Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
[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)
The ribbon is an SCA invention. ... There seems to be
no compelling reason to register the ribbon as an heraldic charge. [i.e.
the charge is banned from registration.] (Marlene Moneta, 9/94 p. 15)
The frame saw is fesswise, cutting blade to base, which
would seem to be the most reasonable default posture. (Agnese Canigiano,
11/94 p. 1)
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 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)
[returning a quill pen enwrapped with a snake] All of the period examples of this motif which could be found use a rod (as in the rod of Aesculapius) or column around which the snake is entwined. The use of a feather here does not seem to be a reasonable extension of period practice. (Ciar O'Byrne, 9/94 p. 19)
[registering two roses and a goblet, a serpent nowed about
the stem] There was some discussion about whether this was "slot-machine"
heraldry... Given the pattern of practice of wrapping snakes about
other charges in period, we believe that the visual reality of this is
that there are only two types of charge in the primary group: the roses
and the cup/snake combination. (Tatiana Patrovna Ilina, 11/94 p.
11)
There was very little commentary on the issue of snowflakes,
and only a small portion of that was in favor of retaining snowflakes as
charges acceptable for registration in armory in the SCA. As a consequence,
we will cease registering snowflakes in the future. (As always, people
who already have registered snowflakes may apply the grandfather clause
to future submissions.) If someone desires a snowflake, please try
to steer them to an escarbuncle. (CL 8/94)
We have decided to bring the SCA back in line with real
world heraldry, at least in one area. Spurs will be palewise, rowel
to chief by default. Prior registrations of spurs in the former SCA
default in the A&O will be corrected to "fesswise in profile, rowel
to sinister". (Harrys Rob of Wamphray, 2/96 p. 2)
There has been an increasing number of comments in recent months to the effect that a piece of submitted armory is "too complex for a badge". I am at a bit of a loss to figure out where this opinion comes from. The Rules for Submissions in effect for five years now have a single standard regarding complexity for all armory submission. There is no such standard in the Rules as too complex "for a badge", particularly since most of the "badges" about which this comment is made have fields. Such fielded badges are not "badges" at all in the classical sense, but are rather secondary armory (or armorial ensigns, or armorial cognizances, if you will). It may be that we would not have this problem to the degree that we do if we called what we register as "badges" by some other name, but every proposal which has been made in the past (e.g., "badge" for "fieldless" badges and "ensign" for "fielded" badges), has been rejected by the College. That being the case, the term "badge" as used by the SCA College of Arms is loosely defined as including all armory which is not the arms/primary device of a submitter. Such category includes secondary arms, household arms, ensigns and, yes, badges, and all of these various types of "badges" are subject to a single standard of complexity, as expressed in RfS VIII.1.a. (CL 3/95)
Another "complexity" comment which has been appearing periodically in commentary is the inclusion of a complex line of division in a submission with the "complexity count". The "rule of thumb" included in RfS VIII.1.a. is clear: "the total of the number of tinctures plus the number of types of charges in a design should not exceed eight." While it is true that a complex line of division may add some "busy-ness" to a piece of armory, it does not do so nearly to the same extent as adding different types of charges or more tinctures. As a consequence, a complex line of division should not be included in an VIII.1.a. "complexity count" when addressing an armory submission. (CL 3/95)
[registering Or, a beacon sable enflamed gules atop a mount sable, a bordure vert semy of oak leaves Or.] Though this has a technical complexity count of nine with five types of charges (beacon, flames, mount, bordure and leaves) and four tinctures (Or, sable, gules, and vert), it is at the same time so visually simple that its technical complexity is not sufficiently excessive as to warrant return under the rule of thumb of RfS VIII.1.a. (Isabel of Biconyll, 4/95 p. 2)
[registering Or, a pale gules surmounted by a boar's head erased sable armed argent, in chief two trees proper] Though as a number of commenters noted, this has a technical complexity count of nine with three types of charge (pale, head, trees) and six tinctures (Or, gules, sable, argent, vert and brown), the device is relatively simple, well- balanced, and all of the charges are clear and identifiable. Given that the rule of thumb for complexity is simply that, a rule of thumb rather than an absolute cutoff, we feel that this submission is registrable. (Bothvar Ruriksson, 5/95 p. 7
[registering Azure, a pale erminois between two panthers rampant guardant addorsed Or pellety, incensed gules, on a chief argent three fleurs-de-lys azure] While this exceeds the rule of thumb limit of RfS VIII.1.a. with four types of charges and five (or six, counting erminois as a separate tincture), it is very well-balanced and visually cohesive. That being the case, we have no qualms about registering it in spite of its technical "complexity count". (Dennet de Poitou, 8/95 p. 11)
[registering Per chevron Or and vert, two chalices vert
and a flaming brazier within a laurel wreath Or] The question arose
in commentary about when an arrangement such as this is "slot machine"
heraldry in violation of the strictures of RfS VIII.1.a., and when it is
not. There really is not a hard a fast rule one can give as an answer.
In general, however, if all of the charges in a group (here, a primary
group) are of equal visual "weight", then the arrangement will usually
be considered to be that of three or more different types of charge in
a single group. If, however, as here, the charges do not have the
same visual "weight" (here, for example, the laurel wreath does not have
the same visual weight as the other charges), then it usually will be considered
to not violate VIII.1.a.
I realize that this is not an entirely happy ruling.
The alternatives, however, are to either rule that all such arrangements
of charges violate VIII.1.a., even when the visual weight of the various
charges is quite different, or to rule that none of such arrangements violate
VIII.1.a., even when all the charges are of clearly similar or identical
visual weight. Either of these choices would "straightjacket" the
College more than I believe the we would be comfortable. (Bryniaid,
Shire of, 10/95 p. 13)
[returning an armored cubit arm bendwise grasping a thistle...and a Latin cross bottony] As in the return of the badge of Timothy of Arindale (November 1992), "The three charges are of equal visual weight, making this a group of three dissimilar charges (colloquially known as `slot-machine heraldry'. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.1.a." (Iain McConnor McCrimmon of Lymavady, 10/95 p. 21)
[registering Or, a pale azure and on a chief sable three plates, all within a bordure gules.] Though as noted by many of the commenters this submission had a complexity count of nine, with five tinctures and four types of charges, it is nonetheless well-balanced, relatively simple overall, and certainly well within the spirit of the rule of thumb limits for complexity of RfS VIII.1.a. (It must also be kept in mind that the rule of thumb contained in RfS VIII.1.a. is just that, a rule of thumb and not a hard and fast limit.) (Ambrosius MacDaibhidh, 12/95 p. 3)
[returning Per pale sable semy of arrows inverted Or and
argent semy of swords inverted azure, a griffin contourny gules]
Having the halves of the field with strewn with different charges adds
a great deal of complexity to an otherwise simple design. This is
especially so since the two different charges are both long and slender,
and both are inverted from their normal default postures, which increases
the chances of them being confused. That alone might be sufficient
to require a return for simplification. Combined with a complexity
count which is right at the rule of thumb limits of RfS VIII.1.a. (sable,
Or, argent, azure, gules, arrows, swords, and griffin), however, definitely
pushes it over the edge of acceptability. (Isabel Tamar Le Fort,
5/96 p. 18)
The College has a long standing practice of disallowing mixed charge semys. Though the commentary noted two late period examples of mundane armory with mixed-charge semys, two examples are insufficient to establish a pattern or practice sufficient to overturn the current restriction. (Brennan Halfhand, 7/94 p. 13)
[returning Per pale embattled gules and vert, in dexter a seawolf argent and in sinister two arrows Or.] Though technically this is not, by the Rules, marshalled arms (because of the complex line of division), the arrangement of the charges is so unbalanced that it cannot be considered to be period style (per RfS VIII.1.b.). (Kathryn of Wolf's Glen, 8/94 p. 14)
[returning a quill pen enwrapped with a snake] All of the period examples of this motif which could be found use a rod (as int he rod of Aesculapius) or column around which the snake is entwined. The use of a feather here does not seem to be a reasonable extension of period practice. (Ciar O'Byrne, 9/94 p. 19)
The charge in chief is drawn too deeply into the field to be a chief triangular, not deeply enough to be a pile (which would not issue from the corners of the chief), and cannot be a per chevron inverted field because it does not issue from the sides of the shield. It needs to be drawn as clearly one or another of these instead of, as here, somewhere in between. (Aethelred of Ambrevale, 9/94 p. 21)
[returning a bordure compony erminois and sable on an Or field] The ermine spots do not serve to adequately delineate the Or portions of the compony bordure from the Or field. (Aileve of Windhaven, 10/94 p. 14)
[registering a pegasus..surmounted by a chevron charged with three cinquefoils] Though at first blush this appears to be four layers, which is forbidden by the rules, RfS VIII.1.c.ii. notes that "All charges should be placed either directly on the field or entirely on other charges that lie on the field." During the tenure of Mistress Alisoun this was interpreted to mean that overall charges may be charged (especially when they are ordinaries, for which period precedent exists), as they are considered to lie "on the field". (Roheis Ireton of Attenborough, 11/94 p. 10)
[registering two roses and a goblet, a serpent nowed about the stem] There was some discussion about whether this was "slot-machine" heraldry... Given the pattern of practice of wrapping snakes about other charges in period, we believe that the visual reality of this is that there are only two types of charge in the primary group: the roses and the cup/snake combination. (Tatiana Patrovna Ilina, 11/94 p. 11)
[registering a sheaf of three rapiers surmounted by a dragon's scale] Though it could be argued that "the area of overlap is not small" in this fieldless badge, nevertheless all of the charges remain quite identifiable, and so this certainly meets the spirit of the precedents on fieldless badges with overall charges. (Dragonsspine, Barony of, 12/94 p. 7)
[returning the letter U entwined on the sinister side of a blackberry bramble] While we have allowed entwining, most entwined charges were either snakes (of which entwining around a column or rod is a period motif) or larger, more readily identifiable charges such as a rose, its slip entwined around a long, thin object (again, rather like a column or rod). The use of a letter here does not seem to be a reasonable extension of period practice. (Una of Blackberry Hollow, 1/95 p. 14)
[registering three scarpes enhanced and in base a mullet] In neither this case or [another on the same letter] are the bendlets nearly as enhances as those in the returns cited in the commentary from September 1992, which amounted to the equivalent of three bendlets "in canton". The scarpes here are only slightly more "enhanced" than one would expect for three scarpes with a secondary charge only in base. (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 2/95 p. 1)
[returning a chevronel rompu and another fracted Or] It was the consensus of the commenters and those attending the Laurel meeting that two different treatments should not be used on a group of identical charges. Though it makes a certain amount of "visual sense" here, it really is the equivalent of a chevronel indented and a chevronel embattled, or, perhaps even more parallel to this submission, a chevronel invected and a chevronel engrailed. (Johann Dähnhardt von Kniprode, 7/95 p. 7)
[returning Argent, on a mullet of seven points vert a griffin couchant, wings close, Or, in chief two mullets of seven points vert...] The use of two different sizes of the same charge, especially when they then cause some confusion as to whether there is one group of primary charges or a primary charge and group of secondary charges, as here, has been cause for return in the past. (See, e.g., LoAR of March 1992, p. 15). Drawing all three mullets the same size, or choosing a different set of charges to go in chief, would cure this problem. (Alexandria Elizabeth Vallandigham of Cambria, 7/95 p. 7)
[returning Sable, on an annulet within an ivy vine in orle Or, three foxes courant contourny in orle azure] The overall effect of the design of this device is not period heraldic style but rather a more modern style of art. While any individual element -- the ivy vine in orle, the annulet (which in the design here reminded many of the commenters of nothing so much as a life preserver), the rotational symmetry of the charges on the annulet, the modern balance -- may not have been sufficient cause for return in and of itself, the combination works to create a design which is neither period nor heraldic. (Arslan Sanjarzade Yildirim-Kilij, 8/95 p. 20)
[returning A mullet Or charged with a fleur-de-lys florency between five daggers points outwards sable] None of the commenters could find a similar motif: a primary charged with a tertiary X and a group of five tertiary Y's. Barring documentation of such an arrangement of tertiary charges, we believe that the motif is not a period one and therefore unregistrable. [The submission was returned for this reason and for conflict.] (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95 p. 15)
[returning Per bend sinister enarched to base...] No period exemplars were noted which bent a line of division to base in this way. All of the examples noted were enarched to chief. Enarching a line of division to base in this manner does not appear to be compatible with period style. [The submission was returned for this as well as other reasons.] (Gentle Dirk, 10/95 p. 15)
The mullet here is not gyronny, which is the equivalent of quarterly and per saltire; the divisions here have been rotated roughly 22 degrees from the vertical, leaving the effect of a quilt pattern. While two commenters discussed the possibility of blazoning the motif as gyronny in cross, only two examples were cited, both of fields divided this way rather than charges. We would prefer to have more examples of such fields and/or period examples of charges being divided this way. There was additionally some concern about the reproducibility of the blazon gyronny in cross given its rarity and hence obscurity in armory. For all these reasons we are compelled to return this. (Egill the Dane, 12/95 p. 17)
[returning A compass star issuant from each point a lightning bolt argent] The overall effect of this badge is very modern, consisting as it does of a non-period charge treatment (the thunderbolts) of another non-period charge (the compass star). As such, it falls afoul of the strictures of RfS VIII.4. (Obtrusive Modernity) and VIII.4.d. (Modern Style). (Achbar ibn Ali, 1/96 p. 22)
[returning (Fieldless) An equal-armed Celtic cross vert
pierced of a mullet] The "piercing" of the cross here is essentially an
attempt to use a tinctureless (or rather, omni-tinctured) tertiary charge.
Such have been disallowed for some time. "It is not possible to eclipse
something `of the field' on a fieldless badge." (Da'ud ibn Auda,
LoAR February 1991, p. 18)
It is true that we have registered fieldless badges
consisting of a charge which has been pierced, but in these cases the piercing
was part of the definition of the charge (e.g., a mascle, a rustre) and
can hardly be considered as being in the same category as a "cross pierced
of an (omni-tinctured) mullet". (Anlon MacMatha, 1/96 p. 25)
[registering Purpure, a lion dormant and on a chief argent three lions dormant contourny purpure] While, as several commenters noted, there are precedents prohibiting the use of two different sizes of the same charge in a device, this prohibition does not run to the combination of primary and tertiary charges. It has almost always been applied to, e.g., primary and secondary, or primary and semy, groups containing two different sizes of the same charge. The use of the same charge as a primary and again as tertiary charges does not fall afoul of the prior precedents, and, indeed, can be documented as occurring in period arms. (Gwylym Penbras, 2/96 p. 12)
[returning a chevron embattled between a fox sejant gules, a demi-eagle reguardant sable, and a fox sejant gules.] Only one period example of something similar was found in the arms of Henri Habervile, Azure, in dexter chief a lion passant guardant and in sinister chief and in base cinquefoils pierced Or, and even that one had the divergent charge in the more to be expected dexter chief. We need more documentation of this motif in period before we register it. (Robert Fitz Samson, 4/96 p. 18)
[returning a caltrap within and conjoined to an annulet] This submission, especially as it was drawn with the bottom central leg extended to touch the annulet, was overwhelmingly too similar to the "peace" symbol. As such, it falls afoul of RfS VIII.4.b. "Modern Insignia - Overt allusions to ... common designs may not be registered." The peace symbol (the old "Nuclear Disarmament" symbol) is a common modern design, and as such is not registrable. (Garmon Woodworth, 6/96 p. 9)
A cross estoile is a post-period charge; combining it
with an annulet to create a "Celtic cross estoile" makes it two steps from
period style. This second step is one step further than the College
is normally willing to go. (Aonghus Cu, 6/96 p. 10)
Style-Pictorial & Naturalistic
[returning Per fess Or and sable, a tree blasted issuant from the line of division sable and a hind lodged reguardant argent bearing in its mouth a branch proper.] This does cross over the line of RfS VIII.4.a., the prohibition of "overly pictorial designs". The tree issuant from the line of division and the deer in base make an unmistakable foreground/background image which is not found in examples of period heraldry. (Katherine of Greentree, 4/95 p. 9)
[returning a cross crosslet within a mascle all between in saltire four billets saltirewise] This incarnation of the submitter's armory falls afoul of RfS VIII.4. ("Obtrusive Modernity - Armory may not use obtrusively modern designs"). "Modern" is defined there as "anything outside the period of the Society". Even Laurel, who's interests in aircraft lies in the WWII era rather than modern jets, immediately recognized this as a depiction of a HUD (heads up display) gunsight. This obtrusiveness was not so obvious in earlier submissions because of the use of a saltire rather than four billets.
[returning a sloth pendent] RfS VIII.4.c. notes
that "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable charges may
not be registered. Excessively natural designs include those that
depict animate objects in unheraldic postures, ..." The sloth here
appears to be simply a photocopy of a drawing of the natural animal.
It is certainly in no heraldic posture, even inverted, and no one was able
to suggest either (1) a blazonable posture for it, or (2) that this would
be the default posture for a sloth. (Sven Örfendur, 10/95 p.
18)
[a 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 sword vs a sword inverted] There is a CD..for inverting the [sword]. (Dmitrii Volkovich, 1/95 p. 7)
[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 sharks teeth] It was the overwhelming consensus of the commentary that the "shark's teeth" were unrecognizable, as is required by RfS VII.7.a., Identification Requirement. (Agilwulf the Loud, 9/94 p. 15)
[returning a fang] It is not identifiable as drawn
here. The charge was registered in August 1991 in a Middle Kingdom
badge, but only on appeal and against Laurel's inclinations; more recently
there is a return of shark's teeth for lack of identifiability ("It was
the overwhelming consensus of the commentary that the "shark's teeth" were
unrecognizable, as is required by RfS VII.7.a., Identification Requirement."
Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR September 1994, p. 15) (Mar Arthursson, 5/96 p. 20)
[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 birch tree vs a tree blasted and eradicated] There are technically no CDs between the two devices. (Uma, Canton of, 11/94 p. 14)
[a stump snagged vs a fracted stump] There is...nothing for the fracting of the stump. (William of Øland, 2/95 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)
[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)
[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 winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change
to the type of wings is too slight to count for the necessary second. [i.e.
there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged
creature.] (Onuphrius Dru Overende, 1/95 p. 14)
Previous Page
Return to the Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure, Table of Contents Page