Last modified: August 27, 2007
27 August 2007
From the Office of Rampart Herald
Furukusu Masahide (John Newton)
rampart@outlandsheralds.org
Unto the Outlands College of Heralds, the esteemed submitters, and all others who come by these letters, on this 27th day of August 2007, A.S. XLII, does Furukusu Masahide, Rampart Herald, send greetings.
My deepest gratitude to those who took time to send internal commentary: Aethelwulf Muenc, Bronwen o Gydweli (Lambent Herald), Cnut, and Kathryn Ballard.
Line Emblazon Sheet
Color Emblazon Sheet
July 2007 Letter of Presentation
August 2007 Letter of Response
August 2007 Letter of Intent
December 2007 LoAR Results
Return to the Rampart home page.
The following items were sent on to Laurel for final determination:
The following items were returned for further work:
Commenters indicate that there are several issues with the device. Laurel precedent forbids the use of constellations within SCA armory, and was most recently affirmed in September 2000:
[in chevron five compass stars elongated palewise] To quote Clarion: "It is standard SCA and mundane practice to put charges 'in {ordinary}.'" Thus, this does not fall afoul of the ban against charges in arch, nor that forbidding constellations. [Johann von Sternberg, 09/00, A-Ansteorra]
Commeters also indicate that the dragon is wingless and not in a standard heraldic posture, both generating problems with non-period style as well as reproducibility.
Finally sails of ships were used in armory to display badges that the bearer was entitled to. This requires sails to be checked for conflict independently. This sail conflicts with the following: United States - December of 1994 (via Laurel) - Argent, six palets gules and a chief azure. 1 CD for removal of the chief.
Device returned for Laurel precedent (use of constellations), violation of Rfs VII.7.b (reproducibility of dragon), and conflict of sail armory.
The name was registered in May 2005. The previous submission (itself a resubmission), [Per bend azure and vert, a pegasus couped at the shoulder contourny between three compass stars Or], was returned on the April 2007 Letter of Response:
"The previous device submission, [Per bend azure and vert, a winged horse's head couped at the shoulder contourny between three compass stars Or], was returned on the December 2005 LoAR: "This device is returned for violating RfS VII.7.b, which requires that "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon." We were unable to create a blazon that adequately describes the primary charge. The primary charge isn't really a demi-pegasus as the wings issue from the neck, not the shoulder, and the forelegs are not shown. And it is not a winged horse's head couped at the shoulder because too much of the back is showing and the wings are attached to the head." The resubmission does not adequately address the objections of Laurel. This redraw has taken some elements from one option offered by Laurel, and some elements from another option offered by Laurel, but really failed to come up with a solution that addresses all issues. If the client were to include the fore-legs of the Pegasus with the current submitted drawing, it could be blazoned as a demi-pegasus, and fulfill Laurel's requirements. If the client were to coup the head at the shoulder, removing all back and leg portions, and have the wings issue from the head, it could be a winged horse's head couped at the shoulder. Either of these options would be acceptable to overcome Laurel's objections. As this stands now, it is still in an intermediate state. Commenters also noted that the compass stars should be larger. Device Returned for failure to address Laurel's reason for return."
Commenters have provided significant commentary on this device. The general consensus of this commentary is that there is no good way to accurately describe this submitted device which places this device in violation of Rfs VII.7.b - Reconstruction Requirement - Which states: "Any element used in Society armory must be describable in standard heraldic terms so that a competent heraldic artist can reproduce the armory solely from the blazon. Elements that cannot be described in such a way that the depiction of the armory will remain consistent may not be used, even if they are identifiable design motifs that were used before 1600."
There was question as to if this should be blazoned as a "base" or some type of fess. In the case of a base, the tinctures of these items violate Rfs VIII.2.b - Contrast requirements - which states that the field must have good contrast with all charges placed on it. In the case of a "per fess" division, the line of division is far too low.
In reviewing this submission and the previous ones Rampart feels that the submitter has not done an adequate job of correcting the issues with the "demi-pegasus" and simply appears to be an exact redraw of the previous problematic depiction. If the base were of a contrasting tincture, you could possibly say this was a demi-pegasus issuant from a base, but you would have tincture contrast issues between the base and the demi-pegasus. If the client wishes to have this specific demi-pegasus style, perhaps she could consider raising the line of division to be "per fess", shrinking the Pegasus somewhat, and dropping the top two stars. This would result in something like [Per fess azure and vert, a demi-pegasus issuant from fess and a compass star in pale Or].
Device returned for violations of Rfs VII.7.b, VIII.2.b, and failure to satisfy reasons for previous return.
The name was registered in March 2006.
The original device submission was returned on that same letter for conflict. The device resubmission, [Gules, in pale two gladii crossed in saltire at the tips Or and a natural leopard couchant guardant Or spotted sable] was returned on the February 2007 Letter of Response:
"This item was resubmitted in its present form on the November 2006 Letter of Presentation, and was returned on the December 2006 Letter of Response because it was submitted on the old forms. Device conflicts: [Diego de Valor] - October of 1998: [Gules, in pale a caravel reversed and two rapiers in saltire Or.] One CD for arrangement. Please note that there is no difference for the types of swords used in SCA armory. Rapiers, broadswords, Claymore, Gladii, etc all conflict with one another per _A Pictoral Dictionary of Heraldry_ by Bruce Draconaruis of Mistholme and Akagawa Yoshio. Much discussion regarding this device occurred. It was determined that there was a single CD for arrangement (Diego's one and two, vs. Tiberius' two and one), but the arrangement of the swords (in saltire) does not allow the bottom charge of Tiberius' proposed device to be considered "half" of the primary charges as allowed by Rfs. X.4.e. In some instances the bottom charge of a "two and one" arrangement can be considered "half" the primary charge group. However, this is not the case when the top charges are in saltire. If this were a case of [Gules, two gladii and a natural leopard couchant guardant. Or spotted sable, two and one] in Ramparts opinion, this would allow the leopard to act as "half" the charge group, and allow for two differences based on X.4.e (Changes of type) and X.4.g (Arrangement). Device returned for conflict."
The new submission is a complete redesign.
Device conflicts with: Migel Gneuyle de Normandie - May of 1983 (via the Middle): [Gules, an old man statant affronty maintaining sword and shield Or.] 1 CD for change of field.
Device returned for conflict.
Thus ends my Letter of Response.
In service and duty,
Furukusu Masahide
Rampart Herald
Line Emblazon Sheet
Color Emblazon Sheet
July 2007 Letter of Presentation
August 2007 Letter of Response
August 2007 Letter of Intent
December 2007 LoAR Results
Return to the Rampart home page.