Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
There is a long-standing precedent in Society heraldry which considered charged sails as being equivalent to arms of pretense and therefore forbidden for Society usage: "You may not charge a sail if the resulting sail conflicts with existing arms". As the sail here appear[s] identical to at least one mundane item of armory, this device must be returned. (The passage of the arms of Eisenmarche cited ... in the letter of intent is a special case ...: the arms of the Society, which the Board has specifically stated may be displayed by any group.) (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 13) (See also: LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 22; LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 20)
All of the examples of charged sails which we have been able find depictions of [in] period heraldry were displays of badges or arms claimed by the person or group who used the armory on which the sail appeared. Thus, such usage by definition creates an impression of pretense. When Master Wilhelm made the exception that groups might include a laurel wreath on a sail for group arms, he was reflecting this attitude, since the laurel wreath is an insignia to which all Society groups may lay claim. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 20)
It is not necessary to specify that this has three lashes since this is the default for this charge (Franklyn, Shield and Crest, p. 207). Note that each lash should be knotted along its length. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 14)
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)
Under the current rules, no more than a major and minor point can be derived from successive changes ... to a group of secondaries. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 28) (See also: LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 13)
Since each rose/laurel wreath collocation is essentially a single charge visually, this device is constructed on the pattern of a single primary charge and four identical secondaries. This being so, this is in conflict with [Name]. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 14)
It is clear from mundane ordinaries and period armorial treatises that cotises are indeed regarded as secondary charges, rather than merely a variation in the line of the ordinary. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 22)
The cotising gules and the sable charges which lie outside the cotising are two separate groups of secondaries. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 11)
It has long been our feeling that heralds can count above six, when necessary: most have ten fingers. Seriously, period sources blazon charges up to nine or ten fairly regularly when they are primary or secondary charges (as opposed to charges "semy" or tertiaries) and this should be permitted when the numbers are not excessive. (The numbers seven and nine appear particularly frequently, possibly because of numerological considerations.) (LoAR Aug 88, p. 12)
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)
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)
As the halberd here is clearly a separate charge on which the bear walks rather than a charge maintained by the bear, this is clear of [Name] ...: while the flames [breathed by] the bear here and the torch [maintained by the bear] there have equal weight, the halberd is an added secondary which carries this clear. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 14)
This [submission] clears ... by both number and type of secondary charges (which do not demote under the new rules). (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 6)
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)
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)
The "seeblatt", a German charge, is described by Frankyn and Tanner (p. 298) as "a conventionalized water-plant leaf, heart-shape, pointed to base, and having a cruciform incision at the point where the stalk would normally be attached." (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 9)
The [semy of] lances are difficult to distinguish from ermine tails at any distance (they are virtually identical to one of the standard period forms of ermine tails). (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 20)
Since [the submittor] apparently wants specifically three ermine spots, it would not be appropriate to modify the lower portion of the field to semy (which is by definition sans nombre). (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 2)
While it is certainly legitimate to depict a field semy with no more than seven charges, it is clear that period heraldry acknowledged up to nine or ten charges set in a standard arrangement without considering them a semy. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 2)
[Semy of sparks] The term is in French estencele and is clearly described with sources in Brault’s Early Blazon, pp. 197-198 as well as in an article in Coat of Arms (1952).... It was relatively uncommon ... and, while it varied somewhat in form, most commonly was depicted as three dots painted one and two (rather like an ermine spot without the tail!). (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 3)
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)
A semy on a charge (as opposed to a field) constitutes tertiary charges. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 14 and LoAR 29 May 88, p. 22)
[A bordure, semy of fountains] The fountains are banned because of the ban on charges semy which are fimbriated, proper, fur or divided tinctures (AR1.c). In this case, there actually is a problem since virtually no one who looked at the device was certain that the charges on the bordure were fountains. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 21)
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)
While the letter blazoned the [charges] as "in orle", their position was not actually "orlish", but more of a very regular semy. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 1)
Under both sets of rules ... "complete difference of charge" cannot function where a semy is present. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 23) [Later overruled by revision of RfS X.2]
The most serious [stylistic problem] is the fact that a single secondary charge is placed on a field strewn with the same charge (in the same tincture!). Such a differentiation is not period style: the size of the strewn charges could vary widely in a period emblazon to suit the design. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 19)
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 as "crosses with cross bars of some sort at the ends of the arms". [Returned for conflict] (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 17)
A galley is an oar-driven ship and therefore must be drawn with oar-ports visible, even if the oars are not in action. (LoAR 30 Nov 86, p. 5)
The difference between a lymphad and a galley is not significant. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 17)
See, Tierce
Under the primary listing of "Sauvain" (p. 307), Reaney lists a number of variant spellings used in period, both as given names and as a family name derived from old French "salvagin", including a citation of one Robertus Seluenus from the first third of the twelfth century. In view of this, the name must be considered eminently reasonable. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 4)
The dragon’s skulls were not identifiable, even at close range, although we appreciated the intent. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 19)
See also, Rule of Thumb; Tincture and Charge Limit
This [per pale field, two identical charges counterchanged, on a point pointed three annulets interlaced] skates perilously close to "slot-machine heraldry": the unity derived from the identity of the type of charge in chief and the unifying effect of the counterchange is all that saves it. (Ed. Note: Yes, that is a judgment call.) (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 13)
The device does fall under the heading of "slot machine heraldry" which has been banned since 1985: three different types of charge in three different tinctures on a field divided per pall inverted is almost a textbook example of the genre. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 19) (See also: LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 10; LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 20)
[On a chief, a mullet between a crescent inverted and a crescent] The lack of symmetry as well as the lack of identifiability involved here pushed this over the edge [of acceptability]] (we certainly would not allow the collocation of charges in fess on the field where they would be larger and presumably more identifiable). (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 12)
[A charged pomme between two different charges in pale] Note that, while busy, this does not count as "slot machine heraldry" under the old rules since the pomme is not in the same "group" as the secondaries and it falls just inside the complexity rule of thumb of the new rules with four types of charge and four tinctures. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 8)
[Two heads respectant between in pale two different secondary charges] This is not "slot machine heraldry" under the old rules because the heads are primaries and the remaining charges are secondaries. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 13)
[Two different charges and a gore] While [a commenter] is correct that the gore is usually considered by definition a secondary charge since it issues from the flanks of the shield, in spirit this is "slot machine heraldry". (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)
This falls under the ban against "slot machine heraldry", i.e., the ban on more than two types of charge in the same group, which exists in both old and new rules (Tincture and Charge Limit, VIII.1.a). Were the [demi-]sun truly a primary charge with the two charges on either side of it distinctively secondary, this would not be the case. However, the position of the sun issuant from the line of division guarantees that the sun cannot have the centrality and size which would clearly remove it from the group of three objects in pale. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 17)
The three different types of head[s] on the chief are by definition too complex ("slot machine heraldry"). (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 22)
The visual similarities between the fret and the snowflake ... were so strong that we felt there was infringement. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)
[A cinquefoil within and conjoined to five cinquefoils in annulo] The possibility of confusion between this lovely, but visually confusing, design and a snowflake is very strong. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 18)
[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 [semy of] lances are difficult to distinguish from ermine tails at any distance (they are virtually identical to one of the standard period forms of ermine tails). (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 20)
The use of "y" in Scots Gaelic spelling is not random as here. Therefore, we have substituted the normal spelling [with an "i"]. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 4)
Period spellings were derived from pronunciations not pronunciations from spellings, as sometimes happens in the modern world. Since this spelling changes the pronunciation significantly, it must be assumed to be non-period lacking evidence to the contrary. Therefore, we have registered the name using the "normal" spelling. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 4)
These are not really "valid" variant spellings.... They are, however, not so aberrant that we felt justified in returning the name. It should be pointed out to the [submittor] that the twentieth-century urge to have a "unique" name borne by no other person (or at least spelled alike by no other person) was not at all a period tendency: spelling variants in period occurred largely because of the dialectic differences in pronunciation, not because someone "thought it looked better that way". EOR [End of Rant] (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 3)
While [it] is correct ... that period orthography is often variable, Latin is much less so.... [Name] is a regular third declension noun and tends to maintain the standard endings with a fair amount of rigidity, although the other portions of the name may vary quite a bit. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 13)
The style here [a quadruped] erect affronty ..., pendant from each forepaw a metal cuff and broken chain ... and in chief a crown voided between two crowns ...] is very marginal, but the crown voided has a very prominent precedent in the arms of the West. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 2)
[In pale a mullet of four straight and four wavy rays and a bird statant to sinister, wings addorsed and inverted, proper between two flaunches, each charged with a Maltese cross, fitched at the foot] This device runs perilously close to the limit on anomalies and is decidedly poor style. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 3) [Device was registered]
[A monster couchant, wings debruising a rainbow] Note: the awkwardness of the blazon reflects the "modern" style of the device. This strains at the limits which our collective sensibilities have established for period style. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, pp. 4-5)
The device was judged to be excessively complex [charged primary, secondary in base, and embattled bordure] and poor style to a degree which should not be accepted for group arms which precedent indicates "should set a good example". (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 13)
[Per saltire metal and color, a charge counterchanged charged with another of a third tincture] This is a classic instance of the "op art style" referred to in X3..... So striking an example of "modern" heraldry is this that the consensus of the meeting was that it must be returned. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 11)
Note that the unicorn’s head cabossed is rather poor style; in this posture the distinguishing features of the unicorn’s head are nearly unidentifiable. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 7)
[Shire of One Thousand Eyes (in Idaho)] Almost without exception the commenting heralds felt this name was non-period in style. However, it is the sort of name which is not at all uncommon in the fantastic literature, period and modern, which also forms a background to our Society and therefore seems legitimate.... (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 5)
[A pithon erect to sinister, one wing inverted and the other elevated] There are ... distinct problems with this badge.... It is demonstrably non-period style and definitely a non-standard pithon. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 12)
Two types of sword should not be united in a single visual whole here: it is very poor style and has been grounds for return in the past. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 15)
The interlacing of the flaunches by the [charge] is not period style and is, in and of itself, too great an anomaly to allow. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14)
This is overly complex for period style, involving as it does five tinctures and four different types of charge. If would add a considerable amount of unity to the design if the [major charges] were both of the same tincture. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 16)
There was a general consensus that the two [identical charges] conjoined [at their bases on the per fess line of division] were neither period style nor identifiable, even at close range. Three [charges] counterchanged would be far better heraldry. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 16)
The use of three different tertiaries on each one of three identical charges is not period style: this looks like a collection of badges strewn on a field. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 19)
Note that this is extremely poor style ..., combining as it does two visually anomalous components (i.e., the arm in armour and the [Charge maintaining it paly of Or and gules]) in disconnected tinctures. It is technically legal, but visually confusing. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 2)
It is not good style to charge the chape or chausse portion of a field. However, since there is ample Society precedence for the practice, I feel compelled to accept it in this case. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 9)
The use of ermine tails inverted in a semy is not period style. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 16)
[A cross nowed and fleury] The badge [is not] really period in style. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 17)
[Sword entwined with a rose vine proper, on a party two-color field] This is not period style and has some serious problems with contrast. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 18)
This device totters on the edge of acceptability..., with the beast-monster as well as the trees being proper. With the added anomaly of the minuscule arm issuant from base supporting the sword which is not really bendwise sinister, this is not really period style. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 20)
[Three triangles in fess, the center one inverted and doubled in size, within a tressure fleury] This is distinctly non-period style. The tressure is drawn in a non-standard manner and the central motif, the three triangles, depend for their arrangement on a differentiation in size that is not at all medieval: charges in period generally expanded to fill the available space. The use of triangles as a primary motif is an anomaly, although one [has been] permitted in the past. Taken together with the non-standard arrangement, the modern size differentiation of the primary charges and the unusual rendition of the tressure, it is just too much. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 25)
[Tierced per fess of three tinctures, two identical charges and a third charge, all counterchanged] This is not period style. Even were there only two tinctures involved, the visual complexity (these appear to be two different types of charge divided per fess and overlying a fess) would make the effect confusing. This would be far better if the one of the charges were placed on the fess surrounded by three of the other charge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 26)
Please ... draw the ermine tails properly: the counter-ermine portion of the field had a distinct resemblance to a carbon-ring schematic! (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 1)
Please ... draw the [per bend sinister] field division properly issuant from the sinister chief corner of the shield and not ... draw the [charge] in trian aspect as it appeared on the emblazon. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 11)
The use of the nested orles in different tinctures is an anomaly for period heraldic style. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 19)
We are still of the opinion that the use of gyronny from the edge on charges is extremely poor style. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 3)
The emblazon cannot really be reconstructed from the blazon given: the style is so far from period style that it cannot be expressed in the traditional vocabulary. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 13)
It might be suggested to the submittor that the style and posture of the human figure [courant] is not really period. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 15)
The collocation of the chief triangular and the [debruising] rainbow is definitely not period style and the device as a whole is strongly reminiscent of modern "decal" design. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 16)
There was general agreement that this was not period heraldic style, being unbalanced and entirely too "naturalistic". (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 22)
[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. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, pp. 7-8)
The use of the late and unusual charge of the yale..., the chief dove-tailed and the use of the gore are all "allowable anomalies" that have been permitted for Society use. However, the use of all three together, with the added anomaly of the demi-beast issuant from the gore in a decidedly eccentric manner, force us to return this for "non-period style". (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 9)
The "side" ... is not actually illegal but it is certainly poor style. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 12)
[A heart voided between four mullets in cross and four hearts in saltire] This pushes at the limits of acceptable style. If the single tincture of the charges did not tie the whole together so well, it would probably slip over the edge. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 3)
This would have a much less "modern" appearance if the head were not issuant from base. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 10)
The wave crest has, by consensus of the College, been barred from general use in Society heraldry since 1983. Given the strong feeling on the part of the commentors that this usage is not acceptable style and the lack of indication of period usage in the citation from Woodward..., there seems no reason to change this precedent. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)
The blazon is as clumsy as it is because this is not really period style, although it is ... Society heraldry. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 7)
This is not period style. The anomalies here are simply too great. In the first place this is not really "per chevron enhanced", but rather "chape rayonny gules... [and sable]", i.e., colour on colour. Even if it were a proper "per chevron" field division, the gules rayonny which lies almost entirely on sable would not show up well. Also, the "sun eclipsed" is really thin line heraldry being merely a band of rays linked to a sector of an annulet. Suns issuant from a complex line of division like this are a major anomaly (indeed, suns issuant from anything but the sides of the shield are exceptional in period heraldry). The whole is simply "too much". (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)
The [stag’s] attire issuant from the line of division is very poor style. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)
[Per fess indented of three points azure and argent, issuant from the line of division a sun Or, eclipsed gules] This badge was returned ... for non-period style and this judgement was appealed ("how is a standard heraldic charge issuant from a standard partition line considered to be NPS?"). There are several aspects of the submitted badge, as emblazoned (which is what we must judge by), which are non-period in style.... This is a "landscape’ design, which the rules specifically indicate is non-period and discouraged. Additionally, the sun as depicted is not a period (or modern) heraldic sun, eclipsed or otherwise: it is essentially a torteau, multiply rayed Or. Moreover, it is not placed centrally on the shield which half of the charge issuant from the line of division, as the blazon implies: if you extend the line of the circle and its rays, they fall well off the periphery of the field. It would not be possible to properly center and redraw the sun because the whole design relies on the outer edge of the sun gules intersecting with the tops of the outer indentations in such a way that the rays lie wholly on the azure and the gules lies totally above the argent portion of the field, thus narrowly avoiding breaking tincture by a very modern design. (LoAR Aug 87, pp. 11-12)
[A chevron, surmounted by three piles in point counterchanged, the central one charged] There was a general feeling in the College that this was non-period in style, being excessively "op-artish" in appearance. It is also overly complex.... "The field is the first layer. The chevron is the second. The piles are the third, and so the [tertiary] is the fourth layer, which is not allowed." (LoAR Aug 87, p. 12)
[Crusilly conjoined, voided in each arm of a delf] This [is] not period style.... The semy of conjoined elements is not really period and it is almost impossible to distinguish the identity of the rather unusual charge scattered on the field. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 10)
The bird "perched" on the line of division is not period style so far as can be determined. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 13)
[Per pale, chape ploye, a charge and the chape charged] This device is rather poor style and is quite confusing visually. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 9)
[Gyronny of ten per pale, a mullet throughout counterchanged, overall an eagle sable] The counterchanged mullet, placed on the already complex field and overlaid almost completely by the bird, visually appeared to be merely a variant of a field division (one member of the Laurel staff referred to it as a "field kaleidoscopy"!). (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 12)
[A bend coloured as a natural rainbow] This is a clear case of non-period style. Such rainbow tinctured charges as this have been banned from Society use for some years. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 7)
The use of the charge overall here, overlying a base does appear to be non-period style, the more so since the ford is not drawn properly but rather as a "base wavy azure charged with four barrulets wavy argent." (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 10)
[Argent, a saltire vert between a pile and a pile inverted sable] The blazon does not really correctly describe the device as the sable is not really pile-shaped. The nearest blazon probably is "Per saltire sable and argent, a saltire vert, fimbriated argent...." However, this is not permissible since much of the "fimbriation" will fade into the argent portion of the field. This is not period style. [Submission returned] (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11)
This is not period style since there would be no space for the [charge] beneath a pile properly drawn. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11)
[A woman courant, wearing a winged helm, drawn in a "1920’s representation" style] This submission is still not very period in style, but the consensus of the College was that the Law of Toyota should apply ("you asked for it, you’ve got it"). The [submittor] should be asked to draw the device in a more period manner. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 1)
The foreparts of the lion are dismembered and the hindparts are not, in a distinctly non-period manner.... The argent banding of the saltire criss-crosses at the centre of the saltire so that the saltire is distinctly not filled or voided as the original blazon has it. In fact, what you appear to have is "Sable, a saltire gules surmounted by another parted and fretted argent, overall...". This is not period style and forms excessive layering. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 18)
This is just not period style. The unbalanced effect of the gore is only exaggerated by the visually complex arrangement of moon and stars scrunched into dexter chief. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 14)
[A heart between three identical charges in chief and a different charge in base, itself charged with another heart] This submission pushes hard at the limits of period style: ... [it] would be much improved if the heart were metallic with no superimposed colour and all the secondary charges were of one type. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 5)
[... in base and surmounting the chevron a mullet ...] This device is not period style: the mullet overlapping the entire bottom half of the shield, including the ordinary is eccentric to say the least. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 13)
The use of the demi-annulet of chain to link two disparate charges across a divided field is not period style. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
[A lozenge throughout fimbriated, charged with, among others, a gout fimbriated] The excessive use of fimbriation [is] a non-period feature of the device. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 16)
[A fess of lozenges conjoined, alternately argent and Or] The alternate colouration of the lozenges in fess, as well as their exceeding small size, are not period style. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 18)
[Crusilly conjoined countervoided] [The submittor] has demonstrated that the design element indeed existed in period, but not that it is appropriate for period heraldry. Note that the use of period design elements in Society heraldry is not mandated but rather allowed on a case-by-case basis. For such usages to be accepted, they must have a single identifiable form and must be compatible with period heraldic style.... No one single design could be derived from any blazon we could concoct to represent this. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 18)
Complex counterchanging involving three colours is not period style. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 25)
The [charge] which surmounts both the field and the [ordinary] and pierces a tertiary charge on the [ordinary] is not period style. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 15)
[Per bend sinister wavy, on a bend sinister wavy counterchanged a scarpe wavy counterchanged] The visually confusing bend/bendlet counterchanged effect of the device also caused stylistic twitches: at first and even second glance it is difficult to determine precisely what is going on along the line of division. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 16)
Even if the [ordinary] had been a metal and not fimbriated, it would have been a distinct anomaly to have two beasts of different types placed in such a way as to partially surmount it. As it is, the effect is just too busy.
Having the two beasties maintaining different objects is poor style. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 4)
The combination of the voided heart used as a frame and the unusual chief [doubly enarched] reflecting the upper portion of the heart bordered on non-period style. [Device registered] (LoAR Jul 88, p. 6)
[On a bend sinister, a roundel, overall four swords in cross counterchanged] The problem with period style ... is derived from the counterchanged charges overlapping the bend in a non-period manner about a central charge which lies entirely on the bend. It is quite unusual in period to have more than one charge "overall" and when there are multiple charges they are not counterchanged in this manner. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 20)
This would be much better style if the panthers were drawn as separate entities (dropping the entwining of the tails) and the [chevronelly] field were draw more evenly divided of [its two] tinctures. [Submission registered] (LoAR Aug 88, p. 8)
Although the submittor has provided some documentation for the enarched chief and base as separate elements, there is some doubt whether a base of this sort is period and certainly the "cat’s eye" effect is distinctly modern. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17)
The design is unbalanced in the extreme, mostly due to the attempt to counterfeit the effect of a constellation (these are forbidden for Society heraldry). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 22)
[Gyronny Or and chequy azure and argent, a spider tergiant palewise sable and in chief a faceted gem fesswise between two others in chevron gules] Most of the commenters felt that this pushed the limits of acceptable style to near the breaking point, but ultimately we decided that this fell short of unacceptability. In fact, apart from the peculiar positioning of the gems, this is a rather simple device (or would be if the field were a bit quieter). (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 10)
After much effort, no one could find any definite period exemplars of alternating charges on a gyronny in a "pinwheel" effect. [Device returned] (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 14)
Placing charges overall on top of flaunches or gussets [or a gore] is not period style. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 15)
[A compass star, elongated to sinister and to base, the elongated rays surmounted by the upper and dexter elongated rays of a compass star, the greater points elongated in cross] The device is not period style, combining as it does the unusual perversion of the compass star with an extraordinarily unbalanced design. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 18)
It was the consensus of commentary in the College that this design could not be considered period style: not only does it have the chief overlie the primary charge (and a tierce is a charge, not a field division), but has another charge overall superimposed upon both the tierce and the chief, which is not permitted. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 18)
This device seemed to display too many anomalies to be considered consonant with period style: charging a chape or vetû is extremely bad practice in itself and limiting the charges to the upper portion of the shield disturbs the balance of the device, the trivet is such that it cannot be clearly identified without depicting it in trian aspect and the flaming of only the legs and upper portion of the outer edge of the trivet is peculiar to say the least. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 14)
[A roundel surmounted by four talons in cross] This badge cannot really be considered period style. It is notable that virtually nobody in the College could determine what the charges were surmounting the [roundel] without looking at the blazon (several heralds in different kingdoms blazoned them first as four ice cream cones in cross!).... Comment also centered on the fact that this submission only makes sense if you imagine the (invisible) four-toed lion’s jambe behind the [roundel], making it by definition in trian aspect. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 17)
No one could document a field divided of four colours per saltire and it does not appear to be period practice. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 17)
The cumulative anomalies here take this device beyond period style. The beast is depicted in trian aspect and issuant from the line of division, with the tail peeping out separately from the "curtain". The bezants it is maintaining fade into its wings almost entirely and the overall posture is not heraldic. In sum, the general effect is of a juggling dragon puppet at a Punch and Judy show (Ollie?). (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 24)
[Two chevronels fretted with a chevron inverted, each charged with a chevronel] The complexity added by the golden lines on the [sable] chevronels, only marginally wider than a (non-blazonable) delineation, particularly when the chevronels are fretted in this non-standard manner takes this beyond period style. The submittor is strongly urged to drop the metal from the chevronels and/or drop the non-heraldic fretting of the ordinaries. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 25)
This is just not period style: not only is the sun issuant from the complex line of division on the chief a solecism, this is excessively "landscapey". (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 26)
The use of the two different mullet variations on the chief is very poor style. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 1)
[A beast’s head maintaining in its mouth a rosebud, in sinister chief a charge] This is not particularly good style, but it is legal, despite the fiddling rosebud proper and the lack of balance produced by the [secondary charge]. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 7)
This charged tierce is very poor style. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 10)
This [in fess] arrangement of [three different] charges is almost random and certain unbalanced, given the [per bend sinister] field division. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 12)
[Per bend, to dexter in fess three mullets of four points, a base] This design, taken in its entirety, [is] excessively modern. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 13)
[Per pall of three colors, a pall of chain between two griffins combattant and a tower] The cumulative anomalies in this [submission] amounted to non-period style: three low-contrast tinctures in the field, a pall of chain which is nearly unidentifiable and was felt by many to be tantamount to "thin line heraldry" and the use of the gryphons combattant whose differences of position require the processing of all three charges around the chain as different "items". (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 11)
The truncated [monster] issuant from the line of division of the chief is not really period style. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 16)
[Three pallets and three barrulets fretted in sinister base, in dexter chief in pale three roses in chevron and a goblet] This device is not period style. The overall arrangement of the charges is extremely unbalanced, with the focus of the primary charge abased to the sinister base and the remaining charges consequently diminished so in size as to appear like an eccentric canton of augmentation. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, pp. 18-19)
[A pale, overall an orle of leaves counterchanged] The placement of the orle of leaves [is] visually confusing and poor style. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 19)
This device had been returned by [kingdom] on the grounds that the [charge] beneath the pile was not period style and contravened previous Laurel rulings. This was appealed to Laurel. With near unanimity the College of Arms supported [the principal herald’s] original return. (LoAR 26 Feb 89 p. 19)
The best period style [heraldry] clearly was static and balanced. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 20)
The [horned skull] helm [is] rather poor style, but the other problems had been ameliorated to the point where the device as a whole [is] acceptable. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 4)
[A cross enhanced to chief and to dexter between a charge fesswise and a charge palewise] Although this cross has been used in modern heraldry, we were unable to find any use of the extremely unbalanced design in period heraldry. This is just not "period style". (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 19)
[In bend a compass star between two mullets of four points, a charged base] There was a considerable amount of feeling that this was stylistically marginal. [Device registered] (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 1)
[A stag salient through a heart voided] We could not consider this compatible with the standards of period style which the College has in the past presented to the Society.... Were [the voiding of the heart] the only anomaly, the issue of complexity and style would be much dicier. However, joined to the voided heart is the design which depends on the beast "doing a circus stunt" ..., i.e., jumping through the heart. This posture inevitably obscures some of the identifying features of both the stag and the heart, since the head and antlers of the stag overlie the indentation of the heart to chief. Thus the shape of the upper portion of the heart is obscured and, since the [metal] antlers lie largely along the [metal] curve of the heart, so are the identifying antlers. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 18)
[Per pall of three colors, a charged roundel between two axes, hafts embowed outwards] The combinations of anomalous elements render this non-period style.... The three-coloured per pall division and the "bent" axes which are vital to the suggested design are enough to justify the return of the device. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 20)
[An owl perched on a branch and a cat’s paw, appaumy and issuant from base] The device [is] of extremely dubious style, but legal. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 1)
[A tree, its roots encircling a heart] The device is extremely poor style. [Device registered] (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 10)
[Per bend, a charged bend in base] The charged bend in base is very poor style. [Device registered] (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 11)
[A sword bendwise piercing a garden rose, in sinister chief a cross fimbriated, all within a bordure] There was a general feeling that this submission skated on the far side of period style: the unbalanced arrangement of the charges, the manner in which the low contrast garden rose was pierced by the sword, rendering it even more unidentifiable, and most of all the fimbriation of the small, clearly secondary cross. [The cross] is visually peripheral and, taken with the other anomalies, pushes this submission over the edge of acceptable style. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 15)
[A unicorn’s head and a pegasus’ head] The conjoining of two such similar charges ... in a mirror image arrangement reinforced by the counterchanging reduced the identifiability of each and was not period style. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 18)
[Per bend sinister, a point dexter and a gore sinister counterchanged, overall a (charge)] This is just not period style. The use of the unusual single dexter point and the gore produces an unbalanced effect in the underlying charges and indeed visually this appears more like "[Tincture], a bend sinister enhanced and a sinister gore [tincture], etc." (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 24)
The device [is] just not period style. The complex central charge, with its unusual variant of a standard charge ..., the addition of the [birds] and the mount and the gores add an unacceptable degree of complexity in type and tincture of charge. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 13)
[Two monsters, bodies tergiant in annulo, outer sings displayed, necks and tails crossed, heads respectant] The [monsters] are both in a truly non-heraldic posture and in trian aspect. This is not period style. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 14)
[On a chief, a charge bendwise sinister] There was considerable feeling in the College that the unusual position of the charge on the chief was not period style. After much consideration, we have decided that it is eccentric and not advisable, but not grounds in and of itself for the return of the device. LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 12)
[An oak tree and a fir tree inverted conjoined at the trunk] The conjoining of two different types of tree, taken together with the inversion of the pine tree, [is] too far outside period style. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 20)
[On a chief a plate between a decrescent and an increscent] The three tertiaries are thematically unified, but the "phases of the moon" are not really period style. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 22)
[Per chevron, a chevron enflamed between a monster dormant to sinister and a sword proper between two birds respectant] There were just too many anomalies in this device for us to consider it period style. The chevron is neither a standard rayonny nor the Society-legal "ordinary enflamed" that has been seen in the case of bordures, etc. previously. The beast in chief is neither a true couchant nor dormant, but rather more of a non-heraldic "stalkant, head to base". Moreover, the three tiny charges of two types and two tinctures packed into the compartment below the chevron are very difficult to identify accurately. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 23)
There was a considerable consensus in the College that the hexapodal [six-legged] weasels were not consonant with period style. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 24)
[On a pale four mullets, one, one and two] The "constellation" on the pale [is] not period style. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 26)
While the use of the two non-identical heads here is poor style, it is legal since the unicorn’s head and the dragon’s head are recognised heraldic charges and not merely variants of the same thing (e.g., a sword and a dagger). (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 2)
[In bend enarched to base three charges, in sinister chief a monster] There was virtually unanimous agreement in the College that the almost random arrangement of the [charges] and monster were not heraldic and not period style. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 12)
[Per pale, a base, overall a roundel] The emblazon shows the [roundel] overlying the base which is not period style, making this submission look as if it has some weird tripartite field division. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 15)
[A hand issuant bendwise from chief and a hand issuant bendwise sinister from base, to dexter a charge] There was a strong feeling among the commentors that this design, with its intense impression of movement, its use of visually non-identical charges, etc. was not period style. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 16)
[Three pallets and three barrulets fretted in sinister base] While this resubmission laudably simplifies the device, it does not resolve the problem with the off-center "cross" which produces a distinctly non-period dynamically unbalanced design. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 10)
The device must be returned because it uses the line of division "wavy crested" which has specifically been ruled to be modern and not compatible with Society style (as of August, 1980). (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 33)
[A fret couped within and conjoined to a heart voided] After much consideration we were compelled to the opinion that the charge ... is just not clearly identifiable enough to be considered period style. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 33)
No documentation was provided to indicate that an animate object could be transfixed by an ordinary in this manner in period style. Taken together with the unusual horned [beast], drawn in trian aspect, as is almost required by the design, this just does not seem to be a period design. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 34)
Visually it does look like a quilt design, as noted by several commenters. While this is not in and of itself a problem, the fact that the cross must not only be throughout but of a precise size to reproduce the design is. Not only can we not guarantee its accurate reproduction by an heraldic artist, but such size-dependent designs are not period style. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 36)
The four [charges] in two tinctures, three heads and whole [beast], [are] just too complex for period style even without the anomaly of the heads holding the [charges] in their mouths.... The four tinctures with three types of charge (four, if you categorize secondary and tertiary charges of the same type as visually different in weight) are just too much. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 40)
It would be better style by far if there were not two different types of charge in two different tinctures on the pile. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 15)
[On a triangle a pair of batwings, all within a bordure of flames] The entire collection of charges comes perilously close to what one commentor called "biker heraldry". (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)
The [beast] is touching the gore in such a manner as to make it clear the intended effect is to have the [beast] "lift the golden curtain" to reveal the [charge] behind. ‘Tis not a period heraldic design. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 25)
[Quarterly, five hearts conjoined in annulo, bases to center, voided] All in all, this is not period style.... There is no doubt that the "voided heart" effect is too complex, especially when the hearts are conjoined in this unusual manner to form a pseudo-rose.... Even if you try and call it a single rose, there is substantial agreement in the College that the petals of a rose should not be voided, whether or not so blazoned. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 19)
[On a pale surmounted by a bend embattled on the upper edge counterchanged, a beast’s head and an anvil] The overall design [is] just too complex and unbalanced for period style. The difficulties which were encountered ... in creating a blazon which would guarantee that the "staircase" would never overlie the charges on the pale was indicative of the problem. The counterchanging and the diminished size of the bend required by the [beast’s] head above it on the pale decreased the immediate recognizability of the bend. Additionally, while the number of layers involved here can be reduced to three by reblazoning, the overall effects is visually complex and overly confusing, creating an effect of motion as the eye follows the "staircase" from top to bottom rather than processing the charges in a normal static manner. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, pp. 20-21)
The bordure of flame does not even stand as the only anomaly, but is accompanied by the three swords proper with enflamed blades in an unusual position.... The general effect is not period style under either the old rules or the new. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 18)
The most serious [stylistic problem] is the fact that a single secondary charge is placed on a field strewn with the same charge (in the same tincture!). Such a differentiation is not period style: the size of the strewn charges could vary widely in a period emblazon to suit the design. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 19)
The two types of branches [oak and pine] crossed in the base of the device are a solecism akin to crossing a sword and dagger in saltire. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 21)
Note that this is overall a very modern design, requiring the depiction of the mullet [on] the dovetailed saltire in a specific manner to work: period heraldry did not measure thus in millimeters! (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 22)
The use of two types of fleurs-de-lys in the same group was stylistically confusing, diminished by the identifiability of the aberrant fleurs and was just not period style. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 22)
While it is something of an anomaly to have the same essential charge used both as primary and secondary charge, this is not unknown in period heraldry, particularly with charges like crosses. (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 2)
This is just too busy: there are three types of charges (with two in a single group) and six tinctures (with three in a single group). (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 14)
[Three flames of fire between two wings conjoined, displayed and inverted] The flames are so reduced in size by the design that they are virtually unidentifiable. Moreover, there is really no way to guarantee that this design will be drawn in this particular manner, even through a long and precise blazon. These two facts together clearly point to a design that is not period style. (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 16)
The current state of heraldic research casts serious doubt on the period style of the sun issuant from the line of division of the chief, no matter how frequently this occurred in Victorian (or early Society) heraldry. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 15)
The voiding/fimbriation of the mullet unacceptably diminished its identifiability and, taken with its peripheral position, the lack of unity in the design where three different types of charges were placed in an "in cross" arrangement, etc., the whole was just not period style. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 15)
The counterchanging of the [overall charge] across the base is not period style. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 17)
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)
The "sun eclipsed" is really thin line heraldry being merely a band of rays linked to a sector of an annulet. Suns issuant from a complex line of division like this are a major anomaly (indeed, suns issuant from anything but the sides of the shield are exception in period heraldry). (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)
The current state of heraldic research casts serious doubt on the period style of the sun issuant from the line of division of the chief, no matter how frequently this occurred in Victorian (or early Society) heraldry. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 15)
The [demi-]sun issuant from the line of division of the chief is essentially an anomaly. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 18)
The question of whether the sunburst should be a reserved charge is a knotty one. There is no doubt that it was used as a royal badge by Edward III and Henry VII. However, as was clear from the sources cited ... (notably Pinches, The Royal Heraldry of England, p. 54) as well as those sources that I had access to, the rays in the royal badge were always Or rather than argent or sable as here. (Hence the theory that the badge is a canting reference to Edward’s birthplace of Windsor, i.e., that the rays are not rays of the sun but "Winds Or".) The Society tradition has to be conservative in adding to the list of reserved charges and I am loathe to depart from that tradition. Since the preponderance of evidence is that only the sunburst with golden rays was used as a royal badge, no other usage should be restricted in the Society.
PRECEDENT: Since they seem to have been used exclusively as royal badges, sunbursts with rays Or may not be used in Society heraldry. Sunbursts of other colours may be used freely. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 6)
Even amongst those weapons mavens who were aware that a katar is a peculiarly Indian two-handled dagger, there was a general consensus that the charge was not identifiable. (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)
Two types of sword should not be united in a single visual whole here: it is very poor style and has been ground for return in the past. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 15)
After much consideration (and several examinations of the emblazon), there seemed to be insufficient contrast between the argent blade of the sword and the Or flames that surround it. Both the blade and the flames are major design elements and, unfortunately, the argent fades into the Or to such an extent that the sword appears to be "bladed of flames Or: making the flames proper would resolve the problem. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 11)
[In saltire two poignards surmounted by a rapier] The difference between the types of bladed weapon [is] a distinction rather than a difference and a distinction that would not have been made normally in period heraldry. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 13)
[A sword inverted between in fess two daggers] Those who commented on the non-period usage of two types of almost but not quite identical charges are correct: essentially you have daggers and swords (which do not differ in type) used in the same grouping for effect. This effect is even more striking since mundane heraldry frequently arranges three swords in fess or in pale with the center sword going in one direction and the outside swords in another. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 21)
The difference between swords and swords inverted is not that great visually when there is a mixed group. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 21)
The ichthys is an abstract symbol and as such are banned from Society devices.... If this were a fish, the symbolism would not at all be excessive.... (LoAR 30 Nov 86, p. 14)
While abstract symbols may be used in badges, AR10c specifically states that "a badge shall not consist solely of one abstract symbol". Any kanji character must be considered an "abstract symbol" in the sense that the Rules intend. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 9)
This is an abstraction of the "sign of Tanit", one which actually appears to have been made in ancient formal and informal graffiti. The overwhelming association of Tanit (or Tanith) both in Greek and Roman sources is with the sacrifice of children. This association is frequently the one single thing that the layman knows about Carthaginian religion.... This is, moreover, not merely malicious propaganda on the part of the Romans: it is supported by the archaeological evidence. (LoAR Aug 87, pp. 12-13)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane