Jonathan Webster wrote:But then I would expect the person reading the blazon to take the trouble of finding out what the Maori design is, as I would with any obscure charge. Particularly in these days when information is so easily available.
I think the problem is that there is no single Ta Moko, but (if I understand correctly) potentially as many as there are Maoris. Presumably it's a bit like blazoning a coat of arms as "Argent an inescutcheon charged with a coat of arms proper."
I'm not totally convinced that this necessarily means that a Ta Moko is bad heraldry--although part of the traditional definition of heraldry is that it involves the use of conventional ordinaries and charges--but certainly a blazon referring simply to "a Maori Ta Moko" without further description is a bad blazon. Reference to "as more clearly exemplified in the margin" is a cop-out, because it requires one to have the granting document in hand. One might as well revert to the 15th century practice illustrated by a recent thread on English armorial grants to Gascon subjects in the HSS forum, which omit any blazon and simply contain a painting of the shield.