Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
[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)
[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)
[a tree blasted and eradicated vs. a tree eradicated] As has been noted before, in period trees were often drawn with branches each ending in a single leaf, which is not sufficiently different from a tree blasted to allow us to grant a CD between them. (Ælfwine Akeworthe, 8/94 p. 18)
[a spider inverted vs a spider] Inverting a spider is visually akin to reversing a ship; the charges are sufficiently symmetrical that inversion/reversal is not a Clear Difference. (Richenza von Schwerin, 10/94 p. 18)
[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change to the type of wings is too slight to count for [a CD]. [I.e. there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature.] (Onuphrius Dru Overende, 1/95 p. 14)
[urdy vs wavy] Urdy is not a CD from wavy. [Editor's note: this is inconsistant with earlier precedent. As no mention of this is made it is unclear if the intent is to overturn prior rulings or if this is an aberation.] (Irina Francesca degli Schiavoni, 2/95 p. 12)
[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 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 salamander...enflamed vs a natural chameleon] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated that the two lizards are in identical postures and that the differences between them were all in the same categories as those considered to be too minor to grant a CD. (Balian de Brionne, 5/95 p. 14)
[Gyronny purpure and argent, a compass star elongated to base, a bordure counterchanged vs Gyronny of six purpure and argent, a mullet of six points azure within a bordure counterchanged.] There is a CD for the tincture of the primary charge, but there are no other countable differences between the two devices. [Editor's note: thus implying no significant difference between gyronny and gyronny of six, nor between a compass star elongated to base and a mullet of six points] (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[a compass star vs a mullet of four points] The overwhelming visual similarities between a mullet of four points and a mullet of four greater and four lesser points/compass star, both of which are non-period charges, mandates against granting a ... CD for this relatively minor difference. (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[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)
[an astrolabe vs an armillary sphere] 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)
[an estoile of five rays vs an estoile of eight rays] The difference between the number of rays of one non-standard variant of a charge and another non-standard variant of the same charge is insufficient for [a CD]. (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 6/95 p. 29)
[a shark vs a catfish] We have not generally granted a difference between types of natural fish. (Agilwulf the Loud, 8/95 p. 17)
[a frauenadler displayed argent armed and crined Or vs a harpy displayed...proper] The harpy... is mostly argent with a "flesh-colored" upper torso, effectively also argent and, even if considered as Or, far less than one-half the charge (which would be necessary to allow a CD for tincture). [I.e. there is no CD for either type or tincture] (Aralyn Ermintrude of the Falling Waters, 8/95 p. 19)
[a stag's head cabossed argent vs a stag's head cabossed argent, orbed and attired of flames proper, resting on its head a chalice Or] The change of tincture of the attires is insufficient for [a CD], and the chalice is no more prominent than any other maintained charge. (Cynnwr of Glyndwr, 9/95 p. 23)
[mullets of seven points vs estoiles of eight rays] The differences between eight pointed mullets and seven rayed estoiles was insufficient for [a CD]. (Calum Mac Dhaibhidh, 9/95 p. 26)
[a Catherine's wheel vs a cog wheel] A visual comparison showed that the only difference between the two wheels is the shape of the "bumps" on the outer edge. [No difference was given.] (Adelicia Gilwell, 10/95 p. 15)
[a yale sable vs a yale sable platy] Given that the presence of plates on yales appear to be left to the artist's discretion and not necessarily blazoned, it seems that their presence, or disappearance, is not countable in terms of difference. (Ciarán Dubh Ó Tuathail, 11/95 p. 13)
Fitching a cross is not worth [a CD]. (Wolfger of Rheinfelden, 11/95 p. 15)
We do not grant difference for mullets of four points versus compass stars. (Ramon the Chronologer, 11/95 p. 16)
[a Bourchier knot vs a Wake knot] A visual comparison of the two blazons showed that the two knots are too similar to grant [a CD]. (Arwyn of Leicester, 12/95 p. 20)
[a sea-frauenadler vs a winged merman vs a winged mermaid displayed] In each case there is... nothing for posture (which is identical) or for the minor differences among the types of the winged humanoid sea-monsters. (Ancellin Fitzalan of Newe Castle, 1/96 p. 22)
Wyverns and dragons are merely artistic variants of the same charge, just as mermaids and melusines are. (Owen ap Robert, 1/96 p. 28)
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)
An unfletched arrow is visually and heraldically indistinguishable from a lance (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 2/96 p. 21)
[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)
[mullets vs mullets pierced] Current research seems to indicate that mullets and mullets pierced (or spur rowels) were used interchangeably in period. As a consequence, no difference is currently granted between them. (Agnes Daunce, 5/96 p. 20)
[a butterfly vs a butterfly inverted] Given the overall symmetry of a butterfly, the inversion here does not significantly change the outline, and no CD can be granted for inverting it. (Louise LaMotte, 5/96 p. 22)
[a fish vs a swordfish] There is [no difference]
for the type between a generic fish and a swordfish. (Yrsa kistill
Gunnarsdóttir, 5/96 p. 29)
[two charges in saltire vs one charge palewise] There are CDs for number and for orientation. Neither of the maces in this submission are palewise; hence, a CD may be allowed for orientation here. As noted in the LoAR of August 1992, p, 25, "Had none of the coneys in Daniel's device been in the same posture as Kineiland's coney, then we could indeed obtain a CD for posture as well as for number. But so long as one coney has no countable difference from Kineiland, then we can only grant a single CD for adding the other three coneys. The submitter might try putting his coneys in saltire, instead of in cross." (Middle Kingdom, 9/95 p. 14)
[Per chevron argent and sable, two towers and a horse rampant counterchanged vs Argent, upon a pile inverted throughout between two ravens sable a tower argent] [i.e. two {A's} and a {B} vs two {B's} and a {C}] Clear ..., because the type of each charge in the group has been substantially changed, even though each group contains a tower. RfS X.2. states that: "Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially changed." Laurel takes this to mean that the type of each charge must be substantially changed from its corresponding charge in the armory being compared, not that the type of every charge must be substantially changed from the type of every charge in the other armory. (There is no CD for the field, since we treat per chevron and a pile inverted as equivalent for purposes of difference.) (Tangwystl Tyriau Gleision, 12/95 p. 13)
[registering A sun Or charged with a fool's cap per pale
gules and vert] Versus Regula Alicia la Placida, On a mullet of eight
points Or another quarterly vert and gules, there is a CD for fieldlessness
and another for the change to the change of type and half of the tincture
of the tertiary charge. While each tertiary is half gules and half
vert, the arrangement of the tinctures is such that half of each tincture
has been reversed, which counts toward the necessary two changes for tertiary
charges on a complex charge. (Alaric the Fool, 3/96 p. 5)
[a lyre vs a harp] It was the consensus of the commenting heralds and those attending the Laurel meeting that there is (and should be) a CD between a lyre and a harp. [The submission was returned for a different reason.] (Wintermist, Shire of, 7/94 p. 10)
[a jester's cap vs a jester's hood] [There is a CD] for the difference between a jester's cap and a jester's hood; the latter has the fabric which would normally extend down over the shoulders and well onto the chest, with large dags, and a hole in the front for the face to show through. It was the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting that the difference was visually equivalent to the difference between a lion and a demi-lion, for which we also grant a CD. (Gautier d'Isigny-sur-Mer, 8/94 p. 3)
[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)
[wavy vs nebuly] There [is a CD] for the difference between nebuly and wavy. [Editor's note: this ruling is inconsistant with previous established practice. Since Laurel did not state that he intended to overrule past precedent this may be an aberation.] (Joscelyn Jentyl, 9/94 p. 3)
[a sword inverted vs a sword] [There is a CD] for inverting the primary charge [i.e. the sword]. (Shamus Odyll, 9/94 p. 7)
[a winged unicorn vs a pegasus] There is one CD... for the difference between a pegasus and a winged unicorn. (...If we are going to grant a difference between a unicorn and a horse, I cannot see that we can justify not granting one just because they both have added wings.) (Thorkell Bloodaxe of Gardar, 9/94 p. 8)
[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)
[dandelion blossoms vs carnations] Conflict with [N]...with only the fieldless difference. (Suzanna the Herbalist, 9/94 p. 16)
[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)
[a peacock head vs various specific birds' heads] While we do not believe that there would be a CD between a peacock's head and a phoenix's head, as both have a significant and similarly shaped crest, the difference between a peacock's head and any other specific bird's head are the equivalent of the difference between an eagle's head and a griffin's head, for which we also grant a CD. (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 1)
[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)
[a 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 seven-headed dragon vs a dragon] The change in number of heads, from one to seven, is the visual equivalent of adding wings; that it, worth a CD. While we do not normally grant a CD for change to the number of heads (e.g., eagles vs double-headed eagles), the difference between seven heads and one head is sufficiently remarkable that it should be worth such a difference on a primary charge.
[one orle vs two flaunches] There was some question whether there were CDs for both type (orle vs flaunches) and number (one vs two), as you cannot have a single flaunch. It is Laurel's opinion that there is indeed a CD for number here; while they may only come in pairs, there are quite clearly two of them, on opposite sides of the field. ... As a consequence, we believe we can reasonably grant a CD for flaunches being two charges, not one. (Oscar Einhard, 10/94 p. 10)
[a peacock vert vs a peacock proper] Conflict with [N] 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)
[tiger's jambes argent marked sable vs lions gambs argent] The sable markings on the jambes here are insufficient for another [CD]. (Fearghus O'Shannon, 10/94 p. 13)
[a pawprint vs a cat's pawprint] We do not grant difference between types of pawprint. (Radbot Gunter, 10/94 p. 13)
[bull's horns vs buglehorns] There is only one CD, for the change in type of charge. [i.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference in type] (Weland Healfdene, 10/94 p. 14)
[a lily of the valley vs an iris] There is at best one CD, for the change in type of flower. [i.e. there may be a significant difference, but definitely not a substantial difference of type] (Thora Asbiornsdottir, 10/94 p. 14)
[lions heads gorged vs lions heads, in both cases as secondary charges around a chevron] While gorging may be worth a CD when the head is the primary charge, its visual impact is much reduced when occurring on secondaries, enough so that it was felt that it was not the equivalent of the addition of a group of tertiaries to the secondaries, but rather the equivalent of the addition of a maintained charge. (Iain Jameson of Kilronan, p. 17)
[an oar inverted vs an oar] There [is a CD] for inverting the primary (and only) charge. (Ardanroe, Shire of, 11/94 p. 4)
[a birch tree vs a tree blasted and eradicated] There are technically no CDs between the two devices. (Uma, Canton of, 11/94 p. 14)
[needles vs nails] The difference between nails and needles is not sufficiently large to grant a [CD]. (Siobhan Eliot, 11/94 p. 17)
[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)
[crosses patonce vs a cross patty] There are CDs for changing both the type and number of the charge(s). (Elwyn Tenways, 1/95 p. 2)
[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)
[a sword vs a sword inverted] There is a CD...for inverting the [sword]. (Dmitrii Volkovich, 1/95 p. 7)
[a pale between two <charges> vs a pale between in chief two <charges>] There [is a CD] for changing [the secondaries'] position on the field (from in chief to in fess). (Michael Philip de Vere, 2/95 p. 7)
[a Mugwort plant vert vs a slip of three leaves vert and an almond slip fructed proper and Rose-wort proper and St. John's wort proper] In each case there is ... nothing for either the type or tincture of the foliage. (Alysoun Beauchamp, 2/95 p. 11)
[a stump snagged vs a fracted stump] There is...nothing for the fracting of the stump. (William of Øland, 2/95 p. 11)
[urdy vs wavy] Urdy is not a CD from wavy. [Editor's note: this is inconsistant with earlier precedent. As no mention of this is made it is unclear if the intent is to overturn prior rulings or if this is an aberation.] (Irina Francesca degli Schiavoni, 2/95 p. 12)
[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)
[a cross formy vs a Bowen cross] 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)
[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)
[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)
[geese 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 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 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)
[two charges in saltire vs one charge palewise] There are CDs for number and for orientation. Neither of the maces in this submission are palewise; hence, a CD may be allowed for orientation here. As noted in the LoAR of August 1992, p, 25, "Had none of the coneys in Daniel's device been in the same posture as Kineiland's coney, then we could indeed obtain a CD for posture as well as for number. But so long as one coney has no countable difference from Kineiland, then we can only grant a single CD for adding the other three coneys. The submitter might try putting his coneys in saltire, instead of in cross." (Middle Kingdom, 9/95 p. 14)
[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)
[a mascle vs a rustre] [There is a] CD for the difference between a mascle and a rustre. We have no evidence that mascles and rustres were considered interchangeable in period. (Daniel de Lincoln, 10/95 p. 4)
[mullety vs estoilly] [There is a CD] for the difference between mullets and estoiles. (Heather MakKinzie of Weir, 11/95 p. 6)
Laurel is at a loss to understand the comments of those who would have us refuse to grant a CD for orientation of a charge simply because it is registered without a field. The Rules for Submission were designed to have us apply a single standard to all armory; to do otherwise would be to return to a level of complexity in the Rules that we were trying to get away from when the current Rules were implemented. The Rules grant difference for the orientation of a charge: palewise is different from bendwise is different from fesswise, regardless of the shape of the field or even the presence of a field. (Atai Tetsuko, 12/95 p. 4)
[a rose vs a garden rosebud slipped and leaved] There are CDs for the field and for the type of charge. (Aonghus Lochlainn of Loch Fyne, 12/95 p. 11)
The créquier is sufficiently different from any other kind of tree to be considered a different charge, and its stylization is more than consistent enough for it to be unlikely to be mistaken for any other kind of tree. (Not to mention the fact that we regularly give a CD between radically different types of trees; for example, fir trees and oak trees.) All things considered, I have no problem granting at least a CD for a créquier versus any other tree. (Brian of the West, 1/96 p. 19)
There is a CD for...the difference between a saltire couped (with the normal "flat" ends) and a standard saltire throughout. (Kenric Bjarnarson, 2/96 p. 12)
Quatrefoils and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent charges in our period. (Stormvale, Shire of, 2/96 p. 12)
[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 nautilus shell vs an escallop] There[is a CD] for the type of the charge. (Atlantia, Kingdom of, 4/96 p. 2)
[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)
[a mammoth's skull affronty vs a ram's skull cabossed] There is clearly a CD between the two charges, but it was the consensus of the commentary, and those attending the Laurel meeting comparing the two emblazons, that sufficient difference (per RfS X.2.) between two skulls is does not exist. (Gamli �ðikollr, 5/96 p. 19)
There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges, but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting that RfS X.2. does not apply between them. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 20)
[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)
[a cross formy vs a Bowen cross]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)
[a seeblatt vs an escallop inverted] It was the general consensus after a visual comparison of the emblazons that there are ... sufficient differences between an escallop inverted and a seeblatt to apply X.2. between them. (Cynthia du Pré Argent, 7/95 p. 5)
[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)
X.2 [does] not apply between a Latin cross and a cross patonce. (Lloyd of Penrose, 2/96 p. 20)
[wolf's heads erased vs unicorn's heads couped at the shoulder] X.2. applies to clear by substantial change to the type of all the charges. (Énán mac Fáeláin, 3/96 p. 3)
[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)
[a mammoth's skull affronty vs a ram's skull cabossed] There is clearly a CD between the two charges, but it was the consensus of the commentary, and those attending the Laurel meeting comparing the two emblazons, that sufficient difference (per RfS X.2.) between two skulls is does not exist. (Gamli �ðikollr, 5/96 p. 19)
There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges, but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting that RfS X.2. does not apply between them. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 20)
[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)
[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)
[three otters statant in annulo vs six mice couchant in annulo and three cats couchant in annulo, each biting the tail of the cat previous] [vs the mice] No one...where the emblazons were compared could see granting another for either type or posture of the animals. [vs the cats] A visual comparison demonstrated insufficient difference in type or posture to overcome the vast visual similarities. (Miriam Engelke, 1/95 p. 13)
[returning Argent, within a vol an eagle's head erased gules] Visual conflict with ... Argent, a double-headed eagle displayed gules, and ... Argent, an eagle displayed gules crowned Or. While there is sufficient technical difference between them, the overwhelming visual similarities (here, that of an eagle with the tail and legs missing, as well as a little bit of the neck)... are simply too much to allow registration. (Wyll Hauk, 10/95 p. 15)
[A compass star issuant from each point a lightning bolt argent vs Purpure, an escarbuncle argent] There is a visual conflict... There is the fieldless CD, but it takes the eye too long to sort out the other differences between the two in all the "busy-ness" of the charges. (Achbar ibn Ali, 1/96 p. 22)
[Per bend Or and azure, a Celtic cross counterchanged vs Per pale azure and Or, a Celtic cross counterchanged] Visual conflict with [N]. While it is true that the line of division of both the field and the cross have been changed, in fact less than one-half of the tincture of the cross has actually been changed, and a visual comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated that in fact the only apparent change has been to the field. (Gregory of Saint Albans, 1/96 p. 23)
RfS X.5. states that "If the tinctures, shapes, or arrangement
of the charges in a submission create an overwhelming visual resemblance
to a piece of protected armory, the submission may be held to conflict
even if sufficient theoretical difference can be counted between them."
This "visual conflict" clause of the Rules runs only one way; we may find
that two devices look to similar, but not that they look too dissimilar
in spite of technical conflict. To do otherwise is to introduce a
very high level of subjectivity to the decision process, something the
College has worked very hard to get away from. (Edmund the Lame,
6/96 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)
Given only two prior SCA registrations, and the fact that the earliest documentary evidence outside the SCA for the charge dates from the last half of the Seventeenth Century, we feel that we need more support for the chevron disjoint as a period or at least SCA-compatible charge before we register it again. (Cecille Marie Gabryell Geneviève du Mont, 10/95 p. 16)
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)
[considering an owl's head jessant-de-lis] There
was ... some concern that we here we are getting too far from period practice.
(Period practice being leopard's head jessant-de-lys; one step from period
practice being other beast's heads; and two steps from period practice
being other types of heads, including birds' heads.) Given that we
have in recent years a number of different types of heads (including humanoid)
jessant of items other than a fleur-de-lis (including a complex cross),
Laurel does not feel that this submission is so far from SCA practice as
warrant a return on that ground. [The submission was returned for a different
reason.] (Eudoxia d'Antioche, 3/96 p. 11)
[a bend sinister argent estencely sable vs a bend sinister ermine] There [are] two more [CDs] for the difference between a bend sinister ermine (a single tincture) and a bend sinister argent estencely sable (a single tincture with a semy of charges). (Elfwyn of Osprey, 5/96 p. 10)
[a seeblatt vs an escallop inverted] ...it was the general consensus after a visual comparison of the emblazons that there are ... sufficient differences between an escallop inverted and a seeblatt to apply X.2. between them. (Cynthia du Pré Argent, 7/95 p. 5)
[a nautilus shell vs an escallop] There [is a CD]
for the type of the charge. (Atlantia, Kingdom of, 4/96 p. 2)
[registering the liturgical fan] The LoI presented documentation,
which was confirmed and added to by some of the commenters, that this particular
form of fan was used to "keep flies from the sacred elements during the
celebrations of the Christian mysteries." (Encyclopedia Brittanica,
11th ed., vol. X, p. 168) Their basic shape was round and on a handle,
as the fans here are (see illustration in margin), though they were often
of openwork and made of precious metals. (Regina from Adiantum, 5/96
p. 2)
[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)
[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)
[returning vetu fimbriated] Both SCA and mundane
heralds agree, and in fact the name itself (which means "vested") shows,
that vêtu is a field division, not a charge. That it was allowed
to be fimbriated in the earlier days of the SCA does not change this fact.
(Barre FitzRobert of York, 4/96 p. 12)
[returning whales' tails] The "whale's tails" are not particularly identifiable, as tails or as some kind of bird displayed. We doubt that they should be added to the collection of allowable "animal parts" as heraldic charges. (Katherine Lamond, 6/95 p. 22)
[a shark vs a catfish] We have not generally granted a difference between types of natural fish. (Agilwulf the Loud, 8/95 p. 17)
[a fish vs a swordfish] There is [no difference]
for the type between a generic fish and a swordfish. (Yrsa kistill
Gunnarsdóttir, 5/96 p. 29)
[The] flames are not proper, but rather Or with a {prominent} interior line of gules. This is being returned for redrawing with either flames proper or flames Or. (Rúadhán Súil-glas, 9/94 p. 14)
The conclusion reached from this research is that to be truly proper, flames should be effectively a neutral charge, approximately half Or and half gules, and should generally take one of the forms as exemplified in Figs. 1, 3 or 4 above, with the "tongues" of flame being alternately Or and gules (or gules and Or). The practice in the SCA of making flames red on the outside and yellow in the center (or vice versa) appears to be based on incorrect assumptions and should be discontinued. (CL 4/95)
[returning a fox rampant...its tail flames...] Charges or, as here, parts of a charge "of flames" do not appear to be period style and tend to create the kind of visual confusion which heraldry normally attempts to avoid. (Hannah Cameron, 5/95 p. 11)
[returning two boar spears in saltire surmounted by another palewise argent enflamed sable] The "enflaming" here is not, but is rather "a sheaf of three spears-shaped flame" charged with a sheaf of three spears. This is much too complex for a flame to be. It's identifiability suffers sufficiently that it becomes next to impossible to identify it as a flame. (Picture it without the spears on it; they tend to give it better definition.) The flames here act only as a very complex fimbriation, which has been previously disallowed. (Red Spears, Barony of, 5/95 p. 14)
The charge as emblazoned could be better blazoned as on a flame a lizard gules. However, such a blazon demonstrates the main problem with the emblazon; the primary charge is a large, irregular blob, and the identifiability of the creature on the flames is impossible at any distance because both it and the flames are the same tincture. (See RfS VII.7.a. "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." and VIII.2. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance.") Were it to be redrawn in a more standard depiction (with only 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of flame as a number of gouts of flame issuant from rather than completely surrounding the lizard), it would probably be acceptable. (Giulietta da Firenze, 4/96 p. 20)
A daisy proper is argent, seeded Or. (Ardena Wildflower, 9/94 p. 11)
[dandelion blossoms vs carnations] Conflict with...only the fieldless difference. (Suzanna the Herbalist, 9/94 p. 16)
[a lily of the valley vs an iris] There is at best one CD, for the change in type of flower. [i.e. there may be a significant difference, but definitely not a substantial difference of type] (Thora Asbiornsdottir, 10/94 p. 14)
According to the OED, orchids "vary greatly in appearance, being often remarkable for brilliancy of colour or grotesqueness of form, in some cases, resembling various insects and other animals." This being the case, there is very little chance that the blazon will accurately reflect and recreate the emblazon. We are having to return this because orchids seem to have no standard or standardized form. (Alexandra Stremouchova, 11/94 p. 14)
As orchids do not have a standard or defined shape, but
come in many different shapes, the emblazon cannot be adequately blazoned,
nor would any blazon we could think of adequately reproduce the emblazon.
As a consequence, this falls afoul of RfS VII.7.a. and b. (Identification
Requirement and Reconstruction Requirement). (Dmitiri Alexandrovich
Liadov, 11/95 p. 12)
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)
Commentary was nearly as strong in favor of banning garden rosebuds from armory. Consequently, we will accept whatever garden rosebuds may be in LoIs issued before December 1994, but no further registrations of this charge will be made. (CL 11/94)
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 rose vs a garden rosebud slipped and leaved] There are CDs for the field and for the type of charge.� (Aonghus Lochlainn of Loch Fyne, 12/95 p. 11)
Quatrefoils and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent charges in our period.� (Stormvale, Shire of, 2/96 p. 12)
Quatrefoils and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent charges in our period.� (Stormvale, Shire of, 2/96 p. 12)
Next Page - Previous Page
Return to the Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure, Table of Contents Page