Unintentional ursurpation?

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
17 June 2007 21:59
 

Someone sent me a photo of the following design, indicating that it might be a good idea to redesign my arms. Apparently, my design is easily recognized today in Germany, since it was used on the 5, 10, and 50 Reichspfennig (Reichsmark) from 1924-1936.  I am not happy about this, and I need to give it some thought.  I would welcome any comments about this issue.

[ATTACH]278[/ATTACH]

 
Andrew J Vidal
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew J Vidal
Total Posts:  567
Joined  13-10-2006
 
 
 
17 June 2007 22:13
 

As said in chat, I would leave them as is.  You didn’t intentionally swipe them from another CoA, nor is there any CoA that exists with the same design so far as you’re aware.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
17 June 2007 22:16
 

I do not see any problem with the design of your arms. The interwoven rye stalks used on these German coins were devised for the Weimar Republic and not the Nazi Government.

 
PBlanton
 
Avatar
 
 
PBlanton
Total Posts:  808
Joined  06-11-2005
 
 
 
17 June 2007 22:25
 

I, too, would leave them as is.  There was no intentional ursurpation and I feel that your orle of roses significantly distinguishes it.  Also, no need to worry about ill omens or whatnot—the time period that these coins were used fell between the World Wars, not during them.  Furthermore, your design rationale (as described on the USHR site) shows that your design was thoroughly thought out and in no way refers to the above-mentioned Reichspfennig.

Take care,

 
 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
17 June 2007 22:28
 

David Pritchard;46352 wrote:

I do not see any problem with the design of your arms. The interwoven wheat stalks used on these German coins were devised for the Weimar Republic and not the Nazi Government.


The design is related to the Roggenmark (Rye Mark) which was based on the value of rye. This was replaced by the Reichsmark in 1924, and the design continued until 1936, when the rye was replaced by the Swastika.  The crossed rye was considered a national symbol during Nazi rule, which lasted from 1933 - 1945.  So the design is associated with the beginning of the Nazi party.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 June 2007 23:09
 

It doesn’t matter that the Nazis used it.  They used lots of things as emblems.  You didn’t adopt it as a Nazi emblem, virtually no one will take it for a Nazi emblem.  Your arms are fine; leave well enough alone.

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
17 June 2007 23:14
 

Leave your arms as they are; heraldry is chock-full of unintended duplications.  Your arms are unique overall—I didn’t notice a bordure of roses on the Reichsmark!  :D

—Guy

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 June 2007 23:29
 

Another thing:  check your own chronology.  The crossed rye was used long before the Nazis came to power and was replaced soon after they came to power.  If it had any special meaning for the Nazis, wouldn’t it be more logical to assume they would have kept it than that they would have gotten rid of it from the coins?

A basic rye garb was used on several denominations in 1923-24 and continued on the 1 & 2 Reichspfennig pieces until 1936:

 

http://worldcoingallery.com/countries/img4/73-37.jpg

 

Does three years of use under the Nazis mean everyone has to give up using the garb in their arms?

 

Starting in 1927, the rye on the 50 Pfennig coin was replaced by an eagle.

 

http://worldcoingallery.com/countries/img4/73-49.jpg

 

This coin stayed in use through 1938.  Does the fact that the Nazis didn’t replace it immediately somehow taint the use of an eagle?

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
18 June 2007 00:23
 

I am concerned less with the Nazi connection than I am with the fact that people recognize the design as something from common coinage.  The eagle and garb are generic charges, but the crossed rye is not.

Joe: If someone sent you this, then I bet you’d have a sinking feeling for a split second.

 

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH]280[/ATTACH]

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
18 June 2007 00:46
 

Michael Swanson;46362 wrote:

Joe: If someone sent you this, then I bet you’d have a sinking feeling for a split second.

Oooooohhhh! That’s good Mike!

Seriously, you have nothing to worry about—though a very similar design, we are in a different heraldic jurisdiction.

 

Regards,

—Guy

 
Stephen R. Hickman
 
Avatar
 
 
Stephen R. Hickman
Total Posts:  700
Joined  01-12-2006
 
 
 
18 June 2007 00:47
 

It is a coin—not a CoA.  No heraldic usurpation occured.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
18 June 2007 00:53
 

Guy Power;46364 wrote:

though a very similar design, we are in a different heraldic jurisdiction.


By that logic, anything in another country is fair game.  Is that your heraldic chaos theory?

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
18 June 2007 01:06
 

Ecclesiastes 1:9 - What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

As far as I know, the demi-priest in my crest is unique.  As far as I know.  Some day, someone will no doubt send me a picture and say "Hey, look at this."  To which I will simply reply, "Interesting."

 

Traditionally, the bearing of arms is the mark of a gentleman.  No one here will question your right to bear the arms you designed for yourself under that condition.  Every charge we use is "common" to some place at some time.  We design arms that are meaningful to us in the here and now.  We do not, and cannot, know every possible permutation and combination that has been used in heraldry through the centuries.  (And this example isn’t even heraldry, but coinage.)  You designed your arms with integrity, with no intent to defraud.  Do not change a thing.  Bear your arms with pride, dear sir.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
18 June 2007 01:37
 

The fact that just one element of your arms is recognizable as being similar to a symbol used on a coin shouldn’t really matter. Your arms are still unique enough to be yours alone. Having arms that are unique doesn’t mean that they can’t still have similarities to other symbols used in varying media. It sounds like you’ve already decided you want to change your arms and you simply want all of us to confirm that for you. However, so far everyone who has responded (including me) has advised you leave your arms alone. You should consider what the consensus is and take some comfort regarding your original design.

 
DRShorey
 
Avatar
 
 
DRShorey
Total Posts:  528
Joined  11-12-2005
 
 
 
18 June 2007 02:35
 

Leave them as they are Mike. I have seen many dolphins on arms too…

Dave

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 June 2007 06:49
 

Michael Swanson;46362 wrote:

I am concerned less with the Nazi connection than I am with the fact that people recognize the design as something from common coinage. The eagle and garb are generic charges, but the crossed rye is not.

Joe: If someone sent you this, then I bet you’d have a sinking feeling for a split second.


For a split second, maybe. Until I realized that the first design was used on a coin, not as a badge, by a perfectly respectable democratic government and was abandoned by the totalitarian dictatorship soon after it took power.

 

Is your issue unintentional usurpation period, or is it that the design was used under the Nazis?

 

If the former, then as you well understand, arms consist of charges and tinctures. Coins have no tinctures. If someone had born the crossed-rye motif in gold on a black shield—and even if you knew about it—your arms would still be sufficiently different because of the change of tincture and the addition of the roses. Even if they had used it in gold on red, if you didn’t know about it you’d still be innocent, and the roses would be a sufficient difference.

 

Is every non-armorial motif ever on a coin anywhere to be off-limits for arms? No more sprigs of three oak leaves (German coins under the Federal Republic). No more horses or salmon (Ireland). No more eagles (US, Germany). No more roses or thistles (UK).

 

As for the Nazi connection: forget it. There is none.