Armory Precedents of the SCA College of Arms

The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth


This is a collection of armory precedents from the tenure of Dame Elsbeth Anne Roth as Laurel Queen of Arms from June 1999 through July 2001. The choice of what was included was the editor's. I have chosen to include some items not generally considered "precedents" as they simply reapply existing precedents. This has been done to (hopefully) make it easier to find a relevant ruling to support things that "everyone knows" – such as the fact that there is not a CD between passant and statant. The official – and complete – rulings appear in the relevant LoARs and Cover Letters.

I have tried to follow the categories established in previous precedents. In general, if there are two or more precedents dealing with the same heraldic charge (or field division), these are placed in their own category. All of the items in the miscellaneous categories (e.g., CHARGE – Miscellaneous) are listed in the index. If you don't find an expected category in the Table of Contents, check the index.

The category CHARGE – Miscellaneous is arranged alphabetically by charge. The category Visual Comparison has rulings related to a specific piece of armory and the entries are alphabetical based on the owner of the armory. Other categories are arranged in reverse chronological order.

The texts listed are taken directly from Letters of Acceptance and Return (LoAR), or from the accompanying cover letters (CL). Ellipses (...) are used to indicate deleted text. The source of the text is cited at the end in square parentheses, by submitter’s name, date of the LoAR, and the location within the LoAR. Since so many people are using the electronic versions of the LoAR page numbers are not included. Instead the location is indicated as either acceptances (A) or returns (R) and the kingdom. Those texts excepted from a cover letter are cited by the date of the cover letter and "CL". Editorial comments are in italics within square brackets.

The following heralds are referred to by title: Argent Snail (Jaelle of Armida), Clarion (Zenobia Naphtali), Batonvert (Zenobia Naphtali), and Brachet (Frederick of Holland).

I wish to thank Jaelle of Armida for her help in proof-reading these pages.

In service,
Jeanne Marie Lacroix
Crescent Principal Herald
mka Martha L. Ranc

Table of Contents (Armory)

ADMINISTRATIVE
ANNULET
ARCHITECTURE
ARRANGEMENT
ARROW
AUGMENTATIONS
BEAST -- Antelope and Yale
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
BEAST -- Ferret
BEAST -- Horse and Zebra
BEAST -- Miscellaneous
BEAST -- Reremouse
BEND and BEND SINISTER
BIRD -- Chicken
BIRD -- Eagle
BIRD -- Falcon
BIRD -- Hawk
BIRD -- Miscellaneous
BIRD -- Owl
BIRD -- Precedent on Difference
BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Swan
BORDURE
CARD PIQUE
CASTLE and TOWER
CHALICE and CUP
CHARGE -- Miscellaneous see the index for a list of charges included in this category
CHARGE -- Overall
CHARGE -- Peripheral
CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved
CHARGE GROUP
CHESS PIECE
CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED
CHIEF
COMPASS ROSE
COMPASS STAR and SUN
COMPLEXITY
CONTRAST
CORONET
COTISES
COUNTERCHANGING
CRESCENT
CROSS
DOCUMENTATION
DOLPHIN and WHALE
ESCARBUNCLE
ESTOILE
FESS
FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
FIELD DIVISION -- Chaussé
FIELD DIVISION -- Checky
FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny
FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pale
FIELD PRIMARY
FIELD TREATMENT -- Honeycomb
FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned
FIELD TREATMENT -- Semy see SEMY
FIELDLESS
FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES
FISH
FLAMES and FIRE
FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Thistle
FOIL
FOOTPRINT
FRET and FRETTY
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
GUILLOTINE
HAMMER
HEAD
HEART and SEEBLATT
IDENTIFIABILITY
INSECT
KNOTS
LAMP and LANTERN
LEAF
LINES of DIVISION -- Bevilled
LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled
LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Potenty
LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
MACE
MON
MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
MONSTER -- Griffin
MONSTER -- Mantyger
MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
MONSTER -- Phoenix
MONSTER -- Pithon
MONSTER -- Sea
MULLET
MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
ORIENTATION
ORLE
PALL
PAWPRINT
PILE and PILE INVERTED
PLANT
POSITION
POSTURE
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
PROPER
RECONSTRUCTIBILITY
REPTILE -- Miscellaneous
REPTILE -- Serpent
ROUNDEL
SALTIRE
SCHNECKE
SEEBLATT see HEART and SEEBLATT
SEMY
SHIP
STAFF
STYLE
SUN see COMPASS STAR and SUN
SUNBURST
SWORD
SYMBOL
TIERCE see CHARGE -- Peripheral
TINCTURE
TREE
VISUAL COMPARISON
WEIRDNESS
WINGED OBJECTS
WREATH
X.2 Rule Change
ZULE
INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE

This was submitted on a badge form as mon. We no longer distinguish mon from devices and generally require that they also be submitted on device forms. We could have registered this as a badge but decided to be generous and allow the submitter what he requested as the difference is purely administrative. [Eric of Eisental, 08/99, A-East]
[Rules Change -- change of examples in the rule] XI.1. Reserved Charges - Armory that contains elements reserved to or required of certain ranks, positions, or territorial entities, inside or outside the Society, is considered presumptuous. Symbols reserved or required solely inside the Society may only be registered to those entitled to the status associated with those symbols.

Examples of such elements include the field Azure, semy-de-lys Or, which is restricted to French royalty; a laurel wreath, required for official Society branches; the knight's annulet of chain, etc. Lists of these charges can be found in the glossary. Some elements, like the French royal field, are always restricted. Others are limited to specific segments of the Society. For example, individuals may not place laurel wreaths on their armory, while only those who are royal peers may use the insignia of those ranks. [10/99, CL]
The Administrative Handbook does limit joint registration to a "couple" but does not define the term (and the term is used very loosely, i.e., the rules do not specifically say that badges and household names can be registered by more than one individual, they just indicate how the name or badge should be referenced when registered by a couple). A couple does not require that the two people be of different sex, and as we do not inquire as to the exact relationship in general we do not do so here. We do, however, intend to alter the Administrative Handbook to be clearer on the issue and to allow registration of joint badge by any two (but no more than two) individuals. [Yin Mei Li and Marie Lorraine de Montclair, 01/00, R-Artemisia]
While we will allow more than one badge to be associated with a single order or household, we do not allow a single badge to be associated with more than one item. [Middle Kingdom, 02/00, R-Middle]
[Gules, a bear passant sable between three mullets of six points Or] The submitter asked that this be registered under RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions. She included numerous examples of sable charges on gules from different areas of Europe. While there was enough evidence given to support Gules, a bear passant sable (which conflicts with Berlin, Argent, a bear passant sable), the only examples the submitter presented of a low contrast charge between high contrast secondaries the central charge was an ordinary. As ordinaries have a different level of complexity from an animate charge, we cannot consider their examples as sufficient. None of the examples present showed the case Gules, <an animate charge> sable between <charges> Or (or argent). The Documented Exceptions rule is by nature very conservative; one needs multiple examples of very similar patterns to allow extrapolations. Therefore, we must return the device. [Ursula Georges, 03/00, R-An Tir] [Ed.: Berlin's bear is actually rampant - "Gules, a bear passant sable" was registered to her 02/01, A-An Tir.]
There is another issue to consider with this badge: whether it is sufficiently different from his real world crest, A demi-lion rampant Argent gorged of a coronet of four fleurs-de-lis (one and two halves visible) Azure holding between his paws an escutcheon Gules. The Administrative Handbook (III.A.9) states No name or device will be registered to a submitter if it is identical to a name or device used by the submitter for purposes of identification outside of a Society context. This includes legal names, common use names, armory, trademarks and other items registered with mundane authorities that serve to identify an individual or group...Any change that causes a blazonable difference between mundane and Society arms is sufficient to allow registration by Laurel. A crest falls into the other items category so this badge must have a blazonable difference to be registered. David of Moffat argued that it differed in two ways: that the coronet on his badge is a default coronet of three points and thus different from the coronet of fleurs-de-lys, and that his badge had a demi-lion erased, while the reasonable assumption for a crest is that the demi-lion is couped. While it has been true that the default coronet is a simple coronet of three points, we have for a while now been allowing the blazon coronet to be used with any period depiction of a coronet that is not otherwise reserved, e.g. a coronet could not be drawn as an embattled coronet unless the owner of the armory was a Count or Countess. Thus the difference between a coronet and a coronet of four fleurs-de-lys is not sufficient to make two pieces are armory non-identical. There is, however, a blazonable difference between a coronet of three points and a coronet of four fleurs-de-lys so we have increased the difference between the badge and crest by explicitly blazoning the type of crown.

As for the erasing of the demi-lion, the evidence provided was convincing that a demi-beast issuant from the torse would not normally be drawn as erased, thus the erasing of the lion is also a blazonable difference. Therefore, if there were no conflict, this badge would be (barely) sufficiently different from David of Moffat's real-world crest to allow registration. [David of Moffat, 04/00, R-An Tir]
... it is possible to avoid a style problem by reblazoning, that only holds if the alternate blazon is equally valid. The relative sizes of the three portions of the field, the rarity of period examples combining chiefs and plain bases, and the space between the lozenges and the the [sic] sides of the shield make the alternate blazon highly unlikely and thus not a valid blazon. [Sabine du Bourbonnais, 05/00, R-Lochac]
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] [Ed.: Returned for this reason alone]
[Badge for the Wyvernwood Pursuivant] ... current Administrative policy forbids the registration of badges to local offices when a kingdom or corporate office already has a badge. Therefore we cannot register a badge to a local pursuivant. [Wyvernwoode, Barony of, 10/00, R-Trimaris] [Ed.: Also returned for conflict]
[protection of provincial arms] The Administrative Handbook specifies that the arms of a nation are by definition sufficiently significant to protect. In addition, Laurel has registered provincial arms, with the following statement:
Therefore we are registering as important non-SCA heraldry provincial arms. At this time the arms being registered are those of the provinces of Canada. If similar coats from other nations are brought to our attention on a letter of intent we will likely register those as well. This ruling applies only to coats of arms of analogous regions: not to designs which happen to have an armorial appearance, and not to the arms of smaller regions than provinces. (Cover Letter, 1/98)
Until this time, this standard had been used only to protect the arms of the states of the United States of America and the provinces of Canada. These entities were considered important enough to protect for two reasons, one explicit and one implicit. The explicit reason was that they were arms, as opposed to flags, belonging to quasi-sovereign entities with powers often reserved to nations; the implicit reason was that these entities are highly familiar to most members of the Society. We are, therefore, making the second condition explicit and requiring that sub-national entities and their arms be important or familiar to most members of the Society for their arms to be protected. [12/00, CL] [Ed: For complete discussion see the Cover Letter]
[Gyronny arrondy Or and gules, in canton a laurel wreath sable] Conflict with the Order of the Laurel, (Tinctureless) A laurel wreath. As the order's badge is tinctureless and fieldless, there is not a CD for position, nor is there any CD's for tincture.

There was some discussion as to whether these could be called clear via RfS X.3 Required Charges Transparent. That rule, however, only allows armory with required charges to be considered "simple armory" for the purposes of X.2. As both pieces of armory are already simple, this rule does not apply. A reasonable extension of this rule would be to allow armory consisting of only required charges to be considered field primary, which was presumably the intent of the commenters. That extension, however, would be a rules change and thus needs to be considered as such. In any case, RfS X.3 only applies when both pieces of armory have required charges, and the laurel wreath is not a required charge for the Order of the Laurel. [Vargavik, Shire of, 04/01, R-Lochac]

ANNULET

There is one CD for the field but nothing for involved serpent vs. annulet. [Alexander le Browere, 07/99, R-Atenveldt]
[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] [returned for a different conflict]
[a serpent involved in annulo vs. a torque] There is a CD for ... changing the type of the primary charge. [Alexander le Browere, 07/01, A-Atenveldt]

ARCHITECTURE

There is a CD between a wall throughout and a castle. While the usual rule of thumb is that there is no CD for a non-ordinary for the same non-ordinary throughout, a wall acts effectively as a fess embattled. [Brian Brock, 07/99, A-Atenveldt]
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-Æthemearc]

ARRANGEMENT

[Per saltire argent and gules, two axes argent] The device technically conflicts with ... Quarterly Or and sable, in bend sinister two double-bitted axes argent. There is one CD for the changes to the field. Under current precedent the arrangement of the axes is a forced change and not worth a CD. [Berowelf fon Haholtesheime, 07/99, R-Middle]
The two annulets are neither conjoined nor interlaced, but are slightly overlapping, which blurs the distinction between the two and is not, as far as we know, period practice. [Larisa Andriushkina zhena Ivanova doch, 09/99, R-An Tir]
[Gules, two serpents volute about each other, heads to center fesswise, argent and Or.] No documentation was provided showing examples of two serpents being combined in this manner (two interleaved spirals). Furthermore, the emblazon is not reproducible from this blazon (it is unclear which serpent is argent and which is Or), nor could anyone come up with a better one. [Malcolm MacAdaim, 02/00, R-Meridies]
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, two horse's heads issuant from the line of division counterchanged] The device motif is currently registerable; it follows a pattern found in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, using linden leaves, and Palimpsest has found a 15th century example of a similar motif using wolf heads. [Hildegard von Garmisch, 04/00, A-Middle]
[Azure, a chevron argent between in dexter chief a sun in his splendor and in base three aspen leaves Or] The use of a single charge in dexter chief and three charges in base creates a very unbalanced appearance; however, as this is the only oddity in this device, we have decided that it is barely registerable. [Talore MacConlae, 07/00, A-Outlands]
[in chevron five compass stars elongated palewise] To quote Clarion: "It is standard SCA and mundane practice to put charges 'in <ordinary>.'" Thus, this does not fall afoul of the ban against charges in arch, nor that forbidding constellations. [Johann von Sternberg, 09/00, A-Ansteorra]
[Quarterly sable and gules, all semy of fraises Or] Conflict with ... Azure, six roses, two, two and two, Or. There is not a CD for number of primary charges, nor is there one for arrangement. [Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 09/00, R-Artemisia]
[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part of an arrangement in annulo. [Eiríkr Þorvaldson, 10/00, R-Artemisia]
[Three birds close conjoined in annulo] These birds are not conjoined in annulo, they are connected by the legs. As such, this depiction is not blazonable. We would need evidence that this motif is a reasonable heraldic depiction as well as a valid blazon for it in order to register it. [Bran Trefonin, 11/00, R-Atlantia]
[Azure, in canton a mullet of four points, a bordure argent] Conflict with Ariel of Alon, Azure, two compass stars argent and a sword argent, hilted gules, winged Or, a bordure argent. As neither a compass star nor a mullet of four points are period charges, and they differ only by the addition of the lesser points, there is not a CD between a mullet of four points and a compass star. There is also not a CD for arrangement on the field, because William's mullet occupies the same space as one of Ariel's compass stars. Therefore there is only a single CD for changing the number of primary charges. [William Killian, 01/01, R-Ansteorra]

ARROW

[three arrows couped below the fletching Or] The demi-arrows are not identifiable. Most commenters were unable to determine what the charge was from its emblazon. It is unclear if it is possible to draw the lower half of an arrow in an identifiable way. Thus the device violates RfS VI7.a, "Identification Requirement - Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance... Elements not used in period armory may be defined and accepted for Society use if they are readily distinguishable from elements that are already in use..." Before we will register this charge we need to see a clearly identifiable depiction and would like to see evidence that using just the lower half of an inanimate charge is consistent with period practice. [Justinus Fletcher, 02/01, R-Meridies]
... there is a CD between a spear and an arrow. [Angus Kerr, 06/01, A-East]
[Azure, a chevron and in chief two ram's heads erased respectant argent] Conflict with... Azure, a chevron and in chief two sheaves of arrows argent. A sheaf is considered a single charge, therefore there is only a single CD for changing the type of the secondary charges. [Murchad inn digri, 06/01, R-Meridies]

AUGMENTATIONS

Augmentations are required to by themselves be free of conflict, as noted in the October 1998 LoAR (James Eldon of York, Kingdom of the Outlands). [Welfengau, Canton of, 10/99, R-Ealdormere]


[Sable, an annulet argent] Conflict with ... Sable, an annulet surmounted by three dragon's claws in pall conjoined at the tips argent between, as an augmentation, in fess two bezants and in pale in annulo an Oriental dragon passant to sinister and another passant inverted Or. The base armory is still protected, even with the augmentation, so there is only a single CD for the deletion of the overall charge group. [Cainneach mac Asgaill, 04/00, R-Artemisia]
[change to base device plus addition of augmentation]... as we protect both the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, a device change and an augmentation must be submitted as two separate actions. [Galen of Bristol, 10/00, R-Ansteorra]
[Sable mullety of four chapé wavy Or, in chief two compass stars azure, as an augmentation, on a chalice Or, a laurel wreath vert] The shire requested this as a device change plus an augmentation; however, as can be seen by the blazon above, the augmentation is the charged chalice, therefore the device change must be to Sable mullety chapé wavy, in chief two compass stars azure. As armory with augmentations can be displayed without the augmentation, the device change is to a device without a laurel wreath, which by Administrative Handbook II.D.2, is required for all branches. [Riviere Constelle, Shire of, 01/01, R-Middle]
[rules change] VIII.7. Augmentations of Honor – An augmentation of honor must be compatible with period armorial style.
An augmentation is an honor bestowed by the crown, taking the form of an addition or alteration to the honoree's device. While the right to an augmentation is bestowed by the crown, its form is subject to the normal registration process. The augmentation must itself follow the armory rules; if it has the appearance of being independent armory, for example a charged escutcheon or canton, then it is independently subject to the normal rules of armorial conflict. The augmentation may, however, on a case by case basis break the rules in relation to the original armory. For example, Sable, on a chief argent a lion passant maintaining, in augmentation, an escutcheon gules charged with a cross throughout argent is acceptable even though it breaks RfS VIII.1.c.ii., Layer Limit. Gules, a lion argent, and in augmentation a canton argent charged with a tower Or is not acceptable, as the augmentation internally breaks RfS VIII.2., Armorial Contrast. Since an augmentation is an earned honor, it may in some cases violate RfS XI.3. Marshaling or RfS XI.4. Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor. Arms in their augmented form are subject to the normal rules of conflict.
[06/01, CL]
[rules change] XI.4. Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor – Armory that uses charges in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense or an unearned augmentation of honor is considered presumptuous.
Period and modern heraldic practice asserts a claim to land or property by surmounting an individual's usual armory with a display of armory associated with that claim. Such arms of pretense are placed on an escutcheon. Similarly, an augmentation of honor often, though not necessarily, takes the form of an independent coat placed on an escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a single escutcheon may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a single tincture. For example, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an escutcheon sable charged with a roundel argent has the appearance of being arms of pretense or an augmentation. Or, in saltire five escutcheons sable each charged with three roundels argent does not have this appearance, as it has multiple escutcheons, as so is acceptable. The exception to the restrictions of this rule is when the submitter is entitled to an augmentation as described in RfS VIII.7. Augmentations of Honor.
[06/01, CL]

BEAST -- Antelope and Yale

[A yale passant argent spotted gules] Conflict with ... An antelope statant argent. By the precedent set in August 1991 LoAR (p. 21, s.n. Jervisa Wainwright), there is not a CD between an antelope and a yale, and by the precedent set in November 1995 (p. 13, s.n. Ciarán Dubh Ó Tuathail), the spots on a yale can be drawn or left off at the artist's discretion and thus do not generate difference. [Marguerite des Baux, 06/00, R-Calontir]
... there is a CD between a yale and a goat. Current evidence indicates that there is no period connection between a yale and a goat; rather, there seems to be a period connection between a yale and an antelope. [Elizabeth Braidwood, 09/00, A-An Tir]

BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger

[Ermine, a wingless gryphon rampant contourny within a bordure sable] We are registering this submission despite its similarity to Helmut zu Jülich, Quarterly gules and Or, a lion rampant contourny within a bordure sable. The language of the prior return, dated May 1998, strongly implied that a redraw was all that was needed to clear the conflict, and the submitter has done this. We leave open the question as to whether a wingless griffin and a lion rampant should be considered significantly different in the future. [William Geoffrey the Rogue, 07/99, A-An Tir]
The man-tyger is a period charge dating to 1529, therefore by X.4.e there is a significant difference between this charge and a cat. [David Drzislav, 07/99, A-Atenveldt]
The stripes on the colored emblazon were simply line drawings that were not colored in, thus they are not present enough to blazon, but present enough to keep the charge a natural tiger. [Pao Hu Tso, 09/99, A-Atenveldt]
... we will continue to blazon natural dolphins as natural dolphins. However, we will not give a CD between the two types of dolphins although we do between heraldic and natural tigers. [11/99, CL]
[a cat sejant argent striped sable] Conflict with ... a snow leopard sejant argent, spotted sable, and ... a striped silver tabby cat sejant guardant proper. There is no difference given for the change in the markings ... [Aodhnait Máire Siobhàn ní Nuanáin, 01/00, R-Artemisia]
[Per bend azure and vert, a winged Bengal tiger passant argent striped sable] Conflict with ... A winged cat passant, forepaw extended, wings elevated and addorsed, argent and with ... Per pale Or and gules, a winged lion statant argent. There is not a CD for the addition of the stripes to the tiger, therefore there is only a single CD for the change or addition of the field. [Ceara inghean Leogháin, 04/00, R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A demi-lion rampant erased argent gorged of a coronet of three points azure and maintaining an escutcheon gules] Conflict with Roger de Bremble, Per pale sable and gules, issuant from a torse argent and sable a demi-lion erect argent, grasping in its dexter paw a sprig of bramble vert, fimbriated argent. There is a CD for fieldlessness (of David's badge) and there is not a CD for the change of the maintained charges. There is also not a CD for the addition of the coronet to David's badge, a demi-lion is large enough that such a change is insignificant as it would be for a whole beast. Finally, the torse in Roger's badge is not significant enough to count as a co-primary.

There is another issue to consider with this badge: whether it is sufficiently different from his real world crest ... the evidence provided was convincing that a demi-beast issuant from the torse would not normally be drawn as erased, thus the erasing of the lion is also a blazonable difference. [David of Moffat, 04/00, R-An Tir]
The primary charge is a misdrawn mantyger. A mantyger has a human head, while this is a lion's head with a human face. Therefore, it conflicts with Belgium, Sable, a lion rampant Or, and various others of the form <Field>, a lion rampant Or. [Aeron Aschennen of Clan MacKenzie, 05/00,R-Ansteorra]

BEAST -- Deer

There is no difference between a reindeer and a stag ... [Kowacz Myklos, 05/00, R-Ansteorra]
[Vert, two stags combattant argent] This is clear of ... Vert, two zebras combattant argent, striped sable. While there is not a CD for removing the stripes, zebras and stags are substantially different; therefore, the device is clear by RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. [Magnus Tindal, 05/01, A-Atlantia]

BEAST -- Dog and Wolf

[a wolf sejant ululant vs. a dog rampant] There is only a single CD for the posture of the canine. [Uilleag Ó Conmhaic, 01/00, R-Meridies]
Collies as a breed originated after the 16th century, therefore they may not be used as a charge. [Aubrée Symonne de Ver, 03/00, R-Meridies]
Some months ago, I asked the College for their opinions on whether precedent should be overturned to give significant difference between a greyhound and a wolf (and more specifically, a greyhound's head and a wolf's head). The standard of RfS X.4.e, Type Changes, is that when comparing two charges both of which were used in period heraldry, we consider them significantly different if they were "considered to be separate" in period. Evidence was presented, which none disputed, that greyhounds and wolves were both period charges. However, responses substantially opposed the change, and therefore the precedent that all canines conflict will remain in place.

However, much of the commentary focused more broadly on issues of identifiability of these and other canines. Batonvert suggested that collars were an important identifier for dogs, but Argent Snail pointed out that in various period rolls of arms one finds more dogs without collars than with. Moreover, Argent Snail pointed out that in one blazon in the Dictionary of British Arms, there was confusion as to whether a specific depiction was intended to be a dog or a wolf. Others were concerned about how we would treat the various breeds of dogs that were not known in period heraldry, particularly those that blur the distinctions between the two. These concerns, while not unimportant, are outside the scope of the issue at question.

Just as we give significant difference between, for example, falcons and swans (when in postures period for falcons and swans), while giving no difference between either and a generic bird, we could easily for canines define a few types (wolf/fox, greyhound, and talbot, for example) each of which is significantly different from one another and a residual category (everything else) which is not significantly different from any of them. Such a plan would allow for a clear precedent regarding both depictions that blurred distinctions (they could be blazoned as generic dogs) and depictions of breeds that are not one of these charges (they would be treated as generic dogs for purposes of conflict). There is, however, insufficient support in the College so no such plan will be implemented at this time. [06/01, CL]

BEAST -- Ferret

Ferrets have pointed faces, do not have a prominent breastbone, and have their neck entering the back of their head rather than the bottom. [Donatien Delaborde, 10/99, R-Ansteorra]
[Gules, a ferret statant argent] The device is also in conflict with the badge for Brittany, An ermine passant argent marked sable. There is only a CD for fieldlessness. [Alycie Stirling, 04/00, R-Lochac]
Blazoned on the LoI as ferrets, the creatures on the emblazon do not have ferret's tails, which are narrow with a tuft at the end. Instead, these creatures have the thick fuzzy tail of the weasel. As there is an artistic if not heraldic difference, we have changed the blazon to match the emblazon. [Donatien Delaborde, 10/00, A-Ansteorra]
[two ferrets combattant] The beasts were not drawn as ferrets, lacking both the thin tail and the elongated body. The device would thus be returned for redrawing except if drawn properly, it would be in conflict with ... Vert, an otter sejant erect Or. There is a CD for the number of primary charges, but nothing for the change in posture. [Robert de Bere, 10/00, R-Atenveldt]

BEAST -- Horse and Zebra

[a zebra argent marked sable vs. a horse argent] There is... nothing for the stripes on the zebra. [Red Lórien of Oak River, 03/00, R-Caid]
[Vert, a horse rampant contourny argent crined Or] Conflict with ... Vert, two zebras combattant argent, striped sable. By precedent "there is...nothing for the stripes on the zebra. (Elsbeth Anne Roth, LoAR March 2000, p 12), so there is only a single CD for number of primary charges. [Alail Horsefriend, 03/01, R-West]
[Vert, two stags combattant argent] This is clear of ... Vert, two zebras combattant argent, striped sable. While there is not a CD for removing the stripes, zebras and stags are substantially different; therefore, the device is clear by RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. [Magnus Tindal, 05/01, A-Atlantia]

BEAST -- Miscellaneous

[An aardvark] For purposes of registration, coastal sub-Saharan flora and fauna are considered the same as New World flora and fauna: they are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable. [Jamie Snawberd of Ross, 08/99, A-Caid]
... there is a CD between a yale and a goat. Current evidence indicates that there is no period connection between a yale and a goat; rather, there seems to be a period connection between a yale and an antelope. [Elizabeth Braidwood, 09/00, A-An Tir]
There is a CD ... for the difference between a wolverine and a mink. [John the Idiota, 12/00, A-Atenveldt]
[A boar statant sable crined gules] Conflict with ... Per bend lozengy vert and argent and Or, a boar passant sable. There is not a CD for changing tincture of the ridge of fur along the top of the boar, so there is only a single CD for fieldlessness. [Rycharde de Northewode, 03/01, R-An Tir]
[an ibex proper] Ibexes are primarily brown in color... [Magnus mac Gregor Campbell, 07/01, R-Meridies]

BEAST -- Reremouse

[a reremouse dormant dependent from an annulet] The bat was not dormant, but was rather in its natural sleeping posture. We know of no examples of this posture in period heraldic depictions of bats, and for good reason: this posture eliminates any identifiable aspects of the bat. Therefore the device violates VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction: ... Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures ... and VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. [Aindrea Gille Eoghainn, 08/00, R-Atlantia]
[five reremice in annulo] While oriental bats were registered once, in 1988, we have since become more restrictive on the use of Eastern charges. However, because the charges are recognizable as bats, we are registering this badge without specifying the type of bat. [Cassandre Nicole Loustaunau, 03/01, A-Caid]

BEND and BEND SINISTER

[...a scarp enhanced]... we do not register overly enhanced ordinaries, barring evidence of their use in period, as they are inherantly unbalanced. [Lachlann Wick of Brindle Myre, 11/99, R-Caid]
[a bend sinister enhanced] The bend sinister is far too enhanced to be registerable, barring evidence of the use of this motif in period armory. This motif has been reason for return for many years, for example see September 1992 LoAR (p. 37, s.n. Keridwen of Caermarthen). [Dougal of Landewednak, 06/00, R-Lochac]
[a scarpe vert and a scarpe azure] The use of two colors in the scarpes constitutes a weirdness, but it is the only one. [Théophile de Jonchere, 07/00, A-Atenveldt]
[a bend sinister bevilled] The bend is not bevilled; the lower half must be raised relative to the upper half rather than dropped. [Remy le Chat, 02/01, R-Meridies]
[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty] Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... [Ihone MacEogan of Bannockburn, 04/01, R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: Returned for another conflict]
... as a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend sinister indented. [Elvegast, Canton of, 04/01, R-Atlantia]

BIRD -- Chicken
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

[a peacock close] This is clear of Helena of Heathcote, Argent, a heathcock passant to sinister within a bordure purpure. ... as heathcocks and peacocks are both period charges and Helena's heathcock is both chicken-like in appearance and has the distinct upright tail, a second CD for the type of bird. [Dominique Michelle le Vasseur, 09/00, A-Ansteorra]
There is a CD for ... the difference in type between a chicken and a falcon. [Galienne la Bourgoingne, 06/01, A-East]
[a hen close vs a Celtic hawk statant] ...there is a CD for ... the type of bird. [Sabine de Provence, 07/01, A-An Tir]
[a hen close vs a raven speaking] ... there is a CD for ... the type of bird. [Sabine de Provence, 07/01, A-An Tir]

BIRD -- Eagle
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

[two double-headed eagles vs. two falons displayed] There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between the secondary charges. [Geoffrey de la Dale, 09/99, R-Artemisia]
[an eagle displayed vs. a mockingbird displayed] While it is true that birds do not always conflict with other birds, only eagles were displayed in period. Therefore there is not a CD for change in type. [Arnaud de Gournay of Dragonsley, 10/99, R-Ansteorra]
[a raven displayed vs. an eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different birds in period, only eagles were ever displayed. Therefore there is not a CD for type. [Robert le Raven MacLeod, 11/99, R-Artemisia]
There is not a CD between generic birds displayed or migrant and an eagle displayed.... [Elizabeth of Roxbury Mill, 02/01, R-Meridies]
By current precedent, there is not a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed. [Anders Botman, 03/01, R-East]

BIRD -- Falcon

[two double-headed eagles vs. two falons displayed] There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between the secondary charges. [Geoffrey de la Dale, 09/99, R-Artemisia]
[a falcon rising wings addorsed vs. an owl striking]. I am hereby overturning the precedent declaring that "raptors are raptors". Falcons and owls were different charges in period and have differing outlines; therefore we are allowing a CD (although not substantial difference) between them. For a fuller discussion, see the cover letter. [see BIRD -- Precedent on Difference] [Wojciech Bobrowski, 01/00, A-Atlantia]
[a martlet vs. a falcon close] By recent precedent (see the January 2000 cover letter) [see BIRD -- Precedent on Difference], two birds which were heraldically distinct in period are a CD apart when shown in period postures. Falcons and martlets were distinct charges in period and both devices show the birds in their default postures. [Andrew of Doune Castle, 04/00, A-Artemisia]
... there is a CD for type between a falcon rising and a swan rousant, there are two CDs for number and type of primary charges, as well as a third for the difference in posture (wings addorsed vs. wings displayed) between the two birds. [Cecilia Kandzierzawa , 02/01, A-Atenveldt]
Furthermore, swans and falcons, while significantly different, are not substantially different therefore we cannot call the two pieces of armory clear by RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. [Anthony of Beaumaris, 05/01, R-Meridies]
There is a CD for ... the difference in type between a chicken and a falcon. [Galienne la Bourgoingne, 06/01, A-East]

BIRD -- Hawk
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

[hawks displayed vs. swallows migrant] ... a second [CD] for change in type of the primary charge. The swallows have a very pronounced forked tail, which makes them visually quite distinct from hawks. [Rayya al-Kurtubiyya, 06/00, A-Ansteorra]
As rising is a reasonable posture for both ravens and hawk, we would normally give a CD for the change of type of the bird. [Grainne of Aileach, 02/01, R-Artemisia]
[a hen close vs a Celtic hawk statant] ...there is a CD for ... the type of bird. [Sabine de Provence, 07/01, A-An Tir]

BIRD -- Miscellaneous
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

I believe that in period some allowance was made in drawing a blazoned cant (although admittedly probably not this much). In this case, preserving the cant takes precedence over the exact details of the drawing. The submitter should be told, however, to make the charge on the sun more osprey-like and less eagle-like. [Damianus Petrolino, 06/99, A-Atlantia]
[a dove volant vs. a dove volant, wings addorsed] There is a CD for the ... posture of the bird, as the change in wing position is significant. [Sophia de Verdun, 10/99, A-Calontir]
[an eagle displayed vs. a mockingbird displayed] While it is true that birds do not always conflict with other birds, only eagles were displayed in period. Therefore there is not a CD for change in type. [Arnaud de Gournay of Dragonsley, 10/99, R-Ansteorra]
There is a CD between a swallow and a duck [Francesca da Bari, 11/99, A-Artemisia]
[a martlet vs. a falcon close] By recent precedent (see the January 2000 cover letter) [see BIRD -- Precedent on Difference], two birds which were heraldically distinct in period are a CD apart when shown in period postures. Falcons and martlets were distinct charges in period and both devices show the birds in their default postures. [Andrew of Doune Castle, 04/00, A-Artemisia]
[hawks displayed vs. swallows migrant] ... a second [CD] for change in type of the primary charge. The swallows have a very pronounced forked tail, which makes them visually quite distinct from hawks. [Rayya al-Kurtubiyya, 06/00, A-Ansteorra]
There is a CD for ... the change in type between a raven and a dodo. [Raven Jäde vom Schwarzwald, 07/00, A-Atlantia]
[a peacock close] This is clear of Helena of Heathcote, Argent, a heathcock passant to sinister within a bordure purpure. ... as heathcocks and peacocks are both period charges and Helena's heathcock is both chicken-like in appearance and has the distinct upright tail, a second CD for the type of bird. [Dominique Michelle le Vasseur, 09/00, A-Ansteorra]
[two penguins respectant proper] The penguins are unidentifiable. One of the reasons that they are unidentifiable is that they appear to be in a rampant posture; rampant is not an allowable posture for birds. [Adriana Lynette Noel, 11/00, R-Middle]
There is not a CD between generic birds displayed or migrant and an eagle displayed.... [Elizabeth of Roxbury Mill, 02/01, R-Meridies]

BIRD -- Owl
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

There is one CD for the difference between an owl and a harpy; however, there is not substantial difference. [Kazimira Suchenko, 08/00, R-East]


[Per chevron vert and sable, three owls argent] This is close but clear of Nicole de l'Havre des Chouettes Or, three barn owls [Tyto alba] affronty each perched upon an olive branch all proper. While there is not a CD between an owl close guardant and an owl close affronty, after examining the emblazon of Nicole's device, we decided that her owls were essentially argent winged brown. As we give a CD for changing the tincture of the wings, there is thus a CD for tincture as well as a CD for the change to the field. [Gaston Trévoux, 10/00, A-Atenveldt]
By current precedent, there is not a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed. [Anders Botman, 03/01, R-East]
[swan vs. snowy egret] There is ... nothing for the difference in type between the two birds. [Medb ingen Domnaill uí Somhairle, 07/01, R-Ansteorra]

BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

The question arose this month of how we count conflict between owls and eagles. Past precedent is clear on this point: they are only insignificantly different ("raptors is raptors"). For the most part we are overturning this precedent, based on rule X.4.e.

The standard in this rule is that when comparing two charges both of which were used in period heraldry, we consider them significantly different if they were "considered to be separate" in period. When considering owls in their default posture of close guardant it is difficult to construct an argument based on period evidence against granting this difference. The owl is found as a heraldic charge as early as 1308 (cited in Parker's Glossary p. 434) and in constant use ever since. Eagles displayed are found from earliest heraldry, and birds of the eagle/falcon/hawk family in the close posture date at least from the reign of Edward II (who died 1327). We have no reason to believe that there was ever any confusion between owls and the eagle/falcon/hawk family.

This raises the question of how the SCA's current interpretation arose. The likely answer is found in the precedents of the tenure of Bruce Draconarius. In the LoAR of 09/92 he considered an eagle displayed vs. an owl displayed, and wrote that "The owl and the eagle are both raptors, and the main difference between them - the head posture - is specifically worth no CDs per Rule X.4.h." This was reiterated on the 3/93 letter with "[There is not a CD]for type of raptor in similar postures." In both of these rulings the birds were displayed. That this was a general ruling is made clear on the letter of 08/93, considering an owl [close] affronty vs. an eagle displayed, he wrote "There's a CD for the change in the bird's posture, but nothing for its type: eagles and owls are both raptors, and the main heraldic difference — the head posture — is specifically worth no difference under the Rules (as well as having been subsumed into the rest of the posture change)."

Note that the earlier two submissions, of 09/92 and 3/93, involved owls displayed. This is unattested in period heraldry, where owls are invariably close guardant. The conflict rules make a rigid distinction between the type of a charge and its posture. This works well most of the time, but less so for birds, where the type and the posture are often closely connected. In particular, with vanishingly rare exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be visually similar to an eagle.

The dilemma is that, keeping the rules' rigid distinction between posture and type, either granting a difference for type between owls and eagle or not granting this difference creates undesirable effects. Granting it would encourage more owls displayed, which is certainly inauthentic style and is arguably visually over-generous. Not granting it discourages registration of owls even in their attested posture and is inconsistent with both the spirit and the letter of rule X.4.e. Laurel chose the former path as the lesser evil.

The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period, any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any bird in a displayed posture usuing the visual test of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a "weirdness". Henceforth owls, being distinct charges in period, are generally considered significantly different from other birds, but are subject to the preceding visual comparison if displayed. The end result of this is that there is still no difference granted for owls displayed vs. eagles displayed, but there now is a difference for type between owls close guardant and eagles/falcons/hawks close. In the future I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference. This also means that in the future I will be stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the defining attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as "a bird." [01/00, CL]

BIRD -- Raven
see also BIRD -- Precedent on Difference

[a raven displayed vs. an eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different birds in period, only eagles were ever displayed. Therefore there is not a CD for type. [Robert le Raven MacLeod, 11/99, R-Artemisia]
The posture striking affronty is not allowed as it is not known in period armory and is inherently three-dimensional. [Sarra the Gipsie, 03/00, R-Caid]
There is a CD for ... the change in type between a raven and a dodo. [Raven Jäde vom Schwarzwald, 07/00, A-Atlantia]
As rising is a reasonable posture for both ravens and hawk, we would normally give a CD for the change of type of the bird. [Grainne of Aileach, 02/01, R-Artemisia]
[a hen close vs a raven speaking] ... there is a CD for ... the type of bird. [Sabine de Provence, 07/01, A-An Tir]

BIRD -- Swan

[Per bend sinister gules and azure, a swan naiant contourny and a sun Or] Conflict with ... Per bend sinister gules and azure, two owls contourny Or. While there is a CD between a swan and an owl, there is not the substantial difference between the two birds needed for X.2 to hold. Therefore, there is but a single CD for a change of type of the primary charges. [Anne Mary Quinn, 11/00, R-An Tir]
... there is a CD for type between a falcon rising and a swan rousant, there are two CDs for number and type of primary charges, as well as a third for the difference in posture (wings addorsed vs. wings displayed) between the two birds. [Cecilia Kandzierzawa, 02/01, A-Atenveldt]
[a swan rousant wings displayed vs a swan rousant sable] There is a CD for the position of the wings (addorsed for Frances, displayed for Isidora). [Isidora Ell'eva, 03/01, A-Caid]

Furthermore, swans and falcons, while significantly different, are not substantially different therefore we cannot call the two pieces of armory clear by RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. [Anthony of Beaumaris, 05/01, R-Meridies]


[swan vs. snowy egret] There is ... nothing for the difference in type between the two birds. [Medb ingen Domnaill uí Somhairle, 07/01, R-Ansteorra]

BORDURE

[Argent, a wyvern erect sable winged and bellied azure within a bordure per saltire counter-ermine and azure] This acceptance overturns the precedent dated April, 1992, which banned bordures per saltire of low contrast. While this is unattested in period heraldry, it is consistent with the types of extrapolation which SCA heraldry routinely makes. As such, it is a "weirdness", not a returnable offense. [Melyssande Dunn, 07/99, A-An Tir]
[Gyronny argent and gules, on a plate ...] ... just as we do not allow a compony bordure to share a tincture with the field, the consensus was to not allow a roundel to share a tincture with a gyronny field, as the number of divisions is not high enough to ensure identifiability. [Sarah MacGregor, 08/00, R-Meridies]
[on a bordure three fir trees] ... although placing three charges on a bordure is not grounds for returns, it is highly unusual in period armory. [Phillida Parker, 06/01, R-Ealdormere]

CARD PIQUE

There is no difference between an aspen leaf and a card pique inverted, as there is no evidence that the charges were considered different in period (in particular, there is no evidence that the aspen leaf was used as a charge in period), and visually the two charges are almost identical. [Aislynn Crystyn, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]
... there is enough difference between a seablatt and a card pique for there to be a CD for changing the type of the primary charge [Tamlyn of Wyntersea, 02/01, A-An Tir]

CASTLE and TOWER

[(Fieldless) On a tower sable masoned Or, a lion's head argent] Conflict with Frederic of the West Tower, Argent, a tower sable, on its base a cross patonce voided argent. Upon examining the emblazon for Frederic, it is clear that the cross is argent, so there is only the CD for fieldlessness. [Implying no CD for the masoning.] [Thomas of Calais, 06/99, R-Atlantia] [Registered on appeal 07/00 with a CD for changing type and position of the tertiaries.]
There is a CD between a wall throughout and a castle. While the usual rule of thumb is that there is no CD for a non-ordinary for the same non-ordinary throughout, a wall acts effectively as a fess embattled. [Brian Brock, 07/99, A-Atenveldt]
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]
[Per pale argent and sable, an athanor enflamed counterchanged] ... we would prefer that the athanor be drawn in the usual flat style and not in three dimensions. Furthermore in this depiction, the athanor was not distinguishable from a tower; in all previous registrations, the athanor had a retort atop it, which immediately identified it as an alchemical tool. We are not certain if the athanor requires the retort, but it is definitely a helpful aid. If a retort is not added ... then there will not be a CD between the athanor and a tower ... [Ealdormere, Kingdom of, 10/99, R-Ealdormere]
[Three towers conjoined in pall, bases to center, ...] The towers were not conjoined in a standard fashion (with the bases slightly touching), but instead were each touching a large central area. As they also lacked internal detailing, the overall effect looked more like a pall (nowy) couped, the ends embattled. While it is not clear that the charge is inherently unidentifiable, this depiction is definitely unidentifiable, requiring at least a redraw. [Stephen macThomas, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]

CHALICE and CUP

[Pily bendy sinister azure and Or, a chalice gules] Conflict with ... Quarterly Or and argent, a cup gules. There is only one CD, for the change to the field. [Implying no CD between a chalice and a cup] [Citadel of the Southern Pass, Barony of the, 10/99, R-Outlands]
[(Fieldless) A covered cup argent] Conflict with ... Vert, a chalice argent containing flames Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness, but the flames are not large enough to count for difference. [Implying no difference between a covered cup and a chalice] [Kiena Munro, 11/99, R-Outlands]
[(Fieldless) A chalice purpure] Conflict with ... Or, a goblet purpure, jeweled proper. The jewels contribute no difference so there is only a single CD for fieldlessness. [Arn Hold, Barony of, 01/00, R-Artemisia]
[Gules, a two-handled tankard Or within an annulet argent] Conflict with ... Gules, a tankard of beer Or, headed argent. There is a CD for adding the secondary charge, but nothing for adding the second handle nor for the removal of the head. [James Dexter, 07/01, R-Calontir]

CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
This section is arranged alphabetically by charge. A complete list of the charges appears in the index.

[Azure, an amphora Or] This device is in conflict with ... Sable, an ink flask Or. A comparison of emblazons shows that the charges are virtually identical. [Natasha Orionova Zateeva, 10/99, R-An Tir]
[Azure, on a pale between two towers Or an artist's brush and a reed pen inverted in saltire sable] The pen and the brush were difficult to tell apart, particularly as both were drawn as black silhouettes. Therefore, this must be returned for using two similar but non-identical charges on a device (the sword and dagger precedent). [Kayleigh von Brückenheim, 04/00, R-Atenveldt]
[An astrolabe erminois] An astrolabe has far too much internal detail to remain identifiable when tinctured in a fur. [Magnus von Lübeck, 11/00, R-Ansteorra]
[Per pale argent and sable, an athanor enflamed counterchanged] ... we would prefer that the athanor be drawn in the usual flat style and not in three dimensions. Furthermore in this depiction, the athanor was not distinguishable from a tower; in all previous registrations, the athanor had a retort atop it, which immediately identified it as an alchemical tool. We are not certain if the athanor requires the retort, but it is definitely a helpful aid. If a retort is not added ... then there will not be a CD between the athanor and a tower ... [Ealdormere, Kingdom of, 10/99, R-Ealdormere]
[a hammer and an axe proper] The hammer and the axe were completely brown. An axe does not have a proper coloring, and a hammer proper is sable hafted of brown wood. In neither case are the heads brown. [Iain MacConmhaoil, 11/99, R-Artemisia]
There is a substantial difference between a beacon and a scaling ladder ... [John Trevor of Chinon, 06/00, A-Calontir]
A bell is not simple enough to void and thus not simple enough for X.4.j.ii to apply. [Azelin Cola of Wishford, 08/00, R-East]
[(Fieldless) A belt in annulo gules] The common use in the SCA of a red belt to denote a squire is nevertheless not a protected usage. Therefore this badge is not presumptuous. Furthermore, because badges are not regalia, the registration of this badge does not restrict anyone, squire or not, from wearing a red belt. [Herveus d'Ormonde, 04/01, A-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A wooden bucket proper.] This is close to Dorothea van der Zee, A wooden basket proper. Both buckets and baskets are found in period (for example, Pemberton, Argent three buckets sable, with various citations from 1470-1520 found in the DBA, and Milton Abbey, Sable three baskets argent with bread in them also from around 1500 and cited from the DBA). While there has been some cases where a modern herald was unable to determine if a charge was a bucket or a basket, there is no reason to believe that the charges were not distinct in period. Also, an examination of the emblazons shows that while the two charges look similar, there is sufficient visual difference between them (in overall shape as well as in details) to call them clear. [Morgan Catriona Bruce, 08/99, A-Atenveldt]
[caltrops vs. mullets] There is a CD for the change in the type of primary charges ... [Toen of Aston Tor, 07/01, A-Calontir]
[(Fieldless) A cauldron sable] Conflict with ... Or, a cauldron suspended from a tripod sable. The tripod is not significant enough to contribute difference. [Beinntheine, Shire of, 03/00, R-Meridies]
... the chamfron is a sufficiently difficult charge to identify that charging it makes it unidentifiable. [Flora Monswife, 11/99, R-Caid]
[Gules, a cubit arm sustaining a bow fesswise argent] By Laurel precedent (see the November 1994 LoAR, Cyril Bowman, pg. 12), the cubit arm/bow combination is disallowed by rule RfS VII.7.a "Identification Requirement" as it not sufficiently distinguishable from a cross bow. It is thus also in conflict with Triaria de la Rivière, Gules, a crossbow between four thistles in cross argent, with only a CD for the addition of secondary charges. [Robert of Hawthorne, 12/00, R-An Tir]
[Gules, a dextrochere Or semy of hearts gules, the hand cupped proper maintaining a plate] ... the hand was depicted edge on. This has been disallowed for arms (see the April 2000 LoAR, p. 18), and the standard references do not show this position for dextrocheres either. [Diana of Llanberis, 01/01, R-Outlands]
While dice were shown in perspective, the known period examples depicted them face forward, rather than edge forward. This minimizes the effect of perspective. Therefore, we must return this device for redrawing. [Arcturius Aleator, 04/00, R-Atlantia]
[three closed fetterlocks Or] This is clear of Berengaria de Hainault, Azure, three stirrups Or, leathered argent. There is a CD for changing the field, and the leather straps in Berengaria's device are substantial enough to provide a second CD between the stirrups and fetterlocks. [Mons von Goarshausen, 03/01, A-Caid]
Al-Jamal provided evidence that standard sources (Parker, Elvin, and Franklyn and Tanner) define fireballs and grenades as identical charges or, at most, minor artistic variants of one another. [Brian Killian the Red, 08/99, R-Atlantia] [Ed.: There is no CD between the two.]
There is not a CD between a dexter hand and a sinister hand... [Aaron MacGregor, 10/00, R-Ansteorra]
[a horned helmet vs. a helm] There is one CD for number of helms, and nothing for type of helm. [Úlfr Skallagrímsson, 10/99, R-Meridies]
[an hourglass purpure framed Or vs. an hourglass Or] ... the inside of an hourglass is at least half the charge. [Carlos Juan Ramiro, 12/99, A-Atlantia]
This is the defining instance of a jewelers saw; therefore, the item must be documented as a period artifact and evidence must be given showing that this emblazon matches period forms. The only documentation given for this artifact dates to the 18th century, well out of our period. [William of Ravenscroft, 06/00, R-Atenveldt]
The lightning flash has been a disallowed change since August 1983 barring any evidence that such a depiction was used in period. We currently allow a lightning bolt. This is a thin line with arrows at both ends, with a square zigzag pattern (like the edge of an embattled ordinary.) However, even the lightning bolt was not found in period except as part of a thunderbolt, a more complex charged used in classical Roman insignia. We recommend that the submitter use a thunderbolt. [Roiberd Mor Barra, 05/00, R-Drachenwald]
[Gules, a pale wreathed argent and azure winged Or] No evidence has been presented, nor was any found, that ordinaries can be winged. We could not reblazon this as a vol with a pale overall, as the wings clearly originate at the edge of the pale. [Marcus Caecilius Existimator, 12/00, R-Artemisia]
... there is substantial difference between a pear and a pinecone, making them clear by RfS X.2 Difference of Primary Charge. [Christofano Vecchione, 05/01, A-Æthelmearc]
[a pretzel] This is clear of ... Vert, a triquetra Or. After comparing emblazons, we decided that there is substantial difference between a triquetra and a pretzel. This is also clear of Stafford (important non-SCA badge), (Tinctureless) A Stafford knot. There is one CD for the fieldlessness of the tinctureless badge, and after consideration, we feel that there is significant, although not substantial, difference between a Stafford knot and this depiction of a pretzel, as the pretzel is knotted differently from a Stafford knot. [Edmund Lambert of Tregelles, 04/01, A-Æthelmearc]
[in pale a fleam inverted and a roundel] ... the combination of the fleam inverted and the roundel creates the appearance of a single charge — a question mark — instead of two separate charges. [Dafydd Ó Nuallain, 11/99, R-East]
The rainbow depicted is not a standard rainbow proper, having only three bands instead of four. Furthermore, rainbows without clouds are unattested in period armory. Either problem may be grounds for return, but the combination of both definitely is. [Phillida Parker, 06/01, R-Ealdormere]
[Sable, in pale a sunburst Or issuant from clouds and a prickspur fesswise reversed argent] Conflict with ... Sable, a spur fesswise reversed argent, with only one CD for the addition of the sunburst. [Bohemond Guiscard, 06/01, R-Atlantia]
[Three thorns in pall inverted] The thorns were unidentifiable. Because we know of no instances of thorns being used as solitary charges we do not know if it is possible to have identifiable thorns without the context of a plant. [Yin Mei Li and Marie Lorraine de Montclair, 01/00, R-Artemisia]
[an eagle-headed torc vs. a torque]. ...there is nothing [no CD] for the opening decoration. [Brandric of Rhydderich Hael, 10/99, R-Æthelmearc]
[A torse wreathed of sable, gules, and argent] While we have no examples of a torse of more than two tinctures as a heraldic charge, all the commentary agrees that such objects were known in period. The rules explicitly allow items known in period to be used as charges, and we also use charges that were only found in crests in period. Since there is good contrast between two of the three divisions of the torse, it does not violate the rules of tincture. [Serena Gethin, 05/00, A-Ansteorra]
... as this would be the defining use of the charge, we would like to see evidence that this depiction of a waterwheel is a reasonable one for use in armory. [Conz von Talstadt, 10/99, R-Ealdormere]
[...a wolf tooth issuant from chief and another issuant from base...] We know of no examples of wolf's teeth issuant from anywhere but from dexter or sinister, nor do we have any examples of them being used singly. We must therefore return the device pending documentation of this use of wolf's teeth. [Temur Arslan, 02/00, R-Atenveldt]
The only registrations of a xonecuilli were to John the Idiota in 1978 and again by him in 1982. It is listed in the Pictorial Dictionary as an Aztec artistic motif. We no longer register artistic motifs even from European sources without evidence that they are compatible with heraldry. Therefore we declare that the xonecuilli is no longer registerable barring evidence that it is compatible with medieval heraldic style. [Anita de Challis, 02/00, R-Atenveldt]

CHARGE -- Overall

The relative size of the charges is unimportant here; the lion is an overall charge while the swords are entirely on the field, therefore they must be in two groups. [Andrew Talbot, 07/99, A-Ansteorra]
[... a tierce sable, overall a winged rabbit ...] There is long standing precedent against having charges overlie a peripheral charge. "It was ruled some five years ago that flaunches should not be surmounted by charges (Wilhelm von Schlüssel, April, 1983) and we see no reason to reverse that ruling." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 23 April 1988, p. 16). Barring evidence that such was done in period, we see no reason to overturn this precedent. We also see no reason to classify a tierce as a field division barring solid evidence that period heralds considered them as such. [Andrés Miguel Rodriguez de la Rosa, 07/99, R-Caid]
The lion is not charged on the maple leaf but is barely overall. Barely overall charges have been ruled unacceptable for a long time and for fieldless badges overall charges must have very little overlap with the charge it surmounts. Either way we must return this badge. [Tanglwyst de Holloway, 09/99, R-Artemisia]
[Per bend sinister purpure and vert, a cow rampant ermine rising from flames proper] This device is returned for having a charge partially overall another charge; the cow was drawn half on the flames and half off. A cow rising from flames would be like a phoenix; i.e. a demi-cow issuant from flames. (It is also a discouraged charge, as I know of no examples of anything besides phoenixes being treated this way.) Furthermore, the flames were drawn as fimbriated, which has not been allowed for some time. [Frederich Holstein der Tollhase, 09/99, R-Middle]
[a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) A sprig of honeysuckle gules slipped and leaved vert within and conjoined to a torse wreathed argent and vert] The base of the sprig slightly overlaps the torse; this has long since been grounds for return. The charges should either touch without overlapping, or the sprig should be entirely on the torse. [Cassandra of the Western Green, 04/00, R-Middle]
By precedent (January 1990 LoAR, pg. 12, s.n. Edward Ashwell of the Crossbow), placing charges directly on overall charges does not violate RfS VIII.1.c, Armorial depth. [Adelicia Brabant, 05/00, A-Ansteorra]
[a bend sinister argent, overall a bull's skull argent] A complex overall charge must not share the same tincture as the ordinary it is surmounting. [Olaf Blodhøx, 05/00, R-Middle]
[Or chaussé purpure, overall two stags combattant proper] The chaussé line of division, along with chapé and vetu , are different from other lines of divisions in that the outer portions never contained charges in period. Thus we can also not allow charges that overlap the outer portions. [Rurik Brattahildski, 05/00, R-Middle]
The tree is not within and conjoined to the annulet; it is slightly overall. This type of "slightly overall" charge has long been a cause for return. [Gyldenholt, Barony of, 06/00, R-Caid]
[A sword inverted argent, entwined overall by a rose purpure, slipped and leaved vert] As drawn, the rose is barely overall. This kind of overall charge has been disallowed for some time. If drawn with a standard entwined rose, it is in conflict with Barbara Fitzhugh de Brandhard, Azure, a sword inverted proper entwined widdershins of a poppy proper. Traditionally, entwined charges are treated like maintained charges unless both charges have equal visual weight. Therefore there is not a CD for the change to the flower. [Kisaiya Zingara, 12/00, R-Atlantial]
[A cross clechy sable, the crossbar draped of a cloth argent] No evidence was given, nor could the College provide any, that draping a cloth over a cross was a motif found in period heraldry. Furthermore, the particular form of draping obscures enough of the cross that it is equivalent to the type of overall charges that have been disallowed for many years (see the cover letter for the November 1992 LoAR, pg. 3). Any future submission should document the particular depiction to period, preferably in heraldry. Moreover, it should limit the amount of overlap so that both charges are clearly identifiable. [Basil von Köln, 03/01, R-Caid]

CHARGE -- Peripheral
see also BORDURE and CHIEF

[... a tierce sable, overall a winged rabbit ...] There is long standing precedent against having charges overlie a peripheral charge. "It was ruled some five years ago that flaunches should not be surmounted by charges (Wilhelm von Schlüssel, April, 1983) and we see no reason to reverse that ruling." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 23 April 1988, p. 16). Barring evidence that such was done in period, we see no reason to overturn this precedent. We also see no reason to classify a tierce as a field division barring solid evidence that period heralds considered them as such. [Andrés Miguel Rodriguez de la Rosa, 07/99, R-Caid]
[Sable, a saltire between in pale two roses Or, flaunches ermine] This is being returned because the flaunches are too small. They should extend to the corners of the device. This may not be possible with saltires, despite the example from Glovers Ordinary of Mosylton, Argent, three pallets azure over all two square flaunches or flanks gules. The difference is that Mosylton's device is also blazoned with the pallets between the flaunches and it may be virtually indistinguishable from Paly argent and azure, two flanks gules. Therefore we would like to see examples of flaunches used with saltires, bends or bends sinister before we are likely to register the combination. [Karsten Werner, 10/99, R-Atlantia]
[a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]
[Argent, a horse rampant sable and a tierce gules] Conflict with ... Argent, a horse salient sable upon a base embattled gules. The line of division is considered part of the charge by rule X.4.e, Type Changes, so there is only a single CD for changing the type of the peripheral charges. [Guillaine Rosalind de Gaulle, 06/00, R-East]

CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved

[Per pale gules and argent, six roses counterchanged.] This is returned for using the restricted charge, the Tudor rose. The two roses that lie on the line of division are per pale argent and gules, which is one form of the Tudor rose. [Rouland Blackwell, 08/99, R-Ansteorra]
[Rules Change -- change of examples in the rule] XI.1. Reserved Charges - Armory that contains elements reserved to or required of certain ranks, positions, or territorial entities, inside or outside the Society, is considered presumptuous. Symbols reserved or required solely inside the Society may only be registered to those entitled to the status associated with those symbols.

Examples of such elements include the field Azure, semy-de-lys Or, which is restricted to French royalty; a laurel wreath, required for official Society branches; the knight's annulet of chain, etc. Lists of these charges can be found in the glossary. Some elements, like the French royal field, are always restricted. Others are limited to specific segments of the Society. For example, individuals may not place laurel wreaths on their armory, while only those who are royal peers may use the insignia of those ranks. [10/99, CL]
[a Kendal flower proper] The Kendal flower, when proper, is a six petaled rose of alternating argent and gules petals. This makes it a variant of a Tudor rose, as the Tudors combined white and red roses in various manners. Tudor roses are restricted charges and cannot be registered. [Juliana Kendal, 01/00, R-An Tir]
[a bordure embattled azure semy-de-lys Or] The device uses azure semy-de-lys Or on a charge, which is forbidden as it appears to be a claim to have an augmentation from France: The period examples are so numerous that I feel I must uphold the Society's ban on gold fleurs-de-lys on blue backgrounds — and make it explicit. Neither France Ancient (Azure semy-de-lys Or) nor France Modern (Azure, three fleurs-de-lys Or) may be used in SCA heraldry, either as the field (or part thereof) or on a charge. To do so constitutes a claim to connection to French royalty, prohibited under Rule XI.1. (July 1992 LoAR, p.23, s.n. Raoul de Chenonceaux) [Reinhard Lowenkop, 06/00, R-Trimaris]
[An Oriental dragon] The badge uses the restricted charge a five-toed Oriental dragon. The charge cannot be used in the Society because it was used only by Emperors of China. [Michael of the Mace, 09/00, R-Meridies]
[Or, a gurges purpure within a belt sable] Armory using a charge within a belt strap is restricted as such motifs were used as a standard form of badge display in Scottish armory. There is a precedent going back some eight years banning the use of the 'Badge within a strap' since this is a standard form of display for Scottish badges: the chief uses the plain badge and the clansmen use the badge within a strap. Therefore, we have on several occasions returned or pended submissions to allow them to be considered without the strap. In this case, dropping the strap would not be adequate to resolve this problem since conflicts then arise. (January 1990 LoAR, p. 20) [Pol MacNeill, 12/00, R-Meridies]

CHARGE GROUP

The relative size of the charges is unimportant here; the lion is an overall charge while the swords are entirely on the field, therefore they must be in two groups. [Andrew Talbot, 07/99, A-Ansteorra]
[...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. [Coilin Cruaidhchridheach, 09/99, A-Artemisia]
[Per pall sable, vert and argent, in pale two swords crossed in saltire argent and a cat's paw print counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per fess embattled vert and argent, in pale two swords in saltire and a compass star counterchanged. There is one CD for the changes to the field, but none for change in type and tincture for only one of three of the primary charges (as they are not arranged two and one). [Roger de Kymberle, 09/99, R-Atlantia]
[in pale a fleam inverted and a roundel] ... the combination of the fleam inverted and the roundel creates the appearance of a single charge — a question mark — instead of two separate charges. [Dafydd Ó Nuallain, 11/99, R-East]
[Per chevron sable and azure, a pall inverted argent between two mullets each within and conjoined to a decrescent Or and a unicorn's head couped contourny argent] The device uses three different charges in the same group of secondary charges and therefore violates RfS VIII.1.a, Armorial Simplicity. [Godric the Gallant, 11/99, R-Meridies]
[Per bend sinister sable and azure, a bend sinister argent between a mullet within and conjoined to a decrescent Or and a unicorn rampant contourny argent] The device uses three different charges in the same group of secondary charges and therefore violates RfS VIII.1.a, Armorial Simplicity. [Gwendolyn of the Isle of Wight, 11/99, R-Meridies]
[Per chevron argent and purpure, two cows statant respectant sable, and in base a carpenter's square, point to chief, and a hammer in saltire Or] The device uses three different charges in the same group of primary charges and therefore violates RfS VIII.1.a, Armorial Simplicity. [Lorcan Mac Colla, 11/99, R-Outlands]
[Or, in pale a horse's head contourny issuant from a heart voided sable] This is clear of Suzanna Jewell, Or, on a heart sable a lozenge Or. There is a CD for the number of primary charges and a second for substantially changing the type of the tertiaries on the hearts; clause b of X.4.j.ii applies to different coprimaries when they are the only charges on the field. [Sean of Lions Gate, 12/99, A-An Tir]
[Per bend sinister argent crusily sable and Or crescenty... sable] Current precedent disallows two different sets of strewn charges directly on the field. In this case, however, the device would be acceptable (if not particularly authentic) if there were three of each type of charge on the field. We see no reason to make a distinction between three and an unnumbered set of strewn charges when there is, as here, a well defined boundary between the two groups of charges, such that either set of charges could be dropped without requiring the other set to fill the field. [William Xanthos, 02/00, A-Atenveldt]
[a roundel between and conjoined in fess to an increscent and a decrescent] ... conjoining the roundel and the crescents severely reduces their identifiability ("The conjoining of the increscent, roundel and decrescent are distinctly non-period. While we will reluctantly register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them unidentifiable as well as non-period. (Jaella of Armida, LoAR September 1997, p. 23)"). [Mivanou merch Deicyn Maur, 03/00, R-Caid]
[Azure, on a pale between two towers Or an artist's brush and a reed pen inverted in saltire sable] The pen and the brush were difficult to tell apart, particularly as both were drawn as black silhouettes. Therefore, this must be returned for using two similar but non-identical charges on a device (the sword and dagger precedent). [Kayleigh von Brückenheim, 04/00, R-Atenveldt]
Clarion (now Batonvert - see below) noted that our current use of the term entwined (or its equivalents) does not indicated whether the surrounding charge is large enough to be considered co-primary or so small it should be considered a maintained charge (or something in between). I do not want to use the word sustained with entwined charges, as neither is sustaining the other, but I am open to suggestions on a way to make the distinction clear in blazon. Until then, entwined charges are generally considered co-primary, but not universally. [07/00, CL]
[... sustaining a banner quarterly sable and gules, seme of fraises Or] ... we do not allow a depiction of heraldic display which conflicts with registered armory... [Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 09/00, R-Artemisia]
[an octofoil within eight octofoils in annulo] Size is not the only thing that determines a primary charge. We were unable to devise a way to describe arrangement of the charges in a way that did not imply that they were a primary charge surrounded by a secondary group. Such arrangements cannot use the same type of charge. The problem could be solved by arranging them in a diamond (1,2,3,2, and 1) or in a square (3,3, and 3). [Yin Mei Li, 09/00, R-Artemisia]
[Purpure, a chevron couched from dexter interlaced with a chevron couched from sinister Or between two arrows, overall an arrow inverted argent] This violates the ban on depictions of the same charge in two different sizes on the field. As drawn, it is unclear if the arrows on the sides are intended to be secondaries or overall charges. [Ásta Þorvaldsdóttir, 02/01, R-Atenveldt]
[Or, an artist's brush and a reed pen inverted in saltire sable ...] The new submission does not solve the problem from the previous submission. There are still two similar but non-identical charges on the device (the pen and the brush), a practice which has been prohibited for some time. Making them primary charges does not change the problem. [Kayleigh von Brückenheim, 02/01, R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent] This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent, with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge groups. [Avery Westfall, 03/01, A-An Tir]
[Per chevron throughout azure and argent, two chalices and a ship counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per chevron azure and argent, two chalices argent and a cluster of grapes, slipped and leaved, proper. The precedent that allows changes to the bottommost of three charges arranged two and one explicitly limits the amount of difference to one CD; therefore there is only a single CD for multiple changes to the bottom third of the device. [Ginevra da Cunha, 03/01, R-Caid]
[Argent, a bridge throughout embattled sable masoned argent issuant from a ford proper, in chief a raven's head erased sable within a laurel wreath vert] Examination of the emblazon shows that the bridge is the primary charge with the raven's head and laurel wreath as secondaries and the ford as a peripheral ordinary. Therefore the device has three charge groups, none of which have three different types of charges, and therefore does not violate the rule of thumb in RfS VIII.1.a, Armorial Simplicity, forbidding three or more types of charges in a single group. [Ravensweir, Shire of, 05/01, A-An Tir]

CHESS PIECE

[A zule vs. a chess rook] ... there is a CD for type of primary... [Endless Hills, Barony of, 08/99, A-Æthelmearc]
The Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry states that the standard modern depiction of chess pawns, as seen here, was not found in period. Therefore this must be redrawn using a period form of chess pawn. [Fionn Ua Néill, 01/00, R-An Tir]

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. [Aastasia Gutane, 10/99, R-East]
A chevron rompú is too complex a charge to fimbriate. [Seth of Newcastle, 10/99, R-Meridies]
There is one CD for the difference between a chevron rompu and a chevron fracted. [Theodora of Trebizond, 02/00, A-Artemisia]
[a chevron ployé vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. [implying no CD for ployé vs. plain] [Adriana Kavanaugh¸04/00, R-Atenveldt]
[a chevron throughout raguly on the upper edge] Conflict with ... Azure, a chevron embattled argent. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but nothing for the difference between a chevron embattled and a chevron raguly on the upper edge nor for the difference between a chevron and a chevron throughout. [Thome le Lent, 05/00, R-Drachenwald]

CHIEF

[a chief triangular] The chief descends below the per fess line. This is far too low for a chief triangular, but still far to high for a pile, even without the vol beneath it. [Natalya Berkutova Voronina, 11/99, R-Meridies]
[a chief indented] The device was blazoned as having three triangles issuant from chief. This style of indentation can be found in period (for example Lowell of Balumbye (Lindsay of the Mount, pl. 107)), but it was blazoned as either indented or three piles. As current scholarship believes that such chiefs were originally indented with deep indentations, we decided to blazon it as indented and leave the depth to artistic license. [Galiana fitz William, 07/00, A-Outlands]
There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary charges, but as the position of the chief is part of its type, there is not a second CD for changing the position of the secondary charges. [Cristina Robertsdottir, 07/01, R-Calontir]

COMPASS ROSE

Inverting a compass rose is registerable, but a weirdness. [Tane Verloren, 05/00, A-Ansteorra]
There is no difference given between a compass rose and a compass star within an annulet. [Stephen macThomas, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]

COMPASS STAR and SUN
see also MULLET

[Azure, a talbot's head erased argent within a bordure rayonny Or] Conflict with ... Azure, a wolf's head couped argent vorant of a sun and in chief a laurel wreath Or. The emblazon shows that the sun is not large enough to be significant... [Steafan mac Thamhais, 08/99, R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) On a compass star gules a cross botonny argent] The badge conflicts with ... Argent upon a sun gules a dexter hand apaumy couped argent. There is only the CD for fieldlessness. [Implying no CD between a sun and a compass star and that suns/compass stars are not simple enough for X4.j(ii) to give a CD for type-only change of the tertiaries] [Dun Carraig, Barony of, 10/99, R-Atlantia]
[suns vs. mullets]... as suns and mullets are not substantially [different], there is nothing for changing the type only of the tertiaries. [Ursella of Rowantree, 11/99, R-Caid]
[a compass star pierced] After much thought, we decided that piercing is worth a CD when drawn large enough to be equivalent to adding a tertiary charge, as it is done here; i.e. when it is clearly visible and takes up much of the space available to it. [Sebastian of Dragon's Mist, 12/99, A-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) A compass star elongated to base pierced quarterly Or and argent] Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet, it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or spur rowel. [Eridana Ambra Dragotta, 01/00, R-Caid]
[Gules, a sunburst Or issuant from clouds argent within a bordure Or] Conflict with ... Gules, a demi-sun in splendor Or issuant from a cloud argent. There is only one CD for adding the bordure. [Catalina Oro Sol, 03/00, R-Caid]
[Quarterly sable and gules, on a compass star argent a wolf's head cabossed sable vomiting flames proper] Conflict with ... On a mullet of ten points argent a pheon sable, [and] Per pale azure and gules, on a sun argent an estoile of eight rays sable, and ... Quarterly sable and gules, on a sun argent a two headed eagle sable, a label argent. In the first two cases, there is only one CD for the changes to the field. In the third, there is a CD for the addition of the label. In none of these cases is there a CD for the changes to the tertiary charges or a CD for the type of the primary charge. [Derek Fallon Rathbourn, 05/00, R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) A sun per bend sinister bevelled fesswise gules and Or] The line of division is grandfathered to the submitter, however the badge still conflicts with ...A mullet of five greater and five lesser points distilling gouttes. There is a CD for fieldlessness but nothing for tincture nor for the difference between a sun a a mullet of five greater and five lesser points. [Kragon of Land's End, 05/00, R-Outlands]
A compass star cannot be pierced on a fieldless badge. The precedent was set in January 2000:

Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet, it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or spur rowel. [Stephen macThomas, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]
There is no difference given between a compass rose and a compass star within an annulet. [Stephen macThomas, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]
[Per saltire azure and gules, a compass star pierced within a bordure Or] While we are blazoning this as pierced, this does not mean that we will allow compass stars to be pierced on fieldless badges. In this case, it is simply shorthand for on a compass star a roundel per saltire azure and gules. [Alwyn of Kittisford, 07/00, A-Outlands]
There is a CD between suns and estoiles but not the substantial difference needed for X.2 (Difference of Primary Charges) to apply. [Geneviève de la Loire, 07/00, R-Atlantia]
[Quarterly gules and sable, on a sun Or a wheel proper] Conflict with the badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or (Kriemhild of Stonecroft), Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between a mullet of nine points and a sun, and nothing for changing the type only the tertiary charges. An examination of Kriemhild's emblazon shows that the head is primarily brown. [Ive Rathbourn, 08/00, R-Ansteorra]
[mullets of six points vs compass stars] Current policy is to not grant different between mullets of six or more points... [Martin Diaz, 08/00, R-East]
[in chevron five compass stars elongated palewise] To quote Clarion: "It is standard SCA and mundane practice to put charges 'in <ordinary>.'" Thus, this does not fall afoul of the ban against charges in arch, nor that forbidding constellations. [Johann von Sternberg, 09/00, A-Ansteorra]
[a sun vs. a mullet of five greater and five lesser points] By current precedent there is not a CD between a sun and a mullet of ten points... [Thorgrim Ketilsson, 09/00, R-Meridies]
[a sun in splendor gules eclipsed Or] The Pictorial Dictionary says that one of the valid depictions of a sun eclipsed is a sun where the entire inner circle is a different tincture. [Irial Féasruadh ó hIarnáin, 11/00, A-West]
[Azure, in canton a mullet of four points, a bordure argent] Conflict with Ariel of Alon, Azure, two compass stars argent and a sword argent, hilted gules, winged Or, a bordure argent. As neither a compass star nor a mullet of four points are period charges, and they differ only by the addition of the lesser points, there is not a CD between a mullet of four points and a compass star. There is also not a CD for arrangement on the field, because William's mullet occupies the same space as one of Ariel's compass stars. Therefore there is only a single CD for changing the number of primary charges. [William Killian, 01/01, R-Ansteorra]
There is not a CD between a compass star and a sun... [Taliesin de Morlet, 03/01, R-Caid]
By prior precedent there is not a CD between a compass star and a mullet of four points, nor is there a CD between a compass star and a riven star... [Artemisia da Quieto d'Arzenta, 04/01, R-Lochac]
As with other forms of eclipsing, a sun eclipsed of a moon in her plenitude is registerable (as the equivalent to on a sun a moon in her plenitude) but a discouraged practice. [Geneviève de Saint-Cirq-Lapopie, 06/01, R-Atenveldt] [Returned for other reasons]
... a sun and a mullet (of any number of points) are not substantially different; therefore we cannot call the two devices clear by RfS X.2 Difference of Primary Charge. [Alatheia Fenwick Campbell, 06/01, R-East]
[Vert, a sun argent eclipsed sable] The device has a number of conflicts including ... Per pale azure and gules, on a sun argent an estoile of eight rays sable. A sun eclipsed is considered equivalent to a sun charged with a roundel, so there is a CD for the field, but not a CD for changing only the type of the tertiary charge. [Galienne la Bourgoingne, 06/01, R-East]
[a compass star pierced vs a compass star] This is clear ... and a second [CD] for the addition of the piercing, which is large enough to be equivalent to a tertiary charge. [Eric of Clan Smith, 07/01, A-An Tir]
[a sun in splendor argent] The device is in conflict with ... Gyronny argent and sable, an estoile of seven points argent fimbriated sable. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for this difference between a seven-rayed estoile and a sun, and nothing for the removal of the fimbriation. [Catalina de Navarra, 07/01, R-Middle]

COMPLEXITY
see also Style

[Azure, on a bend between a quill pen bendwise sinister and an open book Or, a monkey dormant palewise gules, a bordure Or] This is being returned for identifiability and complexity problems. The placement of the monkey dormant fesswise on the bend makes it too small to be identifiable. In addition, the design is unbalanced, and given that its complexity count is eight, this is enough to push it over the edge. [Wolfram von Aalst, 07/99, R-Atlantia]
[Gules, on a bend sinister argent between a sun in his splendor and an increscent Or, three mullets sable within a bordure argent mulletty sable.] This has a complexity count of nine. "While it is true that armory exceeding this ‘rule of thumb' has been registered on rare occasions, these exceptions have only been made for particularly elegant proposals" (Da'ud ibn Auda, January 1994 LoAR, p. 16). "Particularly elegant" generally means that otherwise it is typical of a style of complex period armory, such as Tudor armory. With the use of dissimilar secondary charges and a bend sinister, this is not "particularly elegant". [Cicilia Deldanza, 11/99, R-Artemisia]
[Per bend sinister sable and azure, in bend a roundel between and conjoined in fess to an increscent and a decrescent and a sun Or] There are three different types of primary charges on the field (roundel, crescent, and sun), violating the complexity rule of thumb in RfS VIII.I.a. Furthermore conjoining the roundel and the crescents severely reduces their identifiability ("The conjoining of the increscent, roundel and decrescent are distinctly non-period. While we will reluctantly register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them unidentifiable as well as non-period. (Jaella of Armida, LoAR September 1997, p. 23)"). [Mivanou merch Deicyn Maur, 03/00, R-Caid]
[Argent, a bridge throughout embattled sable masoned argent issuant from a ford proper, in chief a raven's head erased sable within a laurel wreath vert] Examination of the emblazon shows that the bridge is the primary charge with the raven's head and laurel wreath as secondaries and the ford as a peripheral ordinary. Therefore the device has three charge groups, none of which have three different types of charges, and therefore does not violate the rule of thumb in RfS VIII.1.a, Armorial Simplicity, forbidding three or more types of charges in a single group. [Ravensweir, Shire of, 05/01, A-An Tir]

CONTRAST

[Argent, a wyvern erect sable winged and bellied azure within a bordure per saltire counter-ermine and azure] This acceptance overturns the precedent dated April, 1992, which banned bordures per saltire of low contrast. While this is unattested in period heraldry, it is consistent with the types of extrapolation which SCA heraldry routinely makes. As such, it is a "weirdness", not a returnable offense. [Melyssande Dunn, 07/99, A-An Tir]
[Per bend sinister Or and azure, a wooden tankard proper] This device is being returned for contrast problems. The primary identifying element of the brown tankard, the handle, lies completely on the azure portion of the field (the elaborate carving was completely invisible from five feet away), rendering the whole unidentifiable. [Gwynneth Wenche of Wight, 07/99, R-Atenveldt]
We do not allow charges compony of two metals. [Endless Hills, Barony of, 08/99, R-Æthelmearc]
[Quarterly sable and argent, a dragon passant Or impaled by a sword proper all within a laurel wreath Or.] ...the mostly argent sword is unidentifiable against the argent field. [Dragon's Rest, Shire of, 08/99, R-Artemisia]
[Per chevron wavy sable and azure...] The contrast between the two halves of the field is so low that the line of division is not distinguishable. Past Laurels have returned extremely low-contrast lines of division even when there is not an overall charge (for an example, see the return of Isabel d'Avignon's device, June 1997 LoAR). [Anastasiia Novgorodskaia, 10/99, R-Meridies]
[Gyronny sable and Or, a cross rayonnant gules] The device conflicts with flag of England, Argent, a cross gules. We cannot give a difference for the rays because at least half of them have low contrast with the field and because they are drawn relatively small. [Charles Roberts, 11/99, R-Outlands]
[Gules, a bear passant sable between three mullets of six points Or] The submitter asked that this be registered under RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions. She included numerous examples of sable charges on gules from different areas of Europe. While there was enough evidence given to support Gules, a bear passant sable (which conflicts with, Argent, a bear passant sable), the only examples the submitter presented of a low contrast charge between high contrast secondaries the central charge was an ordinary. As ordinaries have a different level of complexity from an animate charge, we cannot consider their examples as sufficient. None of the examples present showed the case Gules, <an animate charge> sable between <charges> Or (or argent). The Documented Exceptions rule is by nature very conservative; one needs multiple examples of very similar patterns to allow extrapolations. Therefore, we must return the device. [Ursula Georges, 03/00, R-An Tir] [Ed.: Berlin's bear is actually rampant - "Gules, a bear passant sable" was registered to her 02/01, A-An Tir.]
[a jester's bauble proper staffed bendy sinister and hooded per pale gules and purpure] The jester's bauble is primarily bendy of two colors, which violates RfS VIII.2.a. [Sebastiana Gerynot Fanelli, 05/00, R-Atenveldt]
[Per fess rayonny gules and sable, a decrescent argent] The decrescent obscures the low-contrast complex line of division. Placing a charge over the line of division is limited to when the overlying charge is very narrow (such as the handle of an axe). While the crescent was drawn rather thin, the overlap was still too much. [Sylvana Ballaster, 06/00, R-Atlantia]
[Per pale azure and argent, ... a chief checky azure and argent] There would be no problem with either an azure field or an argent field with a checky chief including that color; given that, there is no reason to not accept a split field with checky of both colors. [Gabrielle d'Anjou, 07/00, A-Meridies]
[Per bend sinister wavy azure and vert, a Latin cross bottony...] By long-standing precedent we do not allow a charge to overlap a low contrast complex line of division except when the overlap is so small that the line of division is not obscured. In this case the arms of the cross interfered with the identifiability of the wavy line. [Matilda Merryweather, 07/00, R-Ansteorra]
[checky gules and azure] The device violates Rule VIII.2.b.iv, Contrast Requirements. A checky charge must have good contrast between the two tinctures. [Andrew of Theodford, 07/00, R-Meridies]
[Gyronny sable and purpure] The device violated RfS VIII.2.b(iv) "Contrast Requirements — Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different tinctures must have good contrast between their parts." A gyronny field must have good contrast between its parts. [Brendan of Dormansford, 09/00, R-Ealdormere]
[Medium Contrast Fields] One submission this month, Randwulf aet Blacwulveslea, Per pale checky argent and vert and sable, a wolf rampant counterchanged, contained both a field and a charge each divided so that half was a solid color and half was evenly divided between color and metal, creating armory with a charge that was 75% color and a field that was 75% color. Rfs VIII.2, "Armorial Contrast" does not define this division of tincture as metal, color, or neutral. To make this case even more confusing is that each half of the device has acceptable contrast: we would probably accept Sable, a wolf rampant checky vert and argent or Checky vert and argent, a wolf rampant sable

A check on period examples was of only limited help. I found no examples like Randwulf's: fields multiply divided rarely have central charges over them. I did, however, find examples where either the charge or the field contained a metal or color combined with a neutral tincture (usually gules and vair). Examples are listed below:

From Foster, Dictionary of Heraldry: From Seibmacher, Wappenbuch From Wappenrolle von Zurich From Riquier, Heráldica Castellana While there were not enough examples to make a conclusive decision solely from them, particularly as several examples are cadenced version of more standard arms, it is notable that most of examples the three-quarters dark field or charge was combined with metal. There were two examples combining three-quarters light fields with light ordinaries. These examples were found in late-period German armory, which has more examples than most other sources of cases violating the standard rules of contrast; furthermore the low contrast charge was an ordinary in both cases.

These examples are not sufficient to draw conclusions about period practice. However, they do not refute the most obvious interpretation of the rules: that a charge or field that is primarily (that is, at least two thirds) a metal should be considered equivalent to a metal and a charge or field that is primarily a color should be considered equivalent to a color. This means that Randwulf's device is color-on-color and must be returned.

Note that this holds even though each half has arguably acceptable contrast. One reason to disallow Randwulf's particular case was mentioned by several commenters outside of the general contrast issue: The wolf is that much more unidentifiable when you combine the borderline contrast with counterchanging. Therefore the contrast rules as interpreted above describes why identifiability fails in this case, as it also would for Per pale checky vert and argent and sable, a wolf rampant azure. [10/00, CL]
[Per pale checky argent and vert and sable, a wolf rampant counterchanged] Both the field and the charge are a mixture of a color and a neutral tincture. Therefore both the charge and the field are equivalent to colors and must be returned for violation of RfS VIII.2.c. For a more thorough discussion of the issue, see the cover letter. [Randwulf aet Blacwulveslea, 10/00, R-Trimaris] [Ed.: The cover letter discussion is included immediately above under "Medium Contrast Fields"]
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, a mermaid in her vanity proper] Long precedent and period heraldic practice make Caucasian skin equivalent to argent. If drawn properly, the effectively argent skin of the mermaid would be largely against the argent part of the field. Even as carefully drawn, there is too much of the mermaid's skin against the argent part of the field. Therefore, this must be returned for violating RfS VIII.2, Armorial Contrast. [Ophelia Mulryan, 11/00, R-Drachnewald]
[Gyronny sable and argent, a wolf statant purpure...] Even though the field is evenly divided of a color and metal, most of the identifying parts of the wolf are on sable areas of the field, making the wolf unidentifiable. [Wulfgar Neumann, 01/01, R-Outlands]
[Argent... a chief countercompony azure and argent] As with checky, we will register a chief countercompony that shares a tincture with the field. [Brigid of Kerry, 12/00, A-Middle]
[Per pale argent and sable, on a chevron between two mullets and a fret a mullet all counterchanged] While there is a lot of counterchanging because of the chevron and tertiary on the per pale field, the counterchanging is not excessive. Previous devices returned for excessive counterchanging all had fields divided into four or more parts. Also, using only simple geometric charges reduces the excessiveness of the counterchanging. [Celestria de Cranham, 12/00, A-Middle]
[Gules, a bear passant sable] The Rules for Submission give the following standards for documented exceptions:
An armorial design element that is adequately documented as a period practice may be deemed acceptable even if it violates other sections of Part VIII (Compatible Armorial Style). Such design elements will be accepted only on a case-by-case basis and only in armory comparable in style and complexity to the documented period examples. The strength of the case for such an exception increases in proportion to: the similarity of the documented examples to the submitted armory; and the number of independent period examples offered as evidence.
a. General Exceptions - In most cases the documentation for a proposed exceptional armorial design element should be drawn from several European heraldic jurisdictions. The strength of the case for such an exception increases in proportion to the geographical and chronological breadth of the supporting period evidence.
The submitter has presented over eight unrelated examples of Gules, a <complex charge> sable in several different geographical areas, plus other similar examples of black charges on red fields. She has met the standard set forth in the rules. [Ursula Georges, 02/01, A-An Tir]
[Vair, a moose head affronty couped proper] The identifiability of the brown moose on the vair field was barely acceptable. [Marie Lorraine de Montclair, 02/01, A-Artemisia]
[Vert, a saltire argent, overall an ibex rampant proper] Ibexes are primarily brown in color, thus the overall charge has insufficient contrast with the field, as required by RfS 2.b.i, Contrast Requirements. [Magnus mac Gregor Campbell, 07/01, R-Meridies]

CORONET

[a pearled coronet Or pearled vert] Clarion has given evidence that pearled coronets existed in 16th century Scotland, although they were not associated with barons. Therefore we are allowing the use of pearled coronets; however, if the type of coronet is blazoned at all, it will be blazoned as pearled not baronial. [Rowen O'Ceallachain of Muscraidhe, 04/00, A-An Tir]
While it has been true that the default coronet is a simple coronet of three points, we have for a while now been allowing the blazon coronet to be used with any period depiction of a coronet that is not otherwise reserved, e.g. a coronet could not be drawn as an embattled coronet unless the owner of the armory was a Count or Countess. Thus the difference between a coronet and a coronet of four fleurs-de-lys is not sufficient to make two pieces are armory non-identical. There is, however, a blazonable difference between a coronet of three points and a coronet of four fleurs-de-lys ... [David of Moffat, 04/00, R-An Tir]

COTISES

[... on a pile inverted cotised] After consideration we also decided that because a pile should be drawn as throughout, or nearly so, the cotises count as two charges. [Helmut Kruger, 09/99, R-Atlantia]
... we know of no examples of cotising where only one side of the cotises have a special line of division. [Roiberd Mor Barra, 05/00, R-Drachenwald]
The device has an entire sable cotise on the gules field. As cotises are treated as a secondary charge group, this violates RfS VIII.2, Armorial Contrast. [Seamus McDaid, 07/00, R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent] This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent, with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge groups. [Avery Westfall, 03/01, A-An Tir]

COUNTERCHANGING

[Gyronny purpure and argent, a spider web counterchanged] ... returned ... for lack of identifiability due to excessive counterchanging of a thin line charge. [Lodowick of Grays Inn, 08/99, R-Æthelmearc]
[Gyronny Or and sable, an ermine spot counterchanged] The counterchanging of the ermine spot rendered it unidentifiable. In general one should avoid counterchanging over a gyronny field. [Adelheid von Katzenellenbogen, 01/00, R-An Tir]
[Per bend azure and argent, two keys in saltire, wards to base, counterchanged ...] One of the keys is counterchanged along its axis, thus making it unidentifiable. [Tessa da Rimini, 09/99, R-Ansteorra]
[a column counterchanged] Laurel precedent has long forbidden counterchanging long skinny objects along its long axis. [Octavia Columella, 01/00, R-Atlantia]
[a pale Or surmounted by a bridge ... counterchanged] By long-standing precedent, complex charges cannot be counterchanged over ordinaries. [Roana of Brigeford, 04/00, R-Middle]
[a mace ... counterchanged] There was discussion as to whether the mace was wide enough to be counterchanged along its long axis. Previous cases have decided that winged swords are not, and that double-bitted axes and comets are. The issue is identifiability — such counterchanging was banned precisely because the charge became unidentifiable. After examining the emblazon, we decided that the charge was just barely too narrow to be counterchanged like this. [Balthasar van Maldeghem, 08/00, R-Atlantia]
[Gyronny gules and Or, a lozenge counterchanged] In general, charges should not be counterchanged over a gyronny field, but given the extreme simplicity of the charge, and that there is only one charge, we find this acceptable. [John Michael Midwinter, 10/00, A-Atenveldt]
[a pile sable ... a bordure counterchanged] Given that we allow other peripherals to be counterchanged across an ordinary, we see no reason to disallow it here. However, this practice is not good style and therefore counts as a weirdness. [Duncan Arthur Ross the Black, 07/01, A-Ansteorra]

CRESCENT

[Per bend wavy gules and sable, a decrescent and in chief two mullets argent] This is being returned for having charges overlying a low contrast field with a complex line of division. An exception to this rule is only made when the overlap is very small, but that is not the case here. [Astasia de Moncellis, 06/99, R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) On a crescent sable a butterfly argent] Because the crescent is simple enough to fimbriate, this is clear of ... A crescent sable fimbriated, charged with a sun Or winged argent with a CD for fieldlessness, and another for substantially changing the type of the tertiary charge (even if one ignores the additional color change). [Deirdre of Boolteens, 10/99, A-Atlantia]
[a roundel between and conjoined in fess to an increscent and a decrescent] ... conjoining the roundel and the crescents severely reduces their identifiability ("The conjoining of the increscent, roundel and decrescent are distinctly non-period. While we will reluctantly register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them unidentifiable as well as non-period. (Jaella of Armida, LoAR September 1997, p. 23)"). [Mivanou merch Deicyn Maur, 03/00, R-Caid]
[Per fess rayonny gules and sable, a decrescent argent] The decrescent obscures the low-contrast complex line of division. Placing a charge over the line of division is limited to when the overlying charge is very narrow (such as the handle of an axe). While the crescent was drawn rather thin, the overlap was still too much. [Sylvana Ballaster, 06/00, R-Atlantia]

CROSS

A cross moline is too complex to fimbriate. [Andrew Talbot, 07/99, R-Ansteorra]
[Regarding a cross patee botonny] No documentation was provided that such a cross, which looks like a cross bottony with added flanges, was a reasonable variant of period crosses. [Adele Krin of Malagentia, 07/99, R-East, appeal denied 08/00 (below)]

A cross swallowtail is significantly different from a cross formy but not substantially different... [Margaret Powell, 07/99, R-Meridies]


... there is still a CD between a cross flory and a cross bottony. [Caterina de Cesare, 08/99, A-Middle]
[a Latin cross bottony fitchy vs. a cross bottony fitchy]There is 1 CD for the field, but none for the difference in the crosses. [Matilda Merryweather, 08/99, R-Ansteorra]
There is a CD between a cross nowy and a cross quadrate. [Magdalena Bischoptre, 10/99, A-Calontir]
No documentation was provided that Ukrainian sun crosses were used as anything except an artistic motif in period. There are many artistic motifs that were never used in heraldry, even in areas that used heraldry. Therefore, being an artistic motif is insufficient. As there is not period Ukranian heraldry it may be difficult to show that the sun crosses were use in heraldry; however, it may be sufficient to show examples of a sun cross used as a form of iconic identification similar to armory. [Volodymyr Mykhailovych Dolhoruko, 11/99, R-Atlantia]
[Gyronny sable and Or, a cross rayonnant gules] The device conflicts with flag of England, Argent, a cross gules. We cannot give a difference for the rays because at least half of them have low contrast with the field and because they are drawn relatively small. [Charles Roberts, 11/99, R-Outlands]
... there is not a CD between a cross crosslet fitchy and a cross bottony. [Gertraud von Wuerzburg, 12/99, R-Caid]
... the difference between a Celtic cross and a cross fleury, while significant enough for a CD, is not substantial enough for X.2, Difference of Primary Charges, to apply. [Celestine de Chatham, 01/00, R-Meridies]
... there is a substantial difference between a patriarchal cross and a plain cross throughout. [Karolus Janos, 02/00, A-Ansteorra]
[a cross quadrate formy fitchy vs a cross patty sable] A comparison of the emblazons shows that the addition of the quadrate is not enough of a change, when used on a formy cross, to generate difference. [Johann Wolfgang von Hesse, 04/00, R-Atenveldt]
[three crosses of Santiago Or vs. three crosses crosslet fitchy Or] ... there is a CD for type of cross. [Ximena Yannez de Talavera, 04/00, A-Meridies]
Non-crosses are an SCA invention and have been registered only once, in 1977. Like many other charges from that time period, they are no longer registerable barring evidence that such crosses are compatible with period style. [Sajah bint Habushun ibn Ishandiyar al-Hajjaji, 08/00, R-Atlantia]
[a cross formy and bottony] We can do no better than quote Brachet:
Looking at the drawing in Foster, it seems to me likely that the blazon is happenstantial and this is just a fancy drawing of a cross bottony. Note that the drawings in Foster are not period drawings, they are 19th C. work by the author.
A bit more research proves confusing. Anglo-Norman Armory II, C. Humphery-Smith, p309 blazons the cross of John Benstede (from the Falkirk Roll) as ... a cross clechy voided and bottony argent (and each convex intersection of the cross clechy has a small trefoil attached!) Brault, in Eight Rolls of Arms, p89, gives the blazon from the Thevet version of the Falkirk Roll as "87. Sir John de Benestede port la croys perce' et patee et botonee d'argent." (There are no emblazons in Brault.) In the notes it says that the tincture of the field is missing in both copies of the roll. Looking at the rest of the roll the blazon is peculiar in several respects, not the least of which is the lack of field. If different authorities in different books have vastly different interpretations, enough to change the recorded blazon in the case of Cecil H-Smith, it seems to me that this is good evidence that this cross is a one-off period weirdness. [Adele Krin, 08/00, R-East]
There is no CD for the change between a cross nowy and a cross nowy quadrate, as the overall visual impact is quite similar, and there is no evidence indicating that the treatments were considered distinct in period. [Katheryn MacThomas of Ireland, 09/00, R-Middle]
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, 09/00, R-West]
[a cross of four mascles vert pometty purpure] The cross is two steps from period style. We know of no examples in period armory of a cross pometty of a different tincture. While this by itself may have been registerable, adding the roundels to a type of cross whose outline is rarely if ever further altered makes the cross too far from period style to be registerable. [Kiara Wrynn of the Bells, 10/00, R-Atenveldt]
... while there is a CD between crosses formy and crosses bottony, they are not substantially different. Therefore the two device are not clear by RfS X.2, "Difference of Primary Charge,"... [Johan Krieg, 02/01, R-Atlantia]
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. [Ædwin of Skye, 03/01, A-Caid]
[A cross clechy sable, the crossbar draped of a cloth argent] No evidence was given, nor could the College provide any, that draping a cloth over a cross was a motif found in period heraldry. Furthermore, the particular form of draping obscures enough of the cross that it is equivalent to the type of overall charges that have been disallowed for many years (see the cover letter for the November 1992 LoAR, pg. 3). Any future submission should document the particular depiction to period, preferably in heraldry. Moreover, it should limit the amount of overlap so that both charges are clearly identifiable. [Basil von Köln, 03/01, R-Caid]
A cross patonce and a cross of Santiago are both considered artistic variants of a cross flory; therefore, there is no CD for a cross patonce versus a cross of Santiago. [Caitlin Davies, 03/01, R-East]
[a cross moline] This is clear of ... Azure, a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm, a bordure embattled argent. The two crosses, having a different number of arms, are substantially different. This is also clear of ... Sable, a cross crosslet fitchy within a bordure embattled argent. There is one CD for the change to the field, and a second for the difference between a cross crosslet and a cross moline. [Gryffri de Newmarch, 05/01, A-Meridies]
[a cross bottony vs a cross of Jerusalem] There is a CD for the change of type between a cross of Jerusalem and a cross bottony. However, there is not the substantial change of type needed to clear it by RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. [Maridonna Benvenuti, 06/01, R-Meridies]
[Ermine, a cross formy nowy vert and on a chief sable three crosses of Lorraine bottony argent] This depiction of a cross formy with convex edges has been returned in the past (see the December 1998 LoAR, p. 15, s.n. Séamus Ó Cuileáin). In resubmission, we would also like to see justification of the modification of the ends of crosses of Lorraine, as this is a potential problem. [Yvon-Maurice Charon, 07/01, R-An Tir]
[a cross nowy embattled] We have no evidence of the nowy portion of a cross being further modified by a complex line of division. We would like to see period evidence of such treatment before we will register. [Corrigan mac Cainnich, 07/01, R-Calontir]

DOCUMENTATION

I am more likely to decide that an item is important enough to protect if it appears in multiple general sources, such as general encyclopedias, than if it appears in multiple sources specializing in a particular culture. [08/99, CL]
[Gules, a bear passant sable between three mullets of six points Or] The submitter asked that this be registered under RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions. She included numerous examples of sable charges on gules from different areas of Europe. While there was enough evidence given to support Gules, a bear passant sable (which conflicts with Berlin, Argent, a bear passant sable), the only examples the submitter presented of a low contrast charge between high contrast secondaries the central charge was an ordinary. As ordinaries have a different level of complexity from an animate charge, we cannot consider their examples as sufficient. None of the examples present showed the case Gules, <an animate charge> sable between <charges> Or (or argent). The Documented Exceptions rule is by nature very conservative; one needs multiple examples of very similar patterns to allow extrapolations. Therefore, we must return the device. [Ursula Georges, 03/00, R-An Tir] [Ed.: Berlin's bear is actually rampant - "Gules, a bear passant sable" was registered to her 02/01, A-An Tir.]
The depiction of the reremice is found in Parker, A Glossary of Heraldry. While this is not a period source, it is a standard modern source and therefore the depiction is registerable. [Karl Faustus von Aachen, 04/01, A-Lochac]

DOLPHIN and WHALE

... we will continue to blazon natural dolphins as natural dolphins. However, we will not give a CD between the two types of dolphins although we do between heraldic and natural tigers. [11/99, CL]
[Vert, a narwhal hauriant embowed argent] This is in conflict with ... Sable, a whale haurient argent. There is only 1 CD for change of field. However, his current device, Per pale vert and sable, a narwhale hauriant embowed argent, is also in conflict and therefore we are registering the device under the Grandfather Clause. [Gest Grimsson, 01/00, A-Ansteorra]
[A bottle-nosed dolphin haurient contourny azure maintaining in its mouth a garden rose proper] This violates Rule VIII.4.c, Naturalistic Depiction: "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable charges may not be registered. Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures, use several charges in their natural forms when heraldic equivalents exist, or overuse proper..." The combination of a natural dolphin and a garden rose, neither of which were known in period heraldry, is excessive. [Döregene Naran, 02/00, R-Meridies]
[Per fess wavy argent and azure, a natural dolphin naiant azure] Conflict with ... Argent, a whale naiant azure. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the forced change in position on the field and nothing for the difference between a natural dolphin and a whale. [Eirikr inn kengr, 03/00, R-An Tir]
[Per chevron inverted argent and azure, an Orca embowed sable marked argent and three double-bitted axes argent] The argent portions of the orca cannot be placed on an argent field. [Rowen Seer, 03/00, R-Caid]
[fish embowed haurient] Conflict with the Dauphin of France (important real-world armory), Or, a dolphin haurient azure finned gules. Because Minna's fish is drawn with a curved neck and a back ridge, it looks more like a heraldic dolphin than period depictions of heraldic fish. Therefore there is not a CD for changing the type of charge, leaving only a single CD for changing the tincture of the primary charge group. [Minna of Tintagel, 11/00, R-East]

ESCARBUNCLE

Blazoned as escarbuncles of six, the emblazon clearly shows the charges to be snowflakes, which have been disallowed since the cover letter of the August 1994 LoAR. [Dietrich Schneewolf, 04/00, R-Artemisia]
Escarbuncles of six arms are found in period arms according to A Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry. [Dietrich Schneewolf, 02/01, A-Artemisia]

ESTOILE

[three estoiles of four greater and four lesser rays] The device is two steps from period practice; we found no evidence for estoiles of eight rays, nor for estoiles of greater and lesser points. [Rowen ferch Rhys, 04/00, R-Atlantia]
There is a CD between suns and estoiles but not the substantial difference needed for X.2 (Difference of Primary Charges) to apply. [Geneviève de la Loire, 07/00, R-Atlantia]
[an estoile of five rays] This is clear of ... Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper, and ... Vert, on a mullet of four points Or, a fer-a-loup gules. In both cases there is a CD for an estoile of five points versus a mullet of a different number of points (nine and four respectively), and a second for changes of type and color of the tertiary charges. [Angharad Albanes, 11/00, A-East]
[Per pale sable and argent, two estoiles of eight rays counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale sable and argent, in fess two mullets of four points saltirewise counterchanged. As estoiles and mullets are not substantially different, this cannot be clear via RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. There is a CD for the type of charges, but nothing for orientation as the points of the mullets saltirewise occupy the position of some of the rays of the estoile. [Jean Pierre Détoile, 07/01, R-Atenveldt]
[a sun in splendor argent] The device is in conflict with ... Gyronny argent and sable, an estoile of seven points argent fimbriated sable. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for this difference between a seven-rayed estoile and a sun, and nothing for the removal of the fimbriation. [Catalina de Navarra, 07/01, R-Middle]

FESS

There is a CD between a wall throughout and a castle. While the usual rule of thumb is that there is no CD for a non-ordinary for the same non-ordinary throughout, a wall acts effectively as a fess embattled. [Brian Brock, 07/99, A-Atenveldt]
[... in base a dance] No evidence was presented for the abasement of the dance. As drawn, it looks more like a fimbriated base, which not allowed. [Eileen Dover, 08/00, R-Caid]

FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
see also PILE and PILE INVERTED

Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division, the location of the line of the division and the relative sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé. Therefore, it must be returned both for using a low contrast chapé field and for charging its upper portions. [Celestine de Chatham, 01/00, R-Meridies]
[Argent, on a lozenge fesswise gules a pig statant argent, a chief and a base sable] This does not violate rule VIII.1.c, Armorial Depth, because it is a charged lozenge between a chief and a base, not a charged fess, even though it could be blazoned as a charged fess. In this case the blazon can make a difference: while you cannot "blazon your way out of" a conflict, you can "blazon your way out of" a style problem. If not, all submissions of per chevron, three <X> would be returned because they could also be blazoned as a charged chapé. [Erica Poitevin, 02/00, A-Atlantia]

FIELD DIVISION -- Chaussé
see also PILE and PILE INVERTED

[Gules chaussé Or, a seahorse sejant counterchanged] Conflict with ... Or, a pile gules. By long standing precedent, chaussé fields can alternatively be blazoned as having a pile, and both forms must be considered for conflict. Or, on a pile gules, a seahorse sejant counterchanged conflicts with Or, a pile gules, with only one CD for the addition of the tertiary charge. [Samhthann ni Giolla Mhuire, 10/99, R-Calontir]
[Argent, chausse, a yale rampant and in chief a laurel wreath vert] Conflict with ... Vert, on a pile argent, a dragon rampant gules. As we do not give difference between a pile and chausse, there is only one CD for the changes to the tertiary charges. [Coldedernhale, Shire of, 04/00, R-Middle]
[Barry vert and Or, on a pile sable a thunderbolt Or] This does not conflict with Huldah von Jal, Per bend sinister sable and gules, a thunderbolt Or. While we consider piles to conflict with chaussé fields, a field with a pile is not reblazonable as having chaussé field, as there is an artistic distinction that we enforce (namely that the pile does not issue from the corners of the chief). Therefore, the devices are clear by X.2.

Note that had Roiberd's device been Barry vert and Or, on a pile inverted sable a thunderbolt Or it would have been in conflict with Huldah because Roiberd's device would have had the equally valid blazon Per chevron barry vert and Or and sable, a thunderbolt Or so there would have been only a single CD for the change in the field. [Roiberd Mor Barra, 11/00, A-Drachenwald]
[Lozengy argent and sable, on a pile vert a willow tree eradicated Or] The device is clear of the Order of the Willow (Kingdom of the Middle), Purpure, a willow tree eradicated Or. While a pile conflicts with a chausse, in that Lleoffled's device would conflict with the hypothetical Gules chausse argent, a willow tree Or, it is not reblazonable as a chausse field. Thus we do not have to compare it against the Order of the Willow as if it were a chausse field, so the device is clear by RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges (pile vs. tree).

It is also clear of ..., Vert, chausse chequy argent and sable, a fox dormant argent; because it has a chausse field we do have to compare the two as if they both have chausse fields and as if they both have piles. In the former case they are clear by RfS X.2. In the latter case they are clear with a CD for the field (lozengy argent and sable versus checky argent and sable) and a second CD for substantially changing the type of the tertiary charge. [Lefled Willoughby, 07/01, A-Atenveldt]

FIELD DIVISION -- Checky

[Per pale azure and argent, ... a chief checky azure and argent] There would be no problem with either an azure field or an argent field with a checky chief including that color; given that, there is no reason to not accept a split field with checky of both colors. [Gabrielle d'Anjou, 07/00, A-Meridies]
[checky gules and azure] The device violates Rule VIII.2.b.iv, Contrast Requirements. A checky charge must have good contrast between the two tinctures. [Andrew of Theodford, 07/00, R-Meridies]

FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny

[Gyronny Or and sable, an ermine spot counterchanged] The counterchanging of the ermine spot rendered it unidentifiable. In general one should avoid counterchanging over a gyronny field. [Adelheid von Katzenellenbogen, 01/00, R-An Tir]
[Gyronny sable and purpure] The device violated RfS VIII.2.b(iv) "Contrast Requirements — Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different tinctures must have good contrast between their parts." A gyronny field must have good contrast between its parts. [Brendan of Dormansford, 09/00, R-Ealdormere]
[Gyronny arrondy vert and Or] Conflict with ... Gyronny arrondy Or and azure, and the arms of Campbell, Duke of Argyll (real-world armory), Gyronny Or and sable. In both cases there is only one CD for changing half the tinctures of the field; against Campbell, there is not a CD for the difference between a plain gyronny line and gyronny arrondy. [Thyra Thorkillsdattir, 09/00, R-Ealdormere] [Ed.: A CD was granted between gyronny and gyronny arrondy 03/01, see below.]
[Gyronny gules and Or, a lozenge counterchanged] In general, charges should not be counterchanged over a gyronny field, but given the extreme simplicity of the charge, and that there is only one charge, we find this acceptable. [John Michael Midwinter, 10/00, A-Atenveldt]
[Gyronny of sixteen sable and argent, a salamander statant reguardant gules enflamed Or] Gyronny of sixteen can only be used in some devices, per the following precedent:
The question was raised regarding whether gyronny of sixteen is period, and whether it can be used in the SCA. Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials, cites an instance from the 12th century, and Martin Schrot's Wappenbuch, a German heraldic treatise shows a 16th century example... Given this, we will register Gyronny of sixteen in simple cases, but nothing more, barring period evidence. (Padric O Mullan, 6/99 p. 2)
While the single charge on the field is very complex, it is still only a single charge. Therefore this use of gyronny is acceptable. [Johannes Vagus, 01/01, R-An Tir] [Ed.: Returned for conflict]
... by precedent (Ottar Hrafnsson, May 1998 LoAR, p. 12) there is one CD between gyronny and gyronny arrondy. [John Paul Devereaux, 03/01, A-Middle]

FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous

There is no difference given between lozengy and lozengy bendwise. [Kerdych Goch, 06/99, R-Atlantia]
[Per pall inverted azure, vert and Or] Conflict with ... Per pall sable, vert, and Or.There is a CD for changing the line of division from per pall to per pall inverted, but nothing for changing the tincture of one third of the field. [Yevane Jameson, 12/00, R-Atlantia]

FIELD DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend Sinister

There is insufficient evidence for the period use of per bend enhanced to register it. The documentation listed a single example in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry, and that was a case of per bend sinister enhanced with only one charge in base, not two charges. Other examples provided were all examples of displaced bends [Etienne de Saint Amaranth, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]
Bends and per bend field divisions should be bevilled along the pale line or along the opposite bend direction (bend sinister for a bend line or bend for a bend sinister line), not along the fess line. The August 1992 LoAR cover letter explains in detail the lines of division that match period practice. [Peter Trevor, 07/00, R-Middle]

FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted

[Per chevron throughout Or and gules, two standing balances and a lion rampant counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Or, on a pile inverted cotised gules, a Bengal tiger rampant argent, marked sable. Helmut's device could as easily be blazoned Or, on a pile inverted between two standing balances gules a lion rampant Or. Therefore there is no [CD for] change in tincture only of the tertiary charges. After consideration we also decided that because a pile should be drawn as throughout, or nearly so, the cotises count as two charges. Therefore there is only a single CD for the change in type of the secondary charges. [Helmut Kruger, 09/99, R-Atlantia]
[Barry vert and Or, on a pile sable a thunderbolt Or] This does not conflict with Huldah von Jal, Per bend sinister sable and gules, a thunderbolt Or. While we consider piles to conflict with chaussé fields, a field with a pile is not reblazonable as having chaussé field, as there is an artistic distinction that we enforce (namely that the pile does not issue from the corners of the chief). Therefore, the devices are clear by X.2.

Note that had Roiberd's device been Barry vert and Or, on a pile inverted sable a thunderbolt Or it would have been in conflict with Huldah because Roiberd's device would have had the equally valid blazon Per chevron barry vert and Or and sable, a thunderbolt Or so there would have been only a single CD for the change in the field. [Roiberd Mor Barra, 11/00, A-Drachenwald]
There are far too many rayons in the line of division to make this consistent with period practice. A typical per chevron rayonny line would have about seven or eight rayons; this has four times that many. [Frederich Holstein der Tollhase, 11/00,Middle] [Ed.: Returned for this reason alone]

FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pale

[Per pale checky pean and Or and checky erminois and sable] From the June 1992 LoAR (p. 14): [Per pale lozengy Or and vert, and lozengy argent and purpure] "Using two completely different pairs of tinctures on opposite sides of the per pale line of division seems to go well beyond Period practice here... We need documentation that this many colors on a field is a Period style before we may register it." No evidence has yet been found; furthermore, the strong visual resemblence between both sides reduces identifiability make the device even more unlikely. [Demetrios Kantakouzenos, 04/00, R-Middle]
[Per pale azure and argent, ... a chief checky azure and argent] There would be no problem with either an azure field or an argent field with a checky chief including that color; given that, there is no reason to not accept a split field with checky of both colors. [Gabrielle d'Anjou, 07/00, A-Meridies]
[Per pale bevilled argent and sable, a hawk volant contourny and a skull] No evidence was given that per pale bevilled is a legitimate line of division. Furthermore, even the documented per bend bevilled cannot, by Laurel precedent, be used with dissimilar charges. Legh, Accidences of Armory (1586), asserts that the field should not be charged at all. We have, as one step beyond period practice, allowed the field to be used with a single type of simple charge. The submitted device, however, would be at least two steps beyond period practice. [Béla Kós, 02/01, R-Outlands]

FIELD PRIMARY

[Gyronny arrondy vert and Or] Conflict with ... Gyronny arrondy Or and azure, and the arms of Campbell, Duke of Argyll (real-world armory), Gyronny Or and sable. In both cases there is only one CD for changing half the tinctures of the field ... [Thyra Thorkillsdattir, 09/00, R-Ealdormere]
[Quarterly azure and argent] Conflict with ... Quarterly azure and argent, an orle embattled on the inner edge counterchanged. An orle is a peripheral ordinary; therefore RfS X.1 (Addition of Primary Charge) does not apply. Thus there is only a single CD for removing the orle. [Michael Silverhand, 11/00, R-Ansteorra]
[Per saltire gules and azure] Conflict with ... Per saltire Or and gules. The only possible rule that could make these clear is RfS X.4.a.ii.b, Complete Change of Tincture (part of the Field-Primary Armory rules); however, that rule states If the fields of two pieces of field-primary armory have no tinctures in common, they are considered completely different and do not conflict, irrespective of any other similarities between them. While each portion of the field has changed tincture, one cannot say that they do not have a tincture in common. [Iohanna Carracci, 11/00, R-Middle]
[Per chevron ermine and vert] Conflict with ... Per chevron vert and sable. The only possible rule that could make these clear is RfS X.4.a.ii.b, Complete Change of Tincture (part of the Field-Primary Armory rules); however, that rule states If the fields of two pieces of field-primary armory have no tinctures in common, they are considered completely different and do not conflict, irrespective of any other similarities between them. While each portion of the field has changed tincture, one cannot say that they do not have a tincture in common. [Stefanus Lufmancat, 01/01, R-Middle]
[Gyronny arrondy Or and gules, in canton a laurel wreath sable] Conflict with the Order of the Laurel, (Tinctureless) A laurel wreath. As the order's badge is tinctureless and fieldless, there is not a CD for position, nor is there any CD's for tincture.

There was some discussion as to whether these could be called clear via RfS X.3 Required Charges Transparent. That rule, however, only allows armory with required charges to be considered "simple armory" for the purposes of X.2. As both pieces of armory are already simple, this rule does not apply. A reasonable extension of this rule would be to allow armory consisting of only required charges to be considered field primary, which was presumably the intent of the commenters. That extension, however, would be a rules change and thus needs to be considered as such. In any case, RfS X.3 only applies when both pieces of armory have required charges, and the laurel wreath is not a required charge for the Order of the Laurel. [Vargavik, Shire of, 04/01, R-Lochac]

FIELD TREATMENT -- Honeycomb

Note that, as of this meeting, we are declaring the non-medieval field treatment of honeycombing to be a "weirdness." [Lochmere, Barony of, 06/99, A-Atlantia]

FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned

[(Fieldless) On a tower sable masoned Or, a lion's head argent] Conflict with Frederic of the West Tower, Argent, a tower sable, on its base a cross patonce voided argent. Upon examining the emblazon for Frederic, it is clear that the cross is argent, so there is only the CD for fieldlessness. [Ed,: Implying no CD for the masoning.] [Thomas of Calais, 06/99, R-Atlantia] [Ed.: Registered on appeal 07/00 with a CD for changing type and position of the tertiaries.]

FIELDLESS

Note that being fieldless is not itself a reason to return a fimbriated charge; while the fimbriation is not needed to avoid a contrast problem, it is nevertheless a valid design feature. [Andrew Talbot, 07/99, R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: Returned for fimbriating a cross moline.]
[(Fieldless) A bezant voided of a two headed swan displayed heads respectant ...] The voiding here is essentially an attempt to use a tinctureless (or rather, omni-tinctured) tertiary charge. Such have been disallowed for some time. In returning A cross pierced of a mullet Da'ud ibn Auda wrote, as Laurel: "It is true that we have registered fieldless badges consisting of a charge which has been pierced or voided, but in these cases the piercing/voiding was part of the definition of the charge (e.g., a mascle, a rustre) and can hardly be considered as being in the same category as 'cross pierced of an (omni-tinctured) mullet.'" (January 1996, pg. 27 (Anlon MacMatha, Calontir)) [Aneala, Barony of, 07/99, R-Lochac]
... this badge uses a plain line charged roundel on a fieldless badge, a practice that has been disallowed since Baldwin of Erebor's tenure as Laurel. [Aneala, Barony of, 07/99, R-Lochac]
... we do not give a CD for position [of the primary charge] when one of the pieces of armory is fieldless... [Brandric of Rhydderich Hael, 10/99, R-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A dog passant Or collared gules sustaining in its mouth a flagstaff flying a banner of the Cross of St. George] This fieldless badge appears to be a supporter maintaining a flag with arms on it. As we do not register supporters, we cannot register this. Moreover, we could not register Argent, a cross gules to the submitter because he does not have the right to display the Cross of Saint George as his own armory. [Luther Anshelm, 11/99, R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A compass star elongated to base pierced quarterly Or and argent] Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet, it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or spur rowel. [Eridana Ambra Dragotta, 01/00, R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) Two swans naiant addorsed conjoined and issuant from base, wings elevated and addorsed, argent charged with three chevronels braced vert] Fieldless badges cannot be issuant from base as there is no "base" to issue from. [Ginevra Bagnesi da Diacceto, 01/00, R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) In pale a demi-wyvern vert issuant from a tower gules] The tower is drawn as issuant from base. As it is fieldless, it cannot issue from the edge of a non-existent field. [Mons Draconis, Canton of, 03/00, R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A sprig of honeysuckle gules slipped and leaved vert within and conjoined to a torse wreathed argent and vert] The base of the sprig slightly overlaps the torse; this has long since been grounds for return. The charges should either touch without overlapping, or the sprig should be entirely on the torse. [Cassandra of the Western Green, 04/00, R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) A crescent argent] Conflict with ... Per chevron embattled azure and gules, in sinister chief a crescent argent. As Emma's badge has no field, it is not possible to indicate position on the field, thus there is only a single CD for fieldlessness. [Emma de Lyons, 04/00, R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) A cross crosslet argent surmounted by a dragon's head couped gules] The dragon's head is barely overall which would be reason for return even if this badge had a field. Furthermore, as the badge is fieldless, it violates the current precedent banning overall charges on fieldless badges except in designs involving long skinny charges where the overlap is small. This has been in effect since the November 1992 LoAR. [Cuhelyn Cam vap Morcant, 07/00, R-Meridies]
[Per fess embattled argent and sable, in base a standing balance Or] Conflict with the badge for Elena Anatolievna Pavlova, A standing balance Or. As Elena's badge is fieldless, there is not a CD for the position on the field. Thus there is only a single CD for fieldlessness. [Robert Juste, 07/00, R-Meridies]
[Gyronny arrondy Or and gules, in canton a laurel wreath sable] Conflict with the Order of the Laurel, (Tinctureless) A laurel wreath. As the order's badge is tinctureless and fieldless, there is not a CD for position, nor is there any CD's for tincture. [Vargavik, Shire of, 04/01, R-Lochac]

FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES

[(Fieldless) On a cross moline argent fimbriated gules, a lion's head contourny sable] A cross moline is too complex to fimbriate. Note that being fieldless is not itself a reason to return a fimbriated charge; while the fimbriation is not needed to avoid a contrast problem, it is nevertheless a valid design feature. [Andrew Talbot, 07/99, R-Ansteorra]
[...on a lozenge sable fimbriated] This device is returned for violating rule XI.4: Arms of Pretense. The fimbriation makes the lozenge appear to be charged with a bordure. [Bice di Pietro, 09/99, R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) On a crescent sable a butterfly argent] Because the crescent is simple enough to fimbriate, this is clear of... A crescent sable fimbriated, charged with a sun Or winged argent with a CD for fieldlessness, and another for substantially changing the type of the tertiary charge (even if one ignores the additional color change). [Deirdre of Boolteens, 10/99, A-Atlantia]
These are not flames proper, they are flames Or fimbriated gules. This has been disallowed for some time. [Magnus Jager, 10/99, R-Æthelmearc]
A chevron rompú is too complex a charge to fimbriate. [Seth of Newcastle, 10/99, R-Meridies]
There is not a CD for fimbriation ... [Fiona ingen ui Fhaolain, 07/00, R-Æthelmearc]
[a chevron embattled gules fimbriated argent] Please instruct the submitter to draw the fimbriation thicker. At this time, we allow the fimbriation of central ordinaries with complex lines. [Elias mac Griogair, 06/01, A-Drachenwald]

FISH
see also DOLPHIN and WHALE

[fish embowed haurient] Conflict with the Dauphin of France (important real-world armory), Or, a dolphin haurient azure finned gules. Because Minna's fish is drawn with a curved neck and a back ridge, it looks more like a heraldic dolphin than period depictions of heraldic fish. Therefore there is not a CD for changing the type of charge, leaving only a single CD for changing the tincture of the primary charge group. [Minna of Tintagel, 11/00, R-East]

FLAMES and FIRE

[... on three flames Or three gouts azure.] Gouttes on flames are inherently unidentifiable. "The gout is unrecognizable as such on the flames, appearing to be a part of the flames rather than a separate charge." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR August 1994, p. 16) [Cassandra Zoë Paganel, 08/99, R-Caid]
The flame was drawn as Or fimbriated gules, rather than alternating tongues of Or and gules. This depiction has been grounds for return in the past. [Usama al-Rashid, 06/00, R-Trimaris]
[a phoenix argent rising from flames proper] The flames are not proper (alternating tongues of Or and gules), but are rather "On a flame Or another gules." This form cannot be blazoned as part of a phoenix, and therefore must be returned for a redraw. [Magnús Slembidjákn, 09/00, R-Artemisia]
[Or, a ram's head cabossed sable enflamed gules] This is clear of ... Quarterly purpure and argent, a ram's head caboshed sable armed Or. There is one CD for changes to the field, and a second for the addition of significant flames. Laurel in May 1998 registered a badge for the College of St. Bunstable, A chalice purpure enflamed Or, with the comments Against Dorcas Dorcadas, Or a goblet purpure, jeweled proper, there is a CD for fieldlessness, and one for the addition of the significant flames. Similarly, Magnus' flames are significant enough to generate a CD. [Magnus Jager, 11/00, A-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A bunch of grapes purpure slipped and leaved vert enflamed Or] Conflict with ... (Fieldless) A cluster of grapes purpure leaved vert. There is a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for the enflaming. [Elissa Dondain, 06/01, R-East]

FLOWER -- Miscellaneous

There has been only one registration of a gendy flower, and that was in 1979. Therefore, before I am willing to register the charge again, I need proof that either it is a reasonable heraldic charge or that Gethyn can register it under the grandfather clause, i.e, that Gethyn is a close relative of Alma Tea av Telemark. [Gethyn Tal mab Cadwygaun, 11/99, R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A jonquil blossom Or] The submitter has a letter of permission to conflict with the Barony of Winter's Gate for the Order of the Gilded Lily, Sable, a lily blossom Or. [Implying no CD between a jonquil and a lily blossom] [Karol Johanna Gartenheit, 03/00, A-Caid]
[a rose purpure vs. a periwinkle proper] Periwinkles are bluish purple and by current precedent (see the September 1996 LoAR, pg. 17, s.n. Rosalyn MacGregor) they are not significantly different from either blue or purple roses. [Alisandre Oliphant, 05/00, R-Ansteorra]
[a love-lies-bleeding flower] We also need to see documentation for the loves-lies-bleeding as a period plant because it is the first registration of the charge. [Etienne de Saint Amaranth, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]
[an eight petaled flower alternating petals argent and azure] There are period examples of Tudor roses depicted with alternating colors of petals, therefore while an eight petaled flower with alternating tinctures is unusual, it is not unusual enough to be returnable. [Catheryn Cameron Stewart Morgan, 08/00, A-Caid]
[a wild ginger flower vs a trillium inverted] ... there is one CD ... for the inversion of the flower. Three-petaled flowers have a distinct orientation, unlike flowers with more petals. [Ginevra Rodney, 09/00, A-Ansteorra]
[a wild ginger flower vs. a heartsease] ... there is one CD ... for type of flower. As there is no evidence of heartseases being used in period, we must judge difference on visual grounds. A heartsease has both a different number and of petals and the petals are a different shape, therefore it is sufficiently different from a trillium. [Ginevra Rodney, 09/00, A-Ansteorra]
[Argent chapé, a tulip purpure slipped and leaved vert] Conflict with ... Argent, a tulip gules slipped and leaved vert. Tulips are like thistles, the slipping and leaving of a tulip makes up more than half the charge; therefore, it is the tincture of the slips and leaves rather than the tincture of the flower that is used when checking conflict. Because the plant portion of the tulip is more significant than the flower, there is not a CD for changing its tincture. Therefore there is only a single CD for the field. [Catharina de Bruyn, 09/00, R-Middle]
[a sunflower Or seeded proper] There is no default color for the seeds of sunflowers: sometimes they are black, sometimes brown. Therefore, we cannot register a sunflower proper. [Cassandra von Schwabing, 11/00, R-Drachenwald]

FLOWER -- Rose

[Per pale gules and argent, six roses counterchanged.] This is returned for using the restricted charge, the Tudor rose. The two roses that lie on the line of division are per pale argent and gules, which is one form of the Tudor rose. [Rouland Blackwell, 08/99, R-Ansteorra]
[a Kendal flower proper] The Kendal flower, when proper, is a six petaled rose of alternating argent and gules petals. This makes it a variant of a Tudor rose, as the Tudors combined white and red roses in various manners. Tudor roses are restricted charges and cannot be registered. [Juliana Kendal, 01/00, R-An Tir]
[A bottle-nosed dolphin haurient contourny azure maintaining in its mouth a garden rose proper] This violates Rule VIII.4.c, Naturalistic Depiction: "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable charges may not be registered. Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures, use several charges in their natural forms when heraldic equivalents exist, or overuse proper..."The combination of a natural dolphin and a garden rose, neither of which were known in period heraldry, is excessive. [Döregene Naran, 02/00, R-Meridies]
[roses vs. forgot-me-nots] ...but nothing for ... the difference between a forget-me-not and a rose. [Beatrice Domenici della Campana, 03/00, R-An Tir]
[Sable on a pale between two rapiers argent a rose gules barbed and seeded argent]. Conflict with ..., Sable, on a pale between two wolves combattant argent a rose slipped and leaved sable. ... there is a CD for the change of type of secondary charges, but nothing for adding the slip, and nothing for changing the tincture only of the tertiary charge. [Meridies, Kingdom of, 03/00, R-Meridies]
[a rose purpure vs. a periwinkle proper] Periwinkles are bluish purple and by current precedent (see the September 1996 LoAR, pg. 17, s.n. Rosalyn MacGregor) they are not significantly different from either blue or purple roses. [Alisandre Oliphant, 05/00, R-Ansteorra]
[a rose azure vs a periwinkle proper] Periwinkles are bluish purple and by current precedent (see the September 1996 LoAR, pg. 17, s.n. Rosalyn MacGregor) they are not significantly different from either blue or purple roses. Therefore, there is only a single CD for the addition of the secondary charges. [Moira McKay, 07/00, R-Meridies]
Rosebuds have been forbidden as a change [sic] since July 1994, barring any evidence of them being used in period armory. [Raffaella da Napoli, 06/00, R-East]
[fraises vs. roses] As a fraise is essentially a cinquefoil, by precedent there is also not a CD for type of primary charge. [Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 09/00, R-Artemisia]
While blazoned as garden roses an examination of the emblazon shows them to be rosebuds. Rosebuds have not been registerable as charges since November 1994. [Mary Amanda, 09/00, R-Artemisia]
[a double rose proper] Conflict with ... Argent, a pimpernel gules, slipped and leaved, within a bordure vert ... There is no CD for the difference between a pimpernel and a rose (even a double rose), and there is no CD for removing the slipping of a rose-like flower. [Bryne McClellan, 09/00, R-West]
[two roses azure each charged with a rose argent vs a semé of roses] ... there is a CD for changing the number of secondary charges and a second CD for adding the tertiary charges. As drawn the charges in chief cannot be double roses as the outer rose and the inner rose have different orientations. [Beatrice Domenici della Campana, 05/01, A-An Tir]
[Per pale Or and azure, a rose counterchanged] Conflict with ... (Fieldless) A double rose per pale azure and Or. There is only a single CD for adding the field. [Gabriella da Milano, 05/01, R-Middle]

FLOWER -- Thistle

There is also a substantial difference between a shamrock and a thistle... [Magdalena Bischoptre, 10/99, A-Calontir]
[Purpure, a thistle Or] Conflict with ... A blue thistle sable, slipped and leaved Or. There is one CD for the field, but none for the blue flower; the bulk of the flower is Or for both devices. [Sarra Fina MacDonald, 10/99, R-East]
[(Fieldless) A thistle Or] Conflict with /the Order of the Sable Thistle (Kingdom of Ansteorra), A blue thistle sable, slipped and leaved Or. Ansteorra's thistle is mostly Or, so there is no CD for the different color of the flowers. [Seónaid inghean Sheathain, 11/99, R-Caid]
Please inform the submitter that a thistle has prominent leaves that extend upwards from base. [Ewan of Balquhidder, 04/00, A-An Tir]
[Argent chapé, a tulip purpure slipped and leaved vert] Conflict with ... Argent, a tulip gules slipped and leaved vert. Tulips are like thistles, the slipping and leaving of a tulip makes up more than half the charge; therefore, it is the tincture of the slips and leaves rather than the tincture of the flower that is used when checking conflict. Because the plant portion of the tulip is more significant than the flower, there is not a CD for changing its tincture. Therefore there is only a single CD for the field. [Catharina de Bruyn, 09/00, R-Middle]

FOIL

There is also a substantial difference between a shamrock and a thistle... [Magdalena Bischoptre, 10/99, A-Calontir]
Woodward (Plate XXIX) depicts a quatrefoil with a large internal space, allowing a quatrefoil to be charged without the charge being overall. [Angus MacBain, 09/00, A-Æthelmearc]
[fraises vs. roses] As a fraise is essentially a cinquefoil, by precedent there is also not a CD for type of primary charge. [Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 09/00, R-Artemisia]

FOOTPRINT

As neither pawprints nor footprints are attested period charges, and because they have significantly different shapes, we are inclined to grant a CD between the two. [Willelm le Pied, 07/99, A-Middle]

FRET and FRETTY

[Per fess azure, fretty argent, and azure] There is no evidence of any use in period of fretty that arbitrarily stops in the middle of the shield. [Marion le Red, 01/00, R-Atlantia]
[Vert, a saltire Or fretted with a serpent in mascle argent] Conflicts with the Confederation of the Fret, Per saltire argent and ermine, a fret Or, fimbriated sable. There is a CD for the field, but the primary charge group is too close to a fret for there to be a second difference. [Silence de Cherbourg, 01/00, R-Atlantia]

GRANDFATHER CLAUSE

[Or, a fess bretessed between a harp vert and a lion couchant pean] The fess in this submission resembles the fess used by her husband Gavin MacFergus in his device. At that time his device was registered he was told that the fess should have a least three embrasures. A number of commenters felt that as this device has the same artistic problem as the previous submission, a simple instruction to redraw will be insufficient and the device should be returned. However, because we registered the fess for her husband, we feel obligated to register it for her under the Grandfather clause. [Briana Morgan of the Valley, 06/99, A-Atlantia]
[Vert, a narwhal hauriant embowed argent] This is in conflict with ... Sable, a whale haurient argent. There is only 1 CD for change of field. However, his current device, Per pale vert and sable, a narwhale hauriant embowed argent, is also in conflict and therefore we are registering the device under the Grandfather Clause. [Gest Grimsson, 01/00, A-Ansteorra]
[a bordure countercompony Or and argent] The device violates Rule RfS VIII.2.b, Contrast Requirements, with a bordure divided into multiple parts of two metals. The kingdom asked that this be registered under the Grandfather Clause (RfS VII.8), given that their device plus a number of their badges has a field checky Or and argent, and furthermore they have one badge with a checky charge, On a heart checky Or and argent, a rose slipped and leaved sable. RfS VII.8, however, indicates that the extension of motifs used in already registered armory is very limited: Only the actual armorial element from the originally registered submission may be covered by this permission. For example, if an individual had registered armory containing a fimbriated lion many years ago, only that fimbriated lion would be covered under this rule, not fimbriated wolves, eagles, or lions in other postures. This means that the kingdom can registered [sic]fields and hearts checky Or and argent, but not general charges. Furthermore, the allowance only applies to checky, not other multiply divided fields. While countercompony is similar to checky, it is not the same field division. [An Tir, Kingdom of, 10/00, R-An Tir]

GUILLOTINE

Guillotine-style machines are permissible in medieval forms, such as the Halifax Gibbet. This submission is of a modern guillotine, which did not exist until the mid-seventeenth century. In particular, we found no period examples using a slanted blade. The submitter should be informed that in no depiction of guillotine-style machines is the blade freestanding. All depictions showed the blade running along guides on each side. [Sean Holden, 07/00, R-Atenveldt]

HAMMER

[a hammer and an axe proper] The hammer and the axe were completely brown. An axe does not have a proper coloring, and a hammer proper is sable hafted of brown wood. In neither case are the heads brown. [Iain MacConmhaoil, 11/99, R-Artemisia]
[Azure, a sledge hammer Or surmounted by an open book argent] Visual conflict with ... Azure, an open book argent, overall an estoc inverted Or. An estoc is a type of sword, and a comparison of the emblazons showed that the visual resemblance was overwhelming. [Kenric inn kyrri, 04/00, R-An Tir]
[an armorer's hammer reversed vs a smith's hammer] ... [no CD] for reversing the hammer, as some hammers are symmetrical and all have relatively little difference between the two sides. [Gareth Kincaid, 06/01, R-Æthelmearc]

HEAD

[a lion's head erased argent] Conflict with the badge for Kasilda Kubasek, Gules, a natural leopard's head erased argent, spotted sable. ... Nor is there a CD for markings on the head of Kasilda's leopard. [Vladislav de Jaffa, 02/00, R-Middle]
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, two horse's heads issuant from the line of division counterchanged] The device motif is currently registerable; it follows a pattern found in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, using linden leaves, and Palimpsest has found a 15th century example of a similar motif using wolf heads. [Hildegard von Garmisch, 04/00, A-Middle]
[Purpure, a horse's head couped argent gorged of a collar Or, a bordure Or semy of grapes purpure] The head is not gorged of a collar, but rather is issuant from a collar lying along a diagonal. As we have neither any examples of couping on a diagonal, nor any examples of animal heads emerging from a collar, the device is two steps from period practice. Please inform the submitter that couping is a horizontal line, and that the collar should be parallel to and above the line of couping. [Genevieve Gabrielle Plubel d'Avon, 04/00, R-Atenveldt]
[Sable, a lion's head erased argent langued gules] Conflict with ... Sable, a natural panther's head couped between three compass stars argent. There is not a CD for the changes to the head, so there is only a single CD for the deletion of the compass stars. The device is also in conflict with ... Sable, a natural leopard's head couped Or marked sable. There is only a single CD for the tincture of the head. [Robert of Strathconan, 04/00, R-Lochac]
While we have been generally lenient about the way animal heads are couped, this particular rendition is too far from known period practices. In period heraldry, couping was generally drawn as a straight horizontal line, although there are some examples where the line is tilted. In this case the line was very carefully drawn to follow the shoulder line; it is bendwise at the top and palewise at the bottom. Therefore, we are returning this for violating RfS VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction. [Ulvar MacVanis, 07/00, R-Lochac]
[Per bend sinister sable and gules, a boar's head erased close Or] Conflict with ... A unicornate boar's head erased Or. There is one CD for adding the field, but noting for the removal of the horn. [Wolfram von Taus, 01/01, R-Atlantia]
[an antelope's head vs. a fawn's head] We give a CD between a deer and an antelope and the primary difference between these two charges is the head; therefore, there is a ... CD for changing the type of the primary charge. [Dun Or, Barony of, 03/01, A-Caid]
[a greyhound's head vs a wolf's head] ...there is not a CD between a wolf and a greyhound. See the cover letter [06/01, CL] for a more thorough discussion. [Dafydd MacDonald, 06/01, R-Caid]

HEART and SEEBLATT

[Quarterly azure and vert, a heart Or] Conflict with ... A seeblatt Or. There is a CD for the fieldlessness, but by current precedent none for the change in type of the charges. There are period arms that are blazoned both as having hearts and as having seeblatter (see the May 1993 LoAR pg. 17., s.n. Caitlin Davies, for the full discussion). [Rhiannon MacReadie, 05/00, R-An Tir]
[a seeblatt sable vs. a heart fracted palewise sable] By current precedent there is not a CD between a heart and a seeblatt, nor is there a CD for fracting a charge. [Þorkatla Bjarnardóttir, 09/00, R-Artemisia]
... there is enough difference between a seablatt and a card pique for there to be a CD for changing the type of the primary charge [Tamlyn of Wyntersea, 02/01, A-An Tir]
[A seeblatt inverted argent] The badge is clear of ... Barnabas z Husinece, A whitebeam leaf inverted argent. An examination of Barnabas's leaf shows that is quite distinct from a seeblatt, therefore there again is a CD for changing the type of the primary charge and another for fieldlessness. [Tamlyn of Wyntersea, 02/01, A-An Tir]

IDENTIFIABILITY

[Per bend wavy gules and sable, a decrescent and in chief two mullets argent] This is being returned for having charges overlying a low contrast field with a complex line of division. An exception to this rule is only made when the overlap is very small, but that is not the case here. [Astasia de Moncellis, 06/99, R-Atlantia]
[Per bend wavy gules and sable, a single-bitted battle-axe facing sinister and in chief two estoiles argent] This is being returned for having charges overlying a low contrast field with a complex line of division. The axe itself is not the problem; its overlap is minor enough to maintain identifiability. With the estoile in chief, however, the line of division becomes fatally obscured. [Giovanni de Moncellis, 06/99, R-Atlantia]
[Per bend sinister Or and azure, a wooden tankard proper] This device is being returned for contrast problems. The primary identifying element of the brown tankard, the handle, lies completely on the azure portion of the field (the elaborate carving was completely invisible from five feet away), rendering the whole unidentifiable. [Gwynneth Wenche of Wight, 07/99, R-Atenveldt]
[Azure, on a bend between a quill pen bendwise sinister and an open book Or, a monkey dormant palewise gules, a bordure Or] This is being returned for identifiability and complexity problems. The placement of the monkey dormant fesswise on the bend makes it too small to be identifiable. In addition, the design is unbalanced, and given that its complexity count is eight, this is enough to push it over the edge. [Wolfram von Aalst, 07/99, R-Atlantia]
[Per fess indented azure goutty d'eau and vert, a pheon within a bordure Or.] ... the overlying charge obscures the low contrast complex line of division enough that identifiability is lost. [Endless Hills, Barony of, 08/99, R-Æthelmearc]
[Gyronny purpure and argent, a spider web counterchanged] ... returned ... for lack of identifiability due to excessive counterchanging of a thin line charge. [Lodowick of Grays Inn, 08/99, R-Æthelmearc]
[Quarterly sable and argent, a dragon passant Or impaled by a sword proper all within a laurel wreath Or.] ...the mostly argent sword is unidentifiable against the argent field. [Dragon's Rest, Shire of, 08/99, R-Artemisia]
[Gules a sword quillioned of balance pans argent...] The sword in this design looks like a part of a balance and not like a sword. Therefore this is returned for violating rule VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. [Conan MacAindreis, 08/99, R-Lochac]
[Per bend azure and argent, two keys in saltire, wards to base, counterchanged ...] One of the keys is counterchanged along its axis, thus making it unidentifiable. [Tessa da Rimini, 09/99, R-Ansteorra]
[Barry bendy argent and azure, a trident bendwise sinister sable, overall a dolphin hauriant gules] The sable trident was unidentifiable at any distance against the field. [Gunther von Lindenwald, 10/99, R-Atlantia]
[Vair, a swallow volant sable ...] The sable swallow is unidentifiable on the vair field. [Francesca da Bari, 11/99, R-Artemisia]
[Vair, a cat passant guardant herissony sable] ... the cat was not identifiable against the vair field. [George Anne, 01/00, R-Æthelmearc]
[Gyronny Or and sable, an ermine spot counterchanged] The counterchanging of the ermine spot rendered it unidentifiable. In general one should avoid counterchanging over a gyronny field. [Adelheid von Katzenellenbogen, 01/00, R-An Tir]
[Per pale sable and argent all semy-de-lys counterchanged, a sword inverted azure] Because half of the long axis of the blued sword is placed on a black background its visibility to the point where it became unidentifiable. [Mahieu Griffaud, 01/00, R-Atlantia]
[Azure, a demi-lion couchant guardant contourny Or, maintaining an equal-armed Celtic cross sable] The maintained charge is not visible on the azure field. While we do not require good contrast between a maintained charge and the field, the charge must still be somewhat identifiable. [Máille ingen Bhrain Cadal, 01/00, R-Atlantia]
[Per fess indented gules and sable, a laurel wreath ...] ... if properly drawn, the laurel wreath will overlap the complex line of division enough that identifiability is reduced. [Darkstone, College of, 02/00, R-Middle]
[a roundel between and conjoined in fess to an increscent and decrescent] ... conjoining the roundel and the crescents severely reduces their identifiability ("The conjoining of the increscent, roundel and decrescent are distinctly non-period. While we will reluctantly register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them unidentifiable as well as non-period. (Jaella of Armida, LoAR September 1997, p. 23)"). [Mivanou merch Deicyn Maur, 03/00, R-Caid]
[Gyronny of sixteen gules and argent, a windmill sable, a bordure vert bezanty] 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. [Cadwan Galwiddoe of Redmarch, 06/00, R-Atlantia]
[Gyronny argent and gules, on a plate ...] ... just as we do not allow a compony bordure to share a tincture with the field, the consensus was to not allow a roundel to share a tincture with a gyronny field, as the number of divisions is not high enough to ensure identifiability. [Sarah MacGregor, 08/00, R-Meridies]
[An astrolabe erminois] An astrolabe has far too much internal detail to remain identifiable when tinctured in a fur. [Magnus von Lübeck, 11/00, R-Ansteorra]
[Gules, a cubit arm sustaining a bow fesswise argent] By Laurel precedent (see the November 1994 LoAR, Cyril Bowman, pg. 12), the cubit arm/bow combination is disallowed by rule RfS VII.7.a "Identification Requirement" as it not sufficiently distinguishable from a cross bow [Robert of Hawthorne, 12/00, R-An Tir]
[Gyronny sable and argent, a wolf statant purpure...] Even though the field is evenly divided of a color and metal, most of the identifying parts of the wolf are on sable areas of the field, making the wolf unidentifiable. [Wulfgar Neumann, 01/01, R-Outlands]
[three arrows couped below the fletching Or] The demi-arrows are not identifiable. Most commenters were unable to determine what the charge was from its emblazon. It is unclear if it is possible to draw the lower half of an arrow in an identifiable way. Thus the device violates RfS VI7.a, "Identification Requirement - Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance... Elements not used in period armory may be defined and accepted for Society use if they are readily distinguishable from elements that are already in use..." Before we will register this charge we need to see a clearly identifiable depiction and would like to see evidence that using just the lower half of an inanimate charge is consistent with period practice. [Justinus Fletcher, 02/01, R-Meridies]

INSECT

... single cockroaches are now allowable charges. [Whyt Whey, Canton of, 08/99, A-East]
[(Fieldless) A dragonfly vert winged Or] This is clear of ... Barry wavy azure and argent, a dragonfly vert and ... Per fess sable and gules, a dragonfly Or. After examining the emblazon, it is clear that Ann's dragonfly is half vert and half Or, thereby giving it one CD for fieldlessness and one CD for change to half the tincture in each case. [Ann Travers of Amberlye, 05/00, A-Caid]
[Or, a butterfly sable] Conflict with ... Or, a butterfly sable marked Or within an annulet sable. The markings are insufficient to add difference, therefore there is only a single CD for removing the orle. [Reginleif Hildibrandsdóttir, 02/01, R-Meridies]
[two wasps combattant] Long precedent has held that non-quadrupeds cannot be registered in positions such as rampant. In particular, in May 1991, Laurel stated "Henceforth, we will not accept rampant birds." In the same month, Laurel said, "given the College's feelings about birds in a rampant position it is unlikely that a rampant insect would be any more acceptable." Since that time, we have not registered insects in a rampant position, and see no reason to do so now. [Robert Pine, 04/01, R-Atlantia]

KNOTS

[on a Celtic cross throughout gules nine Wake knots Or] In November, 1994, Laurel registered a device containing multiple conjoined knots, but indicated that was borderline:
There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall : "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be ‘no'. Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased ... as to diminish the size seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9) It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots (Da'ud ibn Auda, November 1994 LoAR, p.8).
While the knots are not quite conjoined in this armory, one must look closed to tell, even with the large emblazon. Furthermore, there are more than twice as many knots as in the borderline case. Lastly, the saltire has been pushed upwards to underlie the center of the elongated Celtic cross, which is not period style either. Altogether this must be returned. [Undewyn de Maccuswell, 11/99, R-Middle]
[Sable, a Lacy knot Or conjoined at the tips to eight lily flowers argent] The lily flowers are unidentifiable when used at the ends of the knots; they could be easily misidentified as tassels which were used at the ends of knots. Therefore the badge is in conflict with Lacy (important real-world badge), A Lacy knot, with only a single CD for fieldlessness. [Juliana la Caminante de Navarra, 12/00, R-Atlantia]
Mascle knots have been disallowed since 1996: "The mascle knot is an SCA invention, with only two registrations, and is unattested anywhere else. As such, it is not sufficiently well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to continue to register it in the future." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR March 1996 p. 12) [Líadan inghean uí Laoghaire, 03/01, R-East]
[a pretzel] ... after consideration, we feel that there is significant, although not substantial, difference between a Stafford knot and this depiction of a pretzel, as the pretzel is knotted differently from a Stafford knot. [Edmund Lambert of Tregelles, 04/01, A-Æthelmearc]

LAMP and LANTERN

[Azure, a lamp enflamed within a bordure Or.] This does not conflict with ... Azure, a lanthorn Or, or ... Purpure, a lantern within a bordure Or. There is a CD between a lantern and an Arabic lamp. [Endless Hills, Barony of, 08/99, Æthelmearc]

LEAF

There is a CD between a maple leaf and single-lobed leaves such as elm leaves and blackthorn leaves. [Runa Ragnarsdottir, 12/99, A-Caid]
The primary charge is the leaf of a vanillaleaf plant (genus Achlys). Europeans did not discover it until the 18th century so cannot be used in SCA armory. [Turpin Akraspillir, 02/00, R-An Tir]
There is no difference between an aspen leaf and a card pique inverted, as there is no evidence that the charges were considered different in period (in particular, there is no evidence that the aspen leaf was used as a charge in period), and visually the two charges are almost identical. [Aislynn Crystyn, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]
[Or, a sprig of oak proper, a bordure sable] Conflict with Wulf Beornsson, Or, a sprig of three poison ivy leaves inverted vert within a bordure sable. There is only a single CD for orientation of the sprig. [Sion Becote, 06/00, R-Meridies]
[A seeblatt inverted argent] The badge is clear of ... Barnabas z Husinece, A whitebeam leaf inverted argent. An examination of Barnabas's leaf shows that is quite distinct from a seeblatt, therefore there again is a CD for changing the type of the primary charge and another for fieldlessness. [Tamlyn of Wyntersea, 02/01, A-An Tir]
[an ivy leaf vert] This is clear of ... On a blackthorn leaf vert an increscent argent, and ... On an oak leaf vert a hand argent. In each case there is a CD for fieldlessness and the shape of the leaves is significantly different enough for there to be a second CD. [Isabel Ulfsdottir, 03/01, A-Middle]

LINES of DIVISION -- Bevilled [Per pale bevilled argent and sable] There is no evidence that bevilling was used with a per pale line of division. [Kér Béla, 11/99, R-Outlands]


[Per bend sinister "bevilled"] The line of division was not bevilled as described in the cover letter to the August 1992 LoAR. It is thus returned pending documentation for this line of division. The submitter should be informed that period examples of fields such as per bend bevilled were generally not accompanied by other charges. [Komask Undan of the Silver Stallion, 12/99, R-Atenveldt]
Bends and per bend field divisions should be bevilled along the pale line or along the opposite bend direction (bend sinister for a bend line or bend for a bend sinister line), not along the fess line. The August 1992 LoAR cover letter explains in detail the lines of division that match period practice. [Peter Trevor, 07/00, R-Middle]
[a bend sinister bevilled] The bend is not bevilled; the lower half must be raised relative to the upper half rather than dropped. [Remy le Chat, 02/01, R-Meridies]
[Per pale bevilled argent and sable, a hawk volant contourny and a skull] No evidence was given that per pale bevilled is a legitimate line of division. Furthermore, even the documented per bend bevilled cannot, by Laurel precedent, be used with dissimilar charges. Legh, Accidences of Armory (1586), asserts that the field should not be charged at all. We have, as one step beyond period practice, allowed the field to be used with a single type of simple charge. The submitted device, however, would be at least two steps beyond period practice. [Béla Kós, 02/01, R-Outlands]

LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled

There is a CD for the change to the field but nothing for dovetailed vs. embattled. [Lyssandre le Téméraire, 07/99, R-Lochac]
[Argent, a bend embattled counter-embattled gules between two anvils sable] Conflict with ... Argent, a bend bretessed gules between a dragon rampant and a maple leaf sable. There is only one CD for change of type of the secondary charges. [Malachi of East River, 02/00, R-Meridies]
[a bordure potenty vs. a bordure embattled] ... and there is a second CD for the difference between potenty and embattled [Cairbre macc Eochada micc Fedelmid, 03/00, A-An Tir]
... and there is a second CD for changing the pile from raguly to potenty. [Feyerwary Ersebet, 03/00, A-Atlantia]
[a chevron throughout raguly on the upper edge] Conflict with ... Azure, a chevron embattled argent. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but nothing for the difference between a chevron embattled and a chevron raguly on the upper edge ... [Thome le Lent, 05/00, R-Drachenwald]
There is no heraldic difference between embattled and bretessed on a pale... [Kenewi ap Owain, 08/00, R-Ansteorra]
By prior Laurel precedent, there is not a CD between embattled and raguly. [Johan Krieg, 02/01, R-Atlantia]
... by precedent (Arinbjorn Ragnarsson, January 1997, p. 18) there is not a CD for urdy vs. embattled. [Biringeira de Vasconçellos, 04/01, R-Drachenwald]

LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous

... a second CD for the change in the line of division between invected and wavy. [Marguerite d'Avignon, 06/00, A-Middle]
The SCA default for per pale lines is that invected lines have the points facing to sinister and engrailed lines have the points facing to dexter. [Rufus Duzeper, 08/00, A-Ansteorra]
[Per bend flory Or and sable] We have allowed a flory counter-flory, with demi-fleurs issuant from the line of division, as an extension of the documented lines trefly counter-trefly (von Hillinger) and per fess indented points fleury (Woodmerton). This device, however, does not match the accepted line of division, but places fleurs-de-lys counterchanged over the line of division. Barring evidence that such treatment is consistent with period practice, we cannot register it. [Rudolphus Heydenreich, 06/01, R-Drachenwald]

LINES of DIVISION -- Potenty

[a bordure potenty vs. a bordure embattled] ...and there is a second CD for the difference between potenty and embattled [Cairbre macc Eochada micc Fedelmid, 03/00, A-An Tir]
... and there is a second CD for changing the pile from raguly to potenty. [Feyerwary Ersebet, 03/00, A-Atlantia]

LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy

From the July 1992 LoAR, p.17: "This sort of wavy ordinary, with the waves opposed instead of parallel ('wavy bretessed' instead of 'wavy-counter-wavy'), was returned on the LoAR of Dec 91 as a non-period depiction." [Andrew Quintero, 09/99, R-Atenveldt]
[Per chevron wavy sable and azure...] The contrast between the two halves of the field is so low that the line of division is not distinguishable. Past Laurels have returned extremely low-contrast lines of division even when there is not an overall charge (for an example, see the return of Isabel d'Avignon's device, June 1997 LoAR). [Anastasiia Novgorodskaia, 10/99, R-Meridies]
... a second CD for the change in the line of division between invected and wavy. [Marguerite d'Avignon, 06/00, A-Middle]

MACE

[a mace ... counterchanged] There was discussion as to whether the mace was wide enough to be counterchanged along its long axis. Previous cases have decided that winged swords are not, and that double-bitted axes and comets are. The issue is identifiability — such counterchanging was banned precisely because the charge became unidentifiable. After examining the emblazon, we decided that the charge was just barely too narrow to be counterchanged like this. [Balthasar van Maldeghem, 08/00, R-Atlantia]
[a mace vs. a flanged mace] There is only a single CD for the change to the field. [Domhnall Ó Coileáin, 10/00, R-Meridies]
[Gules, on a chalice inverted between two roundels Or a wooden spiked mace inverted proper] As far as we know, maces were not made entirely of wood; therefore, there is no support for the head being brown. Furthermore, both cups and maces were rarely inverted in period, so inverting both may be excessive. [Cadlae inghean uí Sheanacháin, 11/00, R-Atenveldt]

MON

This was submitted on a badge form as mon. We no longer distinguish mon from devices and generally require that they also be submitted on device forms. [Eric of Eisental, 08/99, A-East]

MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern

[a dragon rampant gules vs. a dragon rampant gules, armed and webbed vert] There is one CD for field but nothing for arming or webbing. [Wilfred de Ackelonde, 08/99, R-Lochac]
[a pithon displayed vs. a wyvern displayed] Conflicts ...; in period a heraldic pithon was a variant of a wyvern. [Volker Ælfwine, 11/99, R-Outlands]
[a dragon segreant vs. a wyvern erect] ... there is no difference given between a wyvern and a dragon (the wyvern being simply a continental variant of the dragon)... [Gylmyne Ardrossane, 01/00, R-Meridies]
[An Oriental dragon] The badge uses the restricted charge a five-toed Oriental dragon. The charge cannot be used in the Society because it was used only by Emperors of China. [Michael of the Mace, 09/00, R-Meridies]
[a wyvern passant vs. a dragon sejant] As a wyvern passant can be equally blazoned as a wyvern sejant, there is no CD for posture, thus there is only a single CD for the tincture of the wyvern. [Wyvernwoode, Barony of, 10/00, R-Trimaris]
Because a seadragon is almost identical in shape to a wyvern, which is an artistic variant of a dragon, there is not a CD between a dragon and a seadragon... [Muirgheal inghean uí Ógaín, 12/00, R-Atlantia]
There is a CD ... difference in type between a python and a dragon. While there are areas where dragons and wyverns were artistic variants of one another, and there are areas where wyverns and pythons were artistic variants of each other, there are no areas where pythons are artistic variants of four legged dragons. Because of this, and because there is a distinct visual difference between them, we can grant a significant, although not substantial difference between a dragon and a python. [Diolach Macaree, 05/01, A-Æthelmearc]
There is a substantial difference between a dragon and a griffin ... [Antonio da Collaureo, 07/01, A-Atlantia]

MONSTER -- Griffin

[Ermine, a wingless gryphon rampant contourny within a bordure sable] We are registering this submission despite its similarity to Helmut zu Jülich, Quarterly gules and Or, a lion rampant contourny within a bordure sable. The language of the prior return, dated May 1998, strongly implied that a redraw was all that was needed to clear the conflict, and the submitter has done this. We leave open the question as to whether a wingless griffin and a lion rampant should be considered significantly different in the future. [William Geoffrey the Rogue, 07/99, A-An Tir]
[a griffin segreant vs. a griffin segreant coward] There is ... nothing for the tail position. [Arabella Silvermane, 02/00, R-Middle]
There is a substantial difference between a dragon and a griffin ... [Antonio da Collaureo, 07/01, A-Atlantia]

MONSTER -- Mantyger

The man-tyger is a period charge dating to 1529, therefore by X.4.e there is a significant difference between this charge and a cat. [David Drzislav, 07/99, A-Atenveldt]
The primary charge is a misdrawn mantyger. A mantyger has a human head, while this is a lion's head with a human face. Therefore, it conflicts with Belgium, Sable, a lion rampant Or , and various others of the form <Field>, a lion rampant Or. [Aeron Aschennen of Clan MacKenzie, 05/00, R-Ansteorra]

MONSTER -- Miscellaneous

[Argent, a pile wavy gules] Conflict with ... Argent, a pile wavy gules surmounted by a panther salient guardant sable, spotted argent, incensed Or. The spots of panther are part of its tincture, so there is only a CD for removing the overall charge. [Ealdormere, Kingdom of, 10/99, R-Ealdormere]
... we will continue to blazon natural dolphins as natural dolphins. However, we will not give a CD between the two types of dolphins although we do between heraldic and natural tigers. [11/99,CL]
[a lion-headed merman] Several commenters were concerned that putting a lion head on a merman blurred the distinction between a merman and a sea-lion. Changing the head, however, was a period technique of forming composite monsters. Therefore we feel that this monster is within the range of acceptable constructions, although it would be far better if it were in a standard posture for mermen. [Maeve M'Crimmon, 11/99, A-Artemisia]
[a satyr] We do not register rampant humanoids. [Mons von Goarshausen, 11/99, R-Caid]
The head was not a unicorn's head, but rather a unicornate horse's head, as it lacked a beard. Unicornate horses have not been registerable for some time because they blur the distinction between horses and unicorns. [Bronwen Gwehyddes Angelsey, 12/99, R-Atenveldt]
There is ... a second CD for the difference between a pegasus and a hippogriff. [Crystal of Middleford, 01/00, A-Ansteorra]
[a Norse serpent nowed] From the May 1998 LoAR:
The Lisbjerg gripping beast is actually just a variety of the Borre-style gripping beasts which were banned in 11/86, and therefore the Lisbjerg gripping beasts were banned at the same time. Finally, after the October 1998 Laurel meeting we will no longer register zoomorphic beasts of any kind. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR May 1998, p. 28).
This charge is no longer registerable. [Þorfaster Varinsson, 03/00, R-Caid]
There is one CD for the difference between an owl and a harpy; however, there is not substantial difference. [Kazimira Suchenko, 08/00, R-East]

MONSTER -- Phoenix

There is a CD for a phoenix vs. a falcon ... [Rhodri ap Gruffudd, 07/99, A-Atenveldt]
[Per chevron ... a phoenix Or rising from flames proper issuant from the line of division] The flames should not extend along the entire line of division, but should be only under the phoenix's body and slightly beyond. By extending to the edge, the flames appear to be a chevron of flame, which is not allowed. [Adam Stedefast, 07/00, R-Outlands]
[a phoenix argent rising from flames proper] The flames are not proper (alternating tongues of Or and gules), but are rather "On a flame Or another gules." This form cannot be blazoned as part of a phoenix, and therefore must be returned for a redraw. [Magnús Slembidjákn, 09/00, R-Artemisia]

MONSTER -- Pithon

[Sable chaussé papellony vert and argent, a pithon displayed argent] Conflicts with Reynald il Bianco, Per chevron inverted sable and gules, overall a winged serpent erect displayed argent with a CD for the change of field. The pithon on Reynald's device has bird wings, but as both types of wings are used in period this is not worth a difference. It also conflicts with Artus Falconieri, Quarterly pean and purpure, a wyvern displayed argent; in period a heraldic pithon was a variant of a wyvern. [Volker Ælfwine, 11/99, R-Outlands]
There is a CD ... difference in type between a python and a dragon. While there are areas where dragons and wyverns were artistic variants of one another, and there are areas where wyverns and pythons were artistic variants of each other, there are no areas where pythons are artistic variants of four legged dragons. Because of this, and because there is a distinct visual difference between them, we can grant a significant, although not substantial difference between a dragon and a python. [Diolach Macaree, 05/01, A-Æthelmearc]

MONSTER -- Sea

[Argent, a serpent erect contourny, a chief gules] This conflicts with Robert de la Tor-Fraisse, Argent, a sea-serpent haurient reguardant gules. There is only one CD for the addition of the chief. An examination of the emblazon shows that Conall's sea-serpent is in essentially the same posture as Robert's. [Conall Ruadh Mag Fhionnain, 07/99, R-Atlantia]
[sea-griffin] Please inform the submitter that if she must have a sea-griffin, it should have prominent ears to distinguish it from a sea-eagle (not that the difference is sufficient for a CD). [Anastasiia Novgorodskaia, 10/99, R-Meridies]
[a lion-headed merman] Several commenters were concerned that putting a lion head on a merman blurred the distinction between a merman and a sea-lion. Changing the head, however, was a period technique of forming composite monsters. Therefore we feel that this monster is within the range of acceptable constructions, although it would be far better if it were in a standard posture for mermen. [Maeve M'Crimmon, 11/99, A-Artemisia]
Because a seadragon is almost identical in shape to a wyvern, which is an artistic variant of a dragon, there is not a CD between a dragon and a seadragon... [Muirgheal inghean uí Ógaín, 12/00, R-Atlantia]
[a sealion vs. a seabull] There is a CD between the two charges, but while there is substantial difference between a bull and a lion, there is not a substantial difference between the two sea-beasts as the sea tails sharply reduces the difference between the two. [Ealasaid Nic Shuibhne and Robert de Bere, 07/01, R-Atenveldt]

MULLET
see also COMPASS STAR and SUN

[suns vs. mullets]... as suns and mullets are not substantially [different], there is nothing for changing the type only of the tertiaries. [Ursella of Rowantree, 11/99, R-Caid]
[Sable, a mullet of four points elongated to base within a bordure embattled argent.] Conflict with ... Sable, a mullet and a base wavy argent. There is only one CD for changing a base wavy to a bordure embattled. [Lucan von Drachenklaue, 02/00, R-East]
[Per pale sable and vert, a castle and in chief three mullets one and two argent] This is clear of ... Azure, a double-towered castle argent and in chief three mullets of eight points in chevron argent. By precedent, there is a CD between a mullet of five points and a mullet of eight points, so there is CD for type of the secondaries plus a CD for the changes to the field. [Stella Seraphina von Leuchtenberg, 05/00, A-Drachenwald]
[(Fieldless) A mullet sable] Conflict with ... (Tinctureless) A mullet of four points distilling a goutte.. Although the LoI indicated that the submitter had permission to conflict, such a letter was not included with the submission. [implying no CD between a mullet and a mullet of four points] [Chirhart Blackstar, 05/00, R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A mullet sable] ... in conflict with ... A mullet of five greater and five lesser points distilling goutes. As with the mullet of four vs. a compass star (see the June 1995 LoAR, pg. 23), the lesser points of the mullet have very little visual impact, and as mullets of greater and lesser points are not known in period, the visual difference counts. This reaffirms the precedent set in July 1990 (pg. 13). [Chirhart Blackstar, 05/00, R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A sun per bend sinister bevelled fesswise gules and Or] The line of division is grandfathered to the submitter, however the badge still conflicts with ...A mullet of five greater and five lesser points distilling gouttes. There is a CD for fieldlessness but nothing for tincture nor for the difference between a sun a a mullet of five greater and five lesser points. [Kragon of Land's End, 05/00, R-Outlands]
[Azure, on a mullet of eight points Or a turtle tergiant gules, an orle Or] This does not conflict with Leah bat Yehiel, Azure, a mullet of eight interlocking mascles within an orle Or. While there is a precedent (June, 1994, p. 15) that calls the mullet of eight interlocking mascles insufficiently different from a voided mullet, that is not the same as saying the two are interchangeable. In particular, we feel that Leah's mullet cannot be considered equivalent to a charged mullet. Therefore, there is CD for the type of mullet and another for adding the tertiary charge. [Margot du Bois, 07/00, A-Meridies]
[Quarterly gules and sable, on a sun Or a wheel proper] Conflict with the badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or (Kriemhild of Stonecroft), Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between a mullet of nine points and a sun, and nothing for changing the type only the tertiary charges. An examination of Kriemhild's emblazon shows that the head is primarily brown. [Ive Rathbourn, 08/00, R-Ansteorra]
[a sun vs. a mullet of five greater and five lesser points] By current precedent there is not a CD between a sun and a mullet of ten points... [Thorgrim Ketilsson, 09/00, R-Meridies]
[an estoile of five rays] This is clear of ... Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper, and ... Vert, on a mullet of four points Or, a fer-a-loup gules. In both cases there is a CD for an estoile of five points versus a mullet of a different number of points (nine and four respectively), and a second for changes of type and color of the tertiary charges. [Angharad Albanes, 11/00, A-East]
[a mullet of six points ] ... no difference between a mullet of five points to a mullet of six points nor between a mullet and a mullet throughout. [Tanglwyst de Holloway, 12/00, R-Artemisia]
[Azure, in canton a mullet of four points, a bordure argent] Conflict with Ariel of Alon, Azure, two compass stars argent and a sword argent, hilted gules, winged Or, a bordure argent. As neither a compass star nor a mullet of four points are period charges, and they differ only by the addition of the lesser points, there is not a CD between a mullet of four points and a compass star. There is also not a CD for arrangement on the field, because William's mullet occupies the same space as one of Ariel's compass stars. Therefore there is only a single CD for changing the number of primary charges. [William Killian, 01/01, R-Ansteorra]
By prior precedent there is not a CD between a compass star and a mullet of four points, nor is there a CD between a compass star and a riven star ... [Artemisia da Quieto d'Arzenta, 04/01, R-Lochac]
... a sun and a mullet (of any number of points) are not substantially different; therefore we cannot call the two devices clear by RfS X.2 Difference of Primary Charge. [Alatheia Fenwick Campbell, 06/01, R-East]
[caltrops vs. mullets] There is a CD for the change in the type of primary charges ... [Toen of Aston Tor, 07/01, A-Calontir]
[Per pale sable and argent, two estoiles of eight rays counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale sable and argent, in fess two mullets of four points saltirewise counterchanged. As estoiles and mullets are not substantially different, this cannot be clear via RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. There is a CD for the type of charges, but nothing for orientation as the points of the mullets saltirewise occupy the position of some of the rays of the estoile. [Jean Pierre Détoile, 07/01, R-Atenveldt]
[three mullets vs. three mullets of four points] There is a CD for changing the field, but nothing for ... the small changing in the type of the mullets. [Kendrick Shropshire, 07/01, R-Calontir]
[a mullet of eight interlocking mascles] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and purpure, a mullet voided counterchanged. While there is a CD between the two mullets, there is not the substantial difference needed to clear these by RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charge. [Modar Neznanich, 07/01, R-Calontir]

MUSICAL INSTRUMENT

This is being returned for a redraw. The harps need to be drawn with a distinct sound board, as this is the feature that best identifies the posture of the charge. As drawn, we were unable to determine the orientation of the charge beyond knowing that it was not the default orientation. [Daibhidh Clàrsair, 04/00, R-Æthelmearc]
A crwth is visually distinct from a harp. [Northshield, Principality of, 07/00, A-Middle]

ORIENTATION

[Or, a sprig of mistletoe inverted bendwise sinister proper, a bordure sable] While the LoI blazoned the sprig as bendwise sinister, it is actually midway between that and palewise. Since we grant a difference for this, this problem is cause for return. [Nesta Coed, 06/99, R-Outlands]
[three dolphins naiant vs. in pale a dolphin naiant to sinister and a dolphin naiant inverted argent] There is a CD for ... orientation of half of the primary group. [Stefan von Baden, 04/00, A-Æthelmearc]
[Per pale sable and argent, two estoiles of eight rays counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale sable and argent, in fess two mullets of four points saltirewise counterchanged. As estoiles and mullets are not substantially different, this cannot be clear via RfS X.2, Difference of Primary Charges. There is a CD for the type of charges, but nothing for orientation as the points of the mullets saltirewise occupy the position of some of the rays of the estoile. [Jean Pierre Détoile, 07/01, R-Atenveldt]

ORLE

[Quarterly azure and argent] Conflict with ... Quarterly azure and argent, an orle embattled on the inner edge counterchanged. An orle is a peripheral ordinary; therefore RfS X.1 (Addition of Primary Charge) does not apply. Thus there is only a single CD for removing the orle. [Michael Silverhand, 11/00, R-Ansteorra]
[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] [Ed.: Returned for a different conflict]
[an orle issuant from the outer edge eight acorns leaved argent] The submitter justified the unusual treatment of the orle by citing examples in Spain of crosses terminating in acorns plus an example in Germany of a bend issuing flower. Crosses, however, traditionally have a far greater number of unusual treatments than any other type of charge, and the acorns only issue from the ends of the cross, not from the entire cross. Furthermore, none of the examples cited included the much more complex example of having acorns plus leaves issuing from a charge. Barring additional evidence, we feel that this treatment is not consistent with period style. [Margaret Hepburn of Ardrossan, 07/01, R-Drachenwald]

PALL

[a pall vs. a pall arrondy] ... but nothing for straightening the arms of the pall... [Beatrice Domenici della Campana, 03/00, R-An Tir]
[a pall inverted vs. a shakefork inverted] By long standing precedent there is a CD for ordinaries throughout vs. ordinaries couped; therefore, there is a CD for the change in the primary charge. [Elizabeth Fitzwilliam of Carlisle, 05/01, A-An Tir]

PAWPRINT

As neither pawprints nor footprints are attested period charges, and because they have significantly different shapes, we are inclined to grant a CD between the two. [Willelm le Pied, 07/99, A-Middle]
As far as we know, a pawprint with three evenly spaced toes is not found in nature. Barring [documentation] for this form of pawprint, we must return it. [Morgan of Osprey, 11/99, R-Meridies]

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

[Per chevron throughout Or and gules, two standing balances and a lion rampant counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Or, on a pile inverted cotised gules, a Bengal tiger rampant argent, marked sable. Helmut's device could as easily be blazoned Or, on a pile inverted between two standing balances gules a lion rampant Or. Therefore there is no [CD for] change in tincture only of the tertiary charges. After consideration we also decided that because a pile should be drawn as throughout, or nearly so, the cotises count as two charges. Therefore there is only a single CD for the change in type of the secondary charges. [Helmut Kruger, 09/99, R-Atlantia]
[Gules chaussé Or, a seahorse sejant counterchanged] Conflict with ... Or, a pile gules. By long standing precedent, chaussé fields can alternatively be blazoned as having a pile, and both forms must be considered for conflict. Or, on a pile gules, a seahorse sejant counterchanged conflicts with Or, a pile gules, with only one CD for the addition of the tertiary charge. [Samhthann ni Giolla Mhuire, 10/99, R-Calontir]
[Argent, chausse, a yale rampant and in chief a laurel wreath vert] Conflict with ... Vert, on a pile argent, a dragon rampant gules. As we do not give difference between a pile and chausse, there is only one CD for the changes to the tertiary charges. [Coldedernhale, Shire of, 04/00, R-Middle]
The pile is not drawn properly; a pile should not issue from the corners of the shield, but from farther in on the chief. As the pile also does not extend to base, it cannot be reblazoned as a chaussé field. [Sven Tyrvisson, 07/00, R-Æthelmearc]
[Azure, on a pile raguly Or a thistle proper, in base an estoile Or] A pile should extend most if not all the way to the base; properly drawn, there would not be enough room for a charge ... to fit between the pile and the base. [Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR 6 December 1984, p.18] The precedent has continued to hold ever since. [Sorcha ingen Chonchobhair, 09/00, R-Meridies]
[Barry vert and Or, on a pile sable a thunderbolt Or] This does not conflict with Huldah von Jal, Per bend sinister sable and gules, a thunderbolt Or. While we consider piles to conflict with chaussé fields, a field with a pile is not reblazonable as having chaussé field, as there is an artistic distinction that we enforce (namely that the pile does not issue from the corners of the chief). Therefore, the devices are clear by X.2.

Note that had Roiberd's device been Barry vert and Or, on a pile inverted sable a thunderbolt Or it would have been in conflict with Huldah because Roiberd's device would have had the equally valid blazon Per chevron barry vert and Or and sable, a thunderbolt Or so there would have been only a single CD for the change in the field. [Roiberd Mor Barra, 11/00, A-Drachenwald]
[Lozengy argent and sable, on a pile vert a willow tree eradicated Or] It is also clear of ..., Vert, chausse chequy argent and sable, a fox dormant argent; because it has a chausse field we do have to compare the two as if they both have chausse fields and as if they both have piles. In the former case they are clear by RfS X.2. In the latter case they are clear with a CD for the field (lozengy argent and sable versus checky argent and sable) and a second CD for substantially changing the type of the tertiary charge. [Lefled Willoughby, 07/01, A-Atenveldt]

PLANT

[A sprig of mistletoe vs. a sprig of three poison ivy leaves] ... one CD for type of the two sprigs. [Nesta Coed, 06/99, R-Outlands]
Wood anemone is the common English name of Anemone nemorosa, the plant the submitters intended. [Walkiala, Canton of, 09/99, A-Drachenwald]
The saguaro cactus is an acceptable (if improbable) charge because the Spanish were in the desert southwest United States by the 1520s. ['Inan of Aurochsford, 02/00, A-Atenveldt]
[Vert, a pomegranate argent] Conflict with Katherine Lynten of CaerLeon, Per bend sinister rompu argent and gules, in sinister base a pomegranate slipped and leaved argent, seeded gules. As Katherine's pomegranate is forced to base there is not a CD for position on the field, and neither the slipping and leaving nor the tincture of the seeds generate difference. Therefore, there is a single CD for the field. [Gwenhwyvar verch Gwillim ap Peeter, 03/00, R-West]
[Argent, an arum lily vert, a chief azure] The primary charge was called a cockoupynt. We replaced it with the modern term for the plant, because no commenter recognized the term. Conflict with ... Or, a sprig of four mangrove leaves fructed vert and a chief azure. There is a CD for changes to the field but none for type between the two leafy plants. [Turpin Akraspillir, 07/01, R-An Tir]

POSITION

... we do not give a CD for position when one of the pieces of armory is fieldless... [Brandric of Rhydderich Hael, 10/99, R-Æthelmearc]
[... a scarp enhanced] ... we do not register overly enhanced ordinaries, barring evidence of their use in period, as they are inherantly unbalanced. [Lachlann Wick of Brindle Myre, 11/99, R-Caid]
[a drakkar reversed vs. a lymphad] ... there is a CD for the field, but by long standing precedent nothing for reversing a ship ... [Varia Goffe, 02/00, R-Artemisia]
[Purpure, a bend sinister between two falcons rising wings addorsed Or] This is clear of ... Purpure, a bend sinister between two glaive heads addorsed Or; there is a CD for the type of secondaries, as well as a CD for orientation. (This CD is granted because both charges have the ability to be addorsed, and the falcons are not.) [Debbie of Ealdormere, 09/00,A-Ealdormere]
[Sable, three crescents one and two conjoined at the horns Or] The badge is clear of ... Sable, a decrescent Or, with one CD for number and a second for orientation of the crescents. None of Rabah's crescents are in the same orientation as a decrescent. [Rabah az-Zafir, 11/00, A-Atlantia]
[Argent, a dragon passant within an orle purpure] Conflict with ... Argent, a dragon statant purpure breathing flames proper, in dexter chief a cauldron purpure. There is a CD for changing a cauldron to an orle, but the orle's position on the field is forced, so there is not a second CD for changing the position of the secondary charge. [Meadhbh inghean Shéamuis, 12/00, R-Æthelmearc]
[Azure, a sun within an orle argent] Conflict with ... Azure, a compass star and a mountain of three peaks issuant from base argent. There is not a CD between a compass star and a sun, and there is not a CD for position on the field when one of the charges is an orle; therefore, there is only a single CD for changing the mountain to an orle. [Taliesin de Morlet, 03/01, R-Caid]
[Vert, a reindeer statant, a chief engrailed argent] Conflict with ... Vert, a stag at gaze, between its attires a roundel argent. There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary charge, but nothing for changing its position, as the chief's position is set by its type. [Ingileif Ketilsdóttir, 06/01, R-Middle]
There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary charges, but as the position of the chief is part of its type, there is not a second CD for changing the position of the secondary charges. [Cristina Robertsdottir, 07/01, R-Calontir]

POSTURE

There is a CD ... for displayed vs. striking. [Rhodri ap Gruffudd, 07/99, A-Atenveldt]
[Per pale vert and azure, a boar statant contourny argent] Conflict with ... A boar passant to sinister argent. There is only one CD, for fieldlessness. [Duncan Silverwolf McTyre, 07/99, R-Atenveldt]
The owl on the pall was not displayed, as listed on the letter of intent, but striking affronty. That position is not allowed as it is not found in period heraldry and is inherently three dimensional. [Ysan Layla, 08/99, R-Meridies]
[a mermaid tergiant] ... the mermaid is in a non-heraldic posture. We know of no examples of humanoids or other mammals with their backs facing the viewer. [False Isle, Shire of, 10/99, R-An Tir] [Ed.: Returned for lack of petition]
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, 10/99, R-East]
There is not a CD between passant and herissony. [George Anne, 01/00, R-Æthelmearc]
[a griffin segreant vs. griffin segreant coward] There is ... nothing for the tail position. [Arabella Silvermane, 02/00, R-Middle]
[a stag rampant vs. a stag trippant] There is a CD for the posture of the stag... [Cairbre macc Eochada micc Fedelmid, 03/00, A-An Tir]
[on a bezant a bird volant contourny wings elevated and addorsed sable] Conflict with ... Sable, a bezant charged with a raven on a branch bendwise all sable. There is a CD for the field, but the branch is not worth difference and there is not a CD for changing only the posture of the tertiary charges. [Magnus Hrafnsson, 03/00, R-Caid]
The posture striking affronty is not allowed as it is not known in period armory and is inherently three-dimensional. [Sarra the Gipsie, 03/00, R-Caid]
[Gules, a ferret statant argent] Conflict with ... Gules, an ermine statant guardant proper, with no CD's for tincture (ermines are primarily white) or the position of the head. The device is also in conflict with the badge for Brittany, An ermine passant argent marked sable. There is only a CD for fieldlessness. [Alycie Stirling, 04/00, R-Lochac]
[Gules, a bend sinister between a cat sejant and a cross crosslet saltirewise Or] This is clear of ... Gules, a bend sinister between two mounted knights courant Or. There is a CD for the type of the secondary charges and a second for changing the posture of half the secondary charge group. [Aubrey de Vaux, 06/00, A-Trimaris]
... there is not a CD between dormant and couchant... [Caointiarn Comhthaistealaí, 09/00, R-Artemisia]
... there is also not a difference between segreant and courant bendwise. [Adrian Dragon and Claudia von Lübeck, 10/00, R-Artemisia]
[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part of an arrangement in annulo. [Eiríkr Þorvaldson, 10/00, R-Artemisia]
[two ferrets combattant vs an otter sejant erect Or] There is a CD for the number of primary charges, but nothing for the change in posture. [Robert de Bere, 10/00, R-Atenveldt]
[a wyvern passant vs. a dragon sejant] As a wyvern passant can be equally blazoned as a wyvern sejant, there is no CD for posture, thus there is only a single CD for the tincture of the wyvern. [Wyvernwoode, Barony of, 10/00, R-Trimaris]
... rampant is not an allowable posture for birds. [Adriana Lynette Noel, 11/00, R-Middle]
[Per saltire purpure and vert, a swan rousant contourny argent] Conflict with ... Per saltire purpure and vert, a swan rousant contourny wings displayed argent. There is only a single CD for the position of the wings (displayed vs. addorsed). [Celestine of Arn Hold, 12/00, R-Artemisia]
[A mouse sejant ululant] While we allow wolves and foxes to be ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for return. [Andela Romier, 12/00, R-Atlantia]
There is a CD for the change in posture between striking and rising wings displayed and another CD for the addition of the mullet. [Timmeke Haakonson of Nordheim, 01/01, A-Atlantia]
There is no difference between statant erect and rampant ... [Ellen of Reading, 01/01, R-Outlands]
... there is a CD for type between a falcon rising and a swan rousant, there are two CDs for number and type of primary charges, as well as a third for the difference in posture (wings addorsed vs. wings displayed) between the two birds. [Cecilia Kandzierzawa, 02/01, A-Atenveldt]
There is not a CD between generic birds displayed or migrant and an eagle displayed ... [Elizabeth of Roxbury Mill, 02/01, R-Meridies]
[a swan rousant wings displayed vs. a swan rousant sable] There is a CD for the position of the wings (addorsed for Frances, displayed for Isidora). [Isidora Ell'eva, 03/01, A-Caid]
[a wyvern statant vs. a dragon segreant] There is a CD ... for the change in posture of the primary charge. [Giles fitz Alan, 04/01, A-Middle]
[two wasps combattant] Long precedent has held that non-quadrupeds cannot be registered in positions such as rampant. In particular, in May 1991, Laurel stated "Henceforth, we will not accept rampant birds." In the same month, Laurel said, "given the College's feelings about birds in a rampant position it is unlikely that a rampant insect would be any more acceptable." Since that time, we have not registered insects in a rampant position, and see no reason to do so now. [Robert Pine, 04/01, R-Atlantia]
[two falcons striking vs. two swans rousant] ...there is not a CD for the change in posture between rousant and striking. [Anthony of Beaumaris, 05/01, R-Meridies]
[a dolphin haurient vs. a dolphin haurient embowed] ... nothing for the difference between haurient and haurient embowed. [Efa Gath fach, 06/01, R-East]
There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between striking and rising... [Gottfried von Köln, 07/01, R-Calontir]

PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION

... this badge uses a plain line charged roundel on a fieldless badge, a practice that has been disallowed since Baldwin of Erebor's tenure as Laurel. [Aneala, Barony of, 07/99, R-Lochac]
[...on a lozenge sable fimbriated] This device is returned for violating rule XI.4: Arms of Pretense. The fimbriation makes the lozenge appear to be charged with a bordure. [Bice di Pietro, 09/99, R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) On a rose gules barbed vert a chalice argent] This badge conflicts with the badge of the House of Tudor (important non-SCA armory) A tudor rose. One depiction of a Tudor Rose can be blazoned as a On a rose gules a rose argent. There is a CD for fieldlessness; however, there is none for changing the type only of a tertiary charge. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 09/99, R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A dog passant Or collared gules sustaining in its mouth a flagstaff flying a banner of the Cross of St. George] This fieldless badge appears to be a supporter maintaining a flag with arms on it. As we do not register supporters, we cannot register this. Moreover, we could not register Argent, a cross gules to the submitter because he does not have the right to display the Cross of Saint George as his own armory. [Luther Anshelm, 11/99, R-Caid]
[Quarterly azure and gules, a cross flory between two mullets bendwise argent and two roses bendwise sinister Or] There are not marshalled arms by Laurel precedent: [Registering Quarterly azure and argent, a cross couped between in bend two towers and in bend sinister two roses all counterchanged.] This comes perilously close to having the appearance of marshalled arms. The fact that the cross here is used as a charge rather than the default cross throughout (which is considered an ordinary) saves it from falling afoul of XI.3. No evidence was found by any of the commenters that crosses couped were used in the same way as crosses throughout, crosses paty throughout, or crosses engrailed throughout were in marshalled arms (March 1994, p. 10, s.n. Margarethe of Lynwood Keep). Similarly, no evidence was found indicating that crosses flory were used in marshalled arms. [Viviane of Essex, 06/00, A-Meridies]
[a bordure embattled azure semy-de-lys Or] The device uses azure semy-de-lys Or on a charge, which is forbidden as it appears to be a claim to have an augmentation from France: The period examples are so numerous that I feel I must uphold the Society's ban on gold fleurs-de-lys on blue backgrounds — and make it explicit. Neither France Ancient (Azure semy-de-lys Or) nor France Modern (Azure, three fleurs-de-lys Or) may be used in SCA heraldry, either as the field (or part thereof) or on a charge. To do so constitutes a claim to connection to French royalty, prohibited under Rule XI.1. (July 1992 LoAR, p.23, s.n. Raoul de Chenonceaux) [Reinhard Lowenkop, 06/00, R-Trimaris]
[on a plate a Celtic cross conjoined to a Thor's hammer] The device technically violates rule XI.4, Arms of Pretense: "Armory that uses charges which themselves are charged in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense is considered presumptuous. Period and modern heraldic practice asserts a claim to land or property by surmounting an individual's usual armory with a display of armory associated with that claim. Such arms of pretense are most commonly placed on an inescutcheon or lozenge, but may also appear on other geometric charges such as roundels, cartouches, etc. For this reason, such charges may not be charged in such a way as to suggest independent arms. Such charges may not contain an ordinary that terminates at the edge, or more than one charge." The device contains two charges on a roundel. [Dougal O'Sirideain, 07/00, R-Atenveldt]
[Purpure, a standing seraph proper winged and vested argent haloed Or] The combination of the device and the name Selig, blessed, is not presumptuous: there are many examples of the byname "blessed," and while a standing seraph is a religious symbol, it is not associated with either the cult of saints in general or with Saint Cecilia in particular. [Caecilie Selig, 07/00, R-Meridies, returned for conflict]
[Per pale Or and vert, a bear sable and a lion Or combatant within a bordure embattled counterchanged] The addition of a bordure does not remove the appearance of marshalling, as required in RfS XI.3. Because the bordure is counterchanged the coat is a legitimate impalement of Or, a bear rampant contourny sable within a bordure embattled vert and Vert, a lion rampant within a bordure embattled Or. The embattling does somewhat reduce this appearance, but, as complex bordures were used for cadency on quartered arms, we believe that embattling the bordure is insufficient to remove the appearce of marshalling for impaled arms as well. [Daniel Archer the Bear, 07/00, R-Outlands]
[Quarterly Or and azure, a cross counterchanged between in bend a wolf's head erased and a fret sable] By RfS XI.3, Marshalling, fields divided quarterly can only be displayed in a limited number of forms without creating the appearance of marshalling. This does not qualify, because there is more than one type of charge on the field in addition to the cross. As crosses were used in period as overall charges on marshalled coats of arms, adding it does not remove the appearance of marshalling. [Cormac an Faoldubh, 12/00, R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A belt in annulo gules] The common use in the SCA of a red belt to denote a squire is nevertheless not a protected usage. Therefore this badge is not presumptuous. Furthermore, because badges are not regalia, the registration of this badge does not restrict anyone, squire or not, from wearing a red belt. [Herveus d'Ormonde, 04/01, A-Atlantia]
[Quarterly argent and argent vêtu ployé azure, in bend sinister two decrescents azure] The device violates RfS XI.3, Marshalling. In particular it violates the clause in RfS XI.3.b:
Such fields may only be used when no single portion of the field may appear to be an independent piece of armory. No section of the field may contain an ordinary that terminates at the edge of that section, or more than one charge unless those charges are part of a group over the whole field. Charged sections must all contain charges of the same type to avoid the appearance of being different from each other.
While this case is not precisely one of the cases enumerated, there is no evidence of a vêtu field being used on only part of the field; therefore the two vêtu sections can only be independent pieces of armory. Reblazoning as Quarterly argent and azure, in bend sinister two lozenges ployé throughout each charged with a decrescent azure does not help, because the lozenges are both charged and throughout, so the quarters still appear to be independent armory. [Astasia de Moncellis, 04/01, R-Atlantia]
[Per fess azure mullety Or and vert, a cross between in base two dolphins haurient respectant argent] While this resembles marshalling, it does not directly violate RfS XI.3, Marshalling, nor does it match any of the types of period marshalling that we prohibit. [Michela Delfino, 05/01, A-Atenveldt]
[rules change] XI.4. Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor – Armory that uses charges in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense or an unearned augmentation of honor is considered presumptuous.
Period and modern heraldic practice asserts a claim to land or property by surmounting an individual's usual armory with a display of armory associated with that claim. Such arms of pretense are placed on an escutcheon. Similarly, an augmentation of honor often, though not necessarily, takes the form of an independent coat placed on an escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a single escutcheon may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a single tincture. For example, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an escutcheon sable charged with a roundel argent has the appearance of being arms of pretense or an augmentation. Or, in saltire five escutcheons sable each charged with three roundels argent does not have this appearance, as it has multiple escutcheons, as so is acceptable. The exception to the restrictions of this rule is when the submitter is entitled to an augmentation as described in RfS VIII.7. Augmentations of Honor.
[06/01, CL]
PROPER

[Per bend sinister Or and azure, a wooden tankard proper] This device is being returned for contrast problems. The primary identifying element of the brown tankard, the handle, lies completely on the azure portion of the field (the elaborate carving was completely invisible from five feet away), rendering the whole unidentifiable. [Gwynneth Wenche of Wight, 07/99, R-Atenveldt]
[a hammer and an axe proper] The hammer and the axe were completely brown. An axe does not have a proper coloring, and a hammer proper is sable hafted of brown wood. In neither case are the heads brown. [Iain MacConmhaoil, 11/99, R-Artemisia]
[flames proper] ... flames proper should have alternating tongues of Or and gules. [Jared the Potter and Sajah bint Habushun ibn Ishandiyar al-Hajjaj, 11/99, R-Atlantia]
A caucasian mermaid cannot be placed on an argent field, as human (caucasian) flesh proper was somtimes depicted as argent in period sources. [Lachlann Wick of Brindle Myre, 11/99, R-Caid]
[a ferret argent vs. an ermine proper] Conflict ... with no CD's for tincture (ermines are primarily white) [Alycie Stirling, 04/00, R-Lochac]
... by current precedent, caucasian human flesh proper is considered to be a variant of argent ... [Kazimira Suchenko, 08/00, R-East]
[a wooden spiked mace proper] As far as we know, maces were not made entirely of wood; therefore, there is no support for the head being brown. [Cadlae inghean uí Sheanacháin, 11/00, R-Atenveldt]
[a sunflower Or seeded proper] There is no default color for the seeds of sunflowers: sometimes they are black, sometimes brown. Therefore, we cannot register a sunflower proper. [Cassandra von Schwabing, 11/00, R-Drachenwald]
[Vair, a moose head affronty couped proper] The identifiability of the brown moose on the vair field was barely acceptable. [Marie Lorraine de Montclair, 02/01, A-Artemisia]
[an ibex proper] Ibexes are primarily brown in color... [Magnus mac Gregor Campbell, 07/01, R-Meridies]

RECONSTRUCTIBILITY

[Gules, three chevronels enhanced and a basset hound Or] This is returned because it violates the reconstructability requirement. It is unclear which is the primary charge and which the secondary charge. [István Valkai, 09/99, R-Middle]

REPTILE -- Miscellaneous

Prior precedent allows difference for the enflaming of the chameleon when the enflaming is drawn properly with large gouts of flames. That has been done here. [Willem MacLear, 08/99, A-Æthelmearc]
The primary charge was not identifiable as a lizard. The neck of the creature was too long, and the hind legs of the creature are significantly larger than the forelegs. Both of these details were enough to question if the charge was actually a dinosaur, a creature unknown to period Europeans. [Oriana of Xylina, 12/00, R-Atlanita]

REPTILE -- Serpent

There is one CD for the field but nothing for involved serpent vs. annulet. [Alexander le Browere, 07/99, R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, a serpent erect contourny, a chief gules] This conflicts with Robert de la Tor-Fraisse, Argent, a sea-serpent haurient reguardant gules. There is only one CD for the addition of the chief. An examination of the emblazon shows that Conall's sea-serpent is in essentially the same posture as Robert's. [Conall Ruadh Mag Fhionnain, 07/99, R-Atlantia]
[Sable chaussé papellony vert and argent, a pithon displayed argent] Conflicts with Reynald il Bianco, Per chevron inverted sable and gules, overall a winged serpent erect displayed argent with a CD for the change of field. The pithon on Reynald's device has bird wings, but as both types of wings are used in period this is not worth a difference. [Volker Ælfwine, 11/99, R-Outlands]
[a Norse serpent nowed] The Lisbjerg gripping beast is actually just a variety of the Borre-style gripping beasts which were banned in 11/86, and therefore the Lisbjerg gripping beasts were banned at the same time. Finally, after the October 1998 Laurel meeting we will no longer register zoomorphic beasts of any kind. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR May 1998, p. 28). This charge is no longer registerable. [Þorfaster Varinsson, 03/00, R-Caid]

ROUNDEL

... this badge uses a plain line charged roundel on a fieldless badge, a practice that has been disallowed since Baldwin of Erebor's tenure as Laurel. [Aneala, Barony of, 07/99, R-Lochac]
[a roundel between and conjoined in fess to an increscent and a decrescent] ... conjoining the roundel and the crescents severely reduces their identifiability ("The conjoining of the increscent, roundel and decrescent are distinctly non-period. While we will reluctantly register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them unidentifiable as well as non-period. (Jaella of Armida, LoAR September 1997, p. 23)"). [Mivanou merch Deicyn Maur, 03/00, R-Caid]
[Gyronny argent and gules, on a plate ...] ... just as we do not allow a compony bordure to share a tincture with the field, the consensus was to not allow a roundel to share a tincture with a gyronny field, as the number of divisions is not high enough to ensure identifiability. [Sarah MacGregor, 08/00, R-Meridies]

SALTIRE

[Per saltire vert and azure, a saltire floretty throughout argent] Conflict with ... Per saltire vert and azure, a saltire tripartite and fretted argent. There is only one CD for the type of the saltire. [Anne Ridley, 03/00, R-Atlantia]
[a saltire within and conjoined to a delf voided fleury at the points Or] Ferrule found in Parker, A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, a 16th century citation of a charge called a "masculyn fleur-de lisé," which consists of a mascle with the ends terminating in fleur-d-lys. The depiction showed this charge (without the saltire) rotated 90 degrees. Therefore this arrangement is only one remove from period practice and is registerable. [Oshaya de Carcassonne, 06/00, A-Trimaris]
The Pictorial Dictionary notes that a cross irradiated is found in 1483 as the attributed arms of the ancestors to the Earls of Warkwick. A saltire irradiated is thus only one step removed from a period charge and is thus acceptable. [Laurentius von Silenen, 07/01, A-Outlands]
SCHNECKE

[Purpure, a schnecke issuant from sinister chief argent charged with a rose gules, slipped and leaved vert, in dexter chief and in base two fleurs-de-lys argent] ...we know of no period examples of schneckes with secondary or tertiary charges, we find the use of both in this device to be two steps beyond period practice. We may allow secondary or tertiary charges with a schnecke, but we doubt that the use of either is period practice. [Adriona Nichole la rousse de Beauvoir, 11/00, R-Atenveldt]
A schneke [sic] is not a peripheral charge: even though it issues from the side of the field, it still fills the center of the field. [Almaith ingen Chormaic, 04/01, A-Ansteorra]
SEMY

[estencely] The sparks are not in the typical arrangement of one and two. However, Brault, Early Blazon, indicates that there are several valid depictions of estencely, including the two and one arrangement used here. [Morwenna of Morwenstow, 01/00, A-Drachenwald]
[Vert estencely Or] This does not conflict with Libya, Vert, by rule X.1, Addition of Primary Charges. Strewn charges are primary if there are no other charges. This has been true for a number of years; for example, see the September 1992 LoAR, pp. 39-40, s.n. Jon of the Mists. [François la Flamme, 05/00, A-Ansteorra]
[a bordure embattled azure semy-de-lys Or] The device uses azure semy-de-lys Or on a charge, which is forbidden as it appears to be a claim to have an augmentation from France: The period examples are so numerous that I feel I must uphold the Society's ban on gold fleurs-de-lys on blue backgrounds — and make it explicit. Neither France Ancient (Azure semy-de-lys Or) nor France Modern (Azure, three fleurs-de-lys Or) may be used in SCA heraldry, either as the field (or part thereof) or on a charge. To do so constitutes a claim to connection to French royalty, prohibited under Rule XI.1. (July 1992 LoAR, p.23, s.n. Raoul de Chenonceaux) [Reinhard Lowenkop, 06/00, R-Trimaris]
[Sable, semy of hearts checky gules and argent, a bat-winged cat sejant Or] This device is on the edge of acceptability. Bruce Draconarius said:
[Semy of rams statant argent armed Or] The 1984 Rules for Submission did not permit semy charges to be fimbriated, proper, or of divided tinctures (IX.2). While that specific clause is not found in the current Rules, those usages remain poor style, and in extreme cases may be grounds for return under Rule VIII.3. The submitter would be well advised to use single-tinctured rams in her semy, when she resubmits [device returned for using a charged canton]. (Aurora Ashland of Woolhaven, January, 1993, pg. 25)
This device uses simple relatively geometric charges and the colors make them highly visible, therefore it is acceptable. [Michelina Ysabella la Toscana, 09/00, A-Meridies]
[Quarterly sable and gules, all semy of fraises Or] Conflict with ... Azure, six roses, two, two and two, Or. There is not a CD for number of primary charges, nor is there one for arrangement. [Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 09/00, R-Artemisia]
[Per bend sinister argent and argent semy-de-lys sable, on a bend sinister...] Current precedent disallows strewn charges on only part of a plain field, even when the field has a "natural" division such as an ordinary (see July 1998 LoAR, Miriel MacGregor), barring evidence that such fields were used in period armory. [Bohémond le Sinistre, 01/01, R-Outlands]
[Per chevron gules crusily fitchy argent and argent, in base a bear rampant gules] This is clear of the Barony of Dun Carraig, Per chevron gules, crusilly bottony argent, and argent, in base a cross bottony within a laurel wreath gules. By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a separate group from all other chanrges; therefore the charge in base is its own group for both devices. Therefore there are two CDs for changing the number and type of the charges in base. [Giraude Benet, 07/01, A-Calontir]

SHIP

[A drakkar sable, sailed gules vs. a lymphad sable] There is a CD for the addition of the dragon's head, but none for the type of ship. [Implying no CD for the tincture of the sail.] [Gunnar ofJomsborg, 07/99, R-Atenveldt]
[a drakkar reversed vs. a lymphad ] ... there is a CD for the field, but by long standing precedent nothing for reversing a ship or between a drakkar and a lymphad. [Varia Goffe, 02/00, R-Artemisia]
[a caravel vs. a drakkar] By long standing precedent, there is not a CD between two types of ship ... [Christoph van den Brake, 04/00, R-Meridies]
[a ship reversed vs. a drakkar] There is a CD for changing the field, but nothing for the change in the type of ship, [or] for reversing a ship ... [Kendrick Shropshire, 07/01, R-Calontir]

STAFF

Normally I am inclined to give a CD between a jester's bauble and a plain staff, barring evidence that they were not independent charges in period. However, it should be noted that Sebastiana's jester's bauble was drawn so that the staff part was unusually prominent. Any resubmission should make the head of the bauble more prominent relative to staff. [Sebastiana Gerynot Fanelli, 05/00, R-Atenveldt]
[a jester's bauble proper, staffed bendy sinister argent and alternately gules and purpure] No evidence has been presented for the coloration of the staff. Treatments of the field were not necessarily used as treatments for charges, and therefore are not sufficient documentation to register this treatment of the staff. [Sebastiana Gerynot Fanelli, 12/00, R-Atenveldt]

STYLE

[Azure, on a bend between a quill pen bendwise sinister and an open book Or, a monkey dormant palewise gules, a bordure Or] This is being returned for identifiability and complexity problems. The placement of the monkey dormant fesswise on the bend makes it too small to be identifiable. In addition, the design is unbalanced, and given that its complexity count is eight, this is enough to push it over the edge. [Wolfram von Aalst, 07/99, R-Atlatnia]
[Per bend sinister argent crusily sable and Or crescenty ... sable] Current precedent disallows two different sets of strewn charges directly on the field. In this case, however, the device would be acceptable (if not particularly authentic) if there were three of each type of charge on the field. We see no reason to make a distinction between three and an unnumbered set of strewn charges when there is, as here, a well defined boundary between the two groups of charges, such that either set of charges could be dropped without requiring the other set to fill the field. [William Xanthos, 02/00, A-Atenveldt]
[Argent, on a lozenge fesswise gules a pig statant argent, a chief and a base sable] This does not violate rule VIII.1.c, Armorial Depth, because it is a charged lozenge between a chief and a base, not a charged fess, even though it could be blazoned as a charged fess. In this case the blazon can make a difference: while you cannot "blazon your way out of" a conflict, you can "blazon your way out of" a style problem. If not, all submissions of per chevron, three <X> would be returned because they could also be blazoned as a charged chapé. [Erica Poitevin, 02/00, A-Atlantia]
[A bottle-nosed dolphin haurient contourny azure maintaining in its mouth a garden rose proper] This violates Rule VIII.4.c, Naturalistic Depiction: "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable charges may not be registered. Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures, use several charges in their natural forms when heraldic equivalents exist, or overuse proper..." The combination of a natural dolphin and a garden rose, neither of which were known in period heraldry, is excessive. [Döregene Naran, 02/00, R-Meridies]
[Gules, two serpents volute about each other, heads to center fesswise, argent and Or.] No documentation was provided showing examples of two serpents being combined in this manner (two interleaved spirals). Furthermore, the emblazon is not reproducible from this blazon (it is unclear which serpent is argent and which is Or), nor could anyone come up with a better one. [Malcolm MacAdaim, 02/00, R-Meridies]
[Gules, a bear passant sable between three mullets of six points Or] The submitter asked that this be registered under RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions. She included numerous examples of sable charges on gules from different areas of Europe. While there was enough evidence given to support Gules, a bear passant sable (which conflicts with Berlin, Argent, a bear passant sable), the only examples the submitter presented of a low contrast charge between high contrast secondaries the central charge was an ordinary. As ordinaries have a different level of complexity from an animate charge, we cannot consider their examples as sufficient. None of the examples present showed the case Gules, <an animate charge> sable between <charges> Or (or argent). The Documented Exceptions rule is by nature very conservative; one needs multiple examples of very similar patterns to allow extrapolations. Therefore, we must return the device. [Ursula Georges, 03/00, R-An Tir] [Ed.: Berlin's bear is actually rampant - "Gules, a bear passant sable" was registered to her 02/01, A-An Tir.]
[Per pale checky pean and Or and checky erminois and sable] From the June 1992 LoAR (p. 14): [Per pale lozengy Or and vert, and lozengy argent and purpure] "Using two completely different pairs of tinctures on opposite sides of the per pale line of division seems to go well beyond Period practice here... We need documentation that this many colors on a field is a Period style before we may register it." No evidence has yet been found; furthermore, the strong visual resemblence between both sides reduces identifiability make the device even more unlikely. [Demetrios Kantakouzenos, 04/00, R-Middle]
[Azure, on a fess Or three lozenges conjoined azure each charged with a bee Or] The device violates RfS VIII.1.c.ii, "Layer Limit - Designs may not be excessively layered. All charges should be placed either directly on the field or entirely on other charges that lie on the field." The submitter attempted to fix the layering problem by blazoning the device Or, a fess of three fusils azure, each charged with a bee Or, a chief and a base azure. While it is possible to avoid a style problem by reblazoning, that only holds if the alternate blazon is equally valid. The relative sizes of the three portions of the field, the rarity of period examples combining chiefs and plain bases, and the space between the lozenges and the the [sic]sides of the shield make the alternate blazon highly unlikely and thus not a valid blazon. [Sabine du Bourbonnais, 05/00, R-Lochac]
[Purpure, a schnecke issuant from sinister chief argent charged with a rose gules, slipped and leaved vert, in dexter chief and in base two fleurs-de-lys argent] ...we know of no period examples of schneckes with secondary or tertiary charges, we find the use of both in this device to be two steps beyond period practice. We may allow secondary or tertiary charges with a schnecke, but we doubt that the use of either is period practice. [Adriona Nichole la rousse de Beauvoir, 11/00, R-Atenveldt]
[Gules, on a chalice inverted between two roundels Or a wooden spiked mace inverted proper] As far as we know, maces were not made entirely of wood; therefore, there is no support for the head being brown. Furthermore, both cups and maces were rarely inverted in period, so inverting both may be excessive. [Cadlae inghean uí Sheanacháin, 11/00, R-Atenveldt]
[a jester 's bauble proper, staffed bendy sinister argent and alternately gules and purpure] No evidence has been presented for the coloration of the staff. Treatments of the field were not necessarily used as treatments for charges, and therefore are not sufficient documentation to register this treatment of the staff. [Sebastiana Gerynot Fanelli, 12/00, R-Atenveldt]
[Gules, a bear passant sable] The Rules for Submission give the following standards for documented exceptions:
An armorial design element that is adequately documented as a period practice may be deemed acceptable even if it violates other sections of Part VIII (Compatible Armorial Style). Such design elements will be accepted only on a case-by-case basis and only in armory comparable in style and complexity to the documented period examples. The strength of the case for such an exception increases in proportion to: the similarity of the documented examples to the submitted armory; and the number of independent period examples offered as evidence.
a. General Exceptions - In most cases the documentation for a proposed exceptional armorial design element should be drawn from several European heraldic jurisdictions. The strength of the case for such an exception increases in proportion to the geographical and chronological breadth of the supporting period evidence.
The submitter has presented over eight unrelated examples of Gules, a <complex charge> sable in several different geographical areas, plus other similar examples of black charges on red fields. She has met the standard set forth in the rules. [Ursula Georges, 02/01, A-An Tir]
[Per chevron pean and sable, on a chevron Or ...] It was the consensus of the College that a divided field in which the two parts are tinctures that share the same background is allowable if there is an ordinary to aid in the separation of the two parts, though the practice is not documented. [Thorgrimr inn kyrri, 02/01, A-Atlantia]
While the wolf was drawn in a style based on period artwork (the Book of Kells), it was not drawn in any style consistent with period heraldry, nor even with any artwork used at the same time as period heraldry. The College of Arms has declined to register Celtic knotwork art, including beasts in that style, for several years. [Conall in fáelchú mac Duibdarach, 06/01, R-Meridies]
[an orle issuant from the outer edge eight acorns leaved argent] The submitter justified the unusual treatment of the orle by citing examples in Spain of crosses terminating in acorns plus an example in Germany of a bend issuing flower. Crosses, however, traditionally have a far greater number of unusual treatments than any other type of charge, and the acorns only issue from the ends of the cross, not from the entire cross. Furthermore, none of the examples cited included the much more complex example of having acorns plus leaves issuing from a charge. Barring additional evidence, we feel that this treatment is not consistent with period style. [Margaret Hepburn of Ardrossan, 07/01, R-Calontir]

SUNBURST

[Gules, a sunburst Or issuant from clouds argent within a bordure Or] Conflict with ... Gules, a demi-sun in splendor Or issuant from a cloud argent. There is only one CD for adding the bordure. [Catalina Oro Sol, 03/00, R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A sunburst argent] Conflict with the badge of Edward III, A sunburst Or issuant from clouds proper. There is one CD for fieldlessness. However, the opinion of the College is that there is not a CD for the change of color of only the rays of the sunburst. [Oriane d'Avallon, 01/01, R-Drachenwald]

SWORD

[Gules a sword quillioned of balance pans argent...] The sword in this design looks like a part of a balance and not like a sword. Therefore this is returned for violating rule VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. [Conan MacAindreis, 08/99, R-Lochac]
[Gules, a claymore, its hilt between the wings of a vol Or] The device is in visual conflict with ... Gules, a winged sword Or. A comparison of the emblazons showed that the visual resemblance was overwhelming. [Ivor MacFergus, 09/99, R-Ansteorra]
[Azure, in pale two wolf's heads erased addorsed and conjoined at the neck argent and two rapiers inverted in saltire Or] This is being returned for conflict with the badge for the Order of the Silverwolf, Azure, in pale two wolf's heads erased addorsed and conjoined at the neck argent and two swords inverted in saltire Or, registered to Borealis in this letter. We do not register identical items, even to the same submitter. Blazon A is considered identical to blazon B if, given blazon A and B, you could draw them identically. Therefore only one of those two blazons can be registered. As it is reasonable to draw charges blazoned as swords as rapiers, we are only registering the more general badge; however, that badge can be drawn with rapiers as needed. [Borealis, Barony of, 12/99, R-An Tir]
[Per pale sable and argent all semy-de-lys counterchanged, a sword inverted azure] Because half of the long axis of the blued sword is placed on a black background its visibility to the point where it became unidentifiable. [Mahieu Griffaud, 01/00, R-Atlantia]
[Azure, a sledge hammer Or surmounted by an open book argent] Visual conflict with ...Azure, an open book argent, overall an estoc inverted Or. An estoc is a type of sword, and a comparison of the emblazons showed that the visual resemblance was overwhelming. [Kenric inn kyrri, 04/00, R-An Tir]

SYMBOL

[Or, a sexfoil within the Arabic words "Kaana Khafi bishshawkihi Jamaaiat-il-Wardata" in annulo gules] No translation was including for the Arabic words. Without evidence of what the phrase means, this cannot be registered. [A'isha bint Asad Ud-Din, 06/99, R-Outlands]
[Azure, a triangle inverted voided and a triangle voided conjoined in pale within the astronomical sign for Taurus argent] When Laurel first accepted registration of astrological symbols, he did so based on a period example of the symbols being used essentially as decoration on a celestial sphere (or as identifying marks). Therefore their use as standard charges must be considered a weirdness. Using it in this non-standard fashion (the framing of one charge by another is itself very rare in period heraldly), is another weirdness, especially combined with another highly usual charge used in an unusual fashion. Overall, this design is too far from period practice to be registerable. [Ungust Filius Antonii, 06/00, R-Caid]
[Sable, a musical note argent] Current precedent disallows the registration of solitary abstract symbols. [Iohann se pipere, 07/00, R-Meridies]
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, 09/00, R-West]

TINCTURE
see also CONTRAST

[a bend sinister argent, overall a bull's skull argent] A complex overall charge must not share the same tincture as the ordinary it is surmounting. [Olaf Blodhøx, 05/00, R-Middle]
[Gyronny argent and gules, on a plate ...] ... just as we do not allow a compony bordure to share a tincture with the field, the consensus was to not allow a roundel to share a tincture with a gyronny field, as the number of divisions is not high enough to ensure identifiability. [Sarah MacGregor, 08/00, R-Meridies]
[Per chevron vert and sable, three owls argent] This is close but clear of Nicole de l'Havre des Chouettes Or, three barn owls [Tyto alba] affronty each perched upon an olive branch all proper. While there is not a CD between an owl close guardant and an owl close affronty, after examining the emblazon of Nicole's device, we decided that her owls were essentially argent winged brown. As we give a CD for changing the tincture of the wings, there is thus a CD for tincture as well as a CD for the change to the field. [Gaston Trévoux, 10/00, A-Atenveldt]
[Per pale checky argent and vert and sable, a wolf rampant counterchanged] Both the field and the charge are a mixture of a color and a neutral tincture. Therefore both the charge and the field are equivalent to colors and must be returned for violation of RfS VIII.2.c. For a more thorough discussion of the issue, see the cover letter. [Randwulf aet Blacwulveslea, 10/00, R-Trimaris]
[Per saltire gules and azure] Conflict with ... Per saltire Or and gules. The only possible rule that could make these clear is RfS X.4.a.ii.b, Complete Change of Tincture (part of the Field-Primary Armory rules); however, that rule states If the fields of two pieces of field-primary armory have no tinctures in common, they are considered completely different and do not conflict, irrespective of any other similarities between them. While each portion of the field has changed tincture, one cannot say that they do not have a tincture in common. [Iohanna Carracci, 11/00, R-Middle]
[Quarterly embattled Or and gules, four horses rampant counterchanged sable and argent] The badge is clear of Aethelnoth of Alebridge, Quarterly sable and argent, four horses rampant reguardant counterchanged. In Aethelnoth's device, the horses in bend are argent and those in bend sinister are sable. In Wolfram's badge, the tincture of the horses is reversed. Therefore there is one CD for changes to the field and one CD for changing the tincture of all the primary charges. [Wolfram Brant, 12/00, A-Atlantia]
[Per pall inverted azure, vert and Or] Conflict with ... Per pall sable, vert, and Or. There is a CD for changing the line of division from per pall to per pall inverted, but nothing for changing the tincture of one third of the field. [Yevane Jameson, 12/00, R-Atlantia]
[Per chevron pean and sable, on a chevron Or ...] It was the consensus of the College that a divided field in which the two parts are tinctures that share the same background is allowable if there is an ordinary to aid in the separation of the two parts, though the practice is not documented. [Thorgrimr inn kyrri, 02/01, A-Atlantia]
The large emblazon had the sun colored tenne. As this is not a registerable heraldic tincture, we must return the device. [Catrina Mackrae, 05/01, R-An Tir]

TREE

[fir tree vs. oak tree] ... but Aonghas' tree, though blazoned as a fir tree, was drawn round enough that we could not call it significantly different from Elspeth's oak tree. [reblazoned from a fir tree to a tree] [Aonghas Cu, 02/00, R-An Tir]
[A tree couped gules] Conflict with ... Per bend sinister embattled argent and gules, a tree eradicated gules, and ... Quarterly azure and argent, a crabtree eradicated gules. In both cases there is a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for the type of tree nor for the difference between eradicated and couped. [William Flanagan, 02/00, R-Atenveldt]
[Per fess argent and vert, an oak tree eradicated counterchanged] This is clear of ... Per fess argent and azure, a tree Or leaved vert. While it is true that changing just the trunk of a tree does not normally generate difference, the tincture of Arthur's tree is per fess vert and argent, i.e., 1/2 vert and 1/2 argent; therefore there is a CD for change of tincture of at least 1/2 the charge. [Arthur Watson, 06/00, A-East]
[a tree blasted and eradicated vs. a tree eradicated] There is no CD between a tree eradicated and a tree blasted and eradicated, as noted in the August 1994 LoAR (Ælfwine Akeworthe, p. 18). This is because there are period depictions of trees with only a few leaves. [Gabriela Silvana, 07/00, R-Outlands] [Ed.: CD granted between a tree and a tree blasted 07/01, see below.]
[a yew tree vs. a willow tree] There is a CD for change of type of the tree ... [Eoghan Òg Mac Labhrainn, 09/00, A-Atlanita]
[Gules, on a bend sinister between six spearheads argent a sagebrush branch proper] Conflict with the arms of Lebanon, Gules, on a bend sinister argent a cedar tree palewise proper. There is a CD for adding the secondary charges, but by current precedent, a branch is not substantially different from a tree. [Gilliam van Taetsrade, 09/00, R-Drachenwald]
[Gules, on a fess cotised argent a willow gules] The device is clear of Lebanon, Gules, on a fess argent a cedar proper. There is a CD for the cotising and for the change in type and color of the tertiary charge. [Yang Liu, 12/00, A-Æthelmearc]
There is a CD for ... the difference between a fir tree and a blasted birch tree. [Caiterina of Ballyhooly, 07/01, A-Atenveldt]
While precedent has been mixed, by the precedent set on the February 1998 LoAR (p. 4, s.n. Wolfgang Schwarzwald) there is a CD between a tree and a tree blasted. [Geneviève de Carcassonne, 07/01, A-Atlantia]
There is substantial difference between a tree and a tree stump. [Forgotten Sea, Barony of, 07/01, A-Calontir]

VISUAL COMPARISON
This section is organized by the owner of the registered armory in question. A list of the names is included in the index.

Conflict with the badge for Arinbjorn Rúnólfsson Rafnssonar, A wolf's head cabossed per pale sable and argent enflamed gules. An examination of the emblazon shows that the enflaming of Arinbjorn's head is not worth a CD. [Ulric the Fox, 12/00, R-Atlantia]
[Gules, a claymore, its hilt between the wings of a vol Or] The device is in visual conflict with Brand Armand of Lancaster, Gules, a winged sword Or. A comparison of the emblazons showed that the visual resemblance was overwhelming. [Ivor MacFergus, 09/99, R-Ansteorra]
[An apple Or slipped and leaved vert crowned argent] This is clear of ... An apple Or. There is a CD for fieldlessness. The crown on the apple is almost as large as the apple, thus its addition is worth a second CD. [Brianna Magennis, 09/00, A-Ealdormere]
Conflict with Catarina della Zimarra, Sable a fleur de lys within the horns of a crescent Or. A check of Catarina's emblazon shows that the fleur-de-lys is definitely the sole primary charge. [Beau Fort, Shire of, 10/99, R-Meridies]
This is clear of Constance le Royer de la Tour, Azure, a tower argent issuant from a heart Or, because the tower and the heart are clearly co-primaries. [Aislynn Crystyn, 06/00, R-Ansteorra]
[An acorn sable] This does not conflict with Efron le Fey, (Fieldless) An acorn pierced by an arrow fesswise reversed sable. The arrow is substantial enough to count as a co-primary. [Anna im Turm, 12/00, A-Æthelmearc]
Conflict with Graffico de Drell, Vert, entwined about a chalice Or, a serpent head to sinister sable. The serpent is not significant ... [Beatrice Domenici della Campana, 12/00, R-An Tir]
Conflict with Gwynaeth Math o Ddylluan, Sable, a bezant charged with a raven on a branch bendwise all sable. There is a CD for the field, but the branch is not worth difference and there is not a CD for changing only the posture of the tertiary charges. [Magnus Hrafnsson, 03/00, R-Caid]
The submitted badge is clear of Inman MacMoore, Sable, a winged eagle's claw maintaining to dexter a broadaxe palewise Or, because Inman's axe is large enough to be a significant charge. [Grímr inn svarti, 09/99, A-An Tir]
[Per fess azure and vert, an ermine spot argent] Conflict with the badge for Jade of Starfall, Vert, an ermine tail, spotted of three compass stars argent. While the compass stars are visible, we feel that the charge in Jade's badge is still a variant of an ermine spot and therefore not significantly different from an ermine spot. [Timothy O'Brien, 10/00, R-Outlands]
Conflict with Kathryn Fitzroy of Bath, Sable, a unicorn's head couped reversed argent, entwined about the alicorne a serpent, head to sinister gules. The serpent does not generate difference ... [Sjard Snorresson, 08/99, R-Drachenwald]
Conflict with Rachel von Baeker, Bendy sinister of eight azure and Or, a unicorn's head erased to sinister argent, its horn enfiled of a chaplet palewise of clove pinks slipped and leaved proper. [Dianthus caryophullus] , and the badge for Kathryn Fitzroy of Bath, Sable, a unicorn's head couped reversed argent, entwined about the alicorne a serpent, head to sinister, gules. An examination of the emblazons shows that both the chaplet and the serpent are too small to be significant, therefore in both cases there is only a single CD for the change to the field. [Nastasiia MacNeill, 09/00, R-Caid]
[Quarterly gules and sable, on a sun Or a wheel proper] Conflict with the badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or (Kriemhild of Stonecroft), Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between a mullet of nine points and a sun, and nothing for changing the type only the tertiary charges. An examination of Kriemhild's emblazon shows that the head is primarily brown. [Ive Rathbourn, 08/00, R-Ansteorra]
... conflicts with Leonie de Civronnay, Per saltire vert and Or, a mockingbird displayed head to sinister proper perched on an ocotillo branch fesswise vert, flowered gules. ... Examination of the emblazon shows that the branch is not significant, so there is no CD for its removal. [Arnaud de Gournay of Dragonsley, 10/99, R-Ansteorra]
[Sable, a bend between a unicorn and three fleurs-de-lys argent] This is clear of Löwe des Berges, Sable, a bendlet between a lion rampant and three mountain peaks conjoined chased and snow-capped argent. The charge in dexter base is actually a mountain of three peaks thus there are CDs for number and type of secondary charges. [Olwen Kyffin, 11/00, R-An Tir]
This is clear of Morgana Bro Morgannwg, Or, seven stalks of wheat sable issuant from a crescent vert. The stalks are large enough to be counted as co-primaries ... [Amerinda da Praga, 06/00, A-Ansteorra]
Conflict with the Barony of the North Woods, Azure, a wolf's head couped argent vorant of a sun and in chief a laurel wreath Or. The emblazon shows that the sun is not large enough to be significant... [Steafan mac Thamhais, 08/99, R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) An osprey's jamb erased a la quise, belled and jessed fesswise, talons to dexter, argent] This does not conflict with ... A falcon's leg fesswise, embowed and couped a la quise, argent, maintaining an acorn proper. There is a CD for fieldlessness, and the bells are drawn substantially enough that they are worth a CD. [Osprey, Barony of the, 11/99, A-Meridies]
[a unicorn's head couped contourny argent armed and crined Or] Conflict with Rachel von Baeker, Bendy sinister of eight azure and Or, a unicorn's head erased to sinister argent, its horn enfiled of a chaplet palewise of clove pinks slipped and leaved proper. [Dianthus caryophullus] , and the badge for Kathryn Fitzroy of Bath, Sable, a unicorn's head couped reversed argent, entwined about the alicorne a serpent, head to sinister, gules. An examination of the emblazons shows that both the chaplet and the serpent are too small to be significant, therefore in both cases there is only a single CD for the change to the field. [Nastasiia MacNeill, 09/00, R-Caid]
This is clear of Seumas Camshronach an Lochabair, Sable, a chamfron Or enflamed proper. There is a CD for the change to the field, and the enflaming in Seumas's device is significant enough for the second CD. [Gisele Maria Overton, 12/99, A-Ansteorra]
This is clear of Patrick O'Neill of Cork, Azure, two horses combattant argent atop a sword fesswise reversed Or, a bordure argent. The sword is significant enough to be a co-primary charge... [Charles of Whithorse, 07/01, A-Middle]
Conflict with John of Gravesend, Vert, a sword palewise proper, surmounted at the tip by a helm affronty argent. There is a CD for the addition of the secondary charges but nothing for the removal of the maintained helm from John's device. [Cú Meda mac Dúnadaig, 07/01, R-Calontir]

WEIRDNESS

Note that, as of this meeting, we are declaring the non-medieval field treatment of honeycombing to be a "weirdness." [Lochmere, Barony of, 06/99, A-Atlantia]
[Argent, a wyvern erect sable winged and bellied azure within a bordure per saltire counter-ermine and azure] This acceptance overturns the precedent dated April, 1992, which banned bordures per saltire of low contrast. While this is unattested in period heraldry, it is consistent with the types of extrapolation which SCA heraldry routinely makes. As such, it is a "weirdness", not a returnable offense. [Melyssande Dunn, 07/99, A-An Tir]
For purposes of registration, coastal sub-Saharan flora and fauna are considered the same as New World flora and fauna: they are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable. [Jamie Snawberd of Ross, 08/99, A-Caid]
[(Fieldless) Two swans naiant addorsed conjoined and issuant from base, wings elevated and addorsed, argent charged with three chevronels braced vert] ... the combination of conjoining and charging with chevronels may be considered two weirdnesses by themselves. [Ginevra Bagnesi da Diacceto, 01/00, R-Meridies]
[Gyronny of sixteen gules and argent, a windmill sable, a bordure vert bezanty] 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. [Cadwan Galwiddoe of Redmarch, 06/00, R-Atlantia]
[Azure, a triangle inverted voided and a triangle voided conjoined in pale within the astronomical sign for Taurus argent] When Laurel first accepted registration of astrological symbols, he did so based on a period example of the symbols being used essentially as decoration on a celestial sphere (or as identifying marks). Therefore their use as standard charges must be considered a weirdness. Using it in this non-standard fashion (the framing of one charge by another is itself very rare in period heraldly), is another weirdness, especially combined with another highly usual charge used in an unusual fashion. Overall, this design is too far from period practice to be registerable. [Ungust Filius Antonii, 06/00, R-Caid]
[a scarpe vert and a scarpe azure] The use of two colors in the scarpes constitutes a weirdness, but it is the only one. [Théophile de Jonchere, 07/00, A-Atenveldt]
[Azure, a chevron argent between in dexter chief a sun in his splendor and in base three aspen leaves Or] The use of a single charge in dexter chief and three charges in base creates a very unbalanced appearance; however, as this is the only oddity in this device, we have decided that it is barely registerable. [Talore MacConlae, 07/00, A-Outlands]
[a pile sable ... a bordure counterchanged] Given that we allow other peripherals to be counterchanged across an ordinary, we see no reason to disallow it here. However, this practice is not good style and therefore counts as a weirdness. [Duncan Arthur Ross the Black, 07/01, A-Ansteorra]

WINGED OBJECTS

[Gules, a claymore, its hilt between the wings of a vol Or] The device is in visual conflict with ... Gules, a winged sword Or. A comparison of the emblazons showed that the visual resemblance was overwhelming. [Ivor MacFergus, 09/99, R-Ansteorra]
[two winged harps] In general, winged objects should have a pair of wings which are of equivalent size to the main charge. There is only one wing on each of these harps, and the wing is far too small and badly formed. While the use of a single wing may be acceptable, the combination of a single wing and an unusually small one is not. It is also likely that the size itself would be cause for return. [Alatheia the Harper, 06/00, R-Calontir]
[Gules, a pale wreathed argent and azure winged Or] No evidence has been presented, nor was any found, that ordinaries can be winged. We could not reblazon this as a vol with a pale overall, as the wings clearly originate at the edge of the pale. [Marcus Caecilius Existimator, 12/00, R-Artemisia]

WREATH

We have returned a number of "laurel wreaths" that are actually two sprigs in saltire in the past. This device has the same problem; a laurel wreath should be a wreath; i.e., it should be circular or nearly so. This must be returned for redrawing. Also, while not grounds for return, please inform the submitters that the rays of a sun usually fill the available space on the outline of the center orb. [Easaraigh, Shire of, 01/00, R-Meridies]
The emblazon shows two laurel branches, not a laurel wreath. The branches of a laurel wreath must be conjoined at the base and be circular or nearly so. [Talmere, Shire of, 01/00, R-Meridies]
[Per fess indented gules and sable, a laurel wreath and in chief a roundel Or] ... the laurel wreath is not closed (or even nearly so), and if it were, there would be no room for a roundel. A properly drawn laurel wreath should not have sufficient room between its tips to place another charge. Third, if properly drawn, the laurel wreath will overlap the complex line of division enough that identifiability is reduced. [Darkstone, College of, 02/00, R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) A jocelyn azure and Or belled Or] Conflict with ... A jocelyn - wreathed Or and vert with six bells Or. While the bells themselves are significant enough to generate difference (thus making a jocelyn significantly different from a plain wreath), the actual number is not significant. Therefore, there is not a CD for the change of tincture of less than half the charge nor for the number of bells. [Jeanne Marie la Verriere, 03/00, R-Caid]
This is returned for a redraw because the chaplet of roses was not a chaplet; it was not drawn as anything close to a closed circle. [Middle Kingdom, 04/00, R-Middle]

X.2 Rule Change

[rules change] X.2. Substantially Different Charges – Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially changed.
These types of changes were normally seen between complete strangers in blood, and were not usually used to indicate any form of cadency. For purposes of this rule, simple armory is defined as armory that has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no overall charges.

The following examples are simple, with at most two types of charge on the field: Argent, a fess sable. Sable, three lions Or. Vert, two eagles and a maunch argent. Vair, a bordure gules. Per pale gules and argent, a fess between three lozenges counterchanged. Or, on a chevron between three clarions gules, three garbs argent. Purpure, on a pale dancetty within a bordure semy-de-lys argent, a millrind sable between two roses gules.

The following examples are all non-simple, with more than two types of charges on the field, or with one or more overall charges: Argent, a fess between two lions and a lozenge azure. Vert, a chevron between three swords, a bordure Or. Gules, a bend between two roundels argent, overall a lion Or. Per bend argent and sable, a bend gules between a tree and a cross crosslet counterchanged. Argent, a dragon sable, overall a bend gules.

Argent, a fess sable does not conflict with Argent, a lion sable. Vert, two eagles and a maunch argent does not conflict with Vert, three lozenges argent. Azure, a fess between three cups Or does not conflict with Azure, a chevron between three cups Or. In each case the designs are simple and the type of every primary charge has been substantially changed.

Per chevron gules and argent, three oak trees counterchanged does conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, three fir trees counterchanged, because the type of charge has not been substantially changed; they both conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, two mullets and a fir tree counterchanged because not all of the primary charges have been substantially changed. Vert, two mullets and a clarion argent within a bordure Or conflicts with Vert, three gauntlets argent within a bordure Or because the first design is not simple, with three different types of charge on the field.
[06/01, CL]

ZULE

[A zule vs. a chess rook] ... there is a CD for type of primary... [Endless Hills, Barony of, 08/99, A-Æthelmearc]

INDEX

Aardvark see BEAST -- Miscellaneous
ADMINISTRATIVE
Amphora see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
ANNULET
Antelope see BEAST -- Antelope and Yale
ARCHITECTURE
ARRANGEMENT
ARROW
Artist's Brush see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Astrolabe see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Astronomical Sign see SYMBOL
Athanor see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
AUGMENTATIONS
Aurum Lily see PLANT
Axe see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Bat see BEAST -- Reremouse
Beacon see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
BEAST -- Antelope and Yale
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
BEAST -- Ferret
BEAST -- Horse and Zebra
BEAST -- Miscellaneous
BEAST -- Reremouse
Bell see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Belt see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
BEND and BEND SINISTER
Bevilled see LINES of DIVISION -- Bevilled
BIRD -- Chicken
BIRD -- Eagle
BIRD -- Falcon
BIRD -- Hawk
BIRD -- Miscellaneous
BIRD -- Owl
BIRD -- Precedent on Difference
BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Swan
Boar see BEAST -- Miscellaneous
BORDURE
Branch (Tree) see TREE
Bretessed see LINES OF DIVISION -- Embattled
Brush (Artist's Brush) see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Bucket see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Butterfly see INSECT
Cactus see PLANT
Caltrop see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
CARD PIQUE
CASTLE and TOWER
Cat see BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
Cauldron see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
CHALICE and CUP
Chameleon see REPTILE -- Miscellaneous
Chamfron see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Chapé see FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
Chaplet see WREATH
CHARGE -- Miscellaneous

CHARGE -- Overall
CHARGE -- Peripheral
CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved
CHARGE GROUP
Chaussé see FIELD DIVISION -- Chaussé
Checky see FIELD DIVISION -- Checky and CONTRAST
CHESS PIECE
CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED
Chicken see BIRD -- Chicken
CHIEF
Cockroach see INSECT
COMPASS ROSE
COMPASS STAR and SUN
Complex lines of division with low contrast see IDENTIFIABILITY
COMPLEXITY
CONTRAST
CORONET
COTISES
COUNTERCHANGING
CRESCENT
CROSS
Crossbow see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Cubit Arm & Bow see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Cup see CHALICE and CUP Dance see FESS
Decescent see CRESCENT
Dextrochere see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Dice see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Difference -- Significant see BIRDS -- Precedent on Difference
DOCUMENTATION
Dodo see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Dog see BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
DOLPHIN and WHALE
Dove see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Dovetailed see LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled
Dragon see MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
Dragonfly see INSECT
Duck see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Eagle see BIRD -- Eagle
Eight-Petaled Flower see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Embattled see LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled
Engrailed see LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
Ermine see BEAST -- Ferret
ESCARBUNCLE
Estencely see SEMY
ESTOILE
Falcon see BIRD -- Falcon
Ferret see BEAST -- Ferret
FESS
Fetterlock see CHARGE -- Misceelaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
FIELD DIVISION -- Chaussé
FIELD DIVISION -- Checky
FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny
FIELD DIVISION -- Lozengy see FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pale
FIELD DIVISION - Per Pall see FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD PRIMARY
FIELD TREATMENT -- Honeycomb
FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned
FIELD TREATMENT -- Semy see SEMY
FIELDLESS
FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES
FIRE see FLAMES and FIRE
Fireball see CHARGE -- Misceelaneous
FISH
FLAMES and FIRE
Flaunch see CHARGE -- Peripheral
Fleam & Roundel see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Flory see LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Thistle
FOIL
FOOTPRINT
Forget-Me-Not see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Fraise see FOIL
FRET and FRETTY
Gendy Flower see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Generic Bird see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Ginger Flower see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Goat see BEAST -- Miscellaneous
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
Grenade see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Griffin see MONSTER -- Griffin
GUILLOTINE
Gyronny see FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny
HAMMER
Hand see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Harpy see MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
Hawk see BIRD -- Hawk
HEAD
Heart see HEART and SEEBLATT
Heathcock see BIRD -- Chicken
Helm see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Helmet see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Hen see BIRD -- Chicken
Hippogriff see MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
Horse see BEAST -- Horse and Zebra
Hourglass see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Ibex see BEAST -- Miscellaneous
IDENTIFIABILITY
Increscent see CRESCENT
INSECT
Invected see LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
Jester's Bauble see STAFF
Jewelers Saw see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Jonquil see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Kendal Flower see FLOWER -- Rose
KNOTS
LAMP and LANTERN
Lantern see LAMP and LANTERN
LEAF
Lightning Bolt see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Lightning Flash see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Lily see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Bevilled
LINES of DIVISION -- Dovetailed see LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled
LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled
LINES of DIVISION -- Engrailed see LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Flory see LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Invected see LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Potenty
LINES of DIVISION -- Trefly see LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Urdy see LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled
LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
Lion see BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
Lizard see REPTILE -- Miscellaneous
Loves-Lies-Bleeding see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Lozengy see FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
MACE
Mangrove see PLANT
Mantyger see MONSTER -- Mantyger
Marshalled Arms see PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
Marlet see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Merman see MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
Mink see BEAST -- Miscellaneous
Mistletoe see PLANT
Mocking Bird see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
MON
MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
MONSTER -- Griffin
MONSTER -- Mantyger
MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
MONSTER -- Phoenix
MONSTER -- Pithon
MONSTER -- Sea
Mount see CHARGE -- Peripheral
MULLET
MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
Musical Note see SYMBOL
Norse Serpent see MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
Norse Sun Cross see SYMBOL
ORIENTATION
ORLE
Osprey see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Otter see BEAST -- Ferret
Overall see CHARGE -- Overall
Owl see BIRD -- Owl
PALL
Panther (heraldic) see MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
PAWPRINT
Peacock see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Pear see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Pegasus see MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
Pen (Artist's Brush) see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Penguin see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Per Pall see FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
Periwinkle see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Phoenix see MONSTER -- Phoenix
PILE and PILE INVERTED see PILE and PILE INVERTED
Pinecone see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Pithon see MONSTER -- Pithon
PLANT
Pomegranate see PLANT
POSITION
POSTURE
Potenty see LINES of DIVISION -- Potenty
Presumption see PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
Pretzel see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Prickspur see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
PROPER
Python see MONSTER -- Pithon
Quatrefoil see FOIL
Question Mark see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Raguly see LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled
Rainbow see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Raven see BIRD -- Raven
RECONSTRUCTIBILITY
Reindeer see BEAST -- Miscellaneous
REPTILE -- Miscellaneaous
REPTILE -- Serpent
Reremouse see BEAST -- Reremouse
RfS VIII.1.a see CHARGE GROUP
RfS VIII.2 see CONTRAST
RfS VIII.6 see ADMINISTRATIVE
RfS VIII.7 see AUGMENTATIONS
RfS X.2 (rules change) see X.2 Rule Change
RfS X.3 see ADMINISTRATIVE
RfS XI see PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
RfS XI.1 (rules change) see ADMINISTRATIVE and CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved
RfS XI.4 see AUGMENTATIONS and PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
Rose see FLOWER -- Rose
ROUNDEL
Rules Change (Rfs VIII.7) see AUGMENTATIONS
Rules Change (RfS X.2) see X.2 Rule Change
Rules Change (RfS XI.1) see ADMINISTRATIVE and CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved
Rules Change (RfS XI.4) see AUGMENTATIONS
SALTIRE
Satyr see MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
Scaling Ladder (Beacon) see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Scarpe see BEND and BEND SINISTER
SCHNECKE
Sea Monster see MONSTER -- Sea
Seeblatt see HEART and SEEBLATT
SEMY
Serpent see REPTILE -- Serpent
Shakefork see PALL
Shamrock see FOIL
SHIP
Snowflake see ESCARBUNCLE
STAFF
Stag see BEAST -- Deer
STYLE
Sun see COMPASS STAR and SUN
SUNBURST
Sunflower see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Swallow see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Swan see BIRD -- Swan
SWORD
"Sword-and-dagger rule" see CHARGE GROUP
SYMBOL
TankardCHALICE and CUP
Thistle see FLOWER -- Thistle
Thorns see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Tierce see CHARGE -- Peripheral
Tiger see BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
Torc see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Torque see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Torse see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
TowerCASTLE and TOWER
TREE
Trefly see LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
Trillium see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Tulip see FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
Unicornate Horse see MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
Urdy see LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled
VISUAL COMPARISON Wall see FESS
Wasp see INSECT
Waterwheel see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Wavy see LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
Weasel see BEAST -- Ferret
WEIRDNESS
Whale see DOLPHIN and WHALE
WINGED OBJECTS
Wolf see BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
Wolf's Teeth see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Wolverine see BEAST -- Miscellaneous
Wood Anemone see PLANT
Wooden Bucket (Bucket) see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Words see SYMBOL
WREATH
Wyvern see MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
X.2 Rule Change
Xonecuilli see CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Yale see BEAST -- Antelope and Yale
Zebra see BEAST -- Horse and Zebra
ZULE






Jump to Precedents main page
Jump to Laurel main page



maintained by Codex Herald

This page was last updated on Sunday, April 17th, 2016 @ 03:54 pm CDT

The arms of the SCA Copyright © 1995 - 2017 Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.