[MR] November Laurel Heraldry Returns

[BATCOK at aol.com]

Greetings to Atlantia from Lord Michael Batcok, Triton Principal Herald.

The following items were RETURNED for further work by the Laurel Sovereign of 
Arms at his November meeting:

ATLANTIA

Erik the Bear. Device. Argent, a sword and a great axe in saltire
sable in chief a brown bear's head cabossed proper.

    RfS VIII.4.b. Modern Insignia states: "Allusions to modern
    insignia, trademarks, or common designs may not be registered."
    This rule does not refer to a particular artistic style, such as
    whether the particular depiction is stylized (such as the Chicago
    Bulls logo) or naturalistic (such as the Chicago Bears logo), nor does
    it refer to technical conflict. The issue here is unmistakable
    allusion to the modern insignia or trademark.

    The bear's head here appears to be a photocopy of the Chicago Bears
    logo as seen on their web site, but flipped on the vertical axis,
    omitting some details, and colored in a different shade of
    brown. Because this could reasonably be seen by many viewers as
    "just the same" as the bear's head portion of the Bears logo,
    this is too strong an allusion to a modern trademark to be registered.

    The sword and axe are clearly the primary group here, and the bear's
    head (which is significantly smaller) is a secondary group on its
    own. While keeping the relative proportion of the charges the same,
    please advise the submitter to draw them all larger, and to center the
    sword and axe more on the shield, to better fill the available space.

Erik the Bear. Badge. (Fieldless) A brown bear's head cabossed proper.

    RfS VIII.4.b. Modern Insignia states: "Allusions to modern
    insignia, trademarks, or common designs may not be registered."
    This rule does not refer to a particular artistic style, such as
    whether the particular depiction is stylized (such as the Chicago
    Bulls logo) or naturalistic (such as the Chicago Bears logo), nor does
    it refer to technical conflict. The issue here is unmistakable
    allusion to the modern insignia or trademark.

    The bear's head here appears to be a photocopy of the Chicago Bears
    logo as seen on their web site, but flipped on the vertical axis,
    omitting some details, and colored in a different shade of
    brown. Because this could reasonably be seen by many viewers as
    "just the same" as the bear's head portion of the Bears logo,
    this is too strong an allusion to a modern trademark to be registered.

Fa{i'}lenn inghean Mheanmain of Ulster. Device. Quarterly vert and
argent, two Latin crosses argent.

    Conflict with William Forest Oldemixon, Per pale azure and sable,
    two Latin crosses fitchy argent.  There is a CD for changes to the
    field, but nothing for fitching the crosses. There is no
    difference for the change of the arrangement of the crosses, since
    Fa{i'}lenn's are forced to be in bend by the field tincture.

Manuela Pon{c,}e. Device. Per pale sable and vert, on a round artist's
palette Or marked of various tinctures two brushes in saltire sable
handled proper.

    The College could not find evidence for round artist's palettes in
    period heraldry or as a period artifact. Without documentation for a
    round palette, this charge may not be registered.

Torfin de Carric. Device. Chevronelly Or and gules.

    Conflict with Clare, Earl of Gloucester, Or three chevrons gules
    (Important non-SCA armory).  There is no difference between
    chevronelly and multiple chevronels.

    Past precedent indicates that no difference should be given for paly
    versus pallets, or barry versus bars, due to their historical
    interchangeability. This interchangeability has been extended for SCA
    practice to bendlets sinister:

        [considering Argent, four scarpes gules, overall a bear
        rampant sable] After much thought we have decided that with
        that many scarpes on the field, that there is no effective
        difference between that and a bendy sinister field. It was not
        unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an
        odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets);
        see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found
        both as Barry argent and gules and Argent, three bars
        gules. (Dictionary of British Arms, Volume 1, pp 59, 88;
        Foster, p.145) and the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess
        field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon
        the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann,
        p. 290). Even when the distinction is worth blazoning, it's
        worth no difference. Therefore, this conflicts with
        ... Argent, a bear rampant sable.... (Aron Nied{th}wied{th},
        12/97 LoAR p. 8)

    The situation with chevronelly is more ambiguous, both historically
    and visually. Electrum has provided evidence that strongly implies
    that chevronelly and multiple chevrons were drawn interchangeably
    before 1300, but by 1400 depictions of arms using three chevrons would
    consistently have been drawn as we would expect three chevrons to be
    drawn. However, no one has provided evidence suggesting that
    chevronelly and multiple chevrons would have been considered different
    by a later period viewer: chevronelly might have been considered a
    poor artistic rendering of three chevrons, rather than a distinct
    cadenced, or completely different, coat.

    Visually, chevronelly may at times differ from being exactly analogous
    to barry, paly and bendy. In the latter fields, the only way to
    visually distinguish these designs from bars, pallets or bendlets is
    to count the stripes or compare the tincture of the top and bottom
    stripe.  The majority of the shield looks just the same regardless of
    whether there are an odd or even number of traits. In the case of
    chevronelly versus chevronels, there can be an extra visual cue that
    chevronelly is intended.  In arms such as Or three chevronels gules,
    the point of the chiefmost gules chevron would always be clearly
    visible as a point, and not cut off at the top of the shield.
    Chevronelly Or and gules could be drawn with the top of the gules
    chevron cut off at the top of the shield, giving a clear visual cue
    that chevronelly is intended, and not requiring the counting of traits
    or looking at the tincture of the bottom trait.

    However, this visual cue is not present in all depictions of
    chevronelly.  Chevronelly may be drawn in such a way as to require
    counting of traits, or looking at the bottom trait of the shield, to
    determine which design is intended. This would be the depiction where
    the top gules chevron has a visual point: it's throughout (touching
    the chief), which would be a reasonable depiction for the top of a
    shield showing Or three chevronels gules.  The emblazon of this
    submission is drawn in such a way, with the top gules chevron portion
    being throughout.

    Given the well established pattern of interchangeability for other
    multiply divided fields versus multiple ordinaries, and the
    ambiguities in the case of chevronelly versus chevronels, it seems
    appropriate to extend the ruling for the other ordinaries to cover
    chevrons.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020219/e1072879/attachment-0020.htm>