Donnchadh wrote:
I As to other European heraldry, well, I can’t answer, ‘cuz I don’t know if there was a specific helm identification for a knight. Others who know moreon European heraldry will help you on that I’m sure.
As for the German speaking countries - nobility/gentry usually preferred the barred helmet. Commoners would choose the tilting helmet.
However, this is only a rule of thumb. There are many commoners’ arms sporting a barred helmet and vice versa.
Ancient aristocracy (the so-called "Uradel") sometimes displays pot-helmets. However, that is not uncommon for modern arms of commoners either.
Kind regards
Jochen
Nice Linusboarder.
Do you have a motto of choice? You don’t have to have one, but most of us do.
Do you want to take a stab at describing them? I think you should give it a try.
Also you do want the tusks to be Argent as well right? - that is how you have them now - I ask because you might want them to be Azure because if left Argent they may not show well on those checkers that are Argent…just a heads up.
Also, before everyone else starts to say this I guess I will, since you’re new you probably don’t know, but the general rule is to have your name at the bottom of your posts. I didn’t know this until the good Doc mentioned it.
Thanks Jochen. I knew others would have a better idea on other European arms.
I don’t have a motto at all yet, and haven’t even thought about one at all. I always liked Ben Franklin’s "Beer is proof God loves us" line, but it’s probably a little inappropriate for a family motto.
I don’t want the tusks to be azure, might consider changing them to or, but I didn’t like them azure when I tried that. They didn’t show up well to me. Might change them to gules since that is common for bird claws and tongues etc.
I will probably end up with a european emblazenmont and a different emblazonment, just as Menkerios Andemicael has for his. The arms above being the euopean emblazonment and one I would consider more "modern".
I’ll give the blazon a shot, and people can correct me on my mistakes.
I would blazon the arms (and remember this is my first attempt at blazoning):
"Cheque tenne and argent with bendlet sinister azure. Elephant statent azure dexter chief with tusks argent and Otter statent azure sinister base. In bendlet 3 azure atoms "
Colin,
Your blazon describes the arms just fine, and in one sense that should be enough, but blazonry has its own syntax, and I’m afraid that what you’ve written reads to someone who’s been at this a while like a German sentence translated into English word for word.
How about this?
Checky Tenne and Argent on a bendlet sinister between an elephant statant Azure tusked Argent and an otter statant Azure three atoms each with three electron orbits Argent.
I haven’t been following the design process, so I apologize if this has been covered already, but could I suggest two specific things and one general thing:
1. Making the bendlet a bend. It’s generally not a good idea to put charges on a diminutive of an ordinary—some would say it shouldn’t be done at all—because the charges are too small to see and therefore too small to be distinctive. At some point in this, if they haven’t already, someone will tell you about the postage stamp test.
2. Making the bend[let] sinister a regular bend. Just because it’s more normal.
And the general thing: These arms are more complicated than they need to be. Since heraldry is about visual identification, simpler is usually better. Your design minus the atoms would be quite distinctive, almost certainly unique. I’d rethink the atoms, especially since, to me, they are very jarring when juxtaposed with medieval things like helms and mantling. A matter of taste, however, and obviously your call, not mine.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
Checky Tenne and Argent on a bendlet sinister between an elephant statant Azure tusked Argent and an otter statant Azure three atoms each with three electron orbits Argent.
That does sound better. So now it’s [Checky Tenne and Argent on a bend between an elephant statant Azure tusked Argent and an otter statant Azure three atoms each with three electron orbits Argent. (see below)
Joseph McMillan wrote:
1. Making the bendlet a bend. It’s generally not a good idea to put charges on a diminutive of an ordinary—some would say it shouldn’t be done at all—because the charges are too small to see and therefore too small to be distinctive. At some point in this, if they haven’t already, someone will tell you about the postage stamp test.
2. Making the bend[let] sinister a regular bend. Just because it’s more normal.
Both these have been covered, however after reading throughn Von Volborth’s book a bend(let) sinister does start to look a little out of place to me now, (more because in his book he mentions sinister bendlets as an occasional mark of illegitimate children, something I don’t want to convey).
As for making the bendlet a bend, well I like how it lets the atoms show up more, but i dislike how it seems to dwarf the elephant and otter. Here’s the changes you propose above on the arms:
http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/88c50556a5.png
Joseph McMillan wrote:
And the general thing: These arms are more complicated than they need to be. Since heraldry is about visual identification, simpler is usually better. Your design minus the atoms would be quite distinctive, almost certainly unique. I’d rethink the atoms, especially since, to me, they are very jarring when juxtaposed with medieval things like helms and mantling. A matter of taste, however, and obviously your call, not mine.
As I read and reread through von Volborth’s book one thing that strikes me is how arms evolve from century to century as well as have distinct styles from country to country. One thing that strikes me as odd is the stunt of this evolution somewhere in the 18th century.
I guess what I am saying is that I think the atom symbol is not jarring, to me, because it is a good fuse of the traditional heraldic past (with the medieval helm/mantling, along with heraldry in general) and the modern (obviously the atom) along with time neutral charges (the otter and elephant). IMO it seems like a good mix considering when the arms are (going to be) assumed and when I was born. Which is why I kept them in.
I do agree that they may be uneccesary though. I have not decided whether I should leave them out and change to a bendlet, or leave them in and keep it a bend. Both have pros and cons in my book. I think the bendlet looks better, but I like having the atoms in there.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
1. Making the bendlet a bend. It’s generally not a good idea to put charges on a diminutive of an ordinary—some would say it shouldn’t be done at all—because the charges are too small to see and therefore too small to be distinctive. At some point in this, if they haven’t already, someone will tell you about the postage stamp test.
This has been discussed before and as you know I agree with Joe on this. The arms you have pictured on that page prior look to me like a bend. Even though it’s blazoned as a bendlet.
If I were rendering the arms I would make the bendlett smaller than what you have shown. Imagine your arms on a ring and then determine if you want the bendlet or the atoms however, in my humble opinion, I would not do both.
T.R. Griffith wrote:
This has been discussed before and as you know I agree with Joe on this. The arms you have pictured on that page prior look to me like a bend. Even though it’s blazoned as a bendlet.
If I were rendering the arms I would make the bendlett smaller than what you have shown. Imagine your arms on a ring and then determine if you want the bendlet or the atoms however, in my humble opinion, I would not do both.
Not sure i understand what you are saying. I think you’re saying on the previous arms (the ones before i changed from sinister to a dexter bend[let]) that what I had "drawn" was a bend even though I was describing it as a bendlet?
If this is what you are saying then I would be happy, as I liked the look of it before and feel the most recen bend is too big.
I think part of the cramping problem is that you’re using a very stumpy shield. If you make the shield taller you’ll have more room. Also, you could change the otter from statant to maybe "sejant erect" or "salient" in the lower area, so he’d stretch with his tail and back feet toward the base and with his head and forefeet raised up (very otterish). The elephant would then fit well in the sinister chief area.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
I think part of the cramping problem is that you’re using a very stumpy shield. If you make the shield taller you’ll have more room. Also, you could change the otter from statant to maybe "sejant erect" or "salient" in the lower area, so he’d stretch with his tail and back feet toward the base and with his head and forefeet raised up (very otterish). The elephant would then fit well in the sinister chief area.
Very good ideas, thank you. I am going to have trouble finding clip art of a salient otter, but i will see what I can do in photoshop. Just another challenge I like the idea of a taller shield as well, I will see what I can find.
I liked those changes a lot Joseph, here’s what I came up with:
http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/d24763aee7.pnghttp://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/78fd84b179.png
Personally i think i like the elephant in sinister chief and the otter in dexter base
also remember that when you have an artist render it he may do so with any variety of shields.
but, i strongly recommend that you find a more appropriate shield in order to make it and have a the "fridge" test.
question: why did you put the elephant in base instead of in chief when you switched from a bendlet sinister to bend? - just curious.
Donnchadh wrote:
question: why did you put the elephant in base instead of in chief when you switched from a bendlet sinister to bend? - just curious.
Thought it would look better there, but after playing with it a little I was able to move the salient otter to the base and the elephant back to chief, and I like that a lot more now. I went ahead and added that image in, but it was after you posted
it does look nice. also i think you did a good job of trying to write out your own arms. very good. take joe’s advice on this matter (syntax), but you still did a good job.