Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
Architecture[Returning Argent, a windmill, sails in cross, within a bordure embattled azure.] The sails of the windmill are effectively invisible here, even on the large emblazon. As a consequence, not only is the primary charge unidentifiable (itself grounds for return), but there are several conflicts [with towers]. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Azure, a Doric colonnaded portico within a laurel wreath argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a house argent, and a number of others, Azure, a (temple, church, etc.) argent. In each case there is only once CD for the addition of the laurel wreath. As several commenters if we do not give a CD between even radically different types of ships, we should not do so among various types of buildings. Further, the type of [the] "house" is completely unspecified. As we do not grant a CD between a generic bird and any other specific bird, we cannot see granting difference between a generic house (building) and any other type of house (building). [4/94, p.16]
[Returning Vert, a pedestalled sundial, and on a chief argent three quatrefoils slipped and leaved vert.] Conflict with ... Vert, a castle argent portalled and masoned sable, on a chief argent three oak leaves vert. There are simply not enough outline or visual differences between this sundial and a tower, or between the tertiary oak leaves and the quatrefoils, to get the necessary two Clear Differences. [I.e. neither difference is substantial.] [3/94, p.20]
[Returning Per fess embattled azure and argent masoned sable, conjoined in cross elongated to base, four double-bitted axes counterchanged argent and azure, hafted proper.] The blazon does not really adequately describe the emblazon, and all of the suggestions to fix it were not much better (see RfS VII.7.b., Reconstruction Requirement). The clear difficulty of creating an adequate blazon serves to underscore the non-period style of the device. [6/94, p.14]
Additionally, the head and fletching of the arrow are drawn too small, which alone has been grounds for return in the past. [12a/93, p.21]
As emblazoned, the [great wave] in base could be better blazoned, and is more recognizable, as a base wavy crested, which is not a [registerable] charge. [2/94, p.17]
As a rule of thumb, a point (or base) should take up approximately 1/5 of the shield. [12a/93, p.8]
[Returning Quarterly gules and argent, a boar's head couped close proper within a bordure Or.] Though blazoned as "proper" and emblazoned as "brown", there does not seem to be a default "proper" for boars (and therefore, boar's heads); there appears to be a wide variation in the coloration of those found in nature. [6/94, p.14]
[Registering a Scottish terrier.] The dog is grandfathered to him ... . It is apparently not a period breed, not being recorded before 1879. [3/94, p.2]
[Registering Vert, on a lozenge argent, a cat sejant guardant sable.] Versus ... Vert, on a lozenge between in chief two trefoils slipped argent, a gryphon sejant sable, there is clearly a CD for the removal of the trefoils, and in this case we can see granting the second for the change to the type only of the tertiaries per X.4.j.ii, given the significant change in outline which the eagle's head and wings make to the outline of the critter. [3/94, p.3]
[Registering {Fieldless} An elephant contourny proper.] Blazoned as argent in the LoI, the elephant is clearly colored light grey with argent tusks on the large emblazon sheet. While this is certainly the equivalent of argent in terms of contrast, and should be so considered for contrast or conflict purposes, we believe that elephants have a "widely understood default proper coloration". [3/94, p.5]
[Registering Vair, a panther rampant guardant gules spotted argent incensed proper.] Versus ... Argent, a leopard rampant gules, there is a CD for the field, and, as leopards and panthers were considered to be different beasts in late period, a second CD for the type of critter. [3/94, p.10]
[Registering a marmot.] The critter was blazoned in the LoI as a gopher, but that name is a 19th century borrowing. We have, therefore, substituted the Old World rodent which is almost identical in build. [3/94, p.11]
A stag "proper" would seem to be a dark brown (see, e.g., James Parker, A Glossary of Terms as Used in Heraldry, 1982, pp. 197-198, where all of the stags "proper" are on metal fields). [1/94, p.8]
[Returning Pean, a lion couchant contourny Or.] Conflict with ... Per fess argent and vert, a catamount ... couchant sinister proper. There is only one CD for the changes to the field [implying that a catamount proper is effectively Or]. [1/94, p.14]
[Registering Gules, a sea-swallow migrant between three quatrefoils argent.] Clear of ... Gules, an eagle displayed argent. There is a CD for the addition of the secondary charges, and another for the difference in type of bird. (Blazoned on the LoI as a "tern", that term is post-period, dating to 1678, and it was felt that [a] sea-swallow would be more likely to be drawn with the forked tail, thus helping the difference from an eagle. This difference is probably necessary here, since we do not grant difference between an eagle and a generic "bird".) [6/94, p.5]
[Returning Per pale argent and sable, two rooks rising respectant counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and sable, two hawks striking respectant counterchanged, all within a bordure gules. There is only one CD for the bordure. The postures of the birds were very nearly identical, with minor changes to the head position being the only noticeable difference. [5/94, p.14]
[Returning Argent, a peacock in its pride vert.] Conflicts with ... Argent, a peacock in its pride proper, a bordure invected purpure; ... Argent, three peacocks in pride proper; and ... Argent, a peacock passant regardant bendwise proper. As noted by Laurel in the LOAR of October 1992, p. 29, "peacocks have green bodies". [5/94, p.15]
[Returning Gules, a swan naiant and on a chief argent three roses gules.] Conflict ... with ... Gules, a swan naiant, wings elevated, and on a chief argent three trefoil knots gules. There is a CD for the change to the type of tertiary ... , but the change in wing position is insufficient for the necessary second. [5/94, p.19]
[Returning Sable, an eagle stooping and in base a bow and sword in saltire argent.] The device is clear of ... Sable, an eagle volant argent, with CDs for the posture of the eagle and the addition of the charges in base. [The device was returned for slot-machine arrangement.] [3/94, p.15]
[Returning Sable, a swan naiant argent and a demi-sun issuant from sinister chief Or.] Conflict with ... Sable, a swan close argent ducally gorged and chained Or and with ... Sable, a swan close within a bordure engrailed Or. In each case there is one CD, for addition of the peripheral charge or for the change to its type, respectively [implying that there is no CD between the postures naiant and close]. [2/94, p.16]
[Returning Per bend vert and sable, in bend sinister a gull close proper and a wheel Or.] Submitted as argent on the LoI, the gull is actually proper; that is to say, with white with dark grey wings. As a consequence, the wings disappear against the color field, making identifiability of the bird very problematical. [3/94, p.19]
[S]everal commenters had [a problem] with a "brown duck proper, headed sable". [2/94, p.18]
The owl here is not really displayed but rather striking affronty, a posture which has been grounds for return in the past. [2/94, p.19]
[Returning Purpure, a bird close, a bordure rayonny argent.] Conflict with ... Purpure, a heron close supporting in dexter upraised talon a rose argent barbed and seeded proper. There is one CD for the addition of the bordure but as a generic "bird", this could legitimately be drawn as nearly any kind of bird, and we cannot in good conscience grant a second CD for type. [1/94, p.13]
"The College of Arms will no longer register flora and fauna in their natural 'proper' tinctures if to do so they require the Linnaean genus and species. Proper is allowed for natural flora and fauna where there is a widely understood default coloration for the charge so specified." (Cover Letter, May 1991, p. 2). Given the number of times the various commenters asked the question in the commentary received on this item, it is obvious that a peregrine falcon does not have a "widely-understood" proper tincture. As a consequence, we are having to return this. [1/94, p.14]
The punch was blazoned in the LoI as a "trussel", a coin-stamping die whose name is dated to 1473 in the OED, but, especially given that it is here a small held charge, we believe that "punch" is the more accessible term. [5/94, p.1]
There was some discussion regarding how to blazon this posture (kneeling on one knee). We have adopted the term "genuant" which is used in Papworth. [3/94, p.7]
Blazoned in the LoI as a bull's skull, the primary was not emblazoned with any skull-like details, but appeared to simply be a bull's head. [2/94, p.13]
Laurel counted no less than six different suggestions at a reblazon. This variety alone tends to point out the possible non-period style of the [cross of two thornvines wavy]. [2/94, p.18]
The charges on the chief are not really arranged in a manner which lends itself to easy blazon, thus pointing out its probable non-period style. Were he to place the three charges in fess rather then enhancing the central charge (and reblazon the "drinking horns inverted" as simply a "pair of bull's horns"), this would probably be registerable. [2/94, p.18]
The blazon here, while marginally better than the one in the LoI, still does not adequately describe the outer group of comets: they are disposed in orle, but they are oriented in annulo, and as a result neither blazon is entirely satisfactory. [2/94, p.20]
Blazoned in the LoI as "a coiled match argent, flamed proper", we have deleted the flaming as an artistic detail of the same order as orbing, arming, and languing, and because someone unfamiliar with the charge may have drawn it with a lot more flames. [1/94, p.2]
Blazoned on the LoI as a compass star, the arms of the primary charge are all the same length. We have therefore reblazoned it [as a "mullet of eight points"] to match the emblazon. [1/94, p.10]
We blazon the type of pawprints for the same reason that we blazon specific types of sword; it may not grant any heraldic difference, but there are sufficient differences in the various types to warrant mentioning in the blazon. [1/94, p.10]
[Registering Vert, in pale a roundel and an eagle displayed within a bordure Or.] On the large emblazon it was more obvious that the roundel and the eagle are two equal-sized charges, so the registered blazon is better than Vert, an eagle displayed and in chief a roundel.... (It was also clear from the large emblazon that the bird is an eagle, not a {smooth-feathered} falcon.) [1/94, p.11]
The field division was blazoned as schneckenweise in the LoI. It was felt, however, that the registered blazon [Per pall inverted arrondy ...] adequately reproduces the emblazon. [12b/93, p.7]
There is no reasonable way to blazon the nowing of the serpents here; none of the standard heraldic depictions of nowing seem to apply to this case. [12b/93, p.10]
The primary charge is not a "chevron inverted grady", and no one could come up with an adequate blazon for it. ("Grady" is a term which modifies "embattled"; it is not found as a separate line of division in and of itself.) [12b/93, p.13]
A bend fusily is a bend of "fusils conjoined". See, e.g., "A Return for First Principles: II -- Lozenge and Fusil", Roger F. Pye, Coat of Arms VII (50): 60-62. [12a/93, p.13]
[Returning Argent, on a cross between in chief two estoiles azure in base an estoile argent, a bordure counterchanged.] No documentation has been found for counterchanging a bordure over an ordinary. That, combined with the unusual arrangement of the estoiles, is sufficient grounds for return. [3/94, p.20]
[Returning Per pale argent and gules, a dragon gules and a natural tiger argent marked sable combattant, a bordure counterchanged.] This submission has the clear appearance of impaled arms, which the counterchanged bordure does not in the least diminish. [2/94, p.19]
[Returning Azure, ... a bordure lozengy azure and Or.] The bordure is very odd. As colored on the large emblazon, there is a row of blue demi-lozenges along the chief portion of the azure field, and the bordure and field blend into each other. [1/94, p.14]
[Returning Sable, a bend argent, overall a key, wards to sinister, within a laurel wreath Or.] The device ... also appears to conflict with ... Sable, a bend argent. The overall charges are effectively a single group, worth only one CD for their addition. [6/94, p.13]
[Returning {Fieldless} An annulet of rope nowed in base gules surmounted by a sword and a quill pen crossed in saltire argent.] Additionally, this proposal consists of three dissimilar charges in a single group, and thus falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [6/94, p.14]
The emblazon is more properly blazoned as Azure, a chevron Or between in chief six trees and in base in pale a tree and a cat passant argent. As such this conflicts with ... Azure, a chevron Or, with only one CD for the addition of the secondaries. Were this redrawn with the trees all the same size as a semy, and the cat obviously larger as a secondary charge in base, it would be clear of the conflicts cited here. [2/94, p.20]
[Sable, a baton sinister couped gules fimbriated between in bend an oak sprig Or and a boar passant argent] falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. It has three charges of nearly equal visual weight in a single group, with the "primary" baton having the same visual "presence" on the field as the "secondary" charges. As a consequence, the charges appear to be a single group of primaries rather than a primary charge between two secondaries. [2/94, p.21]
[Returning Argent, a saltire vert, overall within a mascle a cross crosslet sable.] Conflict with ... Argent, a saltire vert. There is only one CD for the addition of the group of overall charges. [1/94, p.17]
[Registering Per bend ... a {charge} and three more in bend ... .] We did not believe that the precedent barring the use of two different sizes of the same charge as a semy and as the primary charge was applicable here. The feeling was that in this case there is a single group of charges drawn to adequately fill the space available for them. [12a/93, p.4]
[Returning Per chevron sable and vert, three mullets of nine points, one and two, and a hulk Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron sable and vert, in chevron enhanced three compass stars elongated to base and in base a wolf's head cabossed argent. There is a CD for changing the tincture of all the charges, but the only way to grant the second would be to count the change to type and tincture of the bottom most charge separately from the tincture change to the charges in chief. It was not felt that such a "point count" was reasonable here, especially given that the charges have the appearance of a single group of primary charges rather than that of, say, a primary charge and a secondary group of charges. [12a/93, p.18]
It was the consensus among many of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that X.2 should apply between chevrons and chevrons inverted. [4/94, p.6]
While a number of commenters noted that all of the chevrons couched they could find were used without secondary or tertiary charges, given the widespread use of secondary and tertiary charges with both chevrons and chevrons inverted, their combined use [with a chevron couched] did not seem to us to be more than a single "weirdness". [2/94, p.14]
[Returning Checky argent and sable, a chief engrailed gules.] Conflict with ... Checky argent and sable. A chief is not a primary charge and so X.1 can not be invoked here, as a consequence there is only once CD for the addition for the peripheral charge. [4/94, p.19]
Not even the large emblazon was clearly either a chief urdy or a field per fess urdy. It needs to be redrawn as one or the other. [1/94, p.17]
[Returning {Fieldless} An annulet of rope nowed in base gules surmounted by a sword and a quill pen crossed in saltire argent.] Additionally, this proposal consists of three dissimilar charges in a single group, and thus falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [6/94, p.14]
[Returning Per fess embattled sable and azure, on a demi-plate issuant from the line of division a double-bitted axe gules, and in base seven mullets of four points in annulo Or.] The device is right at the edge of the complexity limits of VIII.1.a. That, combined with its very modern "feel" [is grounds for return]. [5/94, p.20]
[A bow sable and a shepherd's crook bendwise vert, fretted with an arrow bendwise sinister inverted sable, flighted vert] ... has every appearance of being three different charges (bow, arrow, and crook) in a single group. As such, this falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [2/94, p.16]
[Returning Barry wavy azure and argent, two dragons combattant gules maintaining between them a sword inverted, all within a laurel wreath Or.] Conflict with ... Barry wavy and per pale azure and argent, two wyverns combattant gules. There is a CD for the addition of the laurel wreath, but the complexity of the two fields makes it difficult to warrant granting a second for the per pale line of [the latter]. [2/94, p.20]
[Sable, a baton sinister couped gules fimbriated between in bend an oak sprig Or and a boar passant argent] falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. It has three charges of nearly equal visual weight in a single group, with the "primary" baton having the same visual "presence" on the field as the "secondary" charges. As a consequence, the charges appear to be a single group of primaries rather than a primary charge between two secondaries. [2/94, p.21]
[Returning Sable, on a pale between two mullets argent a pine tree eradicated proper, on a chief argent three reremice sable.] With five types of charge in four tinctures, this exceeds the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. While it is true that armory exceeding this "rule of thumb" has been registered on rare occasions, these exceptions have only been made for particularly elegant proposals. [Note the fourth tincture is the brown of the tree trunk, a detail which counts no difference for conflict.] [1/94, p.16]
[Returning Sable, a tower per pale Or and azure, a bordure argent.] Unfortunately, even on the large emblazon, the tower was not recognizable as such because of the lack of contrast between its azure half and the field. Even though the charge is technically neutral, and could therefore be displayed on any tincture field, identifiability must be maintained. Here, it is not. [5/94, p.16]
[Returning Per bend vert and sable, in bend sinister, a gull close proper and a wheel Or.] Submitted as argent on the LoI, the gull is actually proper; that is to say, with white with dark grey wings. As a consequence, the wings disappear against the color field, making identifiability of the bird very problematical. [3/94, p.19]
[Registering Per pale argent and lozengy argent and purpure, three domestic cats rampant contourny sable.] Some commenters felt that the contrast between the cats and the field on the sinister half of the shield was too poor to allow ready identification. In cases such as this, where all three charges are identical, the poorer contrast to sinister does not seem to bar registration. [12b/93, p.5]
The style of "an X sable, marked vert" was accepted in the registration of this submitter's badge in the LoAR of 9 May 1993, where it was noted that "[t]he markings on the badger are considered artistic license, worth no difference.... The markings aren't considered a violation of the Rule of Contrast, any more than A brock's head per pale vert and sable would break contrast." [12b/93, p.5]
While technically a neutral charge on the sable field, the mullet [of eight points gyronny azure and Or] was unidentifiable as such at any distance. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance." (RfS VIII.2.) The overwhelming visual image was that of a Maltese cross at an unusual angle on the sable field, with its identifiability as a mullet of eight points completely lost. [12b/93, p.13]
The evidence submitted with this appeal goes beyond the bounds of "regional style". Of the forty-eight pieces of armory cited to support this submission, three were from Austria, one from England, twenty-five from the Holy Roman Empire, twelve from Hungary, five from Italy, and two from Portugal. Clearly, then, we are discussing a practice which surpasses the bounds of a single "regional" style.
It was noted that the Rule of Contrast, as codified in VIII.2.b. of the Rules for Submissions, is one of our most inviolate, and that exceptions should only be made to it with due and extremely careful consideration. On the other hand, it is equally true that the Rule of Contrast is our rule, and that just as we chose to adopt it we are equally free to chose to allow exceptions to it, under circumstances of our choosing.
In this case, I believe that the evidence presented adequately demonstrates through multiple period examples that vert trimounts were used on azure fields across Europe. As a consequence, and as you will note in the attached LoAR, we are registering [the device].
The next question, of course, is that having now made one exception to the Rule of Contrast, what are the standards for future possible exceptions? I believe the standards proposed by Master Bruce in his thoughts on this submission are the ones to be applied to submissions requesting an exception to any of our Rules in the future.
[Returning Gules, on a pile Or an eagle displayed sable, overall a laurel wreath counterchanged.] By current precedent, a laurel wreath is considered too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary. [6/94, p.13]
[Returning Per bend sinister embattled argent and azure, a ship counterchanged.] Additionally, most of the commenters found the outline of the ship to be too badly broken up by the counterchanging over the complex line of division to be readily identifiable, which itself is a separate grounds for return. [5/94, p.14]
[Returning Barry wavy argent and azure, an escallop inverted counterchanged, on a chief azure two mullets of four points Or.] This is an excessive use of counterchanging. Period style would have the field or the primary as barry, not both. [RFS VIII.3 specifically says complex divided fields may obscure charges counterchanged.] Such appears to be the case here. [5/94, p.16]
[Returning Argent, on a pile sable a Maltese Cross argent, a bordure counterchanged.] We need documentation for the motif of counter-changing a bordure over a pile before we can register this. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Per saltire azure and argent, a butterfly counterchanged between in pale two bezants all within a bordure invected sable.] The butterfly is extremely hard to identify counterchanged on the field, so much so that we are compelled to return this because of unidentifiability. (See RfS VII.7.a., which states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") [3/94, p.19]
[Returning Argent, on a cross between in chief two estoiles azure in base an estoile argent, a bordure counterchanged.] No documentation has been found for counterchanging a bordure over an ordinary. That, combined with the unusual arrangement of the estoiles, is sufficient grounds for return. [3/94, p.20]
[Registering Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two eagles displayed counterchanged.] Versus ... Per bend sable and argent, two eagles displayed, wings inverted, counterchanged, there is a CD for the change to the field and another for position on the field. This is not as easy to see as a change for, say, posture, but still exists. Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the birds cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in [the latter] they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field. [1/94, p.1]
[Returning Sable, in pale a compass star and three bars wavy couped argent.] The badge also conflicts with ... Sable, three bars wavy argent, and with ... Gules, three bars wavy argent and in chief a mullet of six points of the second. Against [the second] there is a CD for the addition of the charge in chief, and against [the third] for the tincture of the field [implying that there is no CD for couping the bars in this case]. [2/94, p.23]
[Returning Azure, a cross patonce between four roses, a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a cross flory between four bear's heads couped argent muzzled gules within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change to the type of secondary charges [and nothing for patonce vs. flory]. [5/94, p.16]
The star-cross is a modern invention and not a period charge. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Gules, a latin cross throughout parted and fretted argent interlaced with an annulet Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross voided argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the annulet. [Implying there is no CD between a cross voided and one parted and fretted.] [3/94, p.15]
[Returning a cross maltese gyronny sable and gules.] While the argument that a Maltese cross is "four arms joined at a single point" is interesting, the visual reality is that it is seen as a single charge (a cross), and thus is seen as gyronny, not as four different charges each divided along a pale or fess line. The rules are quite clear that gyronny of two colors is not registerable. [3/94, p.17]
[Returning Per fess sable and argent, a cross botonny Or charged with a rose gules, barbed and seeded proper.] In keeping with the commentary and subsequent December 1993 return of the badge of Anton Tremayne, the weight of commentary was that this conflicts with ... Gules, a cross bottony voided Or, with one CD for the change to the field but without the necessary second for the change to type only of the tertiary. [3/94, p.17]
[Returning Gules, a patriarchal cross bottony throughout Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross botonny Or. There may be a CD for the change to the type of cross, but there cannot be sufficient difference between [them]. [2/94, p.13; though listed among the acceptances this was intended as a return and corrected in Laurel's letter of April 12, 1994.]
[Returning Quarterly checky sable and argent and argent, a cross of two thornvines wavy vert.] There are a couple of problems with the primary charge. One is the difficulty of blazon. Laurel counted no less than six different suggestions at a reblazon. This variety alone tends to point out the possible non-period style of the charge. And as several commenters noted, because of both its thinness and waviness, the primary charge tends to disappear along the lines of partition of the field, making immediate identification a little problematical. Finally, it conflicts with ... Or, a cross raguly vert and with ... Argent, a cross slipped vert. In each case there is one CD for the change to the field, but nothing for the very minor visual differences to the type of cross. [2/94, p.18]
The submitter's argument that a Maltese star cross is but one step from a recognized period charge, a Maltese cross, is interesting but not particularly compelling. The fact remains that six armed crosses are not a period charge. [12b/93, p.10]
The weight of the commentary was that a cross botonny is not a simple enough primary charge for X.4.j.ii. to apply. [12b/93, p.12]
[Registering {field}, an equal-armed Celtic cross flory Or.] Versus ... {Fieldless} An equal-armed Celtic cross Or, there are CDs for fielded versus fieldless and for flory versus potent. [12a/93, p.12]
As the [key cross] is not an ordinary or "similarly simple" geometric design, X.4.j.ii. cannot apply to the change in type only of the tertiary charge. [12a/93, p.20]
Next Page
Table of Contents of Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure