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

The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)


 

Goutte

It was the consensus of the commentary that goutes are voidable charges, per Baron Bruce's precedent.  Thus, X.4.j.ii. applies in granting a CD...  (Austrechild von Mondsee, 1/95 p. 6)
 

Grandfather Clause

Though it was argued that the Grandfather Clause should apply here, because the submitter is the grandson of Taliesynne Nycheymwrh yr Anghyfannedd, we are unwilling to extend that clause, heretofore limited to members of the original registrant's immediate family, quite so far.  (Gwydion Siwrnaiydd ap Madog ap Taliesin Llan Rhyddlad, 4/95 p. 6)
 

Gurges

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. 2
 

Hat

[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)
 

Head

[a gorgon's head cabossed vs a maiden's head] There is a CD for ... type, in that a maiden's head also includes the shoulders and upper chest. This is sufficient to grant a CD from just a head.  (Francesca Lucia d'Alberto dei Lorenzi, 7/94 p. 3)

[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)

[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)

[The charge] here is not a unicorn's head, but a unicornate horse's head.  Unicornate horses (and by extension, their heads) have been disallowed for some years now. [The device was returned] (Jean de Chauliac, 2/95 p. 12)

[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)

[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)

[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)

[returning Per fess azure and or, in pale a stag's head caboshed conjoined at the muzzle to another caboshed inverted counterchanged]  The style here (a mirror image in pale) is extremely unusual; indeed, the inversion of the basemost charge and the conjoining of the two charges so confounds their identifiability that many commenters, before hearing the blazon, thought that they were a single charge: a tree blasted and eradicated counterchanged.  As such, it clearly falls afoul of the identifiability requirements of RfS VII.7.a. ("Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.").  (Eoin Mac Cainnigh, 4/96 p. 15)

[a wolf's head attired of a ram's horns vs a wolf's head] There is a CD...for the addition of the very prominent ram's horns, which are here clearly the equivalent of gorging of a coronet which has previously been granted difference in the case of a head.  "When considering a full beast or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic detail, worth no difference.  When consider the same creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge."  (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR September 1993, p. 5) (Wolfram Faust, 5/96 p. 16)

[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)
 

Heart

[returning on a heart two axes in saltire] ...RfS XI.4. disallows having more than one charge on a shape which was used for the display of armory.  As a heart was such a shape, the presence of two axes means we have to return this design.  (Mary Black Axe, 2/95 p. 11)
 

Helm

[returning a Viking helm affronty]  There were serious identifiability problems with the charge in base.  (See RfS VII.7.a.  "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.")  The "viking helm" is not a defined charge, and was not particularly identifiable as any kind of a helm in this posture.  (Except for ear pieces and "affronty" posture, it is similar, but not sufficiently similar to be so blazoned, to the Norman helm shown in the Pictorial Dictionary, 2d ed., #377b.)  (Sigrid Tomasdottir, 4/96 p. 19)
 

Horn

[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)

[returning a stag's attires proper]  Brown is not the "proper" tincture for stag's attires.  (Gaston Pogue, 6/95 p. 22)

[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 wolf's head attired of a ram's horns vs a wolf's head] There is a CD ... for the addition of the very prominent ram's horns, which are here clearly the equivalent of gorging of a coronet which has previously been granted difference in the case of a head.  "When considering a full beast or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic detail, worth no difference.  When consider the same creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge."  (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR September 1993, p. 5) (Wolfram Faust, 5/96 p. 16)
 

Humans

[returning a woman rampant] "Rampant" does not appear to be a human posture. ... Admittedly, there are a few registrations of such in the A&O, but the most recent appears to have been in 1985.  (Robert Bedingfield of Lochmere, 1/95 p. 13)

[returning a dragon-tailed demi-woman] This...blurs the distinctions between two existing period charges: the mermaid and the man-serpent. ...  This charge fell into the same general category of "halfway between" charges as unicornate horses...  (Kriemhild Walther, 1/95 p. 14)
 

Identifiability & Reproducibility

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)

[returning a spokeless Catherine wheel]  The "spokeless Catherine wheel" is not really recognizable as such.  Several commenters noted that it appeared to be " an annulet wavy-crested on the outer edge", which would fall afoul of the ban on the use of the wavy-crested line of division.  (Catherine of Gordonhall, 9/94 p. 17)

[returning a bat close inverted] The bat is not at all identifiable in this posture.  (Kiera Nighthawk, 9/94 p. 18)

[registering Per bend...on a roundel a horse rampant contourny, a bordure counterchanged.] The device is rather striking, but is also pushing at the limits of acceptable counterchanging.  (Richard of Troll Fen, 11/94 p. 7)

[registering four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross] There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed.   In this case, the answer seems to be �no'.  Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased...as to diminish the size seriously."  (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9) It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots.  (Middle, Kingdom of the, 11/94 p. 8)

[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)

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)

[returning gyronny, a maltese cross between three roundels counterchanged] This is excessively counterchanged, falling afoul of RfS VIII.3.   (Dunstan Dangar of Shaddowe Woode, 11/94 p. 15)

The lute is unidentifiable as such...  Lutes, like dice and tambourines, must be drawn in slightly trian aspect to be identifiable, i.e. so that the angled pegbox is visible. [The device was returned.] Kat'ryna Andreyevna Koshkina, 12/94 p. 10)

[registering gyronny, a mortar and pestle counterchanged] Only the extreme simplicity of the design allows such complex counterchanging of this relatively asymmetrical charge.  (Rivka bat Shaul, 1/95 p. 4)

[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)

[returning a dragon-tailed demi-woman] This...blurs the distinctions between two existing period charges: the mermaid and the man-serpent. ...this charge fell into the same general category of "halfway between" charges as unicornate horses...  (Kriemhild Walther, 1/95 p. 14)

[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.  (See, e.g., RfS VIII.3.: "Armorial Identifiability - Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability.") (Hannah Cameron, 5/95 p. 11)

[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)

[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)

[returning a Japanese stream]  The primary charge is not blazonable in standard heraldic terminology, as required by RfS VII.7.b.  (Kusunoki Yoshimoto, 9/95 p. 23)

The primary charge is not a chimera of any defined type, having the body of a wingless dragon with the head of a goat and the head of a lion on either side of a dragon's head and neck.  It is certainly not a "Greek" chimera, which has the body and head of a lion, a dragon's tail, and a goat's head grafted to the small of the back.  As a consequence, both recognizability and reproducibility as required by RfS. VII.7.a. and b. suffer too much to allow us to register this.  (Ancelin Daverenge, 9/95 p. 25)

[returning Gyronny...three Maltese crosses counterchanged] It was the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting looking at the emblazon that the counterchanging of the three crosses on the gyronny field significantly reduces their ready identifiability and thus should be considered "excessive", per RfS VIII.3. ("Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability").  (Brice Jacob, 11/95 p. 13)

[returning Per fess azure and or, in pale a stag's head caboshed conjoined at the muzzle to another caboshed inverted counterchanged]  The style here (a mirror image in pale) is extremely unusual; indeed, the inversion of the basemost charge and the conjoining of the two charges so confounds their identifiability that many commenters, before hearing the blazon, thought that they were a single charge: a tree blasted and eradicated counterchanged.  As such, it clearly falls afoul of the identifiability requirements of RfS VII.7.a. ("Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.").  (Eoin Mac Cainnigh, 4/96 p. 15)

[returning a Viking helm affronty]  There were serious identifiability problems with the charge in base.  (See RfS VII.7.a.  "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.")  The "viking helm" is not a defined charge, and was not particularly identifiable as any kind of a helm in this posture.  (Except for ear pieces and "affronty" posture, it is similar, but not sufficiently similar to be so blazoned, to the Norman helm shown in the Pictorial Dictionary, 2d ed., #377b.)  (Sigrid Tomasdottir, 4/96 p. 19)

[returning Per fess gyronny gules and Or issuant from the line of division and Or]  The use of a gyronny half of a field which shares a tincture with the other half of the field, so that in this case an Or gyron is next to the Or half of the field, makes creates a severe identifiability problem; it is extremely difficult to figure out just what the field division/s is/are.  RfS VII.7.a. requires that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance."  To do so here requires more time and effort than is consistent with the general principles of armorial identifiability.  (Stefan Remnaia Palatka, 4/96 p. 19)

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)
 

Insect & Arachnid

[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 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)
 

Knot

[registering four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross] There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed.   In this case, the answer seems to be �no'.  Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased...as to diminish the size seriously."  (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9) It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots.  (Middle, Kingdom of the, 11/94 p. 8)

[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)

[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)

The Fidelis knot, as an SCA invention with only two registrations to date (the 1980 defining instance and a 1993 registration), is not sufficiently well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to continue to register it in the future.  (Amice Fayel, 3/96 p. 11)

The mascle knot is an SCA invention, with only two registrations, and is unattested anywhere else.  As such, it is not sufficiently well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to continue to register it in the future.  (Madigan of Kandahar, 3/96 p. 12)
 

Lance

An unfletched arrow is visually and heraldically indistinguishable from a lance (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 2/96 p. 21)
 

Laurel Wreath

A laurel wreath is nearly circular in shape; the "wreath" here is simply two sprigs of laurel, which does not meet the requirement that branch arms have a laurel wreath as a significant part of them.  [The device was returned.]   (Castillos del Oro, Stronghold of Los, 6/95 p. 28)

The laurel wreath is emblazoned as "lying as on a bordure", which has been disallowed for some time now.  Please let them know that laurel wreaths are nearly circular in shape, and cannot follow the line of a bordure or orle. [The device was returned.] (Brennisteinvatn, Shire of, 12/95 p. 21)

Laurel wreaths are by their very nature nearly circular in form.  The "wreath" here is little more than two sprigs crossed in saltire, and such have been cause for return ere this. [The device was returned.] (Kestrelkeep, Canton of, 3/96 p. 10)
 

Leg

[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)
 

Line of Division

[urdy vs wavy] Urdy is not a CD from wavy.  (Irina Francesca degli Schiavoni, 2/95 p. 12)

[registering a chief indented crusilly long at the upper points]  Pelican has found support for the unusual line of division on the chief in a somewhat similar design element in Randle Holme's Book (15th c.): a coat blazonable as Ermine, a chief indented flory at the upper points sable is attributed to Adame Dovynt of Sowthereychyre (Surrey).  We find the line of division of the chief here to be a reasonable extension of that period line.  (Paul de Gorey, 5/96 p. 5)

Next Page - Previous Page

Return to the Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure, Table of Contents Page




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.