[ANSTHRLD] A platypus and two sporks

Bob Wade logiosophia at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 16 19:21:20 PST 2012

Yes, an Individually Attested Pattern http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/sena.html#A4 (fka as a  Regional Exception under the RfS) may be documentable, but the research must also document that the charges themselves and their arrangement were also used in the same region.
For this submission, that would mean documenting "in a single time and place"(1) Multiple examples of:"Sable, a beast gules and overall a charge group Or." and(2) At least one instance of (2a) a "platypus" (Or beaver if the submitter likes the idea) as a charge, (2b) a "spork" (Or other utensil if the submitter likes the idea) as a charge and (2c) an overall charge group of two charges in saltire.
Does the submitter want the design bad enough to do the research, Francois?
--- On Fri, 11/16/12, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:

From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com>
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] A platypus and two sporks
To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Date: Friday, November 16, 2012, 7:07 PM

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Ron <eirik at hot.rr.com> wrote:
>> Return for color on color: red charge on black.
>> Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory
>> http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/sena.html#A3B
> Excuse me while I have a discussion with Daniel.
> A return is not automatic. If there is documented examples of a
> gules charge on a sable field, I refer you to SENA A.4.A
> (http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/sena.html#A4) which states: " Any
> armorial design that does not fit within our core style rules may
> still be registered if it can be documented as following a pattern
> of period practice within the armorial style of a single time and
> place within the temporal scope of the Society. ...." Follow the
> link for specific instructions on how to document the pattern.

It's a point for more advanced heralds to know, so it shouldn't be
considered a discussion with me in particular.

I think a better way to word it is "A return for color-on-color, or
other style problems, can sometimes be avoided."  But some returns are
unavoidable (q.v.).

It *is* possible to avoid a return for style via SENA A.4, Armory
Individually Attested Patterns.  However, it is stated in

    B. The Burden of Proof: The College of Arms and the kingdom
    colleges of heralds should work to provide suitable documentation
    to register a submission.  However, it is ultimately the
    submitter's responsibility to demonstrate that a submission meets
    the standards set forth in these rules; a complete lack of
    documentation can be cause for return.  It is not the
    responsibility of the Laurel office to demonstrate that a
    submission does not meet these standards.  When the evidence is
    equivocal, such as when there is limited reliable dated
    information about a specific culture, in general the submitter
    should be given the benefit of the doubt.

and no documentation was provided.  But kingdom commenters usually
make efforts to fill in documentation.

Further, A.4 says

- "Documentation under the Individually Attested Pattern rules does
  not exempt a design from conflict, presumption, or offense rules."
  That's what I meant above by "Some returns are unavoidable".
  Even if you find period swastikas or Red Crosses, you can't register

- "All elements in an Individually Attested Pattern must be found in
  that single time and place, including charges, arrangement of charge
  groups, and lines of division."  So, as I read that, you'd need
  three examples of platypodes in independent coats of arms in some
  single period time and place.

- I've read further but don't have the time at the moment to think
  carefully about it.  I'm not sure, but I think you might be required
  to show also three examples of a high-contrast charge group overall
  of a single gules primary charge with a complex outline on a sable
  field, or more examples that "bracket" such a pattern.  However, I'm
  not sure of this point, because high-contrast overall charges per se
  are part of the "core SCA style", and the way it's worded, it's not
  clear to me that you have to document them.

And ultimately, regardless of whatever you find on color on color, the
use of a platypus itself is still cause for return (without
documentation, and I'd bet a large sum of money you can't find that,
unless it's some other charge that was drawn to look much like a

Danet Lincoln
-- Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org

More information about the Heralds mailing list