[MR] RE: heraldry

[Robert J Welenc]

At 09:23 AM 6/4/01 -0400, Towey, Brian wrote:
>> Every month there are some submissions that are of dubious color.
>
>This puzzles me.   (Of course, much of what heralds do puzzles me.)
>
>When we mere mortals submit a device, we are asking for letters
patent on
>the blazon text, not a particular emblazon or graphical rendering.
>
Not so, my lord.  This is a commonly held belief and absolute error.
Laurel and the Kingdoms have stated repeatedly that we register the
*emblazon* -- the picture -- NOT the blazon.   

>So, here's what I don't understand.  If all we are registering is
the blazon
>text, then any artwork we submit is only there to make sure that we
blazoned
>it correctly.  The artwork is not up for approval.  Only the blazon
is.

Ah, but the artwork *is* up for approval.  The blazon is only the
description of the artwork, and it can be changed as necessary to
reflect the actual device or the current blazonry standards.   I
change many blazons that come through my office; Laurel also changes
them, both at the meeting where they are registered and even many
years later if necessary. [1]  That is why what you submit "a lion
gules" it must be a reasonable approximation of a red lion  -- if it
is a fuschia blob, it is blazoned "RETURNED".

Consider these blazons:
Gules,  on a saltire azure fimbriated, 13 mullets argent.
Gules, on a saltire argent another azure mullety argent.
Gules, on a saltire argent voided azure, 13 mullets argent.

Completely different blazons, all equally valid -- and all describing
the same thing: the Confederate Battle Flag.  [2]  Registering the
emblazon assures you that someday down the line, you won't find out
that someone else has registered YOUR arms with a different blazon!

>Why, then, is there such an emphasis on the precise hue of the
artwork?
>Gules is gules.  Any reasonable facsimile of gules should serve to
confirm
>that the blazon is correct.  Even if the illustration fades to pink
or
>purple, red is what we are asking for, and red is what we will get.

See footnote [1], re tigers.

>It's tempting to argue that the rule is unneeded, since printers are
>continually improving (does the phrase "near letter quality" ring a
bell?).
>Almost as soon as the rule can be adopted and enforced, it will be
moot.  

If and when they ALL improve to that level, my successor can revisit
the issue.  I have seen the problem for over 5 years now, and there
has not been any visible change in the results.  Some printers just
output lousy colors.  (And even if we determine that XYZ printer
gives acceptable results with its original cartridge, what about
those refill-it-yourself inks that pop up in  email advertising from
time to time?)

>good enough, almost anything should be.  At least printers are good
about
>staying in the lines!

Unlike stickjocks?

>But, I think the more important question is, "What does it matter in
the
>first place?"

See the [1] footnote below.

[1] Laurel Jaelle of Armida did two mass reblazonings during her
tenure.  We discovered that one previous Laurel had been using
"hippocampus" to mean  the heraldic monster (fish-tailed seahorse)
and another had been using "hippocampus" to mean the little natural
seahorse (Spike, without the horn).  There is a complete difference
of  charge[3] between them, so this was a major problem.  All the
folders of registrations that had used the term were pulled from the
files, and Laurel went through them one by one, reblazoning from  the
pictures.  
	The second mass reblazoning involved "tigers proper" -- what was the
true coloration?  A tiger that is Or marked sable is a Clear
Difference from a tiger that is gules marked sable, so the actural
coloring *does* matter.  Again the files were pulled and Laurel found
"proper tigers" that were red, orange, and yellow.  Again, the
blazons were corrected to the actual colors based on (you guessed it)
the pictures.

[2] Not chosen for any political reason, but because it is likely to
be familiar to most people without having to look it up.

[3] X.2: "Difference of Primary Charges  - Simple armory does not
conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge
is substantially changed. ..." 
	"Argent, a fess sable" does not conflict with "Argent, a lion
rampant sable".  (Or "Argent, a unicorn sable", or "Argent, a castle
sable", etc.)

Alanna
***********
Saying of the day: Life is uncertain -- eat dessert first!