Gentlemen:
I am preparing to commission some professional art work of my personal arms, and would greatly appreciate your comments regarding design, etc. Also, any assistance/corrections to the blazon would be most welcome.
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/334/coayq1.jpg
Arms: Quarterly, 1st and 4th, Gules an arrow fessways Or between three hunting horns Argent stringed Or (Foster); 2nd and 3rd, Argent a double-towered castle portalled, crenellated, and pennanted Azure, three piles Azure each charged with a fleur-de-lis Or, a chief Or thereon a pale Gules fimbriated Argent charged with a swan rampant wings elevated (Deppler).
Crest: A raven holding a quill pen Gules in its dexter talon and resting its dexter talon on a scroll Argent charged with the inscription “Lex” between stags attires Or.
Motto: “Faire Falle the Foster”
Ben, while I am good at the artwork of a blazon, I am still not great on the verbal part of blazoning. I think Hugh Brady, David Boven, Joseph McMillan, Fr. Guy, etc. would be best for that.
That being said, I think the crest should start out, “Between two stag attires…†instead of having that at the end.
But I’m not the expert on this part of it… sorry… hope it helps.
Donnchadh wrote:
...I think the crest should start out, “Between two stag attires…†instead of having that at the end.
I’m no pro either but wouldn’t it be just as appropriate and a little less cumbersome to say "between a stag’s attire"?
That makes sense, Gentlemen.
The two things that I am most unsure of are:
1. The blazon of the maternal arms, given the combination of piles and a chief.
2. The crest, and how to express the fact that the raven is meant to appear as if he is writing on the scroll. "Resting" does not seem to be specific enough.
On a different tack—IMO the hunting horns in the 1st & 4th quazrters should be drawn considerably larger, to better fill the available space & for better visibility, & the arrow perhaps a tad thicker also for greater visibility.
The design of these arms (1st & 4th quarter) is IMO most excellent heraldry, & again IMO would make a striking display unquartered, perhaps tilted & with a simpler helm & manteling. But of course that’s a personal decision, balancing a more striking display of the paternal arms alone vs. the family & sentimental attachment to the (IMO much busier) maternal quartering.
I’ll shaddup now & finish my lunch…
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
On a different tack—IMO the hunting horns in the 1st & 4th quazrters should be drawn considerably larger, to better fill the available space & for better visibility, & the arrow perhaps a tad thicker also for greater visibility.
The design of these arms (1st & 4th quarter) is IMO most excellent heraldry, & again IMO would make a striking display unquartered, perhaps tilted & with a simpler helm & manteling. But of course that’s a personal decision, balancing a more striking display of the paternal arms alone vs. the family & sentimental attachment to the (IMO much busier) maternal quartering.
I’ll shaddup now & finish my lunch…
Michael:
Good eye…To be honest, I have always found the Deppler arms to be far too busy, but they are what they are. As you suggest, I have considered dropping the quartering entirely. I am kicking around a few design ideas at present, and may post them soon. I am starting to feel like these arms are always going to be a work in progress….
Ben Foster wrote:
I have always found the Deppler arms to be far too busy, but they are what they are. As you suggest, I have considered dropping the quartering entirely. I am kicking around a few design ideas at present, and may post them soon. I am starting to feel like these arms are always going to be a work in progress….
I am a little confused. Who are the Deppler, and what arms are they. Why are the Deppler arms on yours? (Mother’s maiden name?) Maybe there’s an explination of this somewhere, and I missed it. I guess I just assumed you were creating arms from a combination of your father’s and mother’s arms, which is why there’s the quarterly arms. Could you enlighten me a little please?
Ben Foster wrote:
2. The crest, and how to express the fact that the raven is meant to appear as if he is writing on the scroll. "Resting" does not seem to be specific enough.
is there a particular reason you couldn’t just say that he was writing on the scroll?
A raven holding a quill pen Gules in its dexter talon and writing the inscription “Lex†on a scroll Argent…
Linusboarder wrote:
I am a little confused. Who are the Deppler, and what arms are they. Why are the Deppler arms on yours? (Mother’s maiden name?) Maybe there’s an explination of this somewhere, and I missed it. I guess I just assumed you were creating arms from a combination of your father’s and mother’s arms, which is why there’s the quarterly arms. Could you enlighten me a little please?
Oops…should have clarified. My grandfather bore the Deppler arms, and my mother is his only child.
true the 2nd and 3rd quarters look busy. but at least they are not ugly busy, which can happen easy in heraldry (i dare say many of the school arms we see are that way).
i also second mike’s observation on needing larger charges on the 1st and 4th quarters. but, if i remember correctly you are going to go to an artist after this and a good heraldic artist will in fact make them larger and make it more in line with what mike is saying and i agree with.
as an artist myself, i have to say i like them as is (busy 2nd and 3rd quarter and all) and i’d keep the arms in a quartered fashion. despite being a quartered coat it is well balanced and the two coats do not nock each other off kilter (which i’ve seen in many quartered arms) and in fact the colors compliment each other.
that being said using the simple arms of Foster would be very attractive as well.
Gentlemen:
I really appreciate all the comments. This is an earlier design I was working with using only the Foster arms. I did not use it with the quartered arms because the argent and chevron vert did not seem to complement the maternal arms as well. This design is very similar to the original Forster arms, differenced by the arrow, and is closer to the arms informally used by my grandfather and great uncle.
Thoughts?
this is nice, but (and may i speak as an artist and therefore a critic?) the arrow is off. to have it fessways on a chevron looks… too odd. there may not be anything wrong with it heraldically speaking. but, artistically it would be better to place it on the stems of the chevron and to use two of them. place the arrow heads towards the summit of the chevron with the feathers to the base of the stems of the chevron. this will satisfy the differencing requirement (i believe) and make for a more pleasing appearance.
otherwise great.
I would suggest two emblazons: one quartered (for historical reasons), and one of the Foster Arms only (for daily use).
I agree with Mike that the Foster arms on their own are magnificent and powerful.
Additionally, you could commission a painted pedigree showing the shields of your father & father-in-law separately; the "marriage arms" respecting each other (for you and your wife); and finally quartered for your son.
Cheers,
—Guy
Ben,
Ben Foster wrote:
Something like this?
Oh, yes; much better with two arrows. Good suggestion, Denny
Guy Power wrote:
I would suggest two emblazons: one quartered (for historical reasons), and one of the Foster Arms only (for daily use).
I agree with Mike that the Foster arms on their own are magnificent and powerful.
Additionally, you could commission a painted pedigree showing the shields of your father & father-in-law separately; the "marriage arms" respecting each other (for you and your wife); and finally quartered for your son.
Cheers,
—Guy
Guy:
GREAT idea! I had not even considered that option.