I’ve been exploring the use of a gryphon for use in my arms, but I’m a bit conflicted in how it should be blazoned/emblazoned. Most are the typical, rear half of a lion, with the wings, talons and head of an eagle, but with ears. But there appear to be quite a few variations of the gryphon. Without going into all of them, the only elements that I see consistently is the eagle’s head and lion’s rear, everything else is negotiable. Not to mention the spelling. Gryphon/griffin/griffon
The question then is, how to blazon a gryphon? If I wanted the emblazonment to resemble one like the creature on my military unit crest, it would have lion forelegs and no ears. Is this blazoned as a gryphon, and I work with the artist for a specific emblazonment, or a gryphon with lion forelegs and no ears? Or is there a name for each variation?
A griffin, by whatever spelling, always has ears. What is the unit?
Maybe I’m mistaken. I was told that this was a gryphon. http://imageshack.com/a/img661/644/EQp6gm.jpg
Looks more like an opinicus to me…
Looks like an amateur trying to invent an American griffin. What a heraldic abortion.
(But hey, says the Air Force Historical Research Agency: it has blue and yellow in it and nothing implying that military organizations actually, you know, fight wars or do anything dangerous, so it’s just A-OK with them!)
Griffin, in the crest for units of the Michigan National Guard.
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Handlers/ImageHandler.ashx?id=9557&size=original
Abortion is such a strong word! - if that’ll what it was, I’d expect to see it being swept up on the cutting room floor
Since this is essentially an American military hybrid (a zoological daughter of the regiment) why try to squeeze-fit it into the heraldic blazon of a griffin? - just call it a lion sejeant (or whatever) Or with the head and wings of an eagle Argent?
(Don’t know what term the AF uses, but since this will be for personal arms who cares?)
When dealing with blazons, a griffon is a griffon is a griffon.
If the griffon on the military unit’s insignia doesn’t look like a griffon, it’s still a griffon in the description/blazon right?
I wouldn’t make slight variations to well-established critters in the wording of the blazon since if you want your griffon to be unique, just use artistic license (which is allowed) and call it a day. :D
For example, if I were to emblazon your unit’s insignia, I’d put ears on that griffon (and maybe headphones for when he’s out on the tarmac?).
[EDIT: but headphones do need to be in the blazon, lol]
David Pope;103259 wrote:
Looks more like an opinicus to me…
This seems to make more sense than a gryphon.
Joseph McMillan;103260 wrote:
Looks like an amateur trying to invent an American griffin. What a heraldic abortion.
(But hey, says the Air Force Historical Research Agency: it has blue and yellow in it and nothing implying that military organizations actually, you know, fight wars or do anything dangerous, so it’s just A-OK with them!)
Don’t forget we are talking about the Air Force.
"The mission of the United States Air Force is to fly, fight and win … in air, space and cyberspace."
Verses
"The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas."
(All in good inter-service fun)
Opinicus have lion forelegs and griffon has eagle forelimbs, right?
I can’t find a blazon for 133rd anywhere on the web, but I seriously doubt this was intended to be other than a griffon… just a hunch.
mghofer;103267 wrote:
Don’t forget we are talking about the Air Force.
"The mission of the United States Air Force is to fly, fight and win … in air, space and cyberspace."
Verses
"The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas."
(All in good inter-service fun)
Ah yes, a legacy of my one-time professor and colleague, Buzz Mosely. Great guy, but with a knack for overreaching just a tad. By law, the USAF as an institution does not fight, and by the laws of physics it doesn’t fly in cyberspace. Other than that…
Joseph McMillan;103269 wrote:
...By law, the USAF as an institution does not fight…
Could you clarify that?
Could it be the difference between shooting at folks close enough to shoot back vs. dropping stuff on folks so far down neither of you can really see each other?
Mike~~
25th Infantry Division 1968-69
(though we much appreciated those 500 pounders shaking the ground from 5 km away)
Brad Smith;103270 wrote:
Could you clarify that?
Sure. The key word was "as an institution." I suppose the difference is between a rah-rah motivational mission statement and a mission statement as a clinically accurate description of what an organization is supposed to do.
The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 requires that all operational forces in the U.S. military must be assigned to a combatant command, whose commander reports to the Secretary of Defense. Wars are fought by the joint force through this combatant command structure, not by the military services as such.
The military services are responsible for recruiting, organizing, training, and equipping forces to be employed by the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders. That’s why the Navy’s mission is worded the way it is, and why the Air Force’s mission, as a description of what the organization is really supposed to do, is not what the Air Force PR machinery says it is. The organization headed by the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has no, zero, zilch, responsibility for war-fighting.
Joseph McMillan;103272 wrote:
Sure. The key word was "as an institution." I suppose the difference is between a rah-rah motivational mission statement and a mission statement as a clinically accurate description of what an organization is supposed to do.
The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 requires that all operational forces in the U.S. military must be assigned to a combatant command, whose commander reports to the Secretary of Defense. Wars are fought by the joint force through this combatant command structure, not by the military services as such.
The military services are responsible for recruiting, organizing, training, and equipping forces to be employed by the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders. That’s why the Navy’s mission is worded the way it is, and why the Air Force’s mission, as a description of what the organization is really supposed to do, is not what the Air Force PR machinery says it is. The organization headed by the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has no, zero, zilch, responsibility for war-fighting.
That makes sense.
QuiQuog;103256 wrote:
The question then is, how to blazon a gryphon? If I wanted the emblazonment to resemble one like the creature on my military unit crest, it would have lion forelegs and no ears. Is this blazoned as a gryphon, and I work with the artist for a specific emblazonment, or a gryphon with lion forelegs and no ears? Or is there a name for each variation?
The 12th Aviation Brigade uses the head of a griffon:
Description/Blazon
On a blue rectangle arced at the top and bottom with a 1/8 inch (.32 cm) golden orange border, 3 inches (7.62 cm) in height and 2 inches (5.08 cm) in width overall, a golden orange flame of twelve tongues charged with a blue griffin’s head erased, eye golden orange.
Symbolism
Ultramarine blue and golden orange are the colors traditionally associated with the Aviation Corps. The flame signifies the combat mission and quick strike capabilities of the unit. The twelve tongues allude to the Brigade’s numerical designation. The griffin, a fabulous creature with the body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle, symbolizes courage, alertness and swiftness and reflects the attributes of the Aviation Brigade.
Background
The shoulder sleeve insignia was authorized on 9 March 1988. (TIOH Drawing Number A-1-746)
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Handlers/ImageHandler.ashx?id=2678&size=original