Armory Precedents of the SCA College of Arms

The First Tenure of Countess Elisabeth de Rossignol

Last Revised: 13 June 2015
Period Covered: 05/2005 - 07/2008

These are the armory precedents from the first tenure of Countess Elisabeth de Rossignol as Laurel Principal Queen of Arms. During this period armory rulings were made primarily by Baroness Jeanne Marie Lacroix, Wreath Queen of Arms. Decisions for May 2005 were made by Dame Gwenllian ferch Maredudd; decisions for July 2008 were split between Baroness Jeanne Marie Lacroix and Master Tanczos Istvan. Please verify all precedents you wish to use with the cited LoAR.

Cover Letter discussions are included in the compiled precedents; however, they are located under the relevant topic. A list of these discussions, with links to one of the categories each is included under, is included in the table of contents.

These precedents are referenced by armory owner's name, the date of the Cover Letter (CL) or LoAR in month/year format (not the publication date), the action taken (A for acceptance, R for return, P for pend), and the kingdom where the action is listed under. Unless otherwise noted at the beginning of a section, the precedents are arranged in chronological order.

The category VISUAL COMPARISON deals with rulings relative to a specific piece of armory (e.g., a branch is maintained) and descriptions of specific pieces of armory. These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory. The category MUNDANE ARMORY contains a list of real-world armory that has been ruled not important enough to protect. These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory. As much as possible, I have used the same categories as currently used in the Ordinary and Armorial. This means that in some case the categories differ from those used in precedents from prior tenures. Charges which were returned as unregisterable, and thus not matching any category in the O&A, are classified under CHARGE - Miscellaneous. These are listed in the Table of Contents.

The Table of Contents includes some cross-references; many of these begin with the category:

• Animals, such as cats, dogs, and porcupines, are listed under BEAST
• Birds, such as corbies, falcons, and ravens, are listed under BIRD
• Insects and crustaceans, such as butterflies, crabs, and scorpions, are listed under ARTHROPOD
• Monsters, such as dragons and unicorns, are listed under MONSTER
• Fruits, nuts, and vegetables, such as apples, walnuts, and turnips, are listed under FRUIT
• Flowers, such as roses and sunflowers, are listed under FLOWER
• Foils, such as trefoils (including shamrocks) and quatrefoils (including clover, are listed under FOIL

The following heralds are referred to by title: al-Jamal (Da'ud ibn Auda), Albion (Aryanhwy merch Catmael), Argent Snail (Jaelle of Armida), Batonvert (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme), Black Stag (Zenobia Naphtali), Brachet (Frederick of Holland), Chevron (Hrorek Halfdane of Faulconwood), Clarion (Elsbeth Anne Roth), Crescent (Lachlan of Cromarty), Eastern Crown (Kolosvari Arpadne Julia), Electrum (David of Moffat), Golden Dolphin (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane), Green Anchor (Gawain of Miskbridge), Metron Ariston (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane), Nebuly (Walraven van Nijmegen), Saker (Einarr Grimsson), and Wreath Emeritus (Jeanne Marie Lacroix).

Jeanne Marie Lacroix
Noir Licorne Herald

ADMINISTRATIVE
see also PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE ITEMS

This badge was submitted on a device form instead of a badge form. Badges must be submitted on the badge form, although the submitter is free to display it on any shape she desires. [Maredudd Angharad ferch Gwenhyfar, 10/00, R-Outlands]

[Azure, a sun within an orle argent] The device is clear of ... Azure, an estoile of eight rays within an annulet and a bordure all argent. Even though an orle looks like an annulet on a round field, they are nonetheless separate charges: if this were drawn on the standard shield shape the difference would be given automatically and it is unfair to penalize the drawing when it is forced to be circular by administrative requirements. [Taliesin de Morlet, 03/01, R-Caid]

[Badge for Thrown Weapons Deputy] This badge is for a deputy for the marshallate in charge of thrown weapons. Precedent is mixed about whether deputies to major offices may have Kingdom badges assigned to them, or whether they must use a corporate level badge. The Sovereigns of Arms and Laurel Clerk discussed the issue, and Laurel determined the following: A combat marshal must be quickly identifiable on the field during inter-kingdom wars. Thus, it is important that the badges for marshals should be the same throughout the Society. Such badges should therefore be registered at the corporate level, rather than the kingdom level. This is currently the case for the Equestrian Marshallate, whose badge was registered at the Society level as Sable, two tilting lances in saltire and in chief a chamfron Or. [An Tir, Kingdom of, 02/02, R-An Tir]

ADMINISTRATIVE - Comments and Commenting

ADMINISTRATIVE - Permission to Conflict

It has been requested that the long-standing SCA tradition of assuming that a submitter automatically grants himself permission to conflict should finally be enshrined, in writing, in these hallowed LoARs. Therefore, let it be explicitly known that a submitter is assumed to give himself permission to conflict with all names and armory registered to him individually or jointly." [Timothy of Glastinbury, 11/02, A-Ansteorra]

ADMINISTRATIVE - Petitions

ANCHOR

It seems that in the evolution of anchors, "...Curved arms began to replace straight arms in anchors early in the 19th century...", according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online ( http://www.britannica.com/ ), under Anchor. The large amount of curvature of the anchor's arms is a post period innovation. Period anchors had much straighter arms. The client will be informed of this.

ANNULET

[A bend potenty on the lower edge] "Conflict with [a plain bend]. Were the ordinary in this proposal potenty on both sides, it would be clear, but the majority of the commenters (and Laurel) did not feel that difference should be granted for this non-period treating of only one (and that the less visually important) side of an ordinary. The only period examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).

Consider Evan Little: Or, hurty., if the submission were alternately blazoned as Or semy of bezants fimbriated sable. Although an annulet has an independent heraldic existence it is still a roundel voided; still both are distinct period charges, and between the type and tinctures, we hope that this is clear.

ARCHITECTURE see also BEACON and CASTLE and WELL

[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]

The strike, or strake, is a period heraldic charge, found in the arms of the Worshipful Company of Pewterers, both the original version (c.1480-1500) and the current version (1533) ("Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London", Bromley & Child, pp.197-200). The strike is a matrix of tin or pewter nodules of equal weight, fastened by thin strips and attached to a handle for easy carrying. In use, the pewterer snips off as much or as little metal as needed to fill a melting pot.

This is clear of the badge for Robert of Sacred Stone, (Fieldless) A portcullis argent. As a portcullis and a strike are both period charges, and as we have no evidence that the charges were interchangeable in period, we will grant a CD between the two. There is a second CD for fieldlessness.

ARRANGEMENT
see also ARRANGEMENT - Forced Move and ARRANGEMENT - Conjoined

[in base three millrinds two and one] The millrinds' arrangement was not originally explicitly blazoned on the LoI, but it was blazoned on the form. On a shield shape three charges in base will be two and one by default, but this is not necessarily the case on other shapes, such as a rectangular banner. Since the submitter explicitly blazoned the charges in base as two and one, we have reinstated this term. If the submitter would prefer to have this left as a matter of artist's licence, she may request a reblazon. [Áine Sindradóttir, 10/02, A-Atlantia]

Surely, a period drawing of 9 items on a shield of this form would have one of the items taking up that uncomfortably blank spot in base. (3, 3, 2 and 1 most likely...) Whereas I wouldn't distinguish 9 items in orle from 7 items in orle or 13 items in orle in a blazon, here I think the "3 3 and 3" arrangement is important enough that - since the submitter seems to want it - it is something we should strongly consider registering. It seems a logical extension of the standard Iberian arrangement of 2 2 and 2. It also seems a logical extension of the standard division of the field into 9 parts (cross quarterpierced/checky of 3... call it what you will.)

Rowen Brithwallt. Name change (from Kitare-no-kami Satoko Hinoki no Kiyowara) and device change. Per pale vert and azure, a harp contourny argent between three seals naiant in annulo ermine. There was some question as to the blazon of the seals. My feeling is that the in annulo placement visually dominates, and thus subsumes, any specification of direction. Widdershins vs. deasil is simply an artistic nuance of in annulo, and need not be blazoned." [LoAR 08/1993].

ARRANGEMENT - Conjoined

ARRANGEMENT - Forced Moved

[A cross, vs. a cross in chief between two gores] "There is a CVD for moving the cross to chief and another for addition of the gores" [implying that the move to chief isn't forced] (LoAR 9/90 p. 1)

ARROW and ARROWHEAD

ARTHROPOD - Ant

ARTHROPOD - Bee

ARTHROPOD - Beetle

ARTHROPOD - Butterfly

ARTHROPOD - Lobster

A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a tergiant charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a tergiant scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the identifiability of the charge so much as to render it unidentifiable, and they felt that it should be acceptable. The frog in this submission certainly retains its identifiability very clearly in the inverted posture. As a result, inverting a tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does not otherwise violate any basic heraldic principles, including the requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of period evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will be considered a clear step from period practice (also known informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be found in this posture in period. [George Anne, 05/02, A-Æthelmearc]

AUGMENTATIONS

It is important to note that if armory is changed with a previously existing augmentation, it is possible for that augmentation to become incompatible with the underlying armory due to the armory change. When this happens, the augmentation is not "automatically grandfathered", because (as noted in the Cover Letter to the October 2003 LoAR) "Augmentations do not have an existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore are not independently protectable entities."

As an example, consider the case of a submitter with the hypothetical armory Or, a pall inverted vert, for augmentation, in canton an estoile azure, who then submits a device change for the underlying device to Vert, a pall inverted Or, and for the augmented device to Vert, a pall inverted Or, for augmentation, in canton an estoile azure. The augmentation would violate RfS VIII.7, which states that "The augmentation must itself follow the armory rules", in conjunction with the ruling in the LoAR of August 1997, p. 26, which stated "Barring documentation of large numbers of period augmentations that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling to register this practice."

Because the old augmentation is not compatible with the new device change, Laurel would be forced to (without extra direction from the submitter) register the new device change (unaugmented) and return the augmented device change. The "old augmented device" could not be retained as a badge and thus must be released. At the end of this series of actions, the submitter would no longer have a blue estoile augmentation on his list of registered items. In order to avoid this situation, the submitter could, as part of the original submission, add an administrative note to the submission indicating that, if the changed augmented arms were not registerable, the unaugmented device change is to be withdrawn, and the previous device (augmented or not) is to be retained. [Kathryn of Iveragh, 02/04, R-Outlands]

AWL

AXE

BALANCE

BASE
see also MOUNTAIN

[A chief triangular embattled] With very rare exceptions (e.g. in combination with enarched lines), the use of two or more complex lines on the same charge is confusing, and unattested in period armory. (Wavy raguly? Embattled rayonny? I think not.) In this case, the chief could be either embattled or triangular --- but not both. (Johann Götz Kauffman von Erfurt, December, 1992, pg. 20).

This device is returned for non-period style. With the top and bottom of the shield the same color, and carrying the same charges, heraldic convention demands that this be blazoned Argent, on a fess between four fleurs-de-lys, three and one, azure a maunch argent. However, the "fess" is drawn so wide that it blurs the distinction between what heraldic custom dictates and what the eye sees. If the submitter wishes this basic design, it should be emblazoned such that the center portion of the shield is clearly a charged fess. If the submitter wishes to keep the maunch the primary charge, we'd suggest removing either the chief or the base (assuming no conflicts, of course).

BEACON

While a castle is not significantly different from either a tower or a bridge, there is little history of identification between a tower and bridge, unlike that between a tower and a castle. Neither is there a strong visual similarity between a tower and a bridge as there is between a castle and a bridge. Thus we find that there is a CD between a tower and bridge. [Michael Gillean of Blackwater Keep, 08/99, A-Æthelmearc]

the charge in chief, though not a beacon, is nonetheless a period charge. It's known as a cresset (or sometimes a fire-basket), and was the part of the beacon that sat atop the pole (Friar's Dictionary of Heraldry, p.115). The cresset was the badge of John Holland, Duke of Exeter, d.1446, mentioned as such in a political broadside written in 1449 (Gayre's Heraldic Standards, p.94; Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges, p.100). It was also one of Henry V's badges, to judge by the illustration in Bedingfeld & Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, p.129.

BEAST - Badger

BEAST - Bat

BEAST - Bear

The compound noun hvítabiôrn is the Old Norse word for "white bear" (polar bear), sometimes also called "ice bears". The very first polar bear was brought to Europe by Ingimund the Old as a gift to the king of Norway about A.D. 900; Isleif, the first bishop of Iceland, also brought one as a present to the German emperor about A.D. 1050. One of the most enjoyable tales from Old Norse literature both to read and tell aloud is the story of Auðunn and the Bear (Auðunar þáttr vestfirzka). This story recounts how a young man, Auðunn, captures a polar bear and takes it as a gift to the King of Denmark, thereby earning his fortune.

By current precedent, it is not acceptable to use a species of flora or fauna in armory which was not known to Europeans in period: "The primary charge is the leaf of a vanillaleaf plant (genus Achlys). Europeans did not discover it until the 18th century so [it] cannot be used in SCA armory" (LoAR February 2000). The most recent precedent explicitly concerning pandas notes in pertinent part that the panda was not known to Europeans in period: "Lanner provided some distinct evidence that the panda was not seen by an European until this century and that its furs were not known to Europeans until the last century" (LoAR December 1989). The panda is therefore not acceptable for registration. (LoAR February 2002, cf. Zubaydah az-Zahra)

BEAST - Boar

BEAST - Bull

BEAST - Cat

A question was raised regarding the use of herissony in our blazonry. While the term itself, to the best of our knowledge, is not period, the posture was done in period. Hierosme de Bara's Le Blason des Armoiries (1581) shows a cat in this position. [The submission was blazoned as herissony] (Rowan of Iron Mountain, 8/97 p. 10)

BEAST - Deer

• There is no difference between a heraldic antelope and a heraldic ibex.
• There is no difference between a natural ibex and a goat.
• There is a CD between a heraldic ibex and a natural antelope, stag, or deer.
• There is a CD between a goat and a heraldic antelope or heraldic ibex.
• There is a CD between a goat and a natural antelope, stag or deer.
• There is a CD between a heraldic ibex and a reindeer.
• There is a CD between a heraldic ibex and a natural ibex.

BEAST - Dog

The "Poodle History Project" (http://www.poodlehistory.org/) under the entry for falconry/hawking says "Poodles and/or proto-Poodles are a frequent sight in falconry/hawking scenes memorialized in huge wool or wool/silk tapestry hangings which kept great houses as cozy as possible in the High Middle Ages and Renaissance. These Poodles (proto-Poodles?) are easy to spot when they wear a moderate version of our "show coat", which was then a warmer-weather working clip. They're not so easy to spot when they wear a 15th or 16th century cool-weather shaggy coat." A page on visuals (http://www.poodlehistory.org/PZZGPV.HTM) has a woodcut from Hans Burgkmair (1473-1531), with a poodle that looks very much like this one.

BEAST - Elephant

BEAST - General

BEAST - Goat

• There is no difference between a heraldic antelope and a heraldic ibex.
• There is no difference between a natural ibex and a goat.
• There is a CD between a heraldic ibex and a natural antelope, stag, or deer.
• There is a CD between a goat and a heraldic antelope or heraldic ibex.
• There is a CD between a heraldic ibex and a reindeer.
• There is a CD between a heraldic ibex and a natural ibex.

As a rule, baby animals are not used in SCA heraldry: they're visually indistinguishable from adult animals, and period examples of their use are rare. Lambs appear to be an exception: not only is the Paschal lamb often found in period armory, but lambs were used for canting purposes (e.g. the arms of Lambert --- or the current submission). (Agnes Margaret de Grinstead, October, 1992, pg. 12)

BEAST - Hedgehog

BEAST - Horse

This is being returned for redraw. As drawn it is not clearly courant or statant but something halfway between the two. [Renata von Hentzau , 06/1998, R-Atlantia] The foxes are neither passant nor courant, but somewhere in between, blurring the distinction between them. Therefore the device is returned for a redraw as one or the other. [Mirabel of Foxrun, 10/1999, R-East]

The wolf is neither passant nor courant but somewhere in between, blurring the distinction between them. Therefore the device is returned for a redraw as one or the other. [Charles le Verdier, 11/2000, R-An Tir]

In addition, the posture of the wolf is not blazonable. The position, as drawn, is approximately halfway between "statant" and "courant." [Wulfgar Neumann, 01/2001, R-Outlands]

BEAST - Monkey

BEAST - Mouse

We have no evidence that the gopher was known to period Europeans: the OED, for instance, dates gopher in this context only to 1818. (There's also the Biblical gopher-wood, but that doesn't apply to this submission.) Since the gopher is a rodent from the North American plains, we can't assume that it was known to period Europeans; we need some hard evidence before we can accept the charge.

BEAST - Other

BEAST - Rabbit

PRECEDENT: Henceforward, and more in line with period heraldic practice, animals which are normally brown may be registered simply as an {X} proper (e.g., boar proper, hare proper). Animals which are frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper).

This precedent does not, however, loosen the ban on "Linnaean proper" (Cover Letter, May 13, 1991); proper tinctures for flora and fauna which require the Linnaean genus and species to know how to color them. For example, a falcon proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown head, wings and back, buff breast with darker spots, and a tail striped with black; a hare proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown with white underbelly and tail and pink ears. This also appears to be more in keeping with period heraldic practice.

BEAST - Squirrel

BEAST - Weasel

BEND and BEND SINISTER

BILLET

We do not register fieldless badges which appear to be independent forms of armorial display. Charges such as lozenges, billets, and roundels are all both standard heraldic charges and "shield shapes" for armorial display. ...

Therefore, a "shield shape" which is also a standard heraldic charge will be acceptable as a fieldless badge in a plain tincture, as long as the tincture is not one of the plain tinctures that is protected armory in the SCA. This explicitly overturns the precedent "We do not normally register fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as roundels, lozenges and delfs in plain tinctures, since in use the shape does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field itself" (LoAR January 1998).

Note that this does not change our long-standing policy about such "shield shape" charges used in fieldless badges if the tincture is not plain (thus, divided or with a field treatment), or if the charge is itself charged. Such armory will continue to be returned for the appearance of an independent form of armorial display.[Solveig Throndardottir, 04/02, A-Æthelmearc]

BIRD - Chimney Swift

BIRD - Cock and Hen

• Swan-shaped birds, including swans, geese, and ducks: waterfowl with long necks, rounded bills, long heavy bodies, webbed feet.
• Crane-shaped birds, including cranes, herons, and storks: tall thin birds with long necks, long pointed beaks, medium-weight bodies, very long legs.
• Poultry-shaped birds, including chickens, quail, partridge, and peacocks: compact rounded birds with short to medium necks, short beaks, heavy rounded bodies, medium or short legs, often with distinctive tails or head details (combs, crests).
• "Regular-shaped" birds, including martlets, ravens and other corbies, raptors (hawks, eagles, and owls), and doves: birds with the classic "bird shape". Compact light- or medium-weight birds with small necks and beaks, short to medium legs, plain tails.

BIRD - Cockatoo

BIRD - Crane-shaped

Note that the plumage of the birds is "flamingo pink" and therefore has good contrast with the field: reblazoning it as simple "gules" would confuse the issue since many artists would depict all portions of the bird, including the beak and limbs, as flaming red.

BIRD - Crow

BIRD - Dove

BIRD - Eagle

As for the alerion or allerion, originally the charges in the arms of Lorraine appear to have been eagles: they were shown with beaks and/or feet until the end of the 13th C. (Pastoureau's Traité d'Héraldique, p.150). However, de Bara's Blason des Armoiries, 1581, p.213, shows the arms of Lorraine with beakless footless birds, and explicitly blazons them Allerions. They get no difference from eagles, but it does look like they'd become blazonable artistic variants by the end of our period.

BIRD - Falcon and Hawk

This [(Fieldless) A popinjay vert] is not a conflict with Hrefna in heppna Þorgrímsdóttir, (Fieldless) A raven vert. Both popinjays and ravens are period charges and no evidence has been found that the two were interchangeable in period heraldry. We can, in fact, show that when the two birds were rendered by the same artist, pains were taken to keep them distinct. Typical is the Zurich Roll, which has both popinjays (in the arms of Sanct Johann, d'argent au perroquet de sinople acc. de deux etoiles de sable rengees en barre) and crows (in the arms of Schifer, de gueules au chef d'argent charge d'un corbeau de sable). The popinjay's beak is the typical hooked form we associate with parrots, macaws, budgies, etc, while the crow's beak is long and pointy. The popinjay also has a long, pointed tail. The raven has a long but raggedly square tail and a shorter neck than the popinjay. Other examples include the Armorial Bellenville, the Grand Equestrian Armorial, de Bara's Blason des Armoiries, and Siebmacher (von Rabenstein, plate 105, and von Puchenaw, plate 141). While the differences vary from artist to artist, in each case ravens and [sic] drawn distinctly different from popinjays.

Both Hrenfa's and Catherine's birds are in their standard period posture (close), are drawn correctly, and there is a visual difference. Thus the criteria laid out by Laurel in the January 2002 Cover Letter are met; we will therefore grant a CD between a raven and a popinjay.

There is still no difference granted between a falcon and raven, nor between a falcon and a popinjay; however, conflict is not transitive and -- until it is shown that popinjays and ravens were interchangeable in period -- we will grant a CD between properly drawn ravens and popinjays.

I've attached a few scans from the Zurich Roll, from Stemmario Trivulziano, from Guillim, and from Siebmacher [not included in this letter - Wreath]. In each case there's a crow/raven/corvid and a falcon (in most cases, the cant on the name makes that clear). And in every case, there's one consistent difference between the falcon and the corvid: The falcon has a hooked beak. While the corvid's beak is straight -- every time.

The consistency here suggests that period heralds *did* distinguish between these two birds. They certainly tried to draw them differently -- a rendition might vary between artists, but each individual artist made the distinction. This was the argument that let us grant a CD between ravens and parrots, some months past, and I don't see why it shouldn't apply here.

BIRD - Generic

BIRD - Martlet

François Velde's article on the martlet on his web site provides an excellent analysis of period use of this charge, quoting from authoritative sources like Pastoureau, Woodward, and Brault. Here are the key paragraphs of the Velde article, which is found at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/martlet.htm.

According to Pastoureau: Traité d'Héiraldique (2d ed., p. 150-1), the charge makes its first appearance c. 1185 in the arms of Mello in Normandy, and is at first confined to similarly canting arms (Merlot, Merloz, etc). Therefore, it is initially thought of as a small blackbird, called merle in French. From the mid-14th c., however, it appears as a canting device for families named Oisery, Oisy, Loiseau, which indicates that it is now seen as a generic bird rather than any specific species. Its depiction is still quite variable (with or without feet), and in any case it does not lose its beak before the late 15th c. As the Oxford ENglish [sic] Dictionary says (s.v. martlet): "It seems possible that the heraldic bird may originally have been intended for a 'little blackbird', represented without feet by accident or caprice, or with symbolical intention." Most likely, the need to save space led artists to skip the feet of the small birds that were often used as filler or bordure elements (the orle of martlets is common in early heraldry). Also, in the late 15th c., some confusion or competition arises with the canette or duckling, and modern French heraldic textbooks state that a martlet is a duckling without beak and feet.

The evolution in England was different, leading to a swallow. The reason is undoubtedly folk etymology. The Oxford English Dictionary continues: "The English heralds of the 16th c. or earlier identified the bird so depicted with the 'martlet' or swift, which has short legs, whence its mod. specific name apus = Gr. apous footless. It is noteworthy that the 'martlets' (so called in the 16th c.) in the pretended arms of Edward the Confessor were at an early period portrayed with feet. The anglicized form of merlete, marlet, does not occur in heraldic use, but appears in several 16th c. instances with the sense of martlet, i.e. a swift or a martin. According to English heraldic writers, the use of the footless bird as a mark of cadency for younger sons was meant to symbolize their position as having no footing in the ancestral lands." Woodward and Burnett (A Treatise on Heraldry, p. 266) confirm that: "[t]here are early examples of the martlet properly furnished with legs, but about the close of the 13th c. the custom arose by which the bird is represented without feet, and sometimes without a beak." Gerard Brault (Early Blazon, p. 242) says that "The elimination of the feet (and later the beak) in depictions of the martlet may have been purely conventional". He cites examples attesting to the variety of early depcitions [sic]: Mathew Paris shows the martlets of John de Bassingbourne without legs, those of Furnival with legs; the sparrow-hawks of Robert Muschet without feet; a 13th c. panel of Edward the Confessor's arms in Westminster abbey shows the martlets as doves (with feet).

BIRD - Miscellaneous

• Hovering: the wings addorsed, the body sort of palewise but embowed, and the tail tucked forward under the belly. This term may only be applied to hummingbirds. It is granted no difference from rising.
• Rising: the body bendwise, wings elevated and addorsed. In other words, the bird is "taking off" from the ground. If present, the feet are shown beneath or slightly in front of the bird. The feet are generally absent for hummingbirds, though they are almost always present for other birds.
• Volant: the body is more or less horizontal, the wings spread on either side of the body. If the wings are addorsed this must be specified. A bird volant (wings spread) is a CD from a bird rising.

BIRD - Owl

BIRD - Peacock

• peacock in his pride - statant affronty, tail raised behind him and spread out;
• peacock - facing dexter, wings close, tail downwards and closed or slightly spread (the default posture);
• peacock contourny - facing sinister, wings close, tail downwards and closed or slightly spread;
• peacock, tail spread - facing dexter, wings close, tail downwards and spread out;
• peacock contourny, tail spread - facing sinister, wings close, tail downwards and spread out.

BIRD - Popinjay

BIRD - Raven

This [(Fieldless) A popinjay vert] is not a conflict with Hrefna in heppna Þorgrímsdóttir, (Fieldless) A raven vert. Both popinjays and ravens are period charges and no evidence has been found that the two were interchangeable in period heraldry. We can, in fact, show that when the two birds were rendered by the same artist, pains were taken to keep them distinct. Typical is the Zurich Roll, which has both popinjays (in the arms of Sanct Johann, d'argent au perroquet de sinople acc. de deux etoiles de sable rengees en barre) and crows (in the arms of Schifer, de gueules au chef d'argent charge d'un corbeau de sable). The popinjay's beak is the typical hooked form we associate with parrots, macaws, budgies, etc, while the crow's beak is long and pointy. The popinjay also has a long, pointed tail. The raven has a long but raggedly square tail and a shorter neck than the popinjay. Other examples include the Armorial Bellenville, the Grand Equestrian Armorial, de Bara's Blason des Armoiries, and Siebmacher (von Rabenstein, plate 105, and von Puchenaw, plate 141). While the differences vary from artist to artist, in each case ravens and [sic] drawn distinctly different from popinjays.

Both Hrenfa's and Catherine's birds are in their standard period posture (close), are drawn correctly, and there is a visual difference. Thus the criteria laid out by Laurel in the January 2002 Cover Letter are met; we will therefore grant a CD between a raven and a popinjay.

There is still no difference granted between a falcon and raven, nor between a falcon and a popinjay; however, conflict is not transitive and -- until it is shown that popinjays and ravens were interchangeable in period -- we will grant a CD between properly drawn ravens and popinjays.

I've attached a few scans from the Zurich Roll, from Stemmario Trivulziano, from Guillim, and from Siebmacher [not included in this letter - Wreath]. In each case there's a crow/raven/corvid and a falcon (in most cases, the cant on the name makes that clear). And in every case, there's one consistent difference between the falcon and the corvid: The falcon has a hooked beak. While the corvid's beak is straight -- every time.

The consistency here suggests that period heralds *did* distinguish between these two birds. They certainly tried to draw them differently -- a rendition might vary between artists, but each individual artist made the distinction. This was the argument that let us grant a CD between ravens and parrots, some months past, and I don't see why it shouldn't apply here.

BIRD - Swan-shaped

BIRD - Vulture

BLAZON
see also POSTURE/ORIENTATION - Animate Charges and POSTURE/ORIENTATION - General and POSTURE/ORIENTATION - Inanimate Charges

The Letter of Intent blazoned this cat as coward. The exact disposition of the tail of an animal is a matter for artistic license in period, which would argue against using the term coward in blazon. However, the term is permissible if the submitter so requests, as long as the tail position is drawn correctly and identifiably. Coward may be blazoned when the tail is clearly tucked between the hind legs. This is not the case in this emblazon. Also, the submitter's original blazon did not use the term coward. Therefore, the term was deleted. [Muirgel ingen Gilla Comgaill, 09/01, A-Æthelmearc]

Surely, a period drawing of 9 items on a shield of this form would have one of the items taking up that uncomfortably blank spot in base. (3, 3, 2 and 1 most likely...) Whereas I wouldn't distinguish 9 items in orle from 7 items in orle or 13 items in orle in a blazon, here I think the "3 3 and 3" arrangement is important enough that - since the submitter seems to want it - it is something we should strongly consider registering. It seems a logical extension of the standard Iberian arrangement of 2 2 and 2. It also seems a logical extension of the standard division of the field into 9 parts (cross quarterpierced/checky of 3... call it what you will.)

BOOK

[Azure, an open book and in base a bee argent marked sable] This does not conflict with Yale University (important non-SCA armory), Azure, an open book argent charged with Hebrew letters sable. There is one CD for adding the secondary bee, and another CD for removing the tertiary letters from the book. As seen on p. 241 of Neubecker's Heraldry-Sources, Symbols and Meanings, the Hebrew letters on the books in the arms of Yale University are few and large, and function as tertiary charges. In general, open books may be drawn with numerous small writing marks as artistic license, the writing so small that it could not be read from any distance, but such writing would not be blazoned. [Branwen filia Iohannis de Monmouth, 04/02, A-East]

A ribbon is not registerable as a stand-alone charge; that is, as a primary, secondary, or tertiary charge. However, in this case [on a fox's tail] the ribbon is equivalent to a hawk's jesses: a blazonable detail or ornamentation, rather than a charge in its own right. As such, the ribbon is registerable, though submitters should be aware that the exact depiction of such ribbons will be considered an artistic detail.

An open book is usually fully open and fully vertical to the viewer (as if you had opened the book flat and then glued the book cover to the escutcheon on which the charge lies - or alternately, as if you fully opened the book and balanced it on the table so that the book was resting on the bottoms of its pages and the bottom edge of the book cover.) I'd expect that armory with a bird perched atop an open book would have the open book would be in this usual orientation, with the bird happily perched atop the top edges of the pages and spine. Likewise, I'd expect a standing seraph standing atop an open book to look as if it were standing on top of a wall, where the "sides of the wall" were the book's pages and the "top of the wall" the top edges of the pages and the top edge of the book cover.

Here, the open book is tilted at least 45 degrees "into the shield" - the seraph is clearly not standing on the top edges of the open book, but standing in the center of a book that is definitely at a slope, if not almost "flat" (rather than "on edge").

BORDURE

Finally, the documentation provided, together with the supplementary materials noted in commentary, demonstrates that our precedents banning the use of a bordure compony that shares a tincture with the field, which date to 1987, do not accurately reflect period usage. We therefore explicitly overturn those precedents and permit the registration of bordures compony that share a tincture with the field. We have not, however, as yet seen evidence to suggest that this ruling should be applied to ordinaries other than the bordure.

Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a pile is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in armory is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered too far from period practice and reason for return. [Clef of Cividale, 03/03, R-Calontir]

In at least some times and places, it's standard for charges on a bordure to 'tilt along' with the shield shape. Godinho's Livro da Nobreza is a perfect example. The arms of Pimentes on f.XV have crosses couped on a bordure and they are pretty much oriented as the ones here - except for the one at the very base of the shield, it's palewise not saltirewise, but the others are pretty tilted. This is characteristic of the charged bordures in the entire book. For example, looking at the "gules semy of castles/towers triple towered Or" bordure of the arms of Portugal itself, v. VI verso shows the arms of Portugal and the basemost is palewise but the ones in the dexter and sinister base flanks are tilted. More tellingly perhaps are the arms where Portugal is shown in a different shape than standard shield shape. In f.VIII verso, we have the arms of Portugal as the sinister half of the princess' impaled arms, on a lozenge shape. The bordure goes all the way around the sinister half, so there is a palewise part along the palar line (where the buildings are all palewise), a bendwise part along the sinister chief of the escutcheon (where the buildings are all bendwise) and a bendwise sinister part along the sinister base of the escutcheon (where the buildings are all bendwise sinister.) At the fess point of the shield it so happens that the tower is bendwise sinister (following the line of the ones 'coming up from the bottom.') On f.IX there are the arms of Marques which are quartered, with the arms of Portugal in 1 and 4. In the rectangular quarter 1, all the towers are palewise. But in quarter 4, the towers along the curved part of the shield edge are various angles of bendwise sinister (following the bordure.)

BOTTLE

Ok, here is what I know about glass bottles and "wine bottles" during the general span of history covered by the SCA. They used a great many sizes and shapes of glass bottles in period. While some had specific uses, they also would use a variety of shapes for the same purpose. Terms for shapes differed greatly from place to place and from times to time (much as terms for clothing and textiles changed or for foods, or anything else that was present in many cultures and time periods). The "wine bottle" shape was certainly in use during period, although not always with the same proportions and sizes that we see today. It also was almost definitely not thought of as a "wine bottle" It was probably just a bottle that happened to conform to our current modern ideas of what a wine bottle lookers like. Remember that when making things by hand there is a lot of variation, rather than with today's factory mold-injected bottles. There really didn't start being a specified group of "wine bottle" shapes until the end of period - around the time when decanting into corked bottles started coming into practice. Before that time, wine was usually stored in larger containers and decanted into a huge variety of serving containers including glass carafes, amphorae, bottles, and pitchers of many shapes as wells as vessels made of other materials (usually in pictures of large wedding feasts, for example, you will see a lot of huge pottery amphorae being used to serve for example). As for the comment someone made about seeing mostly ceramic and metal containers - there was a lot of cross-pollination between disciplines. There are many cases of imitation between different materials as trends changed, both in Europe and the Islamic lands.

Now, as far as actual bottles or bottles shown in pictures, here are some specifics:

In: Liefkes, Reino. Glass. V&A Publications, 1997. Pages 86 - 87 give a brief history of the blown production wine bottle. It starts in the mid-17th century, and ends with fully molded bottles which almost entirely replaced them after 1820. Basically, the mass produced wine bottle is out of period, and before that there were a wide array of bottles and other containers which might contain wine or other liquids.

In: Stiaffini, David. Il Vetro nel Medioeveo, Techniche Strutture Manufatti. TardoAntico e MedioEvo - studi e strmenti di archeologia. Fratelli apalombi Editori, 1999. On page 76 there is copy of a print of a 17th century glass shop with a pile of glass bottles next to the gaffer's bench. (from Giovanni Maggi). The bottles range from the Onion bottle to a thinner globe closer to the modern wine bottle. On page 100 there are cross section drawings of some 6th - 7th century glass bottles, including one that looks close to a modern wine bottle.

I also looked through about 20 other various glass books and generally I found a lot of "ovoid flasks" (obviously a modern designation), flasks, and bottles which resembled the modern wine bottle though were usually quite a bit smaller. I also found many "cylindrical bottles" with two little handles on the neck and bottles with one large handle that were a similar shape and closer to the right size. I found the occasional bottle that was wider and squatter (more like a liquor bottle), but had the same general silhouette and would involve the same blowing techniques as a modern wine bottle shape. I also found a lot of mold blown bottles with simple to complex patterns that had a similar overall shape, though were much more complex in details.

Ok, now that I have dizzied you with information, here is my conclusion about medieval bottles, flasks, and wine bottles. I would not choose to blazon something as a "wine bottle". Wine bottles were not a common designation as far as I can tell from looking at the history of bottles. In fact beer bottles that look more like wine bottles may have been more popular... If someone chooses to register a "bottle" or a "flask" a modern wine bottle shape is appropriate, although other bottle shapes were certainly more common and might be more appropriate. As with other areas of our re-creation, we have to be careful not to impose our modern ideas about what is medieval. Just because a wine bottle shape screams modern to us, it would have been just another bottle / flask shape to them.

On a side note, if a stopper is shown, cork is generally not appropriate. usually a slip of paper or cloth was stuffed in the top of a bottle to keep bugs out, or cloth was tied around the top of a bottle (hence the flair around the lip of many bottles) and sometimes covered with wax.

BOX

BREAST

[(Fieldless) A woman's breast proper distilling goutes argent] This badge is returned for conflict with Edwin Bersark, Gules, a roundel so drawn as to represent a round shield battered in long and honourable service, argent, and with Erryk Blackwolf, Per bend sinister sable and gules, a plate. In each case there is a CD for fieldlessness, but there is no difference between a plate (that is, a roundel argent) and a woman's breast proper. The goutes count for naught.

BROOM

CANDLESTICK

CANNON

CANTING

As a rule, baby animals are not used in SCA heraldry: they're visually indistinguishable from adult animals, and period examples of their use are rare. Lambs appear to be an exception: not only is the Paschal lamb often found in period armory, but lambs were used for canting purposes (e.g. the arms of Lambert --- or the current submission). (Agnes Margaret de Grinstead, October, 1992, pg. 12)

CARD PIQUE

CASTLE

Saint Basil the Great, College of. Device. Per pale sable and argent, a tower broken counterchanged and on a base Or two laurel sprigs bases crossed in saltire vert. Barring evidence of period armorial towers or castles being broken in such a manner as this, this broken tower motif is not registerable. [04/2004, R-Lochac]

[Sable, a chess rook argent] This is clear of conflict with ... Sable, a tower argent. There is substantial difference between a tower and a properly drawn chess rook, so RfS X.2 applies.

In the LoAR of October 1996, it was stated that there was "nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook". This precedent is hereby overturned: a tower and a chess rook were considered different charges in period and have substantial visual difference. The period heraldic chess rook is drawn consistently in a form where the top is forked into two prominent curled points. This was a standard depiction for the period chess piece, as illustrated in Caxton's 1474 "Game and Playe of the Chesse". The period heraldic chess rook does not resemble any sort of fortification and cannot be mistaken for a tower. On examining the collated commentary for the October 1996 ruling, it appears that perhaps the commenters mistakenly believed that the particular chess rook in the possible conflict was drawn as a tower, rather than as a period chess rook. [William fitzBubba, 12/01, A-East]

While a castle is not significantly different from either a tower or a bridge, there is little history of identification between a tower and bridge, unlike that between a tower and a castle. Neither is there a strong visual similarity between a tower and a bridge as there is between a castle and a bridge. Thus we find that there is a CD between a tower and bridge. [Michael Gillean of Blackwater Keep, 08/99, A-Æthelmearc]

[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]

CAULDRON

CHAIN

CHAIR

CHARGE - Maintained and Sustained

CHARGE - Miscellaneous
The enteries in this section are arranged in alphabetical order.

CHARGE - Overall

I've therefore decided not to implement a comprehensive ban on fieldless badges with overall charges. I will be returning cases where the underlying charge is rendered unidentifiable, per Rule VIII.3; this will include the most egregious cases of overall charges (e.g. A pheon surmounted by a hawk's head). But this can be done as an interpretation of the current Rules, and needn't involve a new policy. In cases where identifiability is maintained -- where one of the charges is a long, slender object, and the area of intersection small -- overall charges will still be permitted in fieldless badges.

Cerridwen nic Alister. Device. Vert, on a pale purpure fimbriated ermine two axe-heads, blades to chief, overall a lion passant Or.

The device is overly complex. Ermine fimbriation is disallowed (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.17), as are overall charges surmounting fimbriated ordinaries (9 March 86, p.12). Reblazoning this as Vert, on a pale ermine a pallet purpure charged with two axe-heads ... overall a lion passant Or would remove those objections, but then the axe-heads would be obvious quaternary charges. No matter how blazoned, this is unacceptably complex.

Crimson River, Shire of Azure, a pall wavy gules, fimbriated, in chief a horse's head couped, overall a laurel wreath argent.

The combination of the old rules with their wording on "thin-line heraldry" and the standing Laurel precedent indicated that the pall with a complex line should not be fimbriated. To allow comment on this subject, this item was pended from the August meeting. Although little commentary has been elicited, the bulk of commentary on the rules ran to the direction of allowing latitude where identifiability was not unacceptably reduced. This resulted in the wording of the new rules which limit voiding and fimbriation to "simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design" (Armorial Identifiability, VIII.3, p. 11). PRECEDENT: For the purposes of the rule on Armorial Identifiability, any ordinary placed at the center of the shield (e.g., a pale, pall, bend, fess, etc.) may be fimbriated, even if it uses a complex line of division, provided that the identifiability of the charge and the line of division are not significantly reduced by the voiding or fimbriation or any other element of the design (e.g., the placement of superimposed charges). [emphasis added]

CHARGE - Peripheral
see also individual peripheral ordinaries: BASE, BORDURE, CHIEF, and TIERCE and FLAUNCH.

Séamus mac Dubhgaill. Device. Per saltire argent and Or, on a goute de sang a goblet argent within a bordure bendy gules and Or. This device is returned for lack of contrast due to using a bordure bendy sharing a tincture of the field. The bordure loses its identifiability when large strips of it share a tincture with the field.

The Dictionary of British Arms, vol.2, gives some examples of divided fields sharing tinctures with solid bordures: Holcott, c.1520, Lozengy argent and gules, a bordure argent, and Crofte, 1480, Lozengy sable and argent, a bordure sable. Papworth gives a few examples with chiefs, e.g. Peltot, 1452, Paly of six Or and vert, a chief of the second, and Hayersegge, 1240, Paly argent and gules, a chief of the first. The only instance of the reverse situation, a solid field sharing a tincture with a party bordure or chief, uses a compony bordure (e.g. von Commerstat, Siebmacher 162). So the return of the bendy bordure is consistent with allowing this chief and bendy field.

Evidence of a striped field and a bordure in period can be found in Dictionary of British Armorials, volume 2, page 194 et seq. Amongst the multiple "patterned field plain border" examples listed there are Barry Argent and Azure, a bodrure Azure (Houtone (Powell Roll c. 1350)); Barry Argent and Azure, a bordure Gules (Alissaunder, (William Le Nave's Book, c. 1500)), Barry wavy Gules and Argent a bordure Argent (Chok, (College of Arms Manuscript c. 1520 (copy of lost original)); Bendy Or and Azure a bordure Gules (Burgundy); Checky Or and Azure, a bordure Gules (Dreux (William Le Nave's Book) et al). Unfortunately, there is not an easy way to search the volumes for <stripy field, complex charge, peripheral sharing tincture with field>.

CHARGE - Restricted or Reserved

CHARGE GROUP
see also DIFFERENCE - Counting and DIFFERENCE - Groups

[... on a pale azure a salmon haurient embowed contourny in chief a compass star argent ...] It is not period style to have two different tertiary groups on the same underlying charge. The difference in scale between the salmon and the compass star makes the compass star appear to be in a subsidiary charge group to the salmon. There is precedent pertaining to this matter: [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 unregisterable. [The submission was returned for this reason and for conflict.] (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95 p. 15) [Uma, Shire of, 10/01, R-Drachenwald]

If two charges are artistically distinct, but heraldically identical, they should not be used in the same armory.

The reason for this is the raison d'etre of heraldry: instant identification. When the eye first sees a design such as, say, Sable, two lions and a Bengal tiger Or, it will be fooled for a moment into seeing three lions, or three tigers. There'll be a moment of confusion until the eye sorts out the almost-but-not-quite-identical charges... and that confusion is exactly what we try to avoid.

The charges, be it noted, need not be in a single group for confusion to arise. Sable, a sword between three daggers argent will suffer the same lack of ready identifiability, despite the sword being primary and the daggers being secondary. Nor need the charges necessarily be "artistic variants" of one another, although that is the most common application of the rule: any too [sic] charges that are visually indistinct may run afoul of this policy (for instance, Sable, in pale a horseshoe and a torc Or). In general, if there's a CD of difference between the charges, the "sword-dagger" ruling won't apply; less than that, and one takes one's chances.

Geneviève de Saint-Cirq-Lapopie. Device. Purpure, a sun Or eclipsed by a moon in her plenitude azure and on a chief Or three compass stars azure. It is acceptable for charges on charges to be a close variant of charges on the field. This sort of design does not run afoul of the design strictures colloquially known as the "sword and dagger" problem:

[...on a chevron between three hearts argent three hearts sable] There is no problem with having the same type of charge as both secondaries and tertiaries. Submissions are only returned if the same type of charge is used as primary and secondary charges. (LoAR September 1999.)

While it is acceptable to use the same charge as both a primary (or secondary) charge and a tertiary charge, using a similar charge is not acceptable for exactly the reasons discussed in the September 1993 Cover Letter. We hereby overturn the February 2003 precedent and restore the September 1993 precedent. Due to the armorial identification problems caused by using similar but not identical charges in two different charge groups, this practice is no longer allowed. The use of identical charges as both a primary (or secondary) charge and a tertiary charge is allowed.

[... on a pale azure a salmon haurient embowed contourny in chief a compass star argent ...] It is not period style to have two different tertiary groups on the same underlying charge. The difference in scale between the salmon and the compass star makes the compass star appear to be in a subsidiary charge group to the salmon. There is precedent pertaining to this matter: [citing the return of Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95] [Uma, Shire of, 10/01, R-Drachenwald]

CHESS PIECE

[Sable, a chess rook argent] This is clear of conflict with ... Sable, a tower argent. There is substantial difference between a tower and a properly drawn chess rook, so RfS X.2 applies.

In the LoAR of October 1996, it was stated that there was "nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook". This precedent is hereby overturned: a tower and a chess rook were considered different charges in period and have substantial visual difference. The period heraldic chess rook is drawn consistently in a form where the top is forked into two prominent curled points. This was a standard depiction for the period chess piece, as illustrated in Caxton's 1474 "Game and Playe of the Chesse". The period heraldic chess rook does not resemble any sort of fortification and cannot be mistaken for a tower. On examining the collated commentary for the October 1996 ruling, it appears that perhaps the commenters mistakenly believed that the particular chess rook in the possible conflict was drawn as a tower, rather than as a period chess rook. [William fitzBubba, 12/01, A-East]

CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED

"The chevron [inverted] should not intersect the corners of the chief" (Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR 7 July 1986, p. 6). The device needs to be redrawn with the ordinary issuing from the sides of the shield.

CHIEF

This device is returned for non-period style. With the top and bottom of the shield the same color, and carrying the same charges, heraldic convention demands that this be blazoned Argent, on a fess between four fleurs-de-lys, three and one, azure a maunch argent. However, the "fess" is drawn so wide that it blurs the distinction between what heraldic custom dictates and what the eye sees. If the submitter wishes this basic design, it should be emblazoned such that the center portion of the shield is clearly a charged fess. If the submitter wishes to keep the maunch the primary charge, we'd suggest removing either the chief or the base (assuming no conflicts, of course).

In early period, unfortunately, this would have been considered Quarterly argent and vert -- the Per fess line being drawn a bit higher then. In Anglo-Norman Armory Two, we see examples of this equivalence: e.g., the arms of Ralph Perot, c.1300, being blazoned both as Per pale azure and Or, a chief indented counterchanged (p.278) and as Quarterly per fess indented Or and azure (p.526).

Considering this, then, as a valid depiction of Quarterly argent and vert, it conflicts with the arms of Hohenzollern (important non-SCA armory), Quarterly argent and sable.

Well, the situation on a chief isn't exactly the same as the situation for charges/multiply divided tinctures on the field. After all, 8 'stripes' for barry wavy on the field would be unexceptionable. While 8 'stripes' on a chief would probably get a return for teeny thin stripes (as that'd be a lot like 24 stripes on the field.)

Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a pile is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in armory is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered too far from period practice and reason for return. [Clef of Cividale, 03/03, R-Calontir]

CLOTHING

CLOUD

Damales Redbeard. Household badge for Maison du Cheval Volant. Azure, on a cloud argent, a horseshoe inverted sable.

Conflict with Cassandra de la Mistral (SCA), Azure, a Boreas affronty argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the tertiary, and even that is minimal because it lies where the "face" of Cassandra's Boreas is. Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner, but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud.

COLLAR

COMET

Ysmay de Chaldon. Device. Vert, a compass star elongated to base Or between flaunches erminois. This conflicts with the device of Esme ffoulkes of Mercia (SCA), Vert, a comet palewise Or between flaunches ermine. There's a CD for the tincture of the flaunches, but nothing for comet vs. mullet elongated to base. She might consider another field tincture. (September 1993)

COMPASS ROSE

COMPASS STAR and SUN
see also MULLET

We can thus see that the three following very dissimilar-sounding blazons can all be drawn identically, and thus should be considered heraldically equivalent: A lozenge Or charged with a lozenge gules, A lozenge Or voided gules, and A lozenge gules fimbriated Or. This heraldic equivalence will apply for any charge "simple enough to void" by the criteria stated in the Cover Letter for the November 1992 LoAR. When checking for conflict with armory using fimbriation or voiding, all these interpretations should be considered when checking for conflict, and if one of the interpretations conflicts, the two pieces of armory conflict. This does not seem overly restrictive when one considers the rarity of armory in period featuring voided or fimbriated charges, or arms with the design of A "charge" charged with "the same type of charge. These are very uncommon designs in period. Period viewers probably had the same sorts of problems that we have when interpreting such designs. [Cecily of Whitehaven, 06/02, R-Æthelmearc]

Ysmay de Chaldon. Device. Vert, a compass star elongated to base Or between flaunches erminois. This conflicts with the device of Esme ffoulkes of Mercia (SCA), Vert, a comet palewise Or between flaunches ermine. There's a CD for the tincture of the flaunches, but nothing for comet vs. mullet elongated to base. She might consider another field tincture. (September 1993)

COMPLEXITY
see also STYLE

This device has multiple weirdnesses or rarities: a gyronny of sixteen with a central charge, a complexity count of eight, and identifiability problems with the primary charge. While none of these problems (with the possible exception of identifiability) would, by themselves, make the device returnable, the combination is fatal.

COMPONY
see also CONTRAST

The chevron does not have sufficient contrast half of it vanishes into the field, leaving the viewer with a confused visual impression. A charge checky, compony, or countercompony should not be placed on a field which is the same tincture as part of the charge.

Finally, the documentation provided, together with the supplementary materials noted in commentary, demonstrates that our precedents banning the use of a bordure compony that shares a tincture with the field, which date to 1987, do not accurately reflect period usage. We therefore explicitly overturn those precedents and permit the registration of bordures compony that share a tincture with the field. We have not, however, as yet seen evidence to suggest that this ruling should be applied to ordinaries other than the bordure.

CONTRAST
see also COMPONY

[Per bend sinister nebuly azure and sable, in bend a Norse sun cross argent and double rose argent and azure.] This has an unregisterable low-contrast complex line of division: "...Finally, we no longer allow combining azure and sable with a complex line of division." (Sep 1997, Returns, Trimaris, Tymm Colbert le Gard) This is one of the combinations that has been held to violate RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability, even without a charge overlying it." [Katerin ferch Gwenllian, LoAR 06/2004, Middle-R]

COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK

COTISES

[... on a pale azure a salmon haurient embowed contourny in chief a compass star argent ...] It is not period style to have two different tertiary groups on the same underlying charge. The difference in scale between the salmon and the compass star makes the compass star appear to be in a subsidiary charge group to the salmon. There is precedent pertaining to this matter: [citing the return of Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95] [Uma, Shire of, 10/01, R-Drachenwald]

COUNTERCHANGING

[Gyronny vert and Or, a saltire counterchanged] The combination of the gyronny field and the saltire is very visually confusing. Each arm of the saltire is counterchanged along its long axis, which generally hampers identifiability. Because each piece of the counterchanged saltire is similar in size to the pieces of the gyronny field which show between the arms of the saltire, it is difficult to distinguish which parts of the emblazon belong to the charge, and which belong to the field. This design also does not appear to be period style. Absent documentation for the design of a cross or saltire, as an ordinary, counterchanged on a gyronny field in period, this must be returned. [Wilhelm von Düsseldorf, 01/02, R-West]

[Per pale argent estencely azure and azure estencely argent, a fleur-de-lys estencely counterchanged] This is being returned for non-period style. "Counterchanging a semy over an ordinary appears to be modern and not Period style." [Giovanna di Piacensa, R-Trimaris, February 1992 LoAR] Counterchanging a semy across a charge more complex than an ordinary appears to be even further from period style.

[Paly sable and argent, a unicorn rampant counterchanged] This is excessively counterchanged and non-period style. The unicorn is not identifiable when counterchanged over this multiply divided field. No documentation has been presented, nor could any be found, for the counterchanging of a complex-outlined charge over a multiply divided field. [Cynwrig Chwith, 02/02, R-Atlantia]

[Bendy sinister vert and Or, a hawk striking contourny argent a bordure counterchanged] The commentary from the College of Arms overwhelmingly indicated that the combination of bendy sinister and bordure is excessive counterchanging. In general, we would like to see documentation for any charge counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such as barry or gyronny. [Tvorimir Danilov, 08/01, R-An Tir]

COUPED and THROUGHOUT

CRAMPET

I've recently acquired a wonderful book, Banners, Standards and Badges from a Tudor Manuscript In the College of Arms, 1904, the only source outside the College for MS.I.2, a book of standards c.1520. The renderings I've been able to check have been faithful reproductions. The standard for "the Lord Laware" shows his alphyn badge on a field powdered with crampets... drawn pretty much as they are here. (The interiors of the crampets were less heartlike.) It looks like this might have been the original version of the charge.

CRESCENT

To quote Baldwin in his April 1986 LoAR: "Spring is in the air, and the fit is upon me - let me name but one Cross before I die!" While it is indeed quite tempting to call the four crescents conjoined in saltire a "Cross of Caid", we feel that named SCA motifs make reconstruction of blazons more difficult for heralds and scribes.

We feel that the cross of Caid is not an obscure charge, not as obscure as many period charges that the College routinely registers. The charge is 25+ years old. Naming a cross for the person or territory that bears it was a common period practice, the cross became known by its association.

The charge is known almost exclusively within the kingdom as a cross of Caid, or a Caidan cross. Further, this usage has spread throughout the Known World, due to the emigration of Caidans. With this in mind & given the widespread computer usage within the SCA, a herald or scribe could easily determine what a cross of Caid is.

Therefore, we request that Wreath and the Laurel office grant our appeal, and reblazon our augmentations as a cross of Caid argent.

CROSS
See CROSS - Difference Between for rulings on the amount of difference between types of crosses.

To quote Baldwin in his April 1986 LoAR: "Spring is in the air, and the fit is upon me - let me name but one Cross before I die!" While it is indeed quite tempting to call the four crescents conjoined in saltire a "Cross of Caid", we feel that named SCA motifs make reconstruction of blazons more difficult for heralds and scribes.

We feel that the cross of Caid is not an obscure charge, not as obscure as many period charges that the College routinely registers. The charge is 25+ years old. Naming a cross for the person or territory that bears it was a common period practice, the cross became known by its association.

The charge is known almost exclusively within the kingdom as a cross of Caid, or a Caidan cross. Further, this usage has spread throughout the Known World, due to the emigration of Caidans. With this in mind & given the widespread computer usage within the SCA, a herald or scribe could easily determine what a cross of Caid is.

Therefore, we request that Wreath and the Laurel office grant our appeal, and reblazon our augmentations as a cross of Caid argent.

While it is acceptable to use the same charge as both a primary (or secondary) charge and a tertiary charge, using a similar charge is not acceptable for exactly the reasons discussed in the September 1993 Cover Letter. We hereby overturn the February 2003 precedent and restore the September 1993 precedent. Due to the armorial identification problems caused by using similar but not identical charges in two different charge groups, this practice is no longer allowed. The use of identical charges as both a primary (or secondary) charge and a tertiary charge is allowed.

The Norse sun cross is also the symbol for Earth, and by precedent symbols cannot be registered as the sole charge. This ruling was applied to Norse sun crosses in April 1994 (pg. 15, s.n. Barony of Bonwicke). [Briget MacLeod, 09/2000, R-West]

Norse sun crosses are allowed, if not encouraged, because by their alternate blazon, a cross within and conjoined to an annulet, they fit a pattern of combined charges that we have registered for many years, and are at most one step from period practice.

CROSS - Difference Between
This category contains rulings on the difference - or lack thereof - between types of crosses.

I feel there should be a CD between a rogacina singly crossed and one that is doubly crossed.

When one looks at the period usage of the rogacina, the situation is not clear. Szyma{n'}ski has two situations which bear on the question of whether an additional crossbar is worth a CD. On the one hand, Szyma{n'}ski (s.n. Ko{s'}cieszka, pp.136-136, 149) gives the arms of Ko{n'}cieszka as: Gules, a rogacina crossed and fourchy argent. He notes an apparent variant form (tinctures unknown) where the rogacina is doubly crossed. Taken alone, this would argue in favor of your opinion that we should not count a CD for adding a cross bar.

On the other hand, Szyma{n'}ski (s.n. Lis, pp.161-162, 166) gives the arms of Lis as Gules, a rogacina doubly crossed argent, and identifies a variant form of Azure, a rogacina doubly crossed argent. We would consider these variants to be a CD apart by SCA standards for changing the field tincture. When the Ko{s'}cieszka example is seen in the light of this one, we must now consider that there may indeed be a CD for the additional cross bar. There is also a separate listing for Lis (ibid.) with the arms: Gules, a rogacina triply crossed argent. I say "separate" in that this is given a separate header and appears to be the arms of a different Polish ród (clan) having the same name. Here, adding the cross bar apparently was used to provide difference, though I cannot tell this for certain since Szyma{n'}ski does not seem to address this issue directly in his text.

Interpretation of CDs in Polish heraldry is made cloudy by the fact that Polish use of heraldry was rather different from that in England and France. Arms did not belong to individuals, and were not inherited. As a result, cadency did not exist. Instead, a single design was used by all members of a Polish ród (clan), a group held together more through political alliance than by blood. When ten percent of your population belongs to the nobility, this version of heraldic practice has obvious advantages.

Taken on the whole, I would argue for granting a CD between a rogacina singly crossed and a rogacina doubly crossed, both on visual grounds and historical Polish practice.

CROWN

CUP and CHALICE

DEFAULTS
see also PROPER

[on a chief gules three recorders palewise argent] Long thin charges such as arrows, swords and recorders default to the fesswise posture when placed on a chief or a fess. Thus, even though all these charges are palewise by default when on the field, it is also necessary to blazon them as palewise when they are on a chief.

It is an incorrect oversimplification to state that "charges on an (ordinary) are oriented (ordinary)-wise by default". A crescent or fleur-de-lys charged on a fess is in its default palewise posture, not fesswise. If a saltire were charged with a cross crosslet, the cross crosslet would be in its default palewise (or crosswise) posture, not saltirewise.

A more complicated rule of thumb, but one which recreates period practice with greater accuracy, would be:

(1) Charges on a bend are bendwise by default, and charges on a bend sinister are bendwise sinister by default.
(2) Charges on any other ordinary have the same default for such a charge on the field (which is generally palewise.) This statement has the following exceptions.
(2a) "Long thin" charges such as arrows tilt to follow the ordinary on which they lie.
(2b) When charging an ordinary such as a chevron, saltire, or pall, which has some diagonal arms, the charges may all be drawn using the same default for the charge on the field. They may also be drawn with the centermost charge in the default posture but the outermost charges tilted to follow the arms of the charge. (There is a fair amount of evidence indicating that the difference between these two forms of emblazon may be purely artistic in period. However, the SCA has so far always blazoned this distinction and given corresponding difference for changing the posture of the charges.)

Once again we are reminded that while blazon is a type of technical language, the people who developed it in the Middle Ages weren't computer programmers, and the people listening to it weren't computers, so blazon also partakes of natural language. [Gunnarr skáld Þorvaldsson, 06/02, A-Ealdormere]

• Bobbins. There were several types of bobbin in period; none have been ruled the Society default. We hereby rule that there is no default form of bobbin in society armory. If lace bobbins are intended, they must be specified.
• Brushes. In medieval heraldry, the default brush was a large handheld bundle of straws, as in the canting arms of von Börstel, 1605 (Siebmacher, plate 174). We accept this as the default brush in society heraldry, as well. The most common type of brush in Society armory, the artist's (paint)brush, wasn't known in period armory, and is not the Society default; if this type is intended, it must be blazoned as such.
• Human figures. Unless a specific type of human is stated, whose definition includes the style, or lack, of clothing (e.g., monk, savage, etc.), the type of clothing on a human figure is usually left to the artist. However, some clothing is assumed. Nude human figures must have the fact expressly blazoned.
• Lizards. Lizards, or natural salamanders, are statant by default, as are heraldic (enflamed) salamanders. This is true in period heraldry as well, as in the canting arms of Lagartos, c.1540 (Livro da Nobreza, fo. xxxviii). Lizards tergiant must be blazoned as such.
• Pipes. There are several types of pipe found in SCA heraldry: bagpipes, panpipes, smoking pipes (or clay pipes), and organ pipes. Given this profusion, no one type of pipe will be considered default. The unmodified term pipe should not be used: the type of pipe must be specified in the blazon.
• Pomegranates. The unmodified term pomegranate refers to the fruit alone. If a pomegranate is slipped and leaved - which we admit is more often found than the unslipped fruit - the fact must be blazoned.

DICE

DIFFERENCE - Counting

Dyan du Lac des Calandres. Badge. Gules, in fess a tassel Or between a decrescent and an increscent argent.

Conflict with a badge of Conrad von Regensburg, Gules semy of decrescents argent. In Conrad's arms, there is a single group of primary charges consisting of (six or more) evenly strewn argent decrescents. In Dyan's arms, there is a single group of primary charges consisting of one argent decrescent, an Or tassel, and an argent increscent. The LoAR of December 2003 gave a lengthy analysis of the way to count difference in a similar situation, where the charge group changed from a registered group of charges on the field consisting of six lions Or, to an in-submission charge group consisting of a lion and a tower Or. That analysis summarized the change as follows:

It should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the change from "considered" to "registered"...

In [this] case, the submitter is changing one of the lions into a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e.

After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply the change to the number by removing all but one of the lions and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions, leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly [sic] different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.

In this case, we have changed the charge group on the field from [semy of] decrescents argent to a decrescent argent, an increscent argent, and a tassel Or. The strewn ("semy") charges are considered to be equivalent to any charge group with six or more charges for purposes of the rule for difference in the number of charges on the field (RfS X.4.f).

Thus, when changing Conrad's badge to Dyan's, we are changing one of the (six or more) argent decrescents into an argent increscent, and one of the (six or more) argent decrescents into an Or tassel, and leaving (four or more) of the argent decrescents as argent decrescents. The change in type of two of six (or more) charges (the single tassel and the single increscent) is a change to less than half of the charges in the group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e. The change in tincture to one in six (or more) charges (the tassel) is also a change to less than half the charges in the group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.d.

After the changes to type and tincture (six or more decrescents argent into four or more decrescents argent, one increscent argent, and one tassel Or), we then remove (three or more) of the decrescents, leaving a total of three charges, which is a change from six (or more) charges to three charges. RfS X.4.f notes that three and six are significantly different, and therefore entitled to a CD.

As a result, there is only one CD between these two pieces of armory, and they are therefore in conflict.

I find no evidence of period armory that was cadenced by changing the type of only one of several identical charges and then removing all but the changed one and one other. Without solid period evidence that this sort of pattern would suggest one cadency step, this ruling seems unnecessarily narrow in its interpretation, and I therefore respectfully request that it be revisited with an eye to period cadency.

• It assumes that counting difference is a process requiring a series of intermediate steps to move from point A, the registered armory, to step B, the submitted armory, ignoring the visual aspect of the actual armory.
• It depends on the rules being applied in a specific sequence. In this case, that was type of charges before number of charges: changing one of six charges, worth no CD, and then changing from six to two charges, worth one CD. However, equally valid would be the reverse sequence: changing from six to two charges, worth one CD, and then changing type of one half of the charges, worth a second CD.
• It depends on a non-intutive interpretation of the number of charges changed; Laurel interpreted the change of type as only one of six charges and worth no CD. However, this could equally have been interpreted as three of six charges and worth one CD. This second interpretation is the more likely interpretation.
• It is not easy to explain to heralds and is especially not easy to explain to submitters.

• Against this, Azure, a lion and a unicorn combatant argent has a single CD for adding the argent lion.
• Also against this, Azure, a lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant has a single CD for adding the Or lion. You cannot get a CD for adding an argent lion and a second CD for changing its tincture to Or as adding an Or lion is the simplest (i.e., fewest steps) counting of the differences.

The SCA has always had difficulty dealing with the situation when both the number and the type of a single charge group change. For a classic example, consider the hypothetical arms Azure, a lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant versus Azure, a unicorn argent. In both cases, you have a blue field with a white rampant unicorn. In the first, the unicorn is also accompanied by a gold lion rampant to sinister. The traditional SCA view is to give only one CD for removing the lion so that the two arms are in conflict. However, occasionally, someone tries to argue from a different perspective, namely, that we should give one CD for changing the number of the group (from two to one charge), another CD for changing the type of the group (from half unicorn, half lion to all unicorn), a third CD for changing the tincture of the group (from half Or, half argent, to all argent), and a fourth for changing the posture of the group (from half facing dexter and half facing sinister, to all facing dexter). This, of course, would make the arms well clear of conflict. This interpretation has been disallowed fairly consistently in precedent, although the issue continues to be raised occasionally.

1. Use the minimum number of steps or changes between the armory to determine the number of CDs
2. Compare the registered and submitted armory without assuming any hypothetical intermediate armory.

... the three following very dissimilar-sounding blazons can all be drawn identically, and thus should be considered heraldically equivalent: A lozenge Or charged with a lozenge gules, A lozenge Or voided gules, and A lozenge gules fimbriated Or. This heraldic equivalence will apply for any charge "simple enough to void" by the criteria stated in the Cover Letter for the November 1992 LoAR. When checking for conflict with armory using fimbriation or voiding, all these interpretations should be considered when checking for conflict, and if one of the interpretations conflicts, the two pieces of armory conflict. This does not seem overly restrictive when one considers the rarity of armory in period featuring voided or fimbriated charges, or arms with the design of A "charge" charged with "the same type of charge". These are very uncommon designs in period. Period viewers probably had the same sorts of problems that we have when interpreting such designs.

Note that charges which are voided by definition are generally given one CD from their solid equivalents: mascles are given a CD from lozenges, and annulets are given a CD from roundels. If one interpreted these charges as voided, fimbriated, or charged charges, the guidelines above would also give exactly one CD between them. Comparing Azure, a lozenge Or vs. Azure, a lozenge Or charged with a lozenge azure: one CD, for adding a tertiary charge. Azure, a lozenge Or vs. Azure, a lozenge Or voided azure: equivalent to the previous case of adding a tertiary charge. Azure, a lozenge Or vs. Azure, a lozenge azure fimbriated Or: one CD for changing the tincture of the lozenge from Or to azure, and no additional difference for removing the fimbriation. [Cecily of Whitehaven, 06/02, R-Æthelmearc]

From Wreath: Alternate Blazons and Conflicts
This month we registered ...on a pale argent fimbriated vert, a peacock feather proper despite a possible conflict with ...on a pale vert three fangs palewise Or. The argument was made that both pieces of armory could be considered as ...a pale vert charged with <stuff>. However, in order for the new submission to fit this interpretation, it would be blazoned as ...on a pale vert a pale argent charged with a peacock feather proper. That would be four layers, which is unregisterable. Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict.

However, there are other circumstances do exist where there is a conflict with already registered armory due to reblazoning the registered armory. Last month, for example, we returned ...on a compass star argent a Maltese cross azure...for conflict with ...within a sun throughout argent, eclipsed azure, a goshawk displayed argent, giving no CD between the two excerpted parts. In this case the already registered armory would today be blazoned as ...on a sun throughout argent, a roundel azure charged with a goshawk displayed argent, emphasizing that the goshawk can be considered a quaternary charge and thus ignored completely when checking for conflict.

The main difference between these two cases is that in the "no conflict" example it was the new armory to which the problematic reblazon applied, while in the "yes conflict" example it was the old armory that had the unregisterable reblazon.

[Per fess dovetailed azure and argent, three mullets argent and a wolf's head erased sable] The device does not conflict with a ... Per fess embattled azure and argent, two mullets of four points and a comet fesswise, head to sinister, counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the number of the charges in the group. There is a second CD for changing the type and tincture of the primary charge(s) on one side of the line of division, even though that portion of the primary group is only one quarter of the group, per the following precedent from the November 1995 LoAR:

There is ... a CD for the change to the field and another for changing the type and tincture of the primary charge group on one side of the line of division, even though numerically this is not "one half" of the primary charge group. For a fuller discussion of this precedent granting a CD for two changes to charges on one side of a line of division even when less than half the charge group is affected, see the December 21, 1991 Cover Letter (with the November 1991 LoAR).

This situation arises very rarely aside from the well-known situation concerning the bottommost of a group of three charges two and one, which has its own different set of controlling precedents. The cited precedent appears to have remained in force; the registration history shows that this precedent has neither been overruled nor passively ignored. [Cassandra of Standing Stones, 01/03, A-Calontir]

DIFFERENCE - Groups
see also CHARGE GROUP and DIFFERENCE - Counting

DOCUMENTATION
See individual charges for instances when Wreath required additional documentation for defining instances of charges or accepted such documentation.

The phrase on the book makes no sense if it is meant to be Latin. "It is true." would be Verum est. And, if you wanted to use ipso vero you would use that phrase by itself as a tag. What you appear to have is the second person singular of the verb to be ("you are") with an nominative masculine adjective ("true") and an unrelated ablative reflexive used adverbially with an intent that is unclear.

DOCUMENTED EXCEPTION

http://www.arcanum.hu/mol/lpext.dll/mol_cimer/1/

• Plate XIV (12), Paczali Peres, 1431: On a blue field growing from a red-lined gold crown a white-beaked black eagle- (falcon?-)head, with two naturalistic [i.e. proper] stag's antlers at [coming up from] the sides of the crown.
• Plate XLVI (32), Kanizsai, 1519: On a blue field, on a floating gold eagle's claw a black eagle's wing, accompanied [in base] on the right by a silver halfmoon and on the left by an eight-armed gold star.
• Plate L (36), Kállay Vitéz, 1521: On a blue field, on a green riverbank a right-facing naturalistic bear, with a gold chain around his neck, holding a gold ball in his mouth, accompanied [in chief] on the right by a silver halfmoon and on the left by a gold eight-armed star.
• Plate LII (38), Szerdahelyi Imreffy, 1523: On a blue field a [gold with red, blue, and green jewels] crown on whose outer points stand two gold-crowned and -armed black eagles with wings up facing each other, holding aloft with their inside legs a [white] bone; in the center of the crown a [naturalistic, green] lily-stem with three gold flowers, accompanied on the right by a gold [many-armed] star and on the left by a silver halfmoon.
• Plate LXIX (47), Hohenperger, 1589: (1st and 4th quarters): On a blue field a black chamois (mountain goat) facing inward standing on green ground, accompanied in the 1st quarter on the left, and in the 4th on the right [i.e., in outside chief] by a gold moon and star.
• 29 (83). Sándy, 1437. Azure, in fess a wing sable and a mullet above an orb Or.
• 32 (86). Hunyadi, 1453. (1st and 4th) Azure, a raven displayed contourny sable maintaining in its beak a ring Or.
• 58 (A0). Brauen, 1515. (2nd) Azure, a wing sable clawed Or between in base a decrescent and two mullets Or. (3rd, same thing mirrored.)
• 62 (A4). Kormossy, 1521. Azure, a bird, wings elevated sable, maintaining in its beak an oak wreath vert, standing atop a bare rock mount proper.
• 63 (A5). Hartha, 1521. Azure, a bird displayed sable maintaining in its beak a quill, atop a leafy treetrunk argent growing from a base vert, in chief two mullets argent.
• 64 (A6). Básthi, 1522. Azure, a bird's head sable collared argent, crowned, issuant from a crown Or.
• 75 (B1). Máramarosi Szigethy, 1545. Azure, a demi-griffin? per fess sable and gules issuant from a base Or, maintaining a Turk's head proper.
• 85 (BC). Budaházi Vitéz, 1552. Azure, a bear statant erect (standing on two legs) sable, crowned, maintaining a lily, in chief a decrescent argent and a mullet Or.
• 108 (D4). Barla, 1563. Azure, a demi-bear sable pierced by a sword argent, issuant from a mount vert.
• 135 (EF). Dannyani Thúry, 1578. Azure, a raven sable pierced by an arrow argent perched on a tree proper issuant from a crown Or.
• 168 (110). Békeffy, 1590. Azure, a raven sable maintaining in its beak a ring perched upon a trimount Or.
• 185 (121). Eördögh, 1595. Azure, an arm issuant from base wielding a sword (bend sinisterwise) argent, conjoined at the wrist to a sinister wing sable, in dexter chief a crescent and in sinister base a mullet Or.

• Plate XIX (17), Sánkfalvi, 1455: On a blue field sitting atop a green trimount a left-facing naturalistic monkey holding a triple-twisted snake in his front paws.
• Plate LXVIII (46), Kampmacher, 1588: (1st and 4th) On a blue field standing on a green trimount a left-facing, spread-winged naturalistic crane holding a sword perpendicularly with its right foot.
• 68 (AA). Lokachi Chavrack, 1524. Azure, a demi-horse being cut by a sword argent issuant from a trimount vert, in chief a mullet and an increscent Or.
• 113 (D9). Ghyczy, 1564. (Left half of a per pale.) Azure an arm vested gules issuant from a crown Or atop a trimount vert, holding aloft a sword impaling a Turk's head argent.
• 165 (10D). Kezy, 1588. Azure, a lion statant erect Or atop a trimount vert, piercing himself through the mouth with a sword argent.
• 169 (111). Magyari Ferenczy, 1590. Azure, an armored elbow issuant from clouds holding a sword, behind it three green-stemmed white flowers, in base a trimount vert.
• 173 (115). Iwchych, 1592. Azure, a griffin statant erect Or maintaining a Turk's head impaled on a sword argent, stadning on a trimount vert.
• 175 (117). Jánosdeák, 1592. Per pale Or and azure, two lions combattant counterchanged, in base a trimount vert.
• 177 (119). Medwiai Suskowyth, 1592. (1st and 4th.) Azure, a lion statant erect Or maintaining a lance palewise, standing atop a trimount vert.
• 188 (124). Huszár alias Czigány, 1596. (Bottom of a per fess.) Azure, three roses one and two gules, slipped and leaved argent, issuant from the center mount of a trimount vert.
• 198 (12E). Szoldán, 1598. Azure, a lion statant erect Or maintaining a roundel azure (yes, azure on azure!) standing atop a trimount vert.

EMBLAZON
see also EMBLAZON - Coloring Problems

EMBLAZON - Coloring Problems

ERMINE SPOT
see also FUR

ESCARBUNCLE

[(Fieldless) A wagon wheel gyronny azure and argent] Gyronny is not a suitable division for a wagon wheel, as the spokes will generally be divided along their long axis into the two tinctures. This is not acceptable due to the resulting identifiability problems.

ESCUTCHEON

ESTOILE

EWER

EYE

FEATHER

Antoine de Breton. Device reblazon. Quarterly gules and purpure, a feather bendwise Or.

The previous blazon, Quarterly gules and purpure, a peacock feather bendwise Or, did not accurately describe the type of feather. Precedent makes it clear that we distinguish between peacock feathers and regular feathers, to the point of having given difference between them, "[A default azure feather vs. a proper peacock plume] "There is one CVD...for the change in type of feather. The peacock plume...is quite distinct in shape, with a prominent 'eye'" (LoAR December 1990 p. 11). The feather in this submission is a normally shaped feather. [12/2003, A-Atenveldt]

FER-A-LOUP

FESS and BAR

FIELD DIVISION - Barry

FIELD DIVISION - Bendy and Bendy Sinister

[Purpure, three palets Or, overall two flaunches] We were tempted to blazon this as Paly purpure and Or, two flaunches That's the visual effect of the traits' regular widths and the overall charges. There are instances of period arms blazoned and emblazoned, interchangeably, as paly and three palets: cf. the armory of Valoines found in Foster, p.196. Certainly, we grant no heraldic difference between the two renditions. The above blazon does more accurately describe the submitted emblazon, however. (Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria, December, 1992, pg. 8)

FIELD DIVISION - Chapé and Chaussé
see also PILE and PILE INVERTED

FIELD DIVISION - Checky

FIELD DIVISION - Chevronelly

FIELD DIVISION - Gyronny