[ANSTHRLD] Differences

tmcd at panix.com tmcd at panix.com
Wed Feb 22 21:38:35 PST 2006


Rummaging thru old e-mail that I meant to get back to.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Bill Butler <chemistbb3 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is a griffin displayed significantly different from
> other winged birds/heraldic monsters (OK, bad
> working...)displayed so there would not be a conflict?

I'm going to be all picky about terminology and stuff.

There's no such thing as a charge change that always clears conflict.
For example, a maintained charge never counts for difference, no
matter what you do to it.

There's three levels of type difference in the Rules for Submission:
- substantial difference -- used in X.2 and X.4.j.ii
  (*if* their respective preconditions are met)
- significant difference -- used in X.4.e (that is, you can get
  one CD *if* the charges are directly on the field or overall)
- no heraldic difference (artistic licence, maintained charge,
  equivalent charge types, whatever)

I would advise against a "griffin displayed" on the grounds that I've
never seen it in period heraldry -- I've only seen griffins rampant
(segreant, if you prefer), passant, statant, and such -- side views.

There's also this precedent from the November 1995 LoAR, An Tir
returns (I went searching to see whether we'd ever considered a
griffin displayed):

    Tjorkill Kanne.  Device.  Per saltire argent and sable, a griffin
    displayed counterchanged ducally crowned gules.

        The posture of the monster, with the coronet helping to "hide"
        the griffin head's ears and making the outline of the head
        much more complex, only serves to reduce its identifiability
        as a griffin and not a winged lion.  Indeed, many commenters,
        and those attending the Laurel meeting who saw the large
        emblazon, believed upon that it was a winged lion rather than
        a griffin until hearing the blazon.  The counterchanging of
        the monster over the field further confuses the eye.  (Indeed,
        some felt that it was in and of itself sufficiently confusing
        to warrant return on this ground alone.)  As a consequence of
        the visual complexity and difficulty in adequately identifying
        the charge, the device falls afoul of RfS VII.7.a., the
        Identification Requirement.

            A second question noted by some of the commenters was the
        propriety of the posture (displayed) for quadrupeds.  Indeed,
        there have been some quadrupeds recently which have been
        reblazoned as sejant erect affronty, as displayed is
        considered to be a bird posture.  An added difficulty is that
        the monster here does not really appear to be displayed, but
        rather salient affronty, wings displayed.  Such a posture is
        not heraldic, and acts to further reduce the identifiability
        of the charge.

            For all of these reasons, then, this must be returned for
        redesign.

I can see that (pun not intended).  Part of what makes a griffin
identifiable is the beak, the ears, and the foreclaws, which are much
easier to see in side view than in front view.

That premised ...

RfS X.4.e specifies that

    Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for example
    a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different.
    A charge not used in period armory will be considered different in
    type if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different.
    This means a lion would not be clearly different from a puma.

So you will (barring identifiability issues, or other issues, as
above) get at least a CD for type for a griffin, a period charge,
against any other period charge, like eagles, dragons, and such --
WHEN they are charges directly on the field.

Substantial difference tends to be denied only for close variants,
like rounded trees versus pointy trees (oaks versus pines).  I would
expect griffins to get substantial difference, and thus clear conflict
versus eagles, dragons, and such -- IF the griffins are the primary
charges and RfS X.2 applies.

As for what displaying does to type difference: the November 2003 LoAR
Cover Letter finally grabbed the topic of bird difference and tried to
bash it into some sort of order.  One paragraph is

    It is vanishingly rare to find birds other than eagles in the
    displayed posture, while vast multitudes of eagles are found in
    the displayed posture. We thus re-affirm the January 2000 Cover
    Letter precedent (above). All birds (other than eagles) in the
    displayed posture are considered a "weirdness" and are not
    eligible for substantial difference - unless documentation is
    provided showing that the particular type of (non-eagle) bird is
    frequently found in the displayed posture in period.

So even if you don't think the Tjorkill Kanne precedent above kills
all possibilities of griffins displayed, a griffin displayed versus a
non-eagle bird displayed (as primary charges) can never be cleared via
RfS X.2 (because of "not eligible for substantial difference").


There.  I took a simple question and made it hopelessly tangled.
Please let me know the points that I've made most confusing and I'll
try to do more with them.

Danielis "my work here is done" Lindonium
-- 
"Me, I love the USA; I never miss an episode." -- Paul "Fruitbat" Sleigh
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com



More information about the Heralds mailing list