DARs Completed in 2013

This is where the V.P. Heraldic Design will post finished projects.
User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 2728
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

DARs Completed in 2013

Postby Chris Green » 07 Feb 2015, 15:12

Mr. Zachary Camden, a resident of Elsinore, Utah, USA.
Arms: Argent Papelonne Sanguine a Cornish Chough proper in sinister chief a Latin Cross Fleury Gules a Bordure Sable charged with eight ermine Spots Or
Crest: From a Torse Argent and Sanguine a Ram rampant Sable armed and unguled Or langued Gules
Mantling: Sanguine doubled Argent
Motto: Errare Humanum Est (To Err is Human)
Date: Arms assumed 01 June 2013
Artist: Geoff Kingman-Sugars
Heralds: Geoff Kingman-Sugars & Melvyn Jeremiah

Image

Mr. Aaron Beech, a resident of Healesville, VIC, Australia.
Arms: Per Chevron Sanguine and Ermines surmounting a Fillet Chevron Or a tensioned Crossbow palewise Argent.
Crest: On a Wreath Argent and Sanguine issuant from a Mural Crown Argent masoned Sable in front of a tensioned Crossbow palewise Argent two Arrows in saltire points upwards proper.
Mantling: Sanguine doubled Argent.
Motto: Arte et Marte (By Skill and Valour).
Date: Arms assumed 15 April 2013.
Standard Blazon: In the Hoist (1st compartment) the Arms (Per Chevron Sanguine and Ermines surmounting a Fillet Chevron Or a tensioned Crossbow palewise Argent) 2nd 3rd and 4th compartments each separated by a Ribbon Azure cotised bearing the Motto (Arte et Marte) gold per Fess of the Livery Colours (Argent and Sanguine) each charged with the Badge (a Mural Crown gold masoned Sable enfiling two Arrows in saltire points upwards proper).
Badge Blazon: A Mural Crown gold masoned Sable enfiling two Arrows in saltire points upwards proper.
Artist: Geoff Kingman-Sugars
Heralds: Geoff Kingman-Sugars & Melvyn Jeremiah

Image

Officer Cadet Gary TYLER, resident at the Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Arms: Sable on a Fess Or between three Nails a Mullet of seven points all counterchanged.
Crest: A Red Wolf (Canis rufus) rampant proper armed Argent langued Gules holding in the dexter forepaw three Red Roses barbed seeded and slipped all proper.
Mantling: Sable doubled Or.
Motto: Fortitudo in Veritate (Strength in Truth).
Heralds: Geoff Kingman-Sugars/Melvyn Jeremiah
Artist: Geoff Kingman-Sugars
Date of Assumption: 11 December 2012.

Image

More to come ...
Chris Green
IAAH President

Apohypaton

User avatar
Claus K Berntsen
Posts: 30
Joined: 15 Jul 2012, 22:58
Location: Sweden

Re: DARs Completed in 2013

Postby Claus K Berntsen » 25 Feb 2015, 20:51

Why use Sanguine instead of Gules?

Overall, it seems to me, that IAAH overuses the stains, but then I am of course Scandinavian…

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 2728
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: DARs Completed in 2013

Postby Chris Green » 26 Feb 2015, 07:25

Claus K Berntsen wrote:Why use Sanguine instead of Gules? Overall, it seems to me, that IAAH overuses the stains, but then I am of course Scandinavian…


I should point out that the IAAH, as an association, is not the final arbiter of what is acceptable or not in any individual heraldic design worked up between an applicant for assistance and the herald/heraldic artist involved. They are free to avail themselves of any recognised heraldic conventions. Thus a client from, say, somewhere in the Balkans might choose a charge unknown in England, or a Scots client both a motto and a slughorn.

Perhaps Geoff would care to comment on this particular design.

For those pondering about what relevance being Scandinavian might have to the use of sanguine, I should explain that heraldry in the Nordic lands shies away from the use of stains and furs, as well as taking a dim view of transgression of the tincture "rule". Wikipedia has an authoritative piece on Swedish heraldry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_heraldry
Chris Green
IAAH President

Apohypaton

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 556
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: DARs Completed in 2013

Postby JMcMillan » 26 Feb 2015, 19:45

Whatever Geoff's intent, when I look at these images what I see is Gules.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

User avatar
Mike_Oettle
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 17:03
Location: Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, South Africa

Re: DARs Completed in 2013

Postby Mike_Oettle » 26 Feb 2015, 20:32

Indeed.
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life.
[Proverbs 14:27]

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1102
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: DARs Completed in 2013

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 27 Feb 2015, 09:08

I too see Gules; it is probably the emblazonment which is at fault here. Were I to have emblazoned the arms I would have made the tincture which is meant to represent sanguine much darker.
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 556
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: DARs Completed in 2013

Postby JMcMillan » 27 Feb 2015, 12:58

As a Gaylorite (image first, words after), I think that if the customers are happy with these emblazonments, then the solution is not to darken the red to match the blazon but to correct the blazoning to match the images.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 2728
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: DARs Completed in 2013

Postby Chris Green » 27 Feb 2015, 14:12

JMcMillan wrote:As a Gaylorite (image first, words after), I think that if the customers are happy with these emblazonments, then the solution is not to darken the red to match the blazon but to correct the blazoning to match the images.


That is not how it works in heraldry surely. The image (emblazonment) is merely an interpretation of the description in words (blazon) formulated by the herald in response to the wishes of the client and in accordance with received heraldic usage. Images can fade, different heraldic artists can interpret the blazon in very different ways. But everything comes back ultimately to the blazon.

Which brings us to the singular situation in the case of Mr Camden's CoA. The herald (GJKS) created an on-the-face-of-it perfectly valid blazon (albeit making use of sanguine, which is not to everyone's taste, but nonetheless valid for all that). He then illustrates his own blazon such that some consider that what they see is not in fact sanguine as blazoned but gules.

Of course what we are looking at is not GJKS's original but a scan uploaded to the Forum. How good was the scanner? How accurately can the internet and our individual computers and screens interpret the scan? If one person's sanguine is another's gules is that OK or is the blazon at fault?

To attempt to answer my own question: I think this brings us back to the roots of heraldry. The tinctures and "rules" regarding their juxtaposition were originally meant to ensure that shields and banners were distinct at a distance, outdoors and in all weathers. The decorative value of a CoA was a distant also-ran behind the need to distinguish Lord A from Sir B or indeed any other armiger. As heraldry matured, blazons became more and more complex, and thus more difficult to "read" when painted. But that didn't matter overmuch as nobody used CoAs in battle any more. Latterly the call has gone up for more flexibility in the availability of tinctures, which is fine - so long as those tinctures are demonstrably different from the traditional ones. Bleu celeste is obviously not azure. But is sanguine obviously not gules?

I doubt if anyone could reasonably distinguish Argent Papelonne Gules a Cornish Chough proper in sinister chief a Latin Cross Fleury Sanguine a Bordure Sable charged with eight ermine Spots Or from Mr Camden's CoA. That would suggest to me that sanguine needs to be used extremely carefully to avoid confusion.

The question is much the same as whether Gules three lions passant reguardant or armed and langued argent is sufficiently distinguishable from Gules three lions passant guardant or armed and langued azure to be accepted as a CoA that is validly different. Yes they are different, but no-one would accept that they are sufficiently different.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Apohypaton

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1102
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: DARs Completed in 2013

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 27 Feb 2015, 14:13

The Gaylorite principle only holds up for as long as the written form is entirely ignored. If we take the blazon as the blue print, or birth certificate, it is to all intents and purposes constant and no amount of artistic license will change the basic foundation but subtle differences can be allowed for. However, if we take the Gaylorite principle as the foundation then there is no leeway for artistic license and the way in which a particular image is drawn must be slavishly copied. Once any particular artist decides to use "artistic license" and then someone else comes along and attempts to blazon the image any constant will have been lost.

Take this as an example:

Image

The original blazon for the crest is/was:
A cubit arms erect, habited, grasping a broken tilting spear in fesse all proper.

This blazon can obviously be exemplified (emblazoned) using a certain amount of artistic license however, at the Visitations of 1580, the visiting herald was quite clearly shown an image of the arms where there was certain embellishments (which still fitted the original blazon) and wrote down in blazon precisely (and possibly over zealously) what he saw:

A cubit arm erect, habited paly of five pieces Or and Sable, cuffed Argent, hand proper, grasping the upper and lower portion of a broken tilting spear of the first, point downwards.

So, taking the image as the blueprint (Gaylorite principle) we are now compelled to forever illustrate the sleeves as "habited paly of five pieces Or and Sable, cuffed Argent" instead of any interpretation we wish of the more flexible (and simple) habited.

I am not a disciple of the Gaylor principle.
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 556
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: DARs Completed in 2013

Postby JMcMillan » 27 Feb 2015, 18:01

I understand the orthodoxy that holds that the blazon prevails, and if we don't know what the original design looked like, it clearly has to. But no one in his right mind (I would assert) begins the design process by writing a blazon. Chronologically, it's picture first, words second.

Once the picture is set, then it's time to describe it, and in that process, if the description is wrong, then the correct thing to do is to fix the description, not the picture. The picture is by definition a more accurate reflection of the designer's intention than the blazon.

I mean this all heraldically, of course. The picture doesn't prevail over the blazon to the extent that a different shade of blue, a different number of tufts on the lion's tail, a different shield shape, bigger vs. smaller bezants, more or fewer ermine spots, are less authentic than the original drawing. Yes, any emblazonment that is heraldically the same as the original intended design is valid. Isn't that really what we mean when we say the blazon takes precedence? I think it has to be, because it's simply bizarre to interpret as meaning that the original design has become wrong because someone mis-described it.

Suppose I know nothing about heraldic terminology, but I draw myself a coat of arms with a fess with inward facing curved points, charged with three scallop shells with the hinges downward, as in the Shell Oil trademark. And I then hand it over to someone who's supposed to know how to blazon, and he writes "Sable on a fess engrailed Argent three escallops Gules." I register this blazon with some official or unofficial heraldic organization. When I discover that my expert has made a mistake, am I then obliged to change my arms to match the erroneous blazon? Or do I rather correct "engrailed" to "invected" and specify the escallops as "reversed"? To me, this is a no-brainer. That's what I mean by the picture taking precedence. In the present case, if we all agree that the red color in the arms is gules, and the armiger (who is presumably not as well versed in heraldry as we) is happy with that color, do we demand that he replace the existing red with a darker, more purplish hue to conform to "sanguine"?

Granted, when years pass and we no longer know what the original depiction looked like, then we must reconstruct the arms from the most reliable blazon available. Even then, however, we occasionally discover evidence that a long-accepted blazon is wrong, as when tarnished silver paint has been mistaken for sable, or the notations on a herald's trick of a coat of arms have been misread at some point and the error perpetuated in the official records. This creates something of a dilemma that has to be resolved case by case. But when we are within a few years of the creation, as in these cases, then I continue to maintain that the picture takes both chronological and logical precedence over the words.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA


Return to “Design Assistance Requests”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests