Coast Guard Cutters’ CoA now on TIOH

 
Marcus K
 
Avatar
 
 
Marcus K
Total Posts:  3368
Joined  06-05-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2007 14:00
 

The newest addition to the armorial on the TIOH site is a range of CoA of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutters http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/CoastGuard/CGCutters.htm

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/CG_Graphics/USCGCAspenCOA.jpg

USCGC Aspen.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 February 2007 16:18
 

Hate the motto, love the aspen leaves.

A WLB is a buoy tender, which explains the buoy proper in sinister chief as well as the red-white division of the field.  I’m betting the ship is assigned to San Francisco, judging by the Golden Gate Bridge in the crest.

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2007 17:25
 

One wonders about the blazon of the line of partition here as "crested" instead of "wavy crested".

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2007 17:26
 

The naval crown in the emblazonment here should not be jewelled.  Despite its description as a "crown" it is a mere coronet, and as such is no more jewelled than any other crest-coronet-type coronet would be.

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2007 17:29
 

The blazon as points dexter and sinisterhere isn’t going to be anything other than deeply confusing.  They should have been called piles charged on the chief and issuant from the dexter and sinister.

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2007 17:30
 

It’s interesting that these arms are on a lozenge.  Very few corporate arms have a "feminine personality" in this way—an example was Maidenhead in England.

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2007 17:31
 

Although the term "in point" is used here, it should really be "throughout".  "In point" puts a small lozenge in the base point of the shield.

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2007 17:35
 

Once again, the use of the term stylized as regards the label doesn’t add anything but confusion for the artist looking to the blazon for guidance.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
27 February 2007 18:25
 

Daniel C. Boyer wrote:

The naval crown in the emblazonment here should not be jewelled.  Despite its description as a "crown" it is a mere coronet, and as such is no more jewelled than any other crest-coronet-type coronet would be.


I have to disagree with you on the jewels. The naval coronet is serving as a charge rather than a crest coronet so it being jeweled or not jeweled is dependent upon the official blazon rather than tradition.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
27 February 2007 18:30
 

Daniel C. Boyer wrote:

Once again, the use of the term stylized as regards the label doesn’t add anything but confusion for the artist looking to the blazon for guidance.


The term sylised does tell me something though, that the label is not one of the standard depictions of a label. If I were the artist, I would then look to the original granting document for more information.

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
28 February 2007 10:16
 

David Pritchard wrote:

The term sylised does tell me something though, that the label is not one of the standard depictions of a label. If I were the artist, I would then look to the original granting document for more information.


Sure, but this is the problem.  The blazon should be self-explanatory, not a cross-reference to an emblazonment in a grant (and not, ideally, something that requires you to do research into an extra-heraldic field either); that’s the whole point of blazon.  In this context, the term just warns you rather than giving you any constructive information.

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
28 February 2007 11:32
 

David Pritchard wrote:

I have to disagree with you on the jewels. The naval coronet is serving as a charge rather than a crest coronet so it being jeweled or not jeweled is dependent upon the official blazon rather than tradition.


And in the official blazon it is stated to be "proper," and the expectation would be that, as really a type of crest coronet (though not so serving; any kind of crest coronet could be a charge as well, but you wouldn’t expect them to be jewelled, would you?) rather than a true crown, it would not be jewelled (one would only expect this if the blazon stated "a naval coronet jewelled proper," though that would make for a slight shock.  The crest coronets are typically shown like British coronets in that there is chasing on the rim in the outlines of jewels but they don’t actually contain jewels.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
28 February 2007 14:06
 

Daniel C. Boyer wrote:

And in the official blazon it is stated to be "proper," and the expectation would be that, as really a type of crest coronet (though not so serving; any kind of crest coronet could be a charge as well, but you wouldn’t expect them to be jewelled, would you?) rather than a true crown, it would not be jewelled (one would only expect this if the blazon stated "a naval coronet jewelled proper," though that would make for a slight shock. The crest coronets are typically shown like British coronets in that there is chasing on the rim in the outlines of jewels but they don’t actually contain jewels.


The fact that British naval coronets are not jewelled does not mean that no naval coronet can be jewelled.  The Brazilian Navy uses jewelled naval coronets:

 

http://www.demoura.com.br/pics/dpc.png

 

(Directorate of Ports and Coasts, Brazilian Navy)

 

As does the Chilean Navy:

 

http://www.armada.cl/ms/comandante_jefe/imag/escudo.jpg

(Commander in Chief)

 

And even, apparently, the Royal Australian Navy:

 

http://www.navy.gov.au/badges/crest_kanimbla.gif

(HMAS Kanimbla)

 

In fact, I’m not so sure one can say that they are never jewelled even in the Royal Navy:

 

http://www.hmslochlomond.co.uk/images/lolobadge.jpg

 

Albeit this may not be an official emblazonment.

 

In any case, who is to say that the United States Coast Guard—or for that matter the United States Army Institute of Heraldry—are bound by English rules in this or any other matter?

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
28 February 2007 14:16
 

Joseph McMillan wrote:

The fact that British naval coronets are not jewelled does not mean that no naval coronet can be jewelled.  The Brazilian Navy uses jewelled naval coronets:

http://www.demoura.com.br/pics/dpc.png

 

(Directorate of Ports and Coasts, Brazilian Navy)

 

As does the Chilean Navy:

 

http://www.armada.cl/ms/comandante_jefe/imag/escudo.jpg

(Commander in Chief)

 

And even, apparently, the Royal Australian Navy:

 

http://www.navy.gov.au/badges/crest_kanimbla.gif

(HMAS Kanimbla)

 

In fact, I’m not so sure one can say that they are never jewelled even in the Royal Navy:

 

http://www.hmslochlomond.co.uk/images/lolobadge.jpg

 

Albeit this may not be an official emblazonment.

 

In any case, who is to say that the United States Coast Guard—or for that matter the United States Army Institute of Heraldry—are bound by English rules in this or any other matter?


Clearly they are not, except perhaps in this case to an extent you wouldn’t really use the word "bound" for—that previous practice (and it’s not necessarily true that English practice should be preferred to that elsewhere) is going to create a set of expectations as to how artists are going to realise the emblazonments from the blazon, which is really the basic practice of heraldry, and thus this might be preferred—that is, that people aren’t going to "get" "jewelled" when the blazon reads "naval crown proper" unless it’s specifically mentioned, so if that’s what the Institute of Heraldry wants, it should be.  (However, from reading numerous Institute of Heraldry blazons the preponderance of glaring errors, many of which I’ve catalogued here, would lead one to question whether this is the case, or TIOH simply doesn’t know what it’s doing.) The examples you give are worthless without blazons undermining my point which is not that naval crowns (I believe this to be equivalent to "coronet" in this case, and thus the non-jewelling, as that is after all the essential difference, especially where crest coronets are concerned) should never be jewelled, but that as "proper" and without the term "jewelled" appearing, as here, there should not be jewels.

 
emrys
 
Avatar
 
 
emrys
Total Posts:  852
Joined  08-04-2006
 
 
 
28 February 2007 16:17
 

this is the CoA of the dutch frigate De Ruyter with a different kind of naval crown with jewels.

http://www.nederlandse-marine.nl/afbeeldingen/wapens/wpn_ruyter.jpg

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
28 February 2007 17:48
 

emrys wrote:

this is the CoA of the dutch frigate De Ruyter with a different kind of naval crown with jewels.


You beat me to it.  So here’s the emblem of the Dutch frigate De Zeven Provincien.  With jewels:

 

http://www.marine.nl/images/ZPRV embleem-199_tcm10-20047.jpg

 

I think, logically, that if a number of countries use naval crowns of various designs with jewels, while only those navies that take their traditions from the Royal Navy use naval crowns without jewels, the burden of proof lies on those who claim that "without jewels" is the norm.

 

Now here’s one from Canada without jewels, HMCS Yellowknife.

 

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_images/ship_site_images/ship_about/706/yellowknife_72.jpg