[Ansteorra] Why aren't we doing this?

[Tim McDaniel]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, Jay Rudin <rudin at peoplepc.com> wrote:
> In (very) early days, many (not all) in the West said 1550, many
> (not all) in the East said 1650, the original corporate documents
> did not get precise, and everyone repeated what they had heard as if
> it were the One True Way.

In the SCA College of Arms, they first said English-style armory from
1300-1450, then 1485, and only at some later time 1600.

<http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/early/earlydayscombined.html#arms>
"The original purpose of arms was to distinguish warriors on the field
and in the lists. This same purpose is the main point to consider in
choosing arms. For this reason, the College uses as a model Englis[h]
heraldry of the period 1300 to 1450. (JvG, Summer 1970 [6], p. 8)"

"It was decided to raise the cut-off date for the period approved by
the College from 1450 to 1485, the date of the end of the Plantagenet
line in England considered as marking the end of the Middle Ages in
that country. (HB, 1 Jan 71 [10], p. 1)"

<http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/wilhelm/wilhelmcombined.html#period>
"Charges, monsters, and usages created between the years 1601 and 1966
may not be used under any name or description, as they are out of
period. ... [LoAR 23 Jan 81], p. 10"

(The College of Arms has "the grey area" for certain later usages, but
since I don't have the precedents to hand, I won't go into it here.)

I wonder if maybe an early Known World Handbook specified 1650?

Daniel de Lincoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com