Trump University Coat of Arms

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
27 March 2008 13:54
 

*gag!*

I shudder to expose you to this piece of mish-mash tripe, but .... a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do!

 

Behold:

 

http://www.westerncapitalfinancial.com/VC/trump_logo.jpg

 

—Guy

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
27 March 2008 13:58
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
27 March 2008 15:53
 

Michael Swanson;56227 wrote:

Too late.  We are immune.

http://americanheraldry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1814&highlight=trump


Darn it!  Where’s that doggone "embarassed" icon when ya need one?

 

Blushingly yours,

—Guy (day late and dollar short) Power

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
27 March 2008 16:40
 

Aside from the bad "logo-heraldry" is there anything this guy doesn’t try sticking his paws into? Whatever happened to really rich people who just did one thing like oil or tobacco or something?

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
27 March 2008 17:54
 

Like Sir Richard Branson? Always expanding their enterprises.

 
arriano
 
Avatar
 
 
arriano
Total Posts:  1303
Joined  20-08-2004
 
 
 
27 March 2008 18:00
 

Donnchadh;56242 wrote:

Like Sir Richard Branson? Always expanding their enterprises.


Yeah, but I’d rather hang out with Sir Richard any day rather than with The Donald.

 

But that makes me think—Does Richard Branson have a COA?

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
27 March 2008 18:06
 

Playing devil’s advocate—

setting aside for the moment personal opinions re: Mr. Trump, as not directly relevant to the heraldry itself—

 

1) The design is at least relatively simple, clear, & easy to recognize

 

2) The design can be blazoned and does not violate any of the usual heraldic "rules" (color & metal, etc.)

 

3) It is likely unique, unless there was a similar logo for some brand of cigarettes or inexpensive distilled beverage that I’ve missed (and in my younger years I didn’t miss many of either persuasion!)

 

4)  The artwork, while nothing to write home about, is at least adequate—the chevrons & lion, as drawn, are clearly those charges

 

and best of all,

 

5) We’ve seen much worse from people we would have expected better from.

 

So what’s the beef? (or soy-based simulated meat-like product?)

 

(Name withheld to protect the allegedly innocent—but hey, with the recent enthusiasm for de-linking name & arms, the avatar should be more than sufficient!)

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
27 March 2008 19:29
 

Michael F. McCartney;56245 wrote:

. . . . 3) It is likely unique, unless there was a similar logo for some brand of cigarettes or inexpensive distilled beverage that I’ve missed (and in my younger years I didn’t miss many of either persuasion!)

......(Name withheld to protect the allegedly innocent—but hey, with the recent enthusiasm for de-linking name & arms, the avatar should be more than sufficient!)

 


Okay M. McCartney.  No, that’s to obvious.  Let’s just say Mike M.  :D

 

Are you saying we have conditioned ourselves to dislike what The Donald does?  I think you raise a good point.  At the very least The Donald is raising the profile of heraldry, albeit bad heraldry.  My two gripes with this particular arms are:  1) that the chevron sits too high in the shield making it look like bucket shop heraldry; 2) the artwork could be much better considering The Donald is loaded (well at least more loaded than the rest of us combined).

 

The Donald puzzles me.  He is obviously interested in heraldry (e.g., Trump University, Trump Estates & Golf Club, etc.),  Why not get a legitimate coat of arms whether assumed or granted?  Surely price is not an issue.  Could he simply be ignorant?  Maybe he doesn’t care though he would easily qualify for a grant.  Or maybe even to him heraldry is too brash and pretentious (if that is possible).  Who can say…

 
Madalch
 
Avatar
 
 
Madalch
Total Posts:  792
Joined  30-09-2005
 
 
 
27 March 2008 19:41
 

eploy;56251 wrote:

The Donald puzzles me.  He is obviously interested in heraldry (e.g., Trump University, Trump Estates & Golf Club, etc.),  Why not get a legitimate coat of arms whether assumed or granted?  Surely price is not an issue.


I think the Donald will simply do what he wants.  Having arms granted to him (by Lyon, for use in Scotland, for example) would suggest that the Lord Lyon has some authority over him, and he’d be loathe to admit to that possibility.

 

The only way Trump will get a grant of arms is if he convinces himself that he’s hiring Lyon to create a coat of arms for him.  It’s not price that’s the issue, it’s pride.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 March 2008 21:59
 

eploy;56251 wrote:

At the very least The Donald is raising the profile of heraldry, albeit bad heraldry. My two gripes with this particular arms are: 1) that the chevron sits too high in the shield making it look like bucket shop heraldry; 2) the artwork could be much better ...


1) It’s not a chevron; they’re two chevronels humetty in chief.  Quarterly Gules and Or a lion rampant in chief two chevronels humetty Sable.

 

2) The quality of the artwork looks fine to me, and in any case doesn’t affect the quality of the heraldry.

 

I think the real source of the reaction to these arms is partly that they are associated with the Donald, and partly the use of the lion rampant in the armorial trademark of a commercial enterprise, which comes across as a hackneyed and somewhat crass attempt to lend "class" to the company.  But if these were someone’s personal arms, we’d probably think they were interesting and creative.


Quote:

The Donald puzzles me. He is obviously interested in heraldry (e.g., Trump University, Trump Estates & Golf Club, etc.), Why not get a legitimate coat of arms whether assumed or granted?


Isn’t this an assumed corporate coat of arms for his university?  He (or someone) has designed it in accordance with heraldic rules, the university uses it publicly.  What more would Trump need to do to make it a "legitimate" coat of arms?

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
27 March 2008 22:35
 

The chevronnels sitting up high like that, combined with the shape of the shield reminds me of military rank insignia, but that doesn’t make it bad. Graphically, it ain’t bad. And I don’t see anything wrong with heraldically either.

 
 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
27 March 2008 23:48
 

Joseph McMillan;56257 wrote:

1) It’s not a chevron; they’re two chevronels humetty in chief.  Quarterly Gules and Or a lion rampant in chief two chevronels humetty Sable.


I meant chevrons (dropped the "s").  I wasn’t trying to give a formal blazon as you have done, but merely an informal description of the design feature with which I had a gripe.  I stand corrected.


Joseph McMillan;56257 wrote:

2) The quality of the artwork looks fine to me, and in any case doesn’t affect the quality of the heraldry.


I think this is simply a matter of personal taste.  I would have preferred countercharging rather than have color on color or metal on metal on certain parts of the arms.  I also dislike the artwork as it is reminiscent of a corporate logo/caricature that just so happens to incorporate a shield.


Joseph McMillan;56257 wrote:

I think the real source of the reaction to these arms is partly that they are associated with the Donald, and partly the use of the lion rampant in the armorial trademark of a commercial enterprise, which comes across as a hackneyed and somewhat crass attempt to lend "class" to the company.  But if these were someone’s personal arms, we’d probably think they were interesting and creative.


I think you are right about The Donald part and it does look somewhat crass in the given context.  (Why did you say hackneyed?  Do you feel arms are overused)?  I personally disagree, however, that I would find the arms "interesting and creative" if it were someone else’s arm.


Joseph McMillan;56257 wrote:

Isn’t this an assumed corporate coat of arms for his university?  He (or someone) has designed it in accordance with heraldic rules, the university uses it publicly.  What more would Trump need to do to make it a "legitimate" coat of arms?


I disagree that the arms follow heraldic rules to the letter.  See my comment about countercharging above.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
27 March 2008 23:51
 

kmansfield;56262 wrote:

The chevronnels sitting up high like that, combined with the shape of the shield reminds me of military rank insignia, but that doesn’t make it bad. Graphically, it ain’t bad. And I don’t see anything wrong with heraldically either.


But graphically, it ain’t good either….  I think The Donald could have hired a better designer.  Just my personal belief….  We can disagree to the cows come home.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
28 March 2008 00:32
 

eploy;56265 wrote:

I also dislike the artwork as it is reminiscent of a corporate logo/caricature that just so happens to incorporate a shield.


My point is that bad artwork does not make a bad coat of arms.  An incompetent artist can sketch a good coat of arms with a crayon on a napkin.


Quote:

Why did you say hackneyed? Do you feel arms are overused


No, I meant the use of lions rampant on commercial coats of arms (probably called "crests" by their designers) is a hackneyed way of trying to make products seem more classy than they really are.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
28 March 2008 00:45
 

eploy;56265 wrote:

I would have preferred countercharging rather than have color on color or metal on metal on certain parts of the arms.


Sorry for the second post; I meant to include this in the previous one.

 

I, too, would prefer to avoid the color on color.  But counterchanging a lion rampant on a field parted quarterly would be confusing, and there is, at least, good authority for placing a colored charge on a field parted of a color and metal—the arms of Luxembourg come immediately to mind.  If one can put a red lion on a field barry of blue and silver, I’m not sure why one can’t put a black lion of a field quarterly of red and gold.

 

I’d actually be very grateful if someone can explain why this case is different from Luxembourg, because, as I said earlier, I don’t think it looks that great.  But based on my understanding of the rule, I’m afraid it isn’t a violation, and therefore can’t be faulted on that account.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
28 March 2008 00:45
 

Joseph McMillan;56268 wrote:

My point is that bad artwork does not make a bad coat of arms.  An incompetent artist can sketch a good coat of arms with a crayon on a napkin.


I agree with you on this point.  But I disagree that The Donald’s Trump University has an attractive coat of arms.  If it obeyed the tincture rule more closely (avoided having color on color or metal on metal on certain parts of the arms), I would have far much less trouble with it even if it belongs to The Donald.  wink

 


Joseph McMillan;56268 wrote:

No, I meant the use of lions rampant on commercial coats of arms (probably called "crests" by their designers) is a hackneyed way of trying to make products seem more classy than they really are.


Ok.