Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
Fess[Returning Or,in chief on a fess couped sable a fleur-de-lis Or and in base a horse salient [sic].] No one was able to find any period exemplars of fesses either couped or enhanced so far to chief. Without further documentation we are unable to register this motif. [3/94, p.14]
[Registering {Fieldless} A comet fesswise argent.] Clear of ... Azure, a comet fesswise, a dexter point and a sinister point argent. The two points ... not being contiguous, [the latter] cannot accurately be reblazoned as Azure, chapé, and thus leave only one CD for fieldlessness. As it stands, there are CDs for fieldlessness and for removing the peripheral charges (the points). [6/94, p.6]
[Returning Per pale sable and argent, five roundels in saltire counterchanged, a chief gyronny argent and sable.] We would expect that in a chief gyronny that the gyrons would issue from the corners of the chief as opposed to the unusual drawing style used here [with the lines at evenly spaced angles, so that the diagonals met the top and bottom well in from the edges]. [5/94, p.16]
[Returning Azure, a pile inverted ployé argent ermined azure between two cups Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron sable and ermine, in chief two cups covered Or. There is only one CD for the changes to the field, as we have traditionally not granted difference between per chevron, chapé and a pile inverted. [5/94, p.19]
[Returning Plumetty argent and vert, a sledgehammer and overall a single horned anvil reversed sable.] The plumetty field treatment here [the pieces being long, vertical shafts with the tips in chief and curled over; similar to an illustration in Friar's A Dictionary of Heraldry, p.159] does not appear to be a valid period variant. [4/94, p.19]
Master Bruce, in the Cover Letter of 18 September 1992, had a page-long discussion of fields per bend {sinister} bevilled: the version here matches none of the attested forms, but is the inversion of the accep le form found in Legh's Accidence of Armory. At the very least, this would have to be returned for redrawing. However, it was additionally noted that allowing per bend bevilled fields (which normally appeared without charges) to be charged might be considered if the charges were in a balanced arrangement. Unlike charges on each side of a bevilled line do not appear to meet this criterion. [2/94, p.19]
[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]
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]
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]
[Registering a field Per fess azure and per pale purpure and Or.] The field division, though somewhat unusual, is sufficiently attested to in period German armory to permit its registration here. [12a/93, p.5]
[Returning a field Per chevron rayonny paly, barry, bendy, bendy sinister Or and sable and gules.] The line of division is not rayonny, but rather alternately indented and a sort of wavy double-crested. The upper portion of the field is far too complex and follows no period exemplars of which we are aware. {One commenter suggested "checky Campbell".} Any one of these would normally be sufficient cause for return. [12a/93, p.21]
[Returning Sable masoned, on a pile argent masoned sable between two hawks' heads erased respectant argent, a hawk striking to sinister gules.] The device lacks the symmetry and balance of period style heraldry, which lack the counterchanging of the field treatment over the primary charge only serves to reinforce. In fact, it reminded more than one commenter (and most of those at the Laurel meeting) of "a bird caught against the wall by a searchlight". A number of commenters questioned the propriety of counterchanging a field treatment over a charge in this manner. Certainly no one was able to find any period exemplars of such, bringing into question the propriety of such a counterchange. [4/94, p.17]
[Returning {Fieldless} A fire arrow Or enflamed proper.] Numerous conflicts ... with {Field}, an arrow Or. In each case there is only one CD for fieldlessness [and nothing for the enflaming]. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning Gules, on a flame the blade of a sword Or, winged argent, a bordure Or semy of roses sable.] The sword loses its identifiability against the "flames" of the same tincture. (One commenter noted its resemblance to a chain saw.) Were the flames drawn larger (and less regularly) and made proper to increase the contrast, this would probably accep le. [2/94, p.17]
Without evidence that ordinaries of flame were used in period armory, or that such are compatible with period armory, we will not register ordinaries of flames. [2/94, p.22]
[Returning Gules, on a flame Or a mullet gules, a chief embattled Or.] Conflict with ... Gules on a sun Or a cross of St. Anthony gules a chief embattled Or. There is one CD for the change to type of the primary charge, but not a second for the change to type only of the tertiaries [implying that there is not substantial or X.2 difference between a flame and a sun]. [1/94, p.16]
Though blazoned as "enflamed argent and azure", the flames were drawn on the large emblazon as "azure, fimbriated argent". We have disallowed fimbriated flames for quite some time. [12a/93, p.15]
[Returning Or, a double rose azure and argent pierced by a sword bendwise sable all within a bordure azure.] Though blazoned as a double rose, the primary is emblazoned as a "rose argent, fimbriated azure"; roses are too complex a charge to fimbriate. [6/94, p.15]
[U]nless there is significant commentary or compelling argument to the contrary, I propose to ban, after the July 1994 Laurel meeting, the further registration of garden roses and rosebuds as charges SCA armory on the grounds that they are not a charge used in period, that the "tea rose" depicted as garden roses in SCA armorial submissions was not a period rose, and that there is an accep le similar charge, the standard heraldic rose, which could be used to similar effect. An additional argument made against garden rosebuds is that we do not register baby fauna; why then should we register baby flora? [3/94c]
Daisies proper are defined as argent, seeded Or. [1/94, p.6]
[Returning {field} three iris blossoms sable, slipped and leaved vert, conjoined at the bases.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three irises in fess argent slipped, conjoined and leaved vert. There is a CD for fielded versus fieldless but nothing for the change to the tincture of the blossoms only. [12a/93, p.15]
The strewn charges are not roses. Indeed, not all of them are five petaled, some having six or seven, and in one case, eight petals. They need to be redrawn as heraldic roses. [12a/93, p.19]
[Returning {Fieldless} A demi-stag argent, armed and unguled, issuant from a rose Or.] The rose as drawn is in trian aspect and extremely difficult to recognize. As a consequence, it loses its identifiability as a rose. {The most common comment was that the stag appeared to be wearing a tutu.} [12a/93, p.22]
[Returning Per pale sable and argent, a fret counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per pale sable and argent, two double-bitted axes in saltire, fretted with a mascle counterchanged. There is only one CD for the changes to the group of primary charges. [4/94, p.18]
[Registering Vert, three apples Or and a chief ermine.] Versus ... Vert, three acorns Or, and ... Vert, three pineapples Or, there are CDs for type of primary charge and addition of the chief. One commenter noted that Papworth put pineapples and apples together, but Parker (p. 462) makes it clear that "pineapples" are what we generally call "pine cones", which are not only visually different enough for a CD, but mundane default puts them stem to base, adding to the visual differences. [4/94, p.14]
[Returning Gules, a chevron embattled potent between two reremice displayed and a tyger rampant Or.] The embattled line of division of the chevron is so badly broken up by the fur that while one can tell readily that "something" is going on there, it takes a little time to determine just exactly what. The complex line of division is simply not "readily identifiable", and ready identification is one of the hallmarks of period style heraldry. [5/94, p.21]
The chief as drawn is not ermine charged with three gouttes de larmes, but rather is "argent, charged alternately with ermine spots sable and gouttes de larmes". If he would redraw the chief with more and smaller ermine spots so that it truly appeared to be ermine (e.g., two rows of spots), it would correct this problem. [1/94, p.16]
[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]
[Returning Azure, a goat's head couped within a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, two rams heads in bend sinister erased and respectant within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change in number of primary charges [and nothing for type]. [5/94, p.21]
[Registering Vert, on a fess between three eagle's heads erased contourny Or, three fleurs-de-lys sable.] The [secondary] charges were submitted as griffin's heads, but they lack the large ears which distinguishes the griffin's head from the eagle's. [4/94, p.10]
[I]t was the opinion of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that there is sufficient difference between a sun in its splendor and a leopard's head jessant-de-lys [as tertiaries] to apply X.4.j.ii. for the second CD. [2/94, p.5]
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]
[Returning {Fieldless} A dragon's head couped sable.] Conflict with ... Paly argent and gules, a drakkar prow sable. There is ... nothing for difference in type of the charge. [2/94, p.16]
[Returning Azure, in pale a heart distilling gouttes d'Or and a stag's skull caboshed argent within a bordure embattled Or.] The device conflicts with ... Vert, a heart Or between the attires of a stag's head cabossed argent, attired, within a bordure embattled Or. There is only one CD for the tincture of the field. The gouttes, the tincture of the horns, and the difference between a stag's skull cabossed and a stag's head cabossed are insufficient for the necessary CD. [12a/93, p.16]
As this could as easily (and not incorrectly) be blazoned {Fieldless} A heart sable fimbriated Or, this still conflicts with ... Argent a heart sable ... . In addition, as a heart is demonstrably a standard shape for the display of armory in period, this also conflicts with ... Gules a bordure Or, ... Sable a bordure argent, and ... Sable a bordure Or, a label gules. In each case there is only one CD for the change to the field, to the tincture of the bordure, or for removing the label, respectively. [1/94, p.15]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a heart argent a seadragon rampant gules.] Conflict with ... Argent, a wyvern passant gules. There is only one CD for the posture of the monster. Several commenters submitted evidence that heart shapes were used as a medium, albeit only occasionally, for heraldic display in period. See, e.g., Ottfried Neubecker, Heraldry, Sources, Symbols and Meaning, page 76. [12b/93, p.12]
[Returning Gules, two lion-headed serpents nowed in a Wake knot respectant within a bordure Or.] The "extra twist" that each of the serpents have outside the knot renders the identifiability of the knot somewhat problematical. Were the submitter to place the heads on the ends where the tails are now (and vice versa), and straighten out the knot into a more regular Wake knot shape, this should be registrable. As it is, it is being returned for redrawing. [6/94, p.12]
[Returning Per chevron azure and gules, a dragon salient argent, maintaining in its sinister forepaw an egg Or.] The posture of the dragon is ambiguous, being closer to passant bendwise than segreant or salient. As a consequence of this ambiguity, there are several possible conflicts, most no ly ... Azure, a dragon argent. If redrawn with a proper segreant or salient, these conflicts should be clear, with CDs for the changes to the field and for posture of the monster. [6/94, p.13]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a dove volant, wings addorsed, vert the Arabic words "al-'izz wa'l-baqa wa'l-zafar bi-il-a'da" argent.] The "charge" here is not really heraldry, and cannot be dealt with under heraldry's conventions. And with the "corrective" outline added, it is no longer anything that can be documented from Arabic, Persian or Turkish sources. Most of the commenters could not identify the charge as a dove without the blazon, as is required by RfS VII.7.a. The identifiability problem adds to the stylistic problems the calligraphy represents. The writing here isn't really on the dove; it is the dove. And, finally, as has been noted by Laurels before, the fact that an artistic motif can be found in period (and calligraphic animals in Arabic script are found in late period) does not necessarily make such motif accep le for registration as heraldry. [6/94, p.17]
There is a noted problem with the identifiability of the [columbine] flower as drawn. ... Were the submitter to copy the one in the Pictorial Dictionary, with slip and leaf, and without some of the petals at a 90� angle to the others as in the current submission, these changes would probably be sufficient to make the flower adequately identifiable for registration. [5/94, p.14]
[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 Per pale sable and Or, a cross formy throughout gules and overall a double-headed eagle-winged wyvern double-queued displayed per pale Or and sable.] The cross is somewhere between a plain Latin cross throughout and a Latin cross formy throughout. As such, it is ambiguous, and needs to be redrawn as one or the other. The overall charge also has problems of ambiguity. The use of eagle's wings make it nearly impossible to distinguish from a double-headed eagle, except the double-queued tail is clearly not a bird's. As this kind of ambiguity is precisely the kind of thing that heraldry seeks to avoid, it should be drawn more clearly as either an eagle or a wyvern. [5/94, p.17]
[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 Purpure, a Maltese cross argent surmounted by a Star of David Or, and in chief a dove volant to sinister argent.] The star overlying the cross in this manner is visually confusing and obscures the identity of both charges. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Ermine, a rose proper between three gouttes de larmes, a bordure gules.] The use of gouttes intermingled with ermine spots of about the same size is visually confusing, as, as one commenter noted, the "gouttes get lost among the ermine spots". As they are necessary to clear a conflict with ... Ermine, a rose gules, they must be visually prominent, and they are not here. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning a broadsword inverted quillioned with a holly sprig.] The use of foliage as part of another object creates serious identifiability problems. We need documentation of this sort of motif in period armory before we may register this. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Sable, a compass star elongated gules, fimbriated argent, overall a lion's head cabossed Or ... .] The lion's head is too small; it is just barely overall, which has been reason for return in the past. Another problem is that the "compass star" is drawn almost as a mullet of eight points elongated to base, rather than as a true compass star, compounding the identifiability problem. [3/94, p.15]
The "passion nails" were unidentifiable as such, looking more like oddly-shaped lozenges or modern kites. This is being returned for redrawing. [3/94, p.16]
[Returning Or, a beacon sable flamed gules atop a mount vert, a bordure vert semy of oak leaves Or.] The mount has zero contrast with the bordure, making the base of the device very confusing visually. As with the November 1992 return of a device with an argent gore and an ermine bordure, "The lack of contrast between the [base] and the bordure causes them to blend together, reducing the identifiability of both." (LoAR 11/92, p. 15). Here, the identifiability of the bordure is not lost quite so badly, but the identifiability of the mount is so severely diminished as to be visually confusing. [3/94, p.16]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a sheaf of five lightning bolts Or a pine tree couped proper.] This does not meet the requirements for fieldless badges consisting of one charge surmounting another. The area of intersection is not small and the tree effectively obscures the identification of the lightning bolts. [3/94, p.17]
[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]
[Registration of "a mask of comedy and a mask of tragedy joined in bend", implicitly overturning the instruction from the March 1993 LOAR, p.19, "to separate the charges, not have them overlap".] [2/94, p.3]
[Returning Gules, on a flame the blade of a sword Or, winged argent, a bordure Or semy of roses sable.] The sword loses its identifiability against the "flames" of the same tincture. (One commenter noted its resemblance to a chain saw.) Were the flames drawn larger (and less regularly) and made proper to increase the contrast, this would probably accep le. [2/94, p.17]
[B]ecause of both its thinness and waviness, the [cross of two thornvines wavy] tends to disappear along the lines of partition of the field, making immediate identification a little problematical. [2/94, p.18]
The primary charge [a compass star chief point flory] is halfway between a compass star and a compass rose. As a consequence, its identifiability is problematical. [2/94, p.21]
[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]
While there are many period examples of animate charges barry or paly of two tinctures, no one could find any precedent for a gyronny treatment. As it stands, the tinctures are not really divided evenly around the charge and the gyronny treatment tends to badly confuse its identifiability. [1/94, p.15]
The pinecone is substantially unrecognizable as rendered, appearing here only as a pointed cartouche with cross-hatching. [1/94, p.15]
The chief as drawn is not ermine charged with three gouttes de larmes, but rather is "argent, charged alternately with ermine spots sable and gouttes de larmes". If he would redraw the chief with more and smaller ermine spots so that it truly appeared to be ermine (e.g., two rows of spots), it would correct this problem. [1/94, p.16]
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]
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 dragon's gambe in this posture [couped appaumy, maintaining a charge] is extremely difficult to identify. This has been cause for return before (see, e.g., the LoAR of June 1993, p. 21). [12b/93, p.14]
[Returning {Fieldless} A demi-stag argent, armed and unguled, issuant from a rose Or.] The rose as drawn is in trian aspect and extremely difficult to recognize. As a consequence, it loses its identifiability as a rose. {The most common comment was that the stag appeared to be wearing a tutu.} [12a/93, p.22]
This is being returned for redrawing. The chief is far too small. The ram's head is not really couped, nor is it erased. Additionally, as drawn, identifiability is a problem. Several commenters (and those attendees at the Laurel meeting) thought it was a rabbit's head before reading the blazon. [12a/93, p.23]
[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]
[T]here is a CD for ... the differences between a spider and an ant. While we would probably not grant sufficient difference between the two, when they are used as the primary charge, a CD can be granted. [2/94, p.6]
[Registering Argent, two serpents nowed in a Bourchier knot palewise vert, a bordure counter-compony sable and argent.] Versus ... Argent, a Bourchier knot vert, there are CDs for adding the bordure and for the orientation of the knot. [6/94, p.2]
[Returning Gules, two lion-headed serpents nowed in a Wake knot respectant within a bordure Or.] The "extra twist" that each of the serpents have outside the knot renders the identifiability of the knot somewhat problematical. Were the submitter to place the heads on the ends where the tails are now (and vice versa), and straighten out the knot into a more regular Wake knot shape, this should be registrable. As it is, it is being returned for redrawing. [6/94, p.12]
[Registering {Fieldless} On a maple leaf Or a cross formy sable.] Versus ... Sable, on an oak leaf Or a battle-axe sable. there are CDs for fieldless vs. fielded and for maple leaf vs. oak leaf. The two leaves are not so visually similar as to warrant granting no difference between them. [5/94, p.9]
[Returning Sable, on a chevron between three horses rampant argent, three oak leaves vert.] Conflict with ... Sable, on a chevron argent, three trefoils slipped vert. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but the consensus among the commenters was that there was not the substantial difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the necessary second for the change to type of the tertiaries. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Prior Laurel precedent (December 1993 LoAR, p. 12) does not grant a CD between oak leaves and holly leaves. As a consequence this is being returned for the use of two different but heraldically similar charges on a single device. [4/94, p.18]
[Returning Argent, a domino mask of leaves vert within a bordure vert semy of mullets argent.] The primary charge is not really recognizable nor have we seen period exemplars of items such as this constructed of leaves. [4/94, p.19]
[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 {Fieldless} Three holly leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, fructed gules.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three oak leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, surmounted by an acorn Or. There is a CD for the fieldless difference, but given their similarity in outline, the difference in the type of leaves was insufficient to grant the second. [12b/93, p.12]
[Returning {Fieldless} A Norse sun cross per pale indented Or and gules.] Additionally, ... precedent still disallows armory consisting of a single letter or abstract symbol. [4/94, p.15]
[Returning Per fess gules and azure, a fess dancetty flory Or.] Conflict with ... Azure, a fess dancetty the two upper points fleur-de-lys Or. While there is a CD for the change to the field, the addition of complex changes to an already complex line of division on only the bottom are not sufficient for the necessary second. [6/94, p.17]
[Returning Barry wavy vert and argent, a sea-unicorn contourny azure.] The field needs to be drawn more clearly and boldly wavy; even the large emblazon was more like irregularly "ripply". [5/94, p.17]
[Returning Gules, a chevron embattled potent between two reremice displayed and a tyger rampant Or.] The embattled line of division of the chevron is so badly broken up by the fur that while one can tell readily that "something" is going on there, it takes a little time to determine just exactly what. The complex line of division is simply not "readily identifiable", and ready identification is one of the hallmarks of period style heraldry. [5/94, p.21]
[Returning Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Additionally the bend is drawn halfway between wavy and wavy bretessed. It needs to be redrawn with a proper wavy. [4/94, p.18]
As a general rule, for a complex line of division to be sufficiently "big and bold", along a fess line this most frequently means three "bumps"; along a pale or bend line perhaps as many as five. [12a/93, p.17]
Next Page - Previous Page
Return to the Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure, Table of Contents Page