Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
As has been well established in the past by a considerable body of mundane scholarly research, as well as by Society precedent, period usage appears to have reserved the term "dancetty" for ordinaries rather than lines of division: the distinction between "dancetty" and "indented" when applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, ... but a distinction parallel to that between counterembattled and bretessed. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 10)
It is not necessary to specify that [the scourge] has three lashes since this is the default for this charge (Franklyn, Shield and Crest, p. 207). (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 14)
It is not necessary to specify that the [charges] are in bend since that is the default position for three charges beneath a bend. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 3)
The default label in Society heraldry is throughout. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 8)
The default for a cat’s head is not cabossed. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 2)
The position of the heads must be specified since guardant is the default position for owls. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6)
Although the default posture for closed books in older examples appears to [be] palewise, since so many modern coats (e.g., Cambridge) have closed books fesswise, ... it should be specified that [the books in this submission] are palewise. Indeed, it is also necessary to specify the orientation of the books [spines to sinister]. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 8)
In depictions of the [lion’s] jambe where no orientation is given, it has the "business end", i.e., the claws, to chief. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 4)
The "ramping" posture ... is the default for dragons and wyverns. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 6)
[A bend between three roses, one and two] It is necessary to specify that one rose is in chief and two in base because the opposite situation is the default. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 4)
The default lamb is passant. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 5)
The default for a single-horned anvil has the business end, i.e. the "pointier" end, to dexter. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 7)
In period a delf pierced would not have the piercing cover such a large portion of its "area" nor would it serve as a "frame" for another charge. However, both the proportionally greater "voided" space and the "frame" effect have been previously established in Society usage for mascles, which are no more complex visually, so it would appear pedantic to object to such a usage here. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 1)
[A delf and a lozenge, voided and interlaced] Given the visual similarity of the primary charge to a number of depictions of a snowflake in Society heraldry and mundane art, this appears to [conflict]. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 13)
The charged delf appeared to be arms of pretense of [mundane arms]. [Submission returned] (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 17)
Primary charges should not be demoted when a charge is placed overall: in mundane usage it is the charge overall which is considered to have been added for cadency, just as are secondaries around the primary charge. The blazon represents the reality: the primary charge will remain the charge which lies closest to the center of the field in the plane closest to the field. Under certain circumstances, charges overall can be held to have equal weight, but this will not "demote" the original primary charge, if the two are drawn in proper proportion. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 10)
There seems to be no standard depiction of a Chinese phoenix ... so that a heraldic artist would be at a loss to determine what to draw. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 15)
The shuttles are neither the standard heraldic shuttle nor the "stick shuttles" previously defined for Society use. As no documentation was provided for this form, the submission must be returned. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 16)
As an ordinary wreathed of one colour (or "cabled", as the original blazon had it) has previously been disallowed (February, 1985), we have substituted an orle invected: any interior diapering would not contribute difference in any case. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6)
These dice are depicted in the manner that seems to have been the standard in period heraldry (where dice are used). Although these are technically in trian aspect, the "perspective" is kept to a minimum by making the near side of the cube almost a square so that the die is not really seen directly edge on. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 10)
[Coney rampant vs. otter sejant reguardant] [This] has a clear major [point of difference] for position of the primary charge, a minor for the type of charge (the differences in tail and ears between the coney and otter are worth at least a strong minor when a single animal is in question).... (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 5)
Only a minor point of difference can be derived from the eclipsing of the sun, whether you consider it as using a different tincture for part of a charge (analogous to using Or for the wings of an argent pegasus) or a permutation of the main charge (it is analogous to the example of the charge pierced vs. unpierced). (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 9)
Although there are two kinds of charges in the group, there is only one group of secondary charges here, in a standard arrangement about the cross. Therefore, technically and visually, there is only a single major point of difference (for the addition of the secondaries) from [Field, a cross]. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 9)
This is the perfect example of a case where the allowance of a full major point of difference for tertiaries made in DR10 should come into play. In both cases the field ... [and] the tincture of the ordinary ... are identical. There is a clear major for the indenting of the [ordinary] here. A major point of difference can be allowed for the tertiaries not only because the differences between the tertiaries are not only striking in degree [type, number, and tincture] but also because the tertiaries lie at the visual center of the field of the shield with virtually no visual distractions on the periphery. The same changes places on a secondary charge (for example, a chief) would not attract the eye with nearly the same force. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 7)
The red rose of Lancaster, like the white rose of York, deserves extra protection versus Society badges which should differ by more than one major point from this particularly famous royal badge. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14)
A dagger is a sword and a sword is, generally speaking, a sword from the point of view of difference. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14) (See also: LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 17)
For purposes of difference a moon in her complement and a plate are functionally identical. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 17) (See also: LoAR 28 May 90, p. 21)
[Goose migrant vs. chimney swift migrant] The cumulative [differences] between the birds are worth a minor point [of difference] at best (in this [migrant] position the primary difference is in the tail configuration). (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 16)
The change in position of the charges should carry no extra difference since it is derived entirely from the change in line of division. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 23)
There is ... only a minor point [of difference] for the type of tertiary, since the change of posture is derived from the change in type of charge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 24)
[Two devices with identical fields and identically charged chiefs, with a single primary charge of different types and tinctures] While there are two points for difference of type and tincture of the primary charge, the devices are otherwise identical and the visual similarity is so overwhelming that the inference of kinship would be inescapable. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 26)
There is no difference between an ordinary and its diminutive. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 28)
There is not a full point of difference between [a] shooting star and an estoile. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 17)
Only a minor point of difference can be derived from merely reversing the tinctures of a partitioned field, even when these are a metal + color combination (Determination of Difference 4.B.1.c). (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 19)
No additional difference should be added for the difference in depiction between a dolmen of three uprights and the more usual trilithon: even as a primary charge, the viewer will register "dolmen" and assume that the depiction is artistic license. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 11)
The allocation of a full point of difference for three changes to tertiaries is not automatic by any means and ... should be considered in the context of the visual prominence of the tertiaries, which usually is directly related to the degree to which they are central to the design of the device or, phrased in another way, how early in the recognition process they will be registered by an individual comparing the two devices. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 24)
This differs from the device of [Name] by a major for change of the type of secondaries and a minor for change in tincture of some of a group of secondaries. This is sufficient difference for a badge. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 3)
There is a major point for the difference between a plain field and the semy field in addition to the differences in type and number between two stars and one plate. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 4)
[Per pale azure and argent, a fess and overall a roundel, all counterchanged] This submission provided an excellent example of the problem "modern" counterchange designs present when determining difference. In period, it would have been a definite anomaly for a charge overall to share the charges of the field and the primary charge in a counterchange relationship, but counterchange of overall charges, when used in moderation, has become relatively accepted in the Society. This leaves us with the question of the weight to be allowed to tincture changes derived from modifications of the base tinctures (i.e., those of the field). All are agreed that there is a clear major point for the addition of the fess and a clear minor point for the modification of the colour in the field.
[One commenter felt] that all changes in the colour of the charges were negligible resulting in a conflict.... [Another] felt that, since any tincture could have been used on the roundel, the change in the roundel should count a full minor point. While [these last] arguments were eloquent, it is impossible to ignore the "derivative" nature of the tincture completely. However, after considering a number of cases in which the issue of the weight to be derived from "derivative" changes to counterchanged charges, it seems that such are not considered "negligible", merely weak, i.e. insufficient even when taken with the minor for the field to provide adequate difference between Society badges or between badges and mundane arms. In this particular case, there are two "hemi-semi-demi-points of difference", one for the change to the fess and another for the change to the roundel. Taken with the other changes, this would seem to provide adequate difference. (Irreverent comment from the Laurel meeting: "If the fighters have to calibrate blows, do the heralds have to calibrate points of difference.") (LoAR 26 Apr 87, pp. 7-8)
By tradition the Society has considered a compass star to differ by at least a strong minor from a mullet. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 3)
The "enarching" here is merely one of the standard period methods of depicting a normal chevron and therefore there is insufficient difference from the mundane arms of [Name]. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 14)
Courant is only a minor point of difference from passant (Determination of Difference, p. 2, under posture). (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 15)
[A three-headed thistle proper flowered gules vs. a three-headed thistle proper flowered purpure] So unusual is the tricapitate thistle that the arrangement overrides any minor difference added by changing the tincture of part of the thistle to purpure. Note also that this change of tincture is severely weakened because of the small portion of the plant affected and the indifference with which heads gules and heads purpure are interchanged in Scots herald (in this context many period Scotsmen seem not to have perceived any difference between the two tinctures). (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 18) (See also: LoAR 24 May 87, p. 16)
DR10 specifically limits the cases where a tertiary charge may derive a major point of difference from two changes to the device to those devices which involve only a field and a charged ordinary. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 17)
[The issue was raised of] whether the addition of the wings is indeed a minor point of difference or should be counted as a major point of difference.... The determination of difference depends not only [on] the proportion of the charge which is modified but also on the "pattern of recognition" involved. In other words, if the modifications create a beast which has a separate identity of its own, either in period or modern heraldry (e.g., a lion as opposed to a sea-lion), it is feasible for the modifications to produce a major point of difference. If the modifications produce a beast which is clearly derivative (e.g., a winged sheep), then the difference created will be minor. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)
Any interior diapering would not contribute difference in any case. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6)
[Carp embowed vs. dolphin embowed] The fish on both pieces of armoury are virtually identical. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)
The differences between the two serpents [cobra coiled affronty vs. rattlesnake coiled to sinister] in position and type are so weak as to be virtually negligible. The two may be blazoned differently for canting or symbolic purposes, but are not significantly different visually. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)
Between an escarbuncle of six spokes and one of eight there is a distinction not a difference. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 12)
There is a clear point of difference for the differences of posture, but the double-heads are not sufficiently visible against the peacock’s tail to add the necessary extra difference. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 14)
Note that the logical distinction between granting full difference for three changes to a group of minors (i.e., a situation where there is functionally complete visual difference of tertiaries) is based on the perception of difference reflected in period cadency. A complete change of type of tertiary or of tincture of tertiary, etc. would be sufficient to create secondary cadency in many heraldic jurisdictions (though admittedly not in all). Changing both could be used to define tertiary cadency (i.e., the second son might use a chief charged with three fleurs-de-lys gules while his son used three fleurs-de-lys azure). On the other hand, addition or subtraction of a set of charges can only produce one change. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 6)
[Lion sejant vs. house cat sejant] The posture of the two beasts is essentially identical (the posture of the tail is not generally heraldically significant) and the distinction between a lion and a domestic cat under the current rules can be no more than a minor point of difference. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 19)
[The submitting herald] errs in considering that there is complete difference of charge between a tree eradicated vert and a tree eradicated blasted vert: at best there is a minor point of difference. (Nor is there complete difference of charge between a lion and a lion defamed: in fact, Society precedent would hold that the difference between the two types of lion would be negligible.) (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 6)
[A fess between three crosses and in chief a seahorse] Under the definition of "a group of charges" in the section on Determination of Difference, the crosses and the seahorse constitute two different groups of charges. This is not simply because of the difference in type and tincture of the charges, but because they are not in fact arranged as a group in a standard arrangement. The crosses do constitute a group of secondary charges as defined under subheading 2 "One or more charges accompanying ... an ordinary or primary charge."). The seahorse here is specifically emblazoned in one of the most common traditional positions for a brisure mark (centered in chief) and in fact looks like a brisure mark added to cadet arms. As such, it is specifically covered by subhead 3 ("A secondary charge that is obviously not associated with other secondary charges, such as a bordure, a chief, an orle, or a brisure."). (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 7)
[Wolf’s pawprint v. bear’s pawprint] No difference can be derived from the change in kind of pawprint. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 11)
We cannot agree ... that the change from argent to erminois is worth a major and a minor since two distinct changes are made: this is not a change from one tincture to another with a further addition of charges but rather a change from one recognized heraldic tincture to another (that one of the tinctures is a fur is interesting but does not add extra difference). (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 14)
[Two towers conjoined by a doubly-arched bridge vs. castle] [There is a] strong resemblance of the conjoint charge to a standard depiction of a castle: there is not the required difference here. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 14)
[Per chevron argent and sable, an annulet counterchanged] This is in conflict with the mundane arms ... ("Gyronny of eight sable and argent, an annulet counterchanged."... All the examples in the Rules for Submission make it clear that the "automatic sufficient difference" for counterchange is intended to apply only between a plain field charged and a divided field with the same charge counterchanged along the line of division. In this case only the line of division is changed. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 14)
Traditionally, we have considered a fur a "tincture" for the purposes of counting difference so there is a major point for the plain counter-ermine field as opposed to the divided field [per pale ermine and counter-ermine]. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 5)
We [are] convinced that it is not inappropriate to give the submittor the benefit of the doubt on the cumulative effect of the accumulated minor points of difference [one major, two minors] which would carry this clear. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 8)
In cases where two pieces of armoury consist solely of a field semy of charges, a major point of difference may be derived from a complete change of charge tincture or a major change in the type of charge. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 9)
No matter how drastic the change, you can only get a major point of difference for the position change of the primary charges. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
The addition or change of a charge overall to a pre-existing coat is a recognized form of indicating cadency (see the examples in Gayre, Heraldic Cadency, chapters XIV and XV) so the modifications to the charge overall [are not] sufficient in and of themselves to establish difference between two coats. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 17)
[Or, four pallets gules, overall a saltire counterchanged] This is in conflict with the arms of Aragon cited on the letter of intent ("Or, four pallets gules"). Only a major point of difference can be derived from the addition of the saltire overall; no extra difference can be derived from tincture between something and nothing. AR 18b, which grants automatic sufficient difference from mundane arms for the addition of the primary charge, does not apply here, since the saltire is added over an already charged field. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 19)
No more than a major point of difference may be derived from changes to tertiaries alone. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 22)
Based both on period practise and modern perception, it is clear that the difference between a single-towered tower and a multi-towered castle should be at most a minor point of difference as we currently count difference. In circumstances where the building is a large central primary charge, this may be a strong minor. In circumstances where there are multiple charges whose size and impact is therefore diminished and/or the charges are removed to the periphery of the device, the difference may be reduced to a weak minor or a negligible point. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 20)
Between Society armoury, counterchanging along a[n added] line of division contributes only a major point of difference, not automatic sufficient difference as it does with the mundane. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 21)
The difference between eagle and hawk is really non-existent. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 24)
Given the traditional depiction of the mullet of six points in the Society, we felt that there was at least a minor point of difference from an estoile when primary charges were involved. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 1)
[Catherine wheel vs. cog wheel] There is no way to call a full point of difference between the two types of wheel. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 15)
Since ... changes of tincture which are derivative from a change in the tincture of the field are diminished in force, we must conclude that this badge does in fact conflict. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 17)
The rules allow a minor for the difference between a head couped and a head erased. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 19)
Traditionally, Society has made a distinction between gules and purpure that appears not to have existed, by and large, in period heraldry and much relatively modern heraldry. This distinction has held true even for thistle flowers, even though this has very little basis in mundane heraldry. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 9)
The question of whether charges overall should be considered primary or secondary (and thus granted the full weight of any changes made to them given the current limitation on difference derivable solely from secondary charges is thornier....
In this case, the criterion we have had to use is the way that the two devices will be perceived by the observer. Both devices are identical save for the type and tincture of the charge set overall. All the difference is derived ... from a single design element. In a similar situation (modifications to secondaries set around the central design element), it has been held that adequate difference between Society devices cannot be derived from cumulative changes to the same charge or set of charges. We feel the same situation applies here. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 17)
There is a minor for the difference in posture derived from rampant as opposed to rampant guardant. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 6)
Some members of the College were somewhat confused on the manner in which difference should be counted in considering armoury where divided fields exist. In such cases, the same standards for difference apply as for plain field devices, i.e., a group of three charges distributed over two "halves" of the field are still considered as a "group", not two separate sets of primary charges. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 12)
The beaking and legging here is an artistic specification, and does not add difference. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 17)
[On a pale between two pairs of charges in saltire a beast vs. On a pale endorsed a tree -- all tinctures same except for tertiaries] Society tradition appears in most cases to enumerate charges in saltire as separate elements for the purpose of difference and so there is a major and minor point for the difference in type and number of secondary charges as well as the difference to be derived from the tertiaries. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 8)
We have traditionally allowed a major point of difference for the posture differences between "couchant" and "sejant". (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 4)
[One-handled vs. two-handled mug] We cannot agree [that a minor point of difference may be obtained between the two] as this is the sort of artistic difference that frequently is not even blazoned. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 14)
[Per bend gules and ermine, a monster argent, detailed Or] The poor contrast virtually eradicates any visual difference to be derived from the cumulative tincture change in the details and the difference in position of the hooves (the latter lie entirely on the ermine field and are nearly invisible). (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 18)
A major point of difference can be derived from the addition of the tertiary on a single ordinary. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 2)
[Demi-lion vs. natural panther incensed] While it can by no means be assumed that a demi-beast will always be a major point of difference from a whole beast in the same relative position, in this case a comparison of the emblazons shows that the cumulative differences carry this feline well clear of the natural panther.... In addition to the truncation of the lower extremities, there is a significant difference in the portions of the beast that remain: the shape of the head (maned versus maneless), forelegs and tail (shaggy versus smooth) and general treatment (plain versus incensed of flame). (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 2)
No matter how many secondaries there are in a group and how large they are, they still count only a major point of difference. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 18)
We have come to the reluctant conclusion that the armadillo is not a full major point of difference from the hedgehog as it is usually depicted in armoury. The usual distinguishing feature of the hedgehog is its spines and this beast is smooth, but otherwise their profiles are extremely close. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 19)
[Fleur-de-lis vs. wolf’s head jessant-de-lis] We were not able to ... pull a full major point of difference from the addition of the wolf’s head since the fleur-de-lis is distinctly a major component, if not the major component of [Name’s] badge. (LoAr 21 May 89, p. 20)
[The principal herald] has provided compelling evidence from illustrations of the regalia of the Order of the Knights of Calatrava that what the Society calls a Cross of Calatrava is merely an artistic variant of the cross flory. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 20)
We could see no more than a minor point of difference between the cross of conjoined ermine spots and the cross fleury. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 23)
No difference can really be derived from a sinister hand versus a dexter hand. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 9)
It was ruled some time ago that the "chevron throughout" is merely a period variant of the chevron and no difference can be derived from enhancing the chevron. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 9)
The difference in shape between the moth and the dragonfly were not tantamount to a major point of difference. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 12)
The issue is how much difference should be derived from a semy of charges added across only part of the field. Were this added to the entire field, a major point would be derived. Here [over half the field] only a minor can be derived, but the visual effect of that minor is very strong. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 4)
The arms of House ("Vert, a cross argent") cannot be differenced merely by adding a roundel bearing the flag of Finland. In any case, the roundel is essentially an oddly tinctured counterchange and it is dubious whether it should be allowed more than a major point of difference under our rules. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 14)
The addition of the tiny tertiary charge to one of the group of secondaries [is] not really enough to carry this clear. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 19)
Only one major point of difference can be derived from the cumulative changes of posture. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 27)
[The principal herald] has appealed this return on the grounds that a major and minor should be derived from the field because of the change in field division and the partial change in tincture. [There is] long-standing precedent that no more than a single major can be derived from the field except in certain, very specific circumstances. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 28)
Under the current rules, no difference is derived for the field [of a device vs. a fieldless badge] and only a major for the complete difference of the primary charge, since the two primary charges are themselves charged (with the same charge!). (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 8)
The tincture of the [unicorn’s] horn does not really contribute difference. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 9)
Under the new rules the separate differences for type and predominant tincture of the secondaries would carry it clear, even without considering any differences for orientation. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 14)
By the simple expedient of taking several standard depictions of wings in lure and wings in vol and inverting them, we came to the conclusion that the difference between the lure and the vol is essentially an inversion of the other charge. Therefore, it is our feeling that a clear difference exists between a wing and a vol. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 15
Even under the new rules, two changes to the tertiaries are required to derive difference. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, pp. 38-39)
We have to agree with those who felt that the modification of tincture of fimbriation should contribute no difference here. Indeed, in view of the minimal visual impact of fimbriation, even when drawn properly, it is very difficult to imagine a situation where the addition of fimbriation or the change of the tincture of fimbriation should contribute to difference. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 40)
[Per bend, two trefoils issuant from the line of division vs. per bend sinister, two oak leaves so issuant] While we would normally grant that the oak leaves and trefoils are clearly different, if the distribution of the [identical] field tinctures had not been so different with both line of division and arrangement of tinctures differing, we might have held that a visual conflict existed. As it is, the two are clear, though we suspect that there will be some popular confusion between these two [pieces of] armoury. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 10)
There is a major point under the old rules for the field difference, but the modification of position [of the only charge] is ... derivative from the modification of the field and cannot contribute difference. Under the new rules there is a clear difference for the field, but again the difference in position of the cross is caused by the change to the field and therefore is not an independent difference (Arrangement Changes, X.4.g). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 19)
[A chevron argent charged with three crosses fleury sable vs. a chevron ermine] While this is clear on technical "count", the only effective change between the two is crosses for ermine spots as a quick sketch of the device drawn from blazon in the period manner showed. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 20)
Under the old rules, the enflaming of the [primary charge] would be a minor and the addition of the [tertiary charge] a minor, which is not enough to carry them clear. Under the new rules, the addition of the [tertiary charge] would be one difference, but the enflaming [of the primary] does not seem to clear the obvious visual similarity here. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 20)
[Sea griffin vs. winged sea-lion] Even if you allow a full major point under the old rules and a clear visual difference under the new for the type of monster, we could not see giving the additional difference needed under either set of rules for the tiny [charge] the monster holds. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)
While these are blazoned as cloves, they are well within the parameters for depiction of gouttes and thus no real difference can be derived from type. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 22)
While not denying that there could be legitimate differences in the depiction of a cross of ermine spots, there was a fairly strong focus in commentary on the fact that the College has to consider the submitted emblazon and that emblazon is almost identical to a cross fleury, save for the frou-frou at its center. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 23)
After much consideration and a lot of picture comparisons, we were forced to the conclusion that the visual difference between the triple-towered castle as usually depicted in mundane heraldry and the castle depicted here (with two towers) is not enough to produce a clear minor under the old rules. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 27)
We have traditionally allowed more difference for a tower, as opposed to a castle, as the two are depicted significantly differently in mundane heraldry (see Woodward, Plate XXXII). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 27)
The standing precedent [is] of not allowing "complete difference of charge" between quadrupeds, no matter how different. Under the requirements for Type Change (X.4.e) in the new rules, the shape of the modified rabbit in any normal depiction is clearly different from that of a rhinoceros or an enfield. Since this significant change is type is applied where the charges are primary charges alone on the field, the Difference of Primary Charges rule (X.2) comes into play and the device is definitely clear. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 27)
[Sea-griffin and a chief charged with three crosses vs. dragon segreant and a chief charged with three leeks, all tinctures being the same] Under the new rules, it is our feeling that the Difference of Primary Charges rule (X.2) would apply here: by the standards set down in consideration of Type Changes (X.4.e) the change between the sea-griffin and the dragon would be a significant change and contribute difference. Under the Difference of Primary Charges rule "armory that consists of one group of charges alone on the field or accompanied only by a chief that may be charged ... does not conflict with similarly simple protected armory that significantly changes the type of all the primary charges." (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 28)
The issue then becomes whether a visual difference exists between the compass stars and the normal mullet. As the compass star is really a "Society charge", the rules on charges not used in period heraldry then apply: "A charge ... will be considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different." (Type Changes, X.4.e). Applying this test, a compass star is clearly different from a normal mullet: not only is there a distinct difference in number of rays and a resulting difference in orientation, the "greater and lesser" arrangement of the rays creates a completely different sort of outline. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 30)
As the peacock is normally as different from the standard cock as a wolf is from a lion (different head shape, distinctive tail, etc.) we have no hesitation in counting a difference between the two. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 3)
[A demi-monster, issuant from a base] The question [is] whether the modification of the [monster] (its posture, position, attributes, etc.) constituted a clear difference. In this case, we were inclined to believe that it did: in this sort of design, the base is clearly secondary and the issuance of the demi-[monster] places the [monster] in a relative position much lower than would be the case if a regular [monster] were placed on this shield. This being the case, the [monster] does not really have the same visual weight as a regular [monster] segreant whose legs are obscured by a charge overall. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 3)
There is one clear visual difference for the addition of the chief and another for the addition of the tertiaries. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 5.)
Note that complete difference of primary charge cannot apply ... because the secondaries are flaunches. However, in this case there is one difference for type of charge (monster vs. vulture) and another for the posture of the animate charge (one is passant fesswise, wings addorsed and the other is vertical with wings displayed and inverted. This is true under the old rules as under the new. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 7)
There are two differences in the secondary charges: type and number. Thus the two are clear under both old and new rules. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 7)
There is no heraldic difference between a heron, a crane and a stork. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 16)
As the change in position [of the secondary charges] derives entirely from the change in type of primary charge, there is only one difference: the change in type of primary charge. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 17)
The difference between a lymphad and a galley is not significant. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 17)
Examination of period and modern sources makes it clear that "fretty" is not a field treatment in the sense that term is used in the Society, but rather a "semy of frets" and as such contributes difference (X.4.b. Addition of Charges on the Field). Period treatises make it clear that the fretty was seen as placed upon the field in the same way that fleurs-de-lys or mullets or other charges semy were strewn.... Unlike "normal" field treatments, but like secondary charges, a "fretty" can be itself charged (Woodward, p. 97). (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 10)
"Fretty" must be considered to be a form of semy and thus entitled to add difference under section X.4.b of the Rules for Submission (Addition of Charges on the Field). (CL 13 May 90, p. 2)
The radical and clear-cut difference in position for a primary charge to a position definitely in sinister canton must be considered [a] difference. (Note that, as under the old rules, such positional changes must be considered on a case by case basis as they can be affected by the presence of other charges and other design elements. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 3)
The addition of the secondary [chief] and the addition of the tertiary [charges on the chief] are separate actions and in mundane heraldry would reflect different levels of cadency. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 6)
We are inclined to follow modern practise and allow difference for the conversion of indented to one of the rounded division lines, so long as the identifiability of the line of division is clearly maintained (i.e., as long as it is used in such a manner that it can be identified, as would be the case when applied to a primary charge). (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 6)
The new rules do not require complete difference of charge between the ... primary charges on simple coats, merely significant difference of primary charge, as defined in the section on Significant Armorial Differences. Under that section, it is clearly stated that charges will be considered different in type which were considered clearly separate in period heraldry. Rabbits or hares and lions were so considered. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 14)
We would be inclined to grant difference between an ordinary invected and an ordinary engrailed on the grounds that the two were distinguished in period armoury and have traditionally been distinguished quite well in Society armoury. However, we cannot in conscience grant difference where the ordinary involves both lines of division. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 19)
There is a difference for the number of charges and another difference for changing the posture of half the charges in the group [reversed]. The latter change is independent of the addition of the [charge]: the default posture for an added [charge] would have been facing to dexter. Therefore, it can be counted for difference. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 4)
It is certainly a possibility to consider that the phrase "alone on the field" should be taken literally in the new rules and the significant difference of charge license apply even where the primary charges are themselves charged.... After much wrestling with this issue, we have come to the conclusion that the letter of the law in this case is also the spirit of the law and thus section X.2 [Difference of Primary Charges rule] of the new rules can apply to charged primaries. However, it must be stressed that the tertiary charges cannot significantly diminish the identifiability of the primaries in each case (by definition, both must be charged or else the two coats would be clear under the new rules). Also, it is presumed that the "visual conflict" rule may apply in cases such as that cited above where charges of the same type and tincture are modified with no other modifications. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 5)
[On a roundel a charge vs. on a roundel a charge charged with a charge pierced] After considering [the] armoury for some time, we concluded that difference is derived from the tertiaries. There is clearly a difference for type of tertiary and another is present visually, whether one blazons it as the addition of another charge (as is done in the current blazon) or considers the argent charge in the same layer as the sable mullet as a change of more than half of the tincture of the tertiary. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 6)
There was a strong feeling that adequate difference in type exists between a walrus head and a buck’s head to apply section X.2 of the new rules and carry this clear. (LoAR 28 May 1990, p. 2)
Under the new rules, this is well clear of [Name] ... since the number and type of secondary charge are counted independently with no limit. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 7)
A great deal of discussion [took place] as to the relationship between the estoile and mullet in period and Society heraldry. While [one commenter] presented some interesting evidence that the two charges may have been interchangeable in period heraldry, there is a long tradition of their being considered a differencing element in Society heraldry as well as modern English heraldry. This is reflected in the fact that both Society ordinaries and Papworth list mullets and estoiles as separate charges.... Under certain circumstances, if diminished enough in size or modified in a non-standard manner there might be a visual coincidence between mullets and estoiles that would create a confusion.... Otherwise, we had to agree with those who felt that enough visual difference exists between the two charges for the purposes of Society heraldry. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 12)
While significant changes to the type of charge involved in a semy can produce difference under Part X of the rules, this must be taken in the context of the underlying assumption that the charges will be immediately identifiable and distinguishable from one another. (This is implicit in the test of charges’ shapes in normal depiction being significantly different: "significant" means "having significance".)... In this case, the reduction in size reduces the identifiability of the two charges to the point where they both become primarily identified "crosses with cross bars of some sort at the ends of the arms". [Returned for conflict] (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 17)
Under the old rules we cannot see giving more than a very weak minor for the difference between "lozengy vert and Or" and "lozengy couped Or and vert". Certainly, it is not a clear visual difference under the new rules. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 18)
[Per fess azure, mullety Or and purpure, crusilly Or vs. Purpure, crusilly Or] Since half the field and half the charges are changed, there are two visual differences. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 1)
[Sea-dragon erect vs. wyvern, wings displayed] There is one difference for the field and another for the position of the monster. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 1)
[Comparing two devices, each per fess embattled of the same tinctures with two charges in chief and another in base] It was the sense of the meeting that this was in fact clear ... since all of the charges on the field are significantly different. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 4)
[One commenter] has shown there was apparently a difference noted by heralds in period between the stylized fleur-de-lys and the natural lily flower since the arms of Eton College contain both used in a cadency context. Under the new rules this is enough to determine that a difference of type may be granted, assuming no real possibility of confusion. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 4)
There is difference for type of primary charge and another for position of primary charge here.... While posture is not generally counted between dissimilar items (e.g., a flower and a deer) in this case, the [dolphin] could be (at least in Society heraldry!) in a posture directly analogous to that of the [bird] displayed, if it were affronty. Since it is not, an additional difference for posture may be derived. (This is analogous to counting one difference for a charge being a horse, not a bird, and another for its being to dexter rather than to sinister, which we have fairly frequently done in the past.) (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 8)
The ermining in [Name]’s device is not addition of a strewn charge under the new rules (or the old for that matter) and does not add to the difference already derived from the difference in field. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 9)
The usage "a sheaf" for "two [charges] in saltire surmounted by a third palewise" is a space-saving Society convention: it does not necessarily mean that the [charges] must be counted for difference as a single unit any more than a sword and a quill in saltire would be considered a single item. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 13)
[Two towers connected by a bridge vs. a castle] When a submission for the same order was returned in February, 1988, "the strong resemblance of the conjoint charge to a standard depiction of a castle" was noted. (It is essentially two towers conjoined by an embattled wall with arches to base.) THere is no clear difference visually between a castle and the bridge on this submission. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 18)
While technically clear because of the change of number and type of charges in chief (a major and a minor point) and the line of division (only a minor in effect because of the visual distraction of the wavy [line of division]), the visual resemblance is overwhelming. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 20) [Submission was returned]
The visual similarities between the fret and the snowflake ... were so strong that we felt there was infringement. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)
It may be a matter of debate whether the [annulo charge] or the charge within is the primary charge in either device.... A comparison of the emblazons makes it clear that there is a visual conflict since the dominant charge in both cases is the [same]. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 16)
Upon carefully comparing the two emblazons once again we are compelled to the belief that a visual conflict definitely exists.... All the changes to the device are at the periphery of the field.... It is only after one has been compelled to note striking similarities between the two devices that one begins to process the differences. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 17)
However one counts the "points", this [argent, an owl rising guardant, wings elevated and addorsed, maintaining an arrow bendwise sable] is strongly in visual conflict with [argent, a raven rising reguardant, wings disclosed proper, in the dexter claw a sword gules]. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 12)
There was almost universal agreement amongst the commenters that [the] lengthy appeal that a side and a dexter tierce should be counted completely differently ignored the visual reality and the current rules of difference in the Society. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 9)
"Visual conflict" is a one-way street: a device may be clear technically, yet come into conflict visually, but a device that conflicts technically may not be cleared of conflict solely because of apparent visual disparities. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 21)
Note that the comments on discouraged practices say "A submission may incorporate one of these discouraged practices and still be marginally acceptable, but it costs the submittor the benefit of the doubt." This does not mean that particularly flagrant examples of any of the discouraged practices may not be in and of themselves grounds for return.... (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 11)
The precedent in this case appears to be the badge of Albert von Drechenveldt which was returned in December, 1985, for appearing to be a "no outhouses" symbol. Since the tincture of the ordinaries in that case was Or, evidently the use of gules is not a consideration. Note also that in the Discouraged practices section (X3) merely specified "the bend-plus-bordure ‘no X’ motif". That this is a design that well could have existed in period (and show cadency from a family [arms]) is rendered irrelevant by the problems raised by the essentially twentieth-century perceptions of the majority of the membership. My feeling, however, is that rendering the bend and bordure in different tinctures would remove the visual suggestion of the "no [charges]" sign and thus resolve the problem. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 29)
We ... cannot accept the principle that in any situation one discouraged practice must be allowed under the wording of the current rules.... that was clearly not the intent of either Master Baldwin or of the College of Arms and the use of the subjunctive "may" throughout the introduction to the list of discouraged practices should be observed. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 11)
[Octopus tergiant displayed blazoned as "displayed"] The defining instance in Society heraldry (Geoffrey d’Ayr, "Azure, an octopus displayed argent." [badge]) indicates that this posture is correctly blazoned as displayed in Society heraldry. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 9)
We would welcome documentation to the contrary. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 6)
She enclosed a Xerox of her birth certificate: that’s documentation! (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 6)
[The submittor] provides copious extracts from Burke to support the contention that members of the clan may use differenced versions of the chief’s arms. Unfortunately, the examples support the original contention of the College that the use of the clearly cadenced arms ... implies a claim to kinship with the head of the clan, which is not permitted. The general feeling of the College was that an allusion to the Campbell arms or badges might be permissible with the simple name Campbell, but that the arms differenced went beyond the differences required for what Scots heraldry charmingly calls a "stranger in blood". (LoAR Aug 87, pp. 15-16)
As no documentation was provided for this form [of the charge], the submission must be returned. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 16)
Insufficient documentation was provided to determine the grammatical accuracy of the bynames or their plausibility in the form [submitted]. Unfortunately, the intent of the submittor as to the intended meaning of the byname is unclear. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 16)
No additional difference should be added for the difference in depiction between a dolmen of three uprights and the more usual trilithon: even as a primary charge, the viewer will register "dolmen" and assume that the depiction is artistic license. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 11)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane