05-06 Summarized Commentary

CALONTIR

Aengus Stiubhard Mac Dhughaill. Device change. Barry wavy argent and azure, a ship gules and a chief wavy sable mulletty Or. 

If the device change passes the submitter wished to retain his former device, "Barry and per pale argent and vert, a cross crosslet fitchy sable." (registered in January 1996), as a badge.

Ary and Trefoil say its overly pictorial

Amba allrasystir. Name and device. Azure, an alphyn passant and on a chief Or three step-cut gemstones fesswise azure. 

Andor Ólgarðr. Name and device. Argent semy of maple leaves gules, an eagle displayed azure, a bordure sable. 

Catalina Artemisia Anguissola. Device change. Azure, a winged fish volant bendwise embowed and in base a bar wavy Or

If the device change passes the submitter wishes to retain her former device, "Per chevron gules and ermine, two roses Or and another gules within a bordure Or." (registered May 1993), as a badge.

Catalina Artemisia Anguissola. Badge. Per pale purpure and Or semy of bear sejant erect counterchanged.

Conall Fearghas na Carraigh. Name and device. Per chevron gules and azure, in pale a wolf couchant contourny and two triquetra in fess, bases to center, argent. 

Constantia Innocenti. Device. Or, on a bend sinister dancetty purpure between two rats rampant gules, three hands apaumy inverted Or. 

Dammo von Uttenweiller. Name and device. Argent, an eagle displayed, wings elevated, and on a chief azure two arrows in saltire Or. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
The head of the eagle does not lay against the field, but almost entirely against the rest of the wings and body of the bird, with which it has no contrast. A bird's type is identified in significant part by the type of the head, so the lack of contrast for that portion of the bird makes the type of bird difficult to identify. 
        Moreover, a standard eagle displayed has the head and neck lying entirely against the field. The eagle's legs are not outstretched and lying on the field as one would also expect from a standard displayed eagle. The eagle in item #5 shows how an eagle displayed is generally drawn.
       This bird is only likely to be identified as an eagle displayed because the posture is more like displayed than any other posture for a period winged critter, and it is only the eagle that is found displayed with any frequency in period armory. Because of the difficulties in identifying the type of the bird combined with the problematic depiction of the posture, we should consider a return for redrawing. Regardless of whether this is registered or returned, we should definitely advise the submitter how to draw the eagle displayed correctly.
[Brachet (24-Apr-05)] 
This really peculiarly drawn eagle is not what we would visualize from a blazon of "an eagle displayed, wings elevated."  First of all, the wings of an eagle displayed are inherently elevated, so the blazon appears redundant. Second, I have never seen an heraldic eagle (or any other heraldic bird) drawn in this manner; it is exceptionally modern and "last thing the mouse saw" in appearance. At least one other bird in this "stooping affronty" position has been returned in the past.
[Gwenhwyfaer (23-Apr-05)] 
  We believe there is a conflict with the device of Richard of Ravensglenn the Juggler, Argent, a raven displayed and on a chief azure three plates.  There is one CD for changes to the tertiaries, but none for raven displayed to eagle displayed.
(November 1999, Robert le Raven MacLeod) [a raven displayed vs. an eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different birds in period, only eagles were ever displayed. Therefore there is not a CD for type. [Robert le Raven MacLeod, 11/99, R-Artemisia]

Elena de Rennes. Name and device. Per pale argent and azure, a demi-sun counterchanged. 

Eoin Ravenscroft. Device. Or, a raven contourny perched atop and maintaining a crossbow fesswise reversed and in dexter chief a chess-rook sable all within a bordure. 

The client's previous submission of "Or, a raven contourny perched atop and maintaining a crossbow fesswise reversed sable all within a bordure wavy azure." was returned on the February 2003 LoAR for: "Conflict with Suzanne of Ravenhill, Or, a raven contourny sable maintaining a broken tilting spear banded sable and gules. There is one CD for adding the bordure but no difference for changing the maintained charge."  The addition of the secondary charge clears this conflict.

Chess rook is really a tower

Finán mac Domnaill. Device. Per pale vert and azure, in pale a harp argent between two arrows fesswise reversed Or, a bordure argent. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
As blazoned, the harp and arrows are co-primary charges. I believe the size of the charges makes the harp rather clearly a sole primary charge between secondary arrows. Thus, this should be reblazoned as Per pale vert and azure, a harp argent between in pale two arrows fesswise reversed Or, a bordure argent.

Giric Taillur. Name and device. Argent semy of Lochaber axes sable, on a bend sinister purpure a crossbow argent. 

Lucia Ottavia da Siena. Device change. Bendy sinister azure and argent, a greyhound courant Or.
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
Conflict with Tristen Sexwulf (June 1998), Quarterly gules and sable, a wolf statant Or. There is one CD for changing the field. There is no difference between a greyhound and a wolf. There is no difference between courant and statant per the LoAR of September 2003: "There is no difference between statant and courant, because the evidence which has so far been obtained indicates that these postures were interchangeable in period. [and then much more discussion about this evidence is presented.]"

Olaus of Skjærvøy. Name and device. Or, a standing balance purpure and on a chief dovetailed vert three open books Or. 

Phaedra of Vatavia. Name and device. Vert, a spiderweb argent. 
[Brachet (24-Apr-05)] 
Two conflicts found. 1) The device of Bjorn Strongarm of Illiton (6/91) "Vert, a spiderweb argent, overall a lightning bolt bendwise sinister Or." Only one point for adding an overall charge (not a primary charge).  2) The badge for the Order of Arachne's Web (West) (1/81) "Sable, a spiderweb argent." Only one point, for field tincture.
 
Quiteria la Roja. Name and device. Quarterly argent and gules, in bend two cats sejant contourny gules. 

Steffen Albert Rheinbauer. Device. Azure, a sinister gauntlet bendwise maintaining a rose slipped and leaved bendwise sinister argent, in chief a County coronet all within a chain. 

The client's previous submission of "Bendy of four azure and argent, a rose slipped and leaved bendwise sinister proper, the slip overlain by a sinister gauntlet aversant bendwise argent, all within an orle of chain Or." was returned on the December 1994 LoAR because: "The tinctures work only because of the careful placement of the gauntlet and the specification of just four traits to the field. In general there is and can be no guarantee that part of the argent gauntlet will not lie on an argent trait and disappear altogether. Armorial designs requiring such careful placement or specific charge sizes to "work" or to avoid contrast problems have been returned in the past as not being period style." 
This redesign takes care of the noted problem.  The client is entitled to the restricted charges as he is both a knight (November 4, 1989) and a Count (March 6, 1993).   url:<http://calontir.sca.org/herald/op/op-name.php?search=Steffen_Albert_Rheinbauer>  (Copies provided.)
 [Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
The rose appears to be co-primary with the gauntlet, not maintained by it.
[Brachet (24-Apr-05)] 
What is depicted in chief is a "mural crown" or "mural coronet", not "a County coronet". The Mural Crown/Coronet is noted in Fox-Davies, Complete Guide to Heraldry on page 369  for the crown and on page 376 for the coronet, Fig. 657 looking to be the very source for the drawing presented in this letter. Laurel please change the blazon.

Taliesin of Lyonesse. Name and device. Quarterly argent and sable, a cross flory and a bordure counterchanged. 

DRACHENWALD

Godwyn Stuart de Lacy. Name and device. Per fess sable and gules, a sword inverted and a tierce argent. 

Hagen von Scharfeneck. Name and device. Argent, a chevron couched from dexter throughout gules. 
[al Jamal (21-Mar-05)] 
 [Device] Argent, a chevron couched from dexter throughout gules. A chevron couched should issue from the side of the shield, and not the chief. See, e.g., Elvin's A Dictionary of Heraldry, pl. 13; Pictorial Dictionary, 2nd ed. #112.
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
The chevron isn't exactly couched from dexter, since one of the arms comes out of the chief. I'd expect a chevron couched from dexter to issue entirely from the dexter side of the shield. I have to wonder whether this is period style for a chevron couched from dexter.

Mary verch Thomas. Device. Argent, a chevron inverted cotised purpure. 

Pehr Fogtilain. Name and device. Per chevron sable and vert, two tankards and a flame Or. 
[Brachet (24-Apr-05)] 
Consider the registered device of Prydwen of Gryphonscrag (1/85) "Per chevron sable and vert, a gryphon argent and a male gryphon Or combatant, in base a flame proper." The field is identical. Half of the charges have changed in type, but the tincture of only one of three (in dexter chief) has been changed. There is a question of whether a flame proper on a dark field is a tincture different from a flame Or; it has to have gold on the outside for good contrast which means that less than half of it will be gules. Laurel, please rule.

GLEANN ABHANN 

Abigail Gryndley. Name and device. Per chevron embattled sable and gules, three roses, barbed vert and seeded Or, and a lion passant reguardant, a bordure argent. 

Roses are missing tincture (only Brachet correctly identified it) and are arranged one and two

Alsinda de Rochabaron. Device. Per fess azure and gules, in chief a dragon couchant Or, in base two pallets Or and overall two rapiers in saltire sable. 

The original device, Gules, two pallets Or, overall two rapiers in saltire sable, on a chief azure a dragon couchant Or., was returned at Principality for colour-on-colour issues.  The submitter has redrawn the device in an attempt to address these issues, with partial success.  The submitting herald consulted with al-Jamal, who grudgingly gave it his blessing.  With that recommendation, I will pass it on.  But I expect to see it again.
[al Jamal (21-Mar-05)] 
 [Device] Per fess azue and gules, in chief a dragoncouchant Or, in base two pallets Or and overall two rapiers in saltire sable. Well, first off, the "per fess" line of division lies between where a true per fess line of division would be and where the bottom of a chief would be, thus causing confusion as to what this is. The SCA has long returned such "betwixt and between" lines of division.
Additionally, RfS VIII.2.b.i. requires that "The field must have good contrast with every charge placed directly on it and with charges placed overall." The rapiers are color on color.
Did the submitting herald include both the question(s) asked and al-Jamal's specific answer(s)? I'd be interested in seeing what I supposedly said about it, that caused it to be forwarded from the principality. (And I seriously doubt that I would have given it my "blessing", grudgingly or not. More likely I would have said something about a submission's being registrable even though not particularly period style.)
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
There is a contrast problem with the bottom half of this device. Right now the bottom half of the field is gules, and the overall sable rapiers have poor contrast with it per RfS VIII.2.b.i, which states "i. The field must have good contrast with every charge placed directly on it and with charges placed overall." The two large pallets underlying the rapiers don't technically remove this problem. 
If the bottom half of the field were paly, rather than gules charged with two pallets, this would not have a contrast problem, as sable charges have good contrast with a paly gules and Or underlying field. However, we cannot simply suggest a reblazon from two pallets to paly. In order to suggest a reblazon to paly, the bottom half of the field would need six or more stripes, not just five (as here). The LoAR of May 2002 notes:
Armory using three or more pallets is interchangeable with paly on visual grounds and on grounds of historical heraldic difference. Armory using two pallets is visually distinct from paly, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each other in period.
Lastly, the per fess line is drawn too high on the field to be a good per fess line. It is notably above the tic marks on the emblazon which are used to locate a per fess line. If we considered the blue part of this armory to be a chief, then the chief would have the line of division drawn somewhat low on the escutcheon on which it lies - and moreover, the azure chief would have poor contrast with the underlying gules field.
I strongly suggest that the submitter redraw this with either a definite chief, or a definite per fess division, and make the bottom part of the device paly instead of gules two pallets Or. That would remove the stylistic issues.

Everyone else agrees (and someone suggested reversing field tincture and pallets as another alternative).

Annette de Rapaille. Name and device. Azure, in saltire two feathers argent, a bordure Or. 
[Brachet (24-Apr-05)] 
These feathers are not "in saltire"; they are about halfway between "in saltire" and "in pile" - betwixt and between is bad in heraldic design. In either case there is a potential conflict with the registered badge Micheal the Limner (1/93) "Azure, in fess three quill pens argent, a bordure Or." The field and bordure are the same. There is a change of number, but that forces a change of arrangement (three quill pens cannot be in saltire).  If Micheal's pens are actually pens, then I might argue a second point for type.

Carson Wynne. Device. Quarterly gules ermined argent and argent ermined gules, a stag's head erased within a bordure embattled sable. 

Fia Douglas. Name and device. Per pall gules, Or and azure, a buck springing azure and an owl rising Or. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
As blazoned, it'd be possible for the buck and the owl to both be drawn so that they overlap the line of division with the gules portion of the field. If they were blazoned as in base, that problem would be avoided.
The owl also needs to be blazoned as rising wings displayed.

Francesca Serena Talenti. Name and device. Azure, a bend sinister argent between a martlet and a lyre Or.
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)]  -- and several others
Compare Orien Wenderson (July 1983), Azure, a bend sinister argent between a dolphin embowed bendwise sinister and a mace bendwise sinister Or. There is one CD for the type of secondary charges. Are the postures "comparable" enough to give any CD for posture/orientation changes (per the Cover Letter of July 2003's discussion of comparable postures?) I don't think there is comparable posture between a fish and a bird. It isn't clear whether there is between a mace and a lyre. The July 2003 cover letter does discuss the orientation difference between a inanimate long and skinny charges palewise vs. bendwise - but a lyre isn't long and skinny. Here's the pertinent paragraph:
Some substantially different types of charge may be meaningfully compared for their overall orientation, but the inversion or reversing of the charge is not meaningful. This is generally agreed to be the case for inanimate objects which are not compact ("long skinny" objects). We would give a posture CD between an axe fesswise and an arrow bendwise, because the charge has had a major change to its overall orientation. However we would not give a posture CD between an axe fesswise and an arrow fesswise reversed because the overall orientation of the charge is the same (fesswise), even though the arrow is reversed. After all, in this comparison, the "pointy end" of each weapon is to dexter - but the arrow is reversed and the axe is not. It is hard to compare inversion or reversal for this sort of charge.
I agree that the bird should be blazoned as a martlet rather than a nightingale. The bird has the standard footless leg-stumps used  in (later period) English drawings of martlets.

Frederick Alton. Name and device. Per bend wavy argent and vert, a frog vert and a pair of rapiers in saltire argent surmounted by a rose Or seeded gules. 
[al Jamal (21-Mar-05)] 
 [Device] Per bend wavy argent and vert, a frog vert and a pair of rapiers in saltire argent surmounted by a rose Or seeded gules. There are three different types of charge in this group of (primary) charges: frog, rapiers, and rose. RfS VIII.1.a. states that "three or more types of charges should not be used in the same group."

Gabrielle von Strassburg. Badge. (Fieldless) On a compass star azure a bear argent. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
The bear should be blazoned as statant. Unfortunately, there are a number of conflicts with this badge. In all the cases, there is one CD for fieldless vs. a field (or another fieldless piece of armory). In all cases, there is no difference for changing the type of the underlying primary charge (see precedents below as applicable). In all cases, there is no difference for changing the type only of the tertiary charge on a charge with as complex an outline as a compass star per the LoAR of February 2002 which states: "There is nothing for change of type only of tertiary charge on a sun or multipointed mullet, as this shape is not simple for purposes of RfS X.4.j.ii." Some of the possible conflicts are:
Lorimer MacAltin of Garioch (May 1983), Argent, on a compass star azure a thistle couped argent.
Badge of Solveig Throndardottir (October 1992), (Fieldless) A sun azure eclipsed argent. The sun azure eclipsed argent is heraldically equivalent to a sun azure charged with a roundel argent. As noted in the LoAR of February 2003, "Precedent has consistently held that 'you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a conflict' (stated succinctly in this quote from the LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent)." Precedent also holds that "There's ...no difference between suns and multi-pointed mullets --- which includes compass stars" (LoAR June 1993 p.18) (quoted in the LoAR of February 2002).
Badge of Adrienne de Champagne (January 1990), Argent, on a mullet of six points azure, a falcon displayed argent. Per the LoAR of July 2003, "There is no type difference between the compass stars and the mullets of six points. Because of the unusual (and non-period) design of compass stars, with their four greater and four lesser points, they are considered as variants of both mullets of four points and mullets of eight points. There is no type difference between mullets of six points and mullets of eight points and, hence, no difference between mullets of six points and compass stars."
 [Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
 [Brachet (24-Apr-05)] 
We see the following conflicts: Badge of Lorimer MacAlpin of Garioch (5/83) "Argent on a compass star azure, a thistle couped argent." The compass star is not simple enough to allow for application of exforjaytoo. Badge of Solveig Throndardottir (2/92) "(fieldless) on a sun azure a hammer argent." and (10/92) "(fieldless) a sun azure eclipsed argent." Same reasoning.

Jehanne Darc Delacôte. Name and device. Per pale ermine and azure, an acorn proper and a fleur-de-lis argent. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
Unfortunately, the Rules for Submission are quite clear on the matter of the appearance of marshalling here. RfS XI.3 states
Divisions commonly used for marshalling, such as quarterly or per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure marshalling is not suggested. 
a. Such fields may be used with identical charges over the entire field, or with complex lines of partition or charges overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry. 
In this submission, we have a per pale field which does not have identical charges over the entire field, complex lines of partition, or any charges overall.
In addition, the acorn is drawn somewhat between bendwise sinister and the default palewise. Please advise the submitter to draw it so it is clearly in one orientation or another.

John the Bell Ringer. Name and device. Per saltire sable and vert, two bendlets and two bendlets sinister interlaced between four four-leaf clovers argent. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
One generally finds the design of two bendlets and two bendlets sinister interlaced blazoned as a saltire parted and fretted. 
    The four-leaf clovers should perhaps be blazoned instead, somewhat more heraldically, as quatrefoils saltirewise and slipped to base, or four-leaved shamrocks saltirewise slipped to base. A quatrefoil by default has one petal to chief (so all four are in cross, not in saltire as drawn here) and a quatrefoil by default has no slip (as these do.)

Kol Bogsveigir. Name and device. Per pale argent and sable, a quiver of arrows and a bow reversed counterchanged. 

Marshalled arms – see Jehanne above

Rebeka Scotte. Device. Vert, on a dragonfly Or, a sword inverted sable. 
[al Jamal (21-Mar-05)]  -- and he’s right, the mini is not a reduced version of the full-size
 [Device] Vert, on a dragonfly Or, a sword inverted sable. "It should be noted that the LoI's miniature does not match the miniature on the form itself. ... However, submissions heralds should take care that the minatures match the forms, as the College's ability to anticipate different depictions cannot be relied upon. (LoAR August 2004, p. 6) As it stands, the mini-emblazon is just barely recognizable as a dragonfly, but the sword looks nothing like a sword; a very long-stemmed trefoil perhaps, but not a sword. If the large emblazon is much different, as is implied in the LoI, then that's the depiction we should have seen in the LoI.

Most commenters raise concerns about unidentifiability of sword
[Brachet (24-Apr-05)] 
The sword looks like nothing more than detailing on the dragonfly (especially as crudely drawn as they both are). As such it is worth no more than a kleestengel on the wings of an eagle displayed. We thus see a clear conflict with the registered device of Maol Anna de Chassant (4/94) "Per fess sable and gules, a dragonfly Or."

Antonia Soranzo. Name and device. Vairy, in saltire, a rapier Or and a quill gules. 

Much blazon fu

Wulfran Forester. Badge. (Fieldless) A winged unicorn sergeant argent conjoined to an annnulet Or. 

And more blazon fu

LAUREL

Klaus Rother von Schweinichen and Thaddeus von Orlamünde. Joint badge for Der Gesellschaft mit der Mondsichel. (Fieldless) A helm sable, torsed bendy Or and sable, mantled and crested of a crescent Or. 

This is being pended to May 2005 for several reasons, which are individually discussed below.
The badge was, in fact, submitted as a joint household badge; these facts were omitted from the LoI. A Letter of Correction with this information has been promised for January 2005. The College should address the question of whether the combination of household name and this armory is presumptuous (which would violate RfS XI.2).
The tincture of the mantling and crescent was omitted from the LoI blazon. As drawn, the crescent/torse/mantling are maintained charges and not worth difference. No conflict was found with (field) a helm sable.
The submitter provided evidence which purportedly supported the idea of a badge consisting of a helm crested with something. However, the textual description of the armory, also supplied by the submitter, suggests that the helm is not actually part of the badge. This evidence does not provide sufficient support to overturn the precedent that this depiction consitutes a crest.
However, some research at the meeting showed that Siebmacher has some instances of stuff issuant from coronets, for example: a monk in f.67, von Aldenberg; a stag's head in f.69, die Grimben; a swan in f.86, von Schoenbuehl. Others are likely to be found in Siebmacher. Given this evidence, we are sending this back to the College for further research on whether helms or other headgear, OTHER than crowns/coronets, appear as charges in period armory (not as part of a suit of armor) with things issuant from or atop them in a crest-like manner.
 [al Jamal (21-Mar-05)] 
 [Badge] A helm sable torsed bendy Or and sable, mantled and crested of a crescentOr. I don't think there is sufficient precedent in period armory for "fully accoutered" helms. They are rare in armory to begin with. Of those, I do not recall any which showed anything but helms - no torse, no mantling, no crest. The Zurich Wappenrolle has but one helm, for Helmshoven, the canting arms Gules a [great]helm Or The helm is emblazoned unadorned but for the usual eye slit, breathing holes, and lines and rivets of its construction. (Popoff, Michel, Le Rôle d'Armes de Zurich, p. 71, illo. 106; in the pictures of the Zurich Roll which are available on-line, it is in zroa18.gif, top row, second from the left. Interestingly, the crest is simply a helm as in the arms, so that you have a helm sitting atop a helm). Humphrey-Smith, Anglo-Norman Armory II, p. 475, notes only three individuals bearing helms on their arms; none have torse, mantling and crest. The well-known arms of Kennedy from Ireland have three helms; I have never seen a depiction of these as anything other than otherwise unadorned helms (e.g., John Grenham's Clans and Families of Ireland, p. 128).
Papworth (p. 934, cf. "Head") cites the arms of Mynyot from Philipot's Ordinary, 1406, Arg. three helmets with open visors adorned with plumes of feathers az. On the next page notes the arms of Miniott (from Jenyn's Collection), Gu. three helmets arg. crested or. (I would assume from this the "crest" is again, "plumes of feathers". On the other hand, Burke (General Armory) gives the arms of Miniott (citing no source) as Gu. three helmets ar. crested or, but under Mynyot/Mynyett gives them as Ar. three helmets open sa. with no mention of a crest or panache of any kind. Finally, Guillim, A Display of Heraldrie, 4th ed., p. 342, gives the blazon of the arms of Miniet as Argent, three Helmets with their Beavers open, Sable, and illustrates the helms with no crest or feathers at all. (None of the other illustrations of helmets in arms on the same page have crests.)
From Glover's Ordinary, Papworth notes (p. 935) the arms of Laffull or Luffull, and Lassells, Gu. three helmets arg. plumed or. (Glover's Ordinary cannot be Glover's Roll, which roll is of period arms; Laffull/Luffull/Lassells do not appear at all in Glover's Roll, Aspilogia II. Glover's Ordinary may not thus be of period arms.) These are the only arms with helms where any kind of crest is mentioned. None have torse and/or mantling noted in the blazon. The vast majority of helms have no crests (some are "garnished" gold, but that's not the same thing at all), and some have the specific type of helmet noted. 
All in all, I have to say I think the case is not proven for a helmet with mantling, torse, and crest as being period style.

Lulach Cauldwell. Device. Azure, in bend sinister three sinister hands argent. 

This is clear of Aisling ní Fhlaithbheartaigh: Azure, a heart, a sinister hand couped apaumé bendwise sinister and a dexter hand couped apaumé bendwise, one and two, argent. There is one CD for arrangement of the charges, and another CD for orientation of the hands (more than half of the charge group) since none of Aisling's hands are in the same orientation as any of Lulach's.
However, this may conflict with Graham of the Bright Hills: Per fess azure and barry argent and azure, in chief a thistle Or between a pair of clenched gauntlets argent. There is one CD for changes to the field. There is no CD for type or tincture of one out of three charges in an arrangement other than "two and one". There is not a CD for arrangement since Graham's field does not allow his charges to be arranged in bend sinister. There may be a CD for posture between hands apaumy and gauntlets clenched. The applicable precedent is deliberately ambiguous:
Single CD for arrangement.  No CD for the type of one of three charges in an arrangement other than two and one.  There was also a question about whether a hand should be given a CD for posture versus a hand in benediction. Current precedent regarding gauntlets would imply that this is not so:
[a dexter gauntlet clenched apaumy vs a dexter gauntlet appaumy] The clenching is an artistic detail which does not contribute difference. (William MacGregor, May 1998 p. 22)
However, it is important to remember that gauntlets are often 'mitten gauntlets' and what is true for a gauntlet may not always be true for a hand. We encourage the College to research this issue. [Ihon Vinson MacFergus, 09/01, A-Ansteorra]
A visual inspection of Graham's armory shows that the three charges in chief are all the same size, so they form a single primary charge group. Graham's "gauntlets" have separately articulated fingers, so they appear to be hands with the fingers folded down and showing in front.
This is being pended for further research on whether there should be a CD between a "glove" style gauntlet clenched (with the fingers showing) and a hand apaumy.
 [al Jamal (21-Mar-05)] 
[Device] Azure, in bend sinister three sinister hands argent. I think we are going to be hard-pressed to find in period armory any data to support that either there is a difference between hands/gauntlets appaumy and hands/gauntlets clenched, or that there is not. All of the hands and gauntlets in Humphre-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory II have their fingers extended. Ditto for those in Guillim's A Display of Heraldrie, with the exception of the arms of Tremaine, Gules, three dexter arms conjined at the shoulders, and flexed in triangle, Or, with fists clenched, argent. In most other cases where I can find a hand or gauntlet clenched, it is holding something, frequently a sword or dagger.
It seems to me that the difference between a hand/gauntlet appaumy and a hand/gauntlet clenched is a difference of the order of, say, a lion and a lion reguardant, or an eagle displayed and an eagle displayed, wings inverted. That is to say, a distinction, but not one for which we give difference. The only real visual difference between a hand and a hand clenched is the length of the hand; that is to say, the fingers are shorter and issue from the palm. This is not the sort of difference for which we generally grant a CD.
 [al Jamal (21-Mar-05)] 
 [Nebuly (25-Apr-05)] 
 [D] I have never seen a case where hands or arms were variously drawn as armored or not in the same armory.  All the examples I know of consistently have the hands/arms bare, vested, or armored.  Given this fact, in combination with the fact that these same hands tend to be consistently clenched or open, I think we could count this change as a CD.  That is, there ought to be a CD between an open unarmored hand against a clenched and armored one.

Stonemarche, Barony of. Badge for the Company of Gesters. Argent, a double lion's tail couped azure. 

The tincture of the lion's tail was omitted from the LoI. This is pended to allow for conflict checking under the correct blazon.

LOCHAC

Drusticc inigena Eddarrnonn. Device. Gules a crescent bendwise sinister argent. 
[Rede Boke (12-Mar-05)] 
Consider this precedent:
        "Brighid Chaomhanach. Device. Per fess gules and azure, a trident bendwise sinister Or transfixing a closed scroll bendwise argent...The trident is in a position intermediate between palewise and bendwise sinister, and cannot be clearly blazoned. It is thus in violation of RfS VII.7.b. [Northshield-R, LoAR 02/2004]"
   The same applies here.  The crescent isn't quite palewise and isn't quite bendwise.  Also, it's an increscent.  This may conflict with Sean Macarailt of Sandyhume (reg. 01/1973), "Sable, an increscent argent."  There is a CD for the field, but not clearly one for the ambiguous orientation.
 [Brachet (24-Apr-05)] 
*sigh* So far from being period heraldry while being so simple. Only one weirdness, however, so it is registerable. Consider the flag of Turkey (important non-SCA flag) "Gules, a mullet between the horns of a decrescent argent." There is an orientation change for the (de)crescent, but the status of the mullet is questionable. It isn't really a tertiary, and it certainly isn't a secondary in the usual sense of an object clearly on the field separate from the primary charge. In my mind it is closest to a "maintained" charge. Laurel, the ruling is up to you, but I think it's a conflict.

Elyas of Dunblane. Device. Quarterly sable and azure, a cross between four crescents argent. 

Fineamhain an Einigh Ui Concobair. Device. Quarterly gules and azure, on a fess Or three bees volant sable.

Katrijn van Delden. Device. Erminois, a dragon rampant sable within an orle azure. 

Margarita de la Carrera. Device. Sable, a bear sejant erect within an orle within an orle of mullets argent. 

Internal commentary provided an alternate interpretation of the device; Argent, on an ineschutcheon sable a bear sejant erect argent all within a bordure sable semy of mullets argent. This interpretation would leads to problems with RfS XI.4, which prohibits the appearance of marshalling.
We note that numerous precedents allow that we can blazon our way out of a stylistic problem, so this device should be fine with regard to XI.4. We also note in passing that Laurel discussed the motif in January '94 and made no mention of problems related to XI.4.
"Brian the Blackhawk. Device. Argent, an eagle displayed within an orle within an orle of lozenges orlewise sable.
As this could equally well be blazoned (as Papworth has done with similar designs), Sable an inescutcheon argent charged with an eagle sable all within a bordure argent semy of lozenges sable, it conflicts with Fylkyn (Papworth, p. 687), Sable an escutcheon argent within a bordure of the last charged with billets of the first. There is one CD for the addition of the tertiary eagle, but because this is not simple armory as defined in RfS X.4.j.2., there is nothing for changing the type only of the tertiary charges on the bordure."
[Lambent (31-Mar-05)] 
This blazon does not accurately describe the emblazon.  There is no 'orle of mullets'. There is an orle, and then - outside the orle - a row of mullets.  What this really looks like is 
Argent, on an escutcheon sable a bear sejant erect argent and a bordure sable mullety argent.
As sure, I believe it runs afoul of Arms of Pretense.
XI.4. Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor - Armory that uses charges in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense or an unearned augmentation of honor is considered presumptuous. 
Period and modern heraldic practice asserts a claim to land or property by surmounting an individual's usual armory with a display of armory associated with that claim. Such arms of pretense are placed on an escutcheon. Similarly, an augmentation of honor often, though not necessarily, takes the form of an independent coat placed on an escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a single escutcheon may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a single tincture. For example, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an escutcheon sable charged with a roundel argent has the appearance of being arms of pretense or an augmentation. Or, in saltire five escutcheons sable each charged with three roundels argent does not have this appearance, as it has multiple escutcheons, as so is acceptable. The exception to the restrictions of this rule is when the submitter is entitled to an augmentation as described in RfS VIII.7. Augmentations of Honor.
[Brachet (24-Apr-05)] 
As drawn, we are not convinced that the blazon with the inescutcheon could be correct, since there isn't enough of the "argent" field showing . The orle is just the right thickness, in our humble opinion. We don't like the overall design, with the two different secondary charge groups, simply because it does increase the possibility of the charged escutcheon interpretation.  The device of No. 6, Katrijn, excited more of the inescutcheon reaction from us because the orle was much fatter and more irregular.
[Metron-Ariston (20-Apr-05)] 
To be honest, when I looked at the mini-emblazon, I processed it as "Sable, semy of mullets, a bear sejant erect within an orle argent."  The fact that the mullets are missing from inside the orle is really not processed by the optic nerve connection!
[Siren (25-Apr-05)] 
Although we've registered this motif before, I'd like to see some evidence of the combination of an orle and an orle of charges.

Wilfred de Ackelonde. Device. Purpure, a pile cotised argent. 

MIDDLE

Elizabella Marchant. Device. Per bend sinister argent and azure, a rose proper and a garb Or. 

Her original device: Per chevron ployé azure and argent, two roses argent and a Lacy knot purpure was returned by Laurel, May '98 was returned for using a charged chape, which isn't allowed.

Fergus MacPherson. Name and device. Vert, an equal-armed Celtic cross and on a chief Or two lozenges vert. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
It is an oddity of SCA blazon that (as seen in the Pictorial Dictionary), the equal-armed Celtic cross is potent by default. Should we blazon this as an equal-armed Celtic cross formy? The Pictorial Dictionary says there is no difference given between the (potent) equal-armed Celtic cross and the (Latin and formy) default Celtic cross, so this hypothetical blazon change would be merely an artistic matter of helping the emblazoner re-create the blazon, rather than a blazon change reflecting heraldic difference. However, I know that if I had the kind of cross drawn here, I wouldn't want it drawn like the potent one in figure 163 of the Pictorial Dictionary.

Finnvarðr Mj{o,}ksiglandi Grisson. Name and device. Per fess rayonny gules and azure, in chief two oars in saltire argent. 

Gabrielle Juliana Raron. Badge. (Fieldless) On a castle azure a rose seeded of a heart Or. 
[Rede Boke (12-Mar-05)] There are three problems with this badge, and the first two revolve around the heart.  First of all, it is completely unidentifiable because of its small size.  Secondly, the heart on the rose on the castle on the field is four layers, which violates VIII.1.c.ii "All charges should be placed either directly on the field or entirely on other charges that lie on the field."
    The second is conflict with Marguerite du Royon (reg. 02/2004 via the West), "(Fieldless) On a tower azure a fleur-de-lys Or," registered jointly with Brian FitzWilliam of Glastonbury.  There is one CD for the field, but none for changing just the type of tertiary on a non-simple charge, and none for a tower vs. castle:
       "[Returning Vert, issuant from a castle argent, a demi-griffin rampant and in chief three mullets Or.] The device appears to conflict with ... Vert, a tower argent. There is a CD for the addition of the mullets in chief, but nothing for the difference between a castle and a tower, and the demi-griffin here is drawn so small as to be the visual equivalent as a maintained charge. [12a/93, p.22]"

Ingrid Elizabeth de Marksberry. Badge. (Fieldless) A slip of elderberry flowered and fructed proper. 

The depiction of the slip was taken from her registered device, Or, a slip of elderberry, flowered and fructed proper, and on a chief vert a ladle reversed Or.
[Siren (25-Apr-05)] 
So, what color is it?  I can't tell if the things are flowers or fruits (which I assume are white and purple respectively), and how much of the entire charge they are.  Needless to say, there are many sprigs.  Consider:
Beyatah Robakovna (10/81): Sable, a flowering apple sprig proper.
Susanna Fairfax (12/71): Argent, a sprig of three copihues proper [Lapageria rosea].
Angus le Todde Mac Donnell (11/99):Per bend sinister engrailed argent and azure, a sprig of three cherries proper.
Ygraine of Preston (10/89): "Per chevron rayonny azure and Or, in base a sprig of poison ivy vert."
I suspect in each case a visual observation may be in order.

Imayne de Merlowe. Name change from Alexandra Adderly and device. Gules, two lions sejant addorsed respected regardant, a bordure Or. 
[Gwenhwyfaer (23-Apr-05)] 
      We note the following device as there was much discussion as to whether there was complete difference charge between these two devices.
 Sinech ingen Óengusa manaig meicc Senaig Ua Liatháin - Gules, two lionheaded serpents nowed in a wake knot respectant within a bordure Or.

Ioan James de Marksberry. Name and device. Per pale azure and vert, two swords crossed in saltire between in pale a helm to dexter argent and a flame proper. 

Blazon fu

Konrad Ryman. Name and device. Or, a sword fesswise reversed sustained by an armoured arm fesswise embowed and on a chief azure three martlets Or. 
[Brachet (24-May-05)] 
This is a standard "armored arm embowed maintaining a scimitar fesswise." The sword is no more sustained than any other wielded sword.

Konrad Ryman. Badge. (Fieldless) A martlet Or. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
This is likely to conflict with John of Ravenwolf (January 1973), Sable, a raven speaking Or, beaked and membered argent. There's one CD for fieldlessness. The beak and members (feet) are much less than half the charge so there's no difference for changing less than half the tincture of the bird. Per the Cover Letter for the LoAR of January 2002, "martlets close and corbies close should not be given difference." A raven is a corbie (per the same cover letter), so there's no type difference here, assuming that the "raven speaking" is also close. Per the Pictorial Dictionary under Crow, "A 'crow speaking' has its mouth open as if in speech." This is a very minor artistic detail not worth difference. If John's raven is not close, it needs to be reblazoned.
This also needs to be compared with a badge of Linnet of Liddington (April 1991), (Fieldless) A linnet Or perched upon a sprig vert flowered of a garden rose gules and another argent. There's one CD for fieldlessness. I don't believe there is a CD between a linnet (a small finch-like bird) and a martlet. If the sprig in Linnet's badge is maintained, it isn't worth difference. If the spring in Linnet's badge is worth difference, perhaps the blazon can be altered to reflect this. Some possibilities would be: (Fieldless) In pale a linnet Or perched atop a spring vert flowered of a garden rose gules and another argent, or (Fieldless) A linnet Or perched atop and sustained by a sprig vert flowered of a garden rose gules and another argent. 
  These blazons also remove the somewhat problematic blazon term upon. Upon can be confused for either on or atop, which mean very different things: on means [a tertiary charge charged entirely] on [the previously mentioned charge] and atop means (more or less) in chief and conjoined to [the previously mentioned charge].

Máel Rúain mac Seáin. Name and device. Or crusilly purpure, a cock rising sable. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
Per the LoAR of October 2003, "Please recall that the rising posture, according to a number of sources, needs to have the wings explicitly blazoned as either addorsed or displayed. The SCA has at times registered birds rising wings addorsed simply as rising, but this pattern has not yet been so clearly established that we wish to define it as a default at this time."

Mathildis Death. Badge. Vert, a swan rousant argent charged with a feather bendwise vert. 
[Trefoil (22-Mar-05)]  -- and Brachet and Bambi
 [Badge] Vert, a swan rousant argent charged with a feather bendwise vert.  The feather is so small on the mini-emblazon as to be unnoticeable and unidentifiable.  I imagine that it would be more striking in color.  Consider potential conflicts with:  Melisanda de Palma (08/1994 via East) (Fieldless) A swan rising proper charged with a C-clef sable, and Henry V of England (12/1994 via Laurel) (Fieldless) A swan rousant wings addorsed argent ducally gorged and chained Or  In each case, one CD exists for fieldlessness.  In the first case, a second CD should theoretically exist for changing the type of the tertiary charge, but I would question the visual impact of the feather and the C-clef and ask for a visual test per RfS X.5.
The only representation of Henry's badge that I could locate is at http://www.stmaryspriorychurch.org.uk/images/tileswons.jpg.  The gorging and chaining have some visual effect, although I would technically consider them the equivalent of maintained charges.  Either way, a second CD would exist for the addition of the tertiary charge, the feather in this submission, so long as the feather has significant visual impact to avoid overwhelming visual similarity (RfS X.5 again).
[Siren (25-Apr-05)] 
Some folks observed that the feather is small. partly as an element of the design; I'd observe that tertiary charges are routinely found on the shoulders of beasts.  However, I'd observe that its location under the detailed wings makes it stand out less than it would on the shoulder.

Nuala inghean Murchadha. Name and device. Vert, six escallops Or. 

Otto der Beger von Heidelberg. Name and device. Per pale sable and ermine, two stags combattant counterchanged upon a trimount vert. 

Piotr Zavilov. Name and device. Azure, on a bend sable fimbriated between two panthers passant contourny argent spotted azure a comet argent. 
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
(name: Piotr Zavilov)
The default (English-style) heraldic panther is guardant by default per the Glossary of Terms table 3. It's hard for me to see the heads in the emblazon provided in my mailing, but perhaps these panthers are passant contourny heads facing sinister, not just passant contourny [guardant].

Séamus Grene the Fletcher. Name and device. Argent, on a pale between two arrows inverted vert a bow argent. 

Sean Edward de Marksberry. Name and device. Argent, a dagger and a throwing axe in saltire sable, a bordure sable semy of lightning bolts argent. 
[al Jamal (21-Mar-05)] 
 [Device] Argent, a dagger and a throwing axe in saltire sable, a bordure sable semy of lightning bolts argent. The SCA has not previously registered a "throwing axe". As a consequence, we need additional documentation for this form of axe and that it is period.
[Rede Boke (26-Apr-05)] 
The arrangement of the lightning bolts on the bordure is very odd; they should either all be palewise or all following the line of the bordure, but not this mix of both.

Serena la Viennois. Name and device. Per pale gules and azure, a sun per pale Or and argent. 

Viktor Vukov. Name and device. Or, three wolves rampant azure. 

This is a third resubmission the first one (returned May '04) was: Azure, a trident palewise, overall a laurel leaf, argent, and on a chief argent, two paw prints sable. Returned for a redraw. 
Second resubmission (returned Sept. '04): Azure, a trident palewise, overall a laurel leaf, argent, and on a chief argent, two paw prints sable was again returned for a redrawn. According to RS: "I was going to pend this submission to await the petition of support, but instead I will return it for yet another redraw. This time the client shall have very explicit instructions on how and where to draw the laurel wreath."

A petition of support is included  [but it’s an emailed letter (not actual signatures!!!]
[Black Stag (24-Mar-05)] 
I notice that the trident is palewise, which may well be a default for that charge. However, there is no default for a trident listed in the Glossary of Terms appendix for default postures, nor in the Pictorial Dictionary, nor (apparently) in precedents back through Mistress Alisoun. Do we want such a precedent?

Ysabel la Normande. Name and device. Or, a crequier within a bordure azure. 

NORTHSHIELD

Anpliça Fiore. Device. Argent, a columbine azure slipped and leaved vert between flaunches azure. 
 [Nebuly (25-Apr-05)] 
[D] A columbine would be slipped and leaved by default, but not in the way depicted here.  Slipping and leaving of a columbine should extend around the flower to sinister and extend below the bell of the flower.  Worse, the flower here is not recognizable as a columbine.  The petals of the columbine flower have "hoods" that extend up over the back of the flower.  This looks more like a tulip inverted, and might be returned for a redraw if the submitter truly wants a columbine.

Leonia Talbot. Name and device. Per pall inverted argent, sable and vert, in chief a lion and a talbot combattant and counterchanged. 

Marian Elizabeth Wollenschläger. Device. Per bend azure and gules, an angora goat argent and a spinning wheel reversed Or. 
[Metron-Ariston (20-Apr-05)] 
The wheel is not reversed as the Society default appears to be with the spindle to sinister according to the Pictorial Dictionary.  Do we have any evidence for angora goats in period and depicted in this manner?  We have an angora goat's head registered at the Heraldicon in August, 1979, and then the armory for Alexandria of Mazzara which was registered in October, 2003, but presumably did not address the issue of the goat since it was grandfathered to the submitter from a registration back in 1991.  The New South Wales governmental web site summarizing the history of the Angora goat at www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/2817 says "The first European record of the Angora dates from 1531 when the Dutch Ambassador, stationed at Constantinople, managed to secure a pair."  This suggests that some goats known as Angora (from their origin in Asia Minor) were known late in period, but does not address the issue of their appearance.  What is depicted on the mini-emblazon looks like the modern Angora goat and no evidence was given for the period goat sharing this appearance.

Robert Talbot. Name and device. Sable, a talbot rampant and on a chief argent three bear prints sable.