No subject

coffin is depicted in period art 1496 as one of the Danse Macabre motifs an=
d
has been previously registered in the SCA.

5) Ferchar mac Ailella (Bjornsborg)
[Name] Ferchar: pick your time from 678 to 1169.  The Annals of Ulster
U695.6, U786.1, U795.5, U850.1, U869.3, U881.1, U1169.4.
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G100001/  Annals of Tigernach T678.4, T1158.7=
,
T1169.1.  http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G100002/
Ailella: Genealogies from Rawlinson compiled by Donnchadh O Corr=E1in
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G105003/index.html lists the name in the
collection of pre-1130 genealogies.

6) Kathryn atte Unicorn (Namron)
[Name] Crying statues and Madonnas have been around since at least the
1600s.  GROUPS / Pilgrimage Tours / Pilgrimage sanctuaries in Poland
http://www.mazurkas.com.pl/wa/incoming/groups/progrmy_pielgrzymkowe_b.html
KALWARIA ZEBRZYDOWSKA - "As early as 1658 the picture of the Mother of God
with Child, also called the Weeping Madonna, was recognized by Church
authorities as "famous for miracles"." BARDO - "Around 1400 the Mother of
God weeping was supposed to have appeared here and left Her footprint."  Th=
e
OED demonstrates weeping dates from 1575 as an adjective for a crying figur=
e
and unicorn is dated from 1315 and later.  Examples from OED volume 12 page
260 headers weeping and weeping cross: 1425 wepynge woman, 1450-1530 weping
child, 1596 weeping phylosopher, 1575 weeping eyes, 1550 wepinge Roodes (ie
a cross), 1597 weeping clouds, 1579 weeping Crosse.  A mythological creatur=
e
such as a unicorn can be depicted on an inn sign.  Madonna icons were flat
images which were depicted as weeping and named weeping madonnas.  If an
icon of Mary can be depicted in period as weeping then a unicorn can as
well.  Since a unicorn can be depicted on an inn sign then a weeping unicor=
n
could be as well.
[Badge] The unicorn is drawn correctly this time.

7) Marquet de la Hyet (Adlersruhe)
[Device] Add this to the appeal:  The appeal is based on consideration give=
n
at kingdom for the submission.  The month of its submission only two
commenters considered it.  One supported a return and the other to send it
forward for CoA to rule on the matter.  This commenter feels that style
questions such as this should be ruled on at society level to establish
clear precedents.  Op art returns are fairly rare and many heralds I asked
couldn't give me a definition of it.  Op art or optical art usually involve=
s
excessive counterchanging with many geometric charges so as to look like
abstract art or Escher paintings.  The submitter's armory uses no
counterchanging and only 2 standard heraldic charges.  Let us look at what
has been returned as op art over the last 20 years:
    December 1998 LoAR Hrorek Wolfson. Device. Quarterly lozengy argent and
sable counterchanged.  Even if there had been no conflict this would have
been returned for violating RfS VIII.3 for excessive counterchanging, and
for violating RfS VIII.4 on op-art.
    March 1998 LoAR Hakon Gordon. Device. Per pale sable and Or, a reremous=
e
displayed head to dexter, tail elongated to base between three points
pointed counterchanged.
"Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts, in practice
only the base one appears to have been used; and even in the tracts, the
dexter and sinister points are described as abatements of honor, to be used
separately, and not in conjunction." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR April 1992, p.
19).  Furthermore, the combination of the points, the reremouse, and the
counterchanging, make this into "op art" and not heraldry.
    (Note: one of the most egregious examples.)  February 1998 LoAR
[returning Per fess bendy sinister gules and Or and chevronny Or and gules
per pale counterchanged.] This is being returned for violating RfS.VIII.4.d=
.
- Modern Style. "Charges may not be used to create abstract or op-art
designs". (Turgeis av Markland, 2/98 p. 19)
    July 1997 LoAR [returning Per saltire vert and argent, a gurges
counterchanged] This is being returned for excessive counterchanging and
unidentifiability. The counterchanging removes the identifiability (such as
it is in the first place) of the gurges. Furthermore this submission runs
afoul of RfS VIII.4.d, Modern Style, since it resembles an op-art designs.
(Tomas de Valle de Bravo, 7/97 p. 20)
    April 1996 LoAR Leximus Taurus. Device. Sable, a fess argent, a triangl=
e
throughout counterchanged between three columns argent.  The badge lacks th=
e
visual cohesiveness that is normally expected for period style, giving this
a very modern appearance. (See RfS VIII.4. "Armory may not use obtrusively
modern designs.") It also has a bit of a "field/ground" confusion: Is the
field sable with an argent triangle throughout, or is the field argent,
chap=E9 and a base sable? (See RfS VIII.3. "Elements must be used in a desi=
gn
so as to preserve their individual identifiability." and VII.7.a. "Elements
must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") Though each of the
individual elements of the design are period, the way in which they are
combined here is far more reminiscent of 20th Century design and the
geometrics of "op-art" than period armory. (RfS VIII.4.d. "Generally modern
style in the depiction of individual elements or the total design may not b=
e
registered. Artistic techniques and styles developed after 1600 should not
be used in Society armory. Charges may not be used to create abstract or
op-art designs....")
    May 1994 LoAR [Returning Gules, a triangle inverted between three
triangles one and two, all between three broadarrows inverted argent.] The
arrangement of the triangles does not appear to be a period arrangement, bu=
t
a modern artistic style. [5/94, p.17]
    And this one is registered.  February 1992 LoAR [Quarterly argent and
sable, a mascle counterchanged. ] "The device is right at the very edge of
acceptability, being highly reminiscent of a modern 'op art' style." (LoAR
2/92 p.15).
    March 1987 LoAR Marco Nibbione. Device. Per saltire sable and argent, a
heart counterchanged charged with another gules.  This was returned in
October, 1986, on the grounds that the design was an "op art" modern design
as banned in X3. Vesper appealed this on the grounds that the device, while
not the most medieval, was not excessive, that the Rules specifically allow
the inclusion of one discouraged practice and that the submission is being
penalized for the tinctures selected (that the perception of "op art" would
not have been strong had the tinctures been Or and azure). The last point i=
s
definitely not true, since several "op art" analogs raised at the time were
Or and azure or vert and azure. We also cannot accept the principle that in
any situation one discouraged practice must be allowed under the wording of
the current rules: by that argument the use of only one highly offensive
charge in a device would have to be accepted (each of us will think
immediately of our own personal bete noire) or unsuitable fimbriation would
have to be accepted if it were applied to only one charge. This was clearly
not the intent of either Master Baldwin or of the College of Arms and the
use of the subjunctive "may" throughout the introduction to the list of
discouraged practices should be observed. However, given the further
thoughts and commentary on the part of the College, we are prepared to
concede we may have been a tad "overEscheristic" in deeming this flagrantly
"op art".
     August 1987 LoAR [A chevron, surmounted by three piles in point
counterchanged, the central one charged] There was a general feeling in the
College that this was non-period in style, being excessively "op-artish" in
appearance. It is also overly complex.... "The field is the first layer. Th=
e
chevron is the second. The piles are the third, and so the [tertiary] is th=
e
fourth layer, which is not allowed." (LoAR Aug 87, p. 12)
     October 1979 LoAR Tameichi Takeda. Gules, on a fess argent a delf
gules, surmounted by a delf per saltire argent charged with a delf sable
pierced argent.  This is six layers, which is too much. If you remove the
sable delf pierced argent I will pass the thing. Right now it is op art, no=
t
heraldry.

     Now consider items of similar design motif that have been registered
which could support that this submission is not op art or modern style:
Damon Kirby September of 1996 (via the Middle):
"Argent vetu gules, four lozenges in cross gules."
Tamlyn of Wyntersea April of 1994 (via An Tir):
"(Fieldless) Four lozenges in cross azure, overall a mascle argent."
Margret of Cheshire January of 1990 (via An Tir):
"Purpure, three lozenges conjoined in pall inverted Or, each charged with a
mascle gules, all within a bordure Or."
Archon the Seeker September of 1985 (via Meridies):
"Sable, in chief a lozenge fesswise argent charged with a mascle fesswise
vert, all within an orle argent."
Adrienne Morgaine de Beaumont August of 1986 (via Caid):
"Azure, a mascle Or conjoined in cross with four lozenges argent."
Garin de Gramercy March of 1983 (via the West):
"Argent, v=EAtu ploy=E9, a fret azure."

8) Barony of Namron
[Badge] The pile on fieldless motif is grandfathered to Namron.  Barony of
Namron, August 1980: "(Fieldless) A pile wavy Or."  for the Order of the
Heart of the Sable Storm.
It would be nice to see a pile wavy vairy to vacuum up the little squirrels
and a pile wavy plumetty after a tornado hit the henhouse.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp