even, presumably, brown with red tail feathers, the bird on the submission forms was quite clearly drawn as a red-tailed hawk in light phase proper. (According to the sources we checked, the red-tailed hawk also has a "dark phase".) This is exactly the type of "Linnaean heraldry" that has been banned for some time now, for the reason that one would have to consult a specialized non-heraldic source (in this case, a book on North American birds) to adequately reproduce the emblazon from a blazon. RfS VIII.4.c. notes that "[Proper] is not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other elaborate description) would be required to get it right." Such is the case here. (Hachille de Remiercourt, 12/95 p. 18)
A bird passant, that is to
say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close.
(Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
[a bear rampant contourny sustaining a halberd] Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as Green Crown noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny handle will always have difficulty matching the visual weight of other charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about the same as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. (Wynn of Naevehjem, 9/94 p. 9)
The commentary is in, with a clear majority of commenters in favor of adopting Baron Bruce's proposal that we continue to accept garden roses in SCA armory, but simply blazon them as roses. As a consequence, we will immediately and henceforth blazon a rose, whether the default heraldic rose or the garden rose, as a rose. (CL 11/94)
The swords were originally blazoned as "three swords in triangle". The problem with that blazon, however, is that it leaves one wondering where to stop (in estoile, in mullet of six points, in fleam, in lion rampant?). The blazon as modified and registered seems the most appropriate. [It was blazoned as a triangle of three swords] (Leon von Schrecken, 11/94 p. 10)
The rule of thumb which has been applied recently in attempting to determine whether a charge was relatively small (and therefore maintained, and too small to count for a CD) or relatively large (sustained, and large enough to count for a CD), is whether if the two charges were separated they would be seen as a primary charge and a secondary charge or as a set of two primary charges. (Winifred Corbet de Wynterwood, 12/94 p. 3)
[Per chevron, a chevron and in base a <charge>] Though, as a number of commenters noted, the field division and chevron were drawn higher on the field than normal, in a design like this the chevron will normally be enhanced. It is not necessary to blazon the fact. (Andrew of Cork, 12/94 p. 5)
[registering the blazon a phoenix rousant wings addorsed] The phoenix is not truly "rising", a posture which for phoenices is the equivalent of "displayed". We have modified the blazon to better match the emblazon. (Battle Rock, Canton of, 2/95 p. 9)
Though blazoned in the LoI as a ducal coronet, the coronet here does not match the SCA ducal coronet, which consists of a band decorated solely with four strawberry leaves. As there appears to be no blazon adequate to recreate the specific form here, we are blazoning it simply as a coronet. (Anton Tremayne, 4/95 p. 2)
Blazoned in the LoI as a Maltese cross, the primary charge does not have the arms meeting in the center at a point, one of the defining characteristics of a Maltese cross. [It was registered as a cross formy swallowtailed] (Ranulf Throckmorton, 5/95 p. 9)
The bear was blazoned as statant displayed in the LoI, but there was a consensus among the commenters that displayed is an avian posture inappropriate for beasts (as, for example, rampant is a quadrupedal posture inappropriate for birds). [It was blazoned as statant erect affronty] (Grimhun Hroth, 7/95 p. 1)
The cross was blazoned in the LoI as recercely; this term appears to be an ambiguous one and should not be used in SCA blazon, much as we no longer use forceny, and for the same underlying reason: its ambiguity. "English heraldic writers seem, however, to have made two words, recercele and sarcelly, and have implied that they are of different origin and meaning; but there is no agreement as to what those meanings were. The French heralds seem equally at fault." (Parker, p. 494). Given this confusion among heraldists, the terms should be avoided in SCA blazon. (Merrick Xavier, 9/95 p. 3)
Blazoned in the LoI and drawn on the emblazon as "four-lobed" roses, evidence was presented that the number of petals on roses was not blazoned in period, whether of four petals or more, and so we have blazoned these simply as "roses". As a consequence, we will no longer make a distinction among roses based on the number of petals. As with garden roses, a "rose is a rose", whether of five, six, or four petals. (Eleanor de Broke, 10/95 p. 4)
A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close. (Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
We have decided to bring the SCA back in line with real world heraldry, at least in one area. Spurs will be palewise, rowel to chief by default. Prior registrations of spurs in the former SCA default in the A&O will be corrected to "fesswise in profile, rowel to sinister". (Harrys Rob of Wamphray, 2/96 p. 2)
[returning a bow reversed sustained by a sinister cubit
arm] The cubit/bow combination is insufficiently distinguishable from
a crossbow. (Cyril Bowman, 11/94 p. 12)
Buckets have not previously been
registered in the SCA. As the defining instance, we normally require extra
documentation for a new charge. Fortunately, Parker, p. 79, and Elvin,
pl. 39, document something very close to what is drawn here as a bucket.
These are, indeed, quite identifiable as buckets, and the term itself
is period. Given that buckets may be made from wood, leather, and metal,
we have determined that the default bucket is the wooden one; leather or
metal buckets must be so specified. (Marcan O Brien, 10/95 p. 12)
[a candle enflamed vs. a candle and candlestick flammant] A visual check of the files indicates that [the] candlestick is the vertical type and therefore insufficient to grant a CD, leaving us with only the fieldless difference. (Thecla Doria of Andritsaena, 8/94 p. 15)
[considering ...two swords each
surmounted by a tankard argent...] The tankards, being of the same
tincture as the swords, tend to become confused with them visually, making
identifiability problematical. (See RfS VII.7.a.) That being the case,
they cannot truly count as the addition of another group of charges, but
are as a modification to the swords. (Dafydd ap Morgan ap Gwydion, 2/96
p. 20)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head]
There is...nothing for single-headed chess knight versus horse's head.
(Jonathan Thorne, 9/94 p. 18)
Column see Architecture
[a compass rose vs a compass star] [There
is a CD] for the difference between a compass rose
with its prominent annulet and a compass star. (Northshield, Principality
of, 9/95 p. 15)
[returning Per bend sinister argent and checky bendwise argent and gules, a bend sinister Or...] The field here, being half metal and half color and metal, is not a neutral field, but is 75% metal. Thus, the bend sinister is in violation of RfS VIII.2.a. and VIII.2.b.i. (Elrich the Wanderer, 4/95 p. 9)
A cameleopard, or giraffe, proper is Or marked brown/tan; as such, it lacks sufficient contrast against the argent field. (Ceridwen Alianora McInnes, 6/95 p. 21)
[returning Quarterly argent and
argent semy of fir trees] "Semy should cover a defined area,
not part of a field. The effect here is visually confusing and unbalanced."
[Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR 10 Mar 85, p.14] That is the case here. It is
impossible to tell where the argent ends and the argent with semy begins,
making the device visually confusing and unbalanced. (Sophia de Forest,
2/96 p. 19)
As noted by several commenters, there is no defined viscomital coronet, "either as a physical entity or an heraldic convention." As noted in the return of Lucan von Drachenklaue (LoAR November 1991), "Viscounts and Viscountesses may use the default heraldic coronet (a crown indented of three points) if they so choose." ...we are returning this for redrawing. (Morgan fitz Arthur de Grey, 8/94 p. 17)
Though blazoned in the LoI as a
ducal
coronet, the coronet here does not match the SCA ducal coronet, which
consists of a band decorated solely with four strawberry leaves. As there
appears to be no blazon adequate to recreate the specific form here, we
are blazoning it simply as a coronet. (Anton Tremayne, 4/95 p. 2
Like any other charge which is longer than it is wide,
crampons are palewise by default. (Vladimir Zinonovich, 10/94 p. 4)
[registering a crescent fimbriated] Though legal, the fimbriation of the crescent is not very good style. (Tigranes of Bezabde, 2/95 p. 5)
...the "increscent double enarched"
is not a period charge and cannot be reliably reproduced from the blazon.
The most recent registration (of only two) in the Armorial and Ordinary
was decade ago. As has been noted by many who held this office before,
we are not bound by the mistakes of the past. We need documentation for
the use of this charge before we register it. (Sarasi Candrah, 6/95
p. 23)
[a Canterbury cross vs a cross potent quadrate ] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross (straight arms vs. formy, plus the markedly rounded ends vs. straight) (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[Canterbury cross vs a cross patty] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross. (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[a crosses patonce vs a cross patty] There [is a CD] for changing...the type...of the charge(s). (Elwyn Tenways, 1/95 p. 2)
[a cross formy vs a Bowen cross] ... Thus this is clear by application of X.2 for significant change of type of the primary charges. [editor's note: Laurel apparently meant that there is a substantial difference between these charges] (Grimbaldus Bacon, 5/95 p. 7)
Blazoned in the LoI as a Maltese cross, the primary charge does not have the arms meeting in the center at a point, one of the defining characteristics of a Maltese cross. [It was registered as a cross formy swallowtailed] (Ranulf Throckmorton, 5/95 p. 9)
[a patriarchal cross vs a cross of Toulouse] There is one CD for the change to the type of cross, but the "voiding" of the cross of Toulouse is a part of its definition and is not the addition of a tertiary charge. (John of Blackhawk, 8/95 p. 22)
The cross was blazoned in the LoI as recercely; this term appears to be an ambiguous one and should not be used in SCA blazon, much as we no longer use forceny, and for the same underlying reason: its ambiguity. "English heraldic writers seem, however, to have made two words, recercele and sarcelly, and have implied that they are of different origin and meaning; but there is no agreement as to what those meanings were. The French heralds seem equally at fault." (Parker, p. 494). Given this confusion among heraldists, the terms should be avoided in SCA blazon. (Merrick Xavier, 9/95 p. 3)
[registering a cross potent engrailed] Some commenters questioned the use of a complex line on an already complex cross. There is sufficient support for such a treatment from period and post-period non-SCA arms (e.g., Peshale, Argent, a cross flory engrailed sable; Cottez, Argent, a cross moline engrailed sable; Peshall, Argent, a cross patty throughout engrailed sable, (these arms also appear to exist with the cross not throughout); Coley, Argent, a cross patty throughout wavy sable; and Cotter, Argent, a cross sarcelly engrailed sable). (Ghislaine d'Auxerre, 10/95 p. 9)
Fitching a cross is not worth [a CD]. (Wolfger of Rheinfelden, 11/95 p. 15)
[a fret vs a Bowen cross]A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
[returning a Jerusalem cross fimbriated] It is Laurel's belief that a cross potent, the central cross in a cross of Jerusalem, falls into the same "too complex to fimbriate" category as roses and suns. Even were that not felt to be the case, however, the amount of fimbriation, of both the cross potent and the four surrounding crosses couped, is excessive and sufficient grounds for return in and of itself. (Sebastian Blacke, 12/95 p. 22)
X.2 [does] not apply between a Latin cross and a cross patonce. (Lloyd of Penrose, 2/96 p. 20)
[a cross of four lozenges vs a cross couped vs a Maltese cross] In each case there is a clear CD for the change to type of cross, but they are not sufficiently different for X.2. to apply here. To quote from the results of Palimpsest's research into what types of changes to a cross constitute a single cadency step (as opposed to sufficient difference): "The closest [analogues to the current submission] I have found are the various arms of Banester (spelled variously as Banester, Banaster, and Banastre) in Papworth pp. 606-607. In all cases with an argent field and a sable cross are crosses plain, flory, of four fusils, humetty pointed, patonce, patty, and sarcelly. All but the first two are explicitly period, the first two having no date given. If nothing else this shows a wide variety of cross changes used to show cadency. In particular this includes the cross of four fusils, equivalent to that submitted here. Various other doublets between various crosses can be found, but these are the most relevant I have found." Based on this research, it would appear that the type of change from a cross couped or a Maltese cross to a cross of four lozenges is but a single cadency step; sufficient for a Clear Difference, but insufficient to apply X.2. for sufficient difference. (Ariane de Brie, 4/96 p. 15)
Sufficient documentation having been received ... for the use of the Cross of Santiago as a period charge and in this form, we are happy to register such cross here and in the future. (Diego Sanchez Montoya de Cordoba, 5/96 p. 15)
[a cross moline vs an ankh] There is X.2. (Sufficient Difference) difference between these two crosses; the ends of the three lower arms have been changed significantly, and the looped chiefmost arm create an outline so different from a cross moline that it was felt that if X.2. difference can apply to crosses at all (and we believe it does), it should apply to these two. (Ursula of Kyleahin, 6/96 p. 8)
A cross estoile is a post-period
charge; combining it with an annulet to create a "Celtic cross estoile"
makes it two steps from period style. This second step is one step further
than the College is normally willing to go. (Aonghus Cu, 6/96 p.
10)
[a tankard vs a chalice] [There is a CD]
for
the very visible difference between a tankard and a chalice with its long
stem and unique outline. (Brigid O'Farrell of Beckery, 9/95 p. 7)
[a delf vs a cushion] There [is a CD] for
type of primary (the softer lines and tassels at each corner are fairly
conspicuous on [the proposed conflict's] device). [The device was returned
for a different conflict.] (Tibor of Rock Valley, 2/95 p. 12)
Next Page
Return to the Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure, Table of Contents Page