I’ve noticed that some folks go to great lengths to describe how an animal is langued, armed, beaked, tusked, etc. and some do not. Is there an internal standard for this, like all eagles are beaked and armed Or and langued Gules unless otherwise stated?
Unless otherwise specificed, beasts and birds of prey are generally beaked, armed, and/or langued Gules unless the beast/bird or the field are Gules. If the field or the charge are Gules, then the talons, claws, tongue, whatever, switch to Azure, at least in British heraldry. Nevertheless, a lot of people prefer to blazon the arming, languing, etc., even if it conforms to the default.
Ah. Thank you!
And, upon a bit of research, it also seems that the occasional artist goes the extra mile and may add a bit here and there to make the whole look best, even if it’s not in the blazon.
How fiddly do we get with it? I have to ask, because I was an accountant for almost 20 years and that means I have a tendency to get WAY fiddlier (that’s technical jargon 
) than almost anyone other than an accountant deems necessary. So, I need to know when to say, "Oh, man that looks great" and walk away rather than saying, "Hey! That’s not how it’s blazoned!"
Here are some examples from the members’ arms:
Hook’s blazon has an eagle Gules set for a crest. And I’ll be darned if that eagle isn’t Gules all the way down to the label in its underwear. My accountant side says, "Yep. That’s an eagle Gules."
Valerezo-Duenas’ blazon has an eagle Sable set for a crest. The artist has beaked and footed the bird Or, langued it Gules and armed it Argent. The bean-counter deep within me responds, "That’s not an eagle Sable-that’s and eagle Sable beaked and footed Or, etc." It looks terrific, however.
So, how much license do we give the artist?
RE: artistc license—I’m sure there is a rule (or any number of competing rules) out there somewhere, but I would use the following rules of thumb:
If the blazon is specific, then it must be followed.
If not, then one should generally try to follow any widely accepted "defaults"—e.g. three charges are generally "2 and 1," teeth/beaks & claws are generally red, or if not blue, charges on an ordinary generaly aligh with that ordinary, etc., unless otherwise stated.
Especially in small scale work, defaults as to minor points (different colored teeth etc.) can be ignored.
Other than that, any artistic variation that would not result in "different" arms is fair game for the artist; but variations that would qualify as sufficient to distinguish two coats of arms are not fair game. (Think of several portraits of Aunt Molly—if its still her, the artist is within his license; but if it starts to look like her (non-twin) sister, the artist has gone too far.)
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
RE: artistc license—I’m sure there is a rule (or any number of competing rules) out there somewhere, but I would use the following rules of thumb:
If the blazon is specific, then it must be followed.
If not, then one should generally try to follow any widely accepted "defaults"—e.g. three charges are generally "2 and 1," teeth/beaks & claws are generally red, or if not blue, charges on an ordinary generaly aligh with that ordinary, etc., unless otherwise stated.
Especially in small scale work, defaults as to minor points (different colored teeth etc.) can be ignored.
Other than that, any artistic variation that would not result in "different" arms is fair game for the artist; but variations that would qualify as sufficient to distinguish two coats of arms are not fair game. (Think of several portraits of Aunt Molly—if its still her, the artist is within his license; but if it starts to look like her (non-twin) sister, the artist has gone too far.)
Ah, thanks, Mike. Makes sense.