http://www.rsu.edu/OMA/images/OMAShield.jpg
This could look good if they resolved their metal-on-metal problems.
Michael Swanson wrote:
http://www.rsu.edu/OMA/images/OMAShield.jpg
This could look good if they resolved their metal-on-metal problems.
I don’t think there is a metal-on-metal problem; where is metal charged on metal?
Daniel C. Boyer wrote:
I don’t think there is a metal-on-metal problem; where is metal charged on metal?
Are there not two objects surmounting round shield Argent? Does surmounting get around contrast rules?
Michael Swanson wrote:
Are there not two objects surmounting round shield Argent? Does surmounting get around contrast rules?
I’ve perhaps been too vehement about this in the past, but there are no "contrast rules" per se; there is a "rule of tincture," and though examples of conforming though very low-contrast arms are few and far between, and for practical reasons it would be wise to steer clear of these sorts of things, there are some, such as a Spanish example with two lions proper on a field of Or (I’m embarassed to forget the name at the moment).
Surmounting does get around the rule of tincture, and it would have to in most cases, because there’s probably going to be, say, a metal charge on a coloured field (as in this case); to which would the rule of tincture apply when a second charge surmounted the first? You wouldn’t be able to have a coloured charge as it would touch the coloured field, or a metal charge as it would touch the metal charge, so all surmounting charges would be forced to be fur, proper, party or patterned. Luckily surmounting or "over all" charges aren’t subject to the rule.
Daniel C. Boyer wrote:
You wouldn’t be able to have a coloured charge as it would touch the coloured field, or a metal charge as it would touch the metal charge, so all surmounting charges would be forced to be fur, proper, party or patterned. Luckily surmounting or "over all" charges aren’t subject to the rule.
Yes this makes sense.
Azure, a native American war shield with seven feathers pendant surmounted by a plain scepter and an olive branch in saltire all Argent fimbriated Or.
Which should take precedence when designing arms? Logic or aesthetics?
Is this particular shield logically correct but aesthetically unsound?
Trent wrote:
Which should take precedence when designing arms? Logic or aesthetics?
Is this particular shield logically correct but aesthetically unsound?
I not only don’t know how to answer this question, I’m not sure what you mean by it—do you mean its appearance v. conforming to the rules? I don’t think you can put it as simply as this; while coats that are aesthetically pleasing yet don’t conform to the rules should, ideally, be shunned, also to be shunned (unless there is some very, very compelling reason, perhaps one of symbolism, but rarely indeed would this be met IMO) are coats that are technically correct but present some problem in terms of appearance. While researching my book on heraldic dogs I came across a coat with a dog proper spotted Bunatre, which is troubling, to say the least…
Daniel and I have been round and round over this in the past, but the disagreement is pretty much in the nature of angels dancing on pinheads. He says the rule of tincture should be obeyed because it’s a rule. I say it’s not really a rule but a guideline, but should be obeyed because arms that disregard it are usually visually hard to make out. In practical terms we come out at pretty much the same place—don’t violate the rule of tincture.
On this one, though, I wonder if we don’t have another of these mutated graphics. Here’s why I think that might be the case. The design on the center of this shield is basically the same that appears on the center of the Oklahoma flag.
http://www.flags.net/images/largeflags/UNST0135.GIF
It seems to me entirely within the realm of probability that the Oklahoma Military Academy, when it adopted its emblem, adopted a shield version of the state flag (which formerly did not include the word Oklahoma, having been disimproved since its original adoption). But, being a military school, the principal use of the arms is to serve as a distinctive insignia for the uniform, which has to be made in enamelled metal and is typically only about an inch to an inch-and-a-half high. Traditionally the different colors on these insignia are separated by thin lines of metal—it’s not fimbriation, just part of the manufacturing process.
Well, my theory is that the OMA gives the full color drawing of the arms to some insignia manufacturer, who finds that there’s no way of preserving the original design with any fidelity in full color at the required scale. So instead of trying to make tiny brown crosses each outlined with metal, and a little peace pipe and olive branch with all the leaves and feathers outlined with metal, just provides a simplified version with the charges outlined in gold.
Time passes and everyone at OMA gets used to the idea that since the arms are the insignia, then the insignia must be the arms, and the result is graphics that could show the full color but instead just replicate the metal badge.
OMA probably has a school flag that the cadets carry on parade. If someone found a picture of that, it might substantiate my theory. Or, alternatively, blow it all to pieces.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
Daniel and I have been round and round over this in the past, but the disagreement is pretty much in the nature of angels dancing on pinheads. He says the rule of tincture should be obeyed because it’s a rule. I say it’s not really a rule but a guideline, but should be obeyed because arms that disregard it are usually visually hard to make out. In practical terms we come out at pretty much the same place—don’t violate the rule of tincture.
I really don’t agree with this assessment. My position is that the rule of tincture should be obeyed because it’s a rule (though Mr. McMillan doesn’t seem to notice that like all rules, it’s violated at times, and thus armes a enquerir), but there is an additional level of complexity to the issue—while it’s true that arms that disregard the rule "are usually visually hard to make out," there is no question whatsoever that there are some at least possible arms (and very rare examples of actual arms) that fully conform to the rule, yet are just as hard to make out as conforming arms. Examples are pretty obvious: arms where charges are tinctured proper but have an apparent colour (in a layman’s sense) close to the colour or metal of the field, and arms where the principal colour or metal associated with a fur is the same as that of the field. These arms should be avoided unless there’s some overwhelmingly compelling reason for them to exist, and at the present time, in the case of the furs, I don’t know what that would be, but it is nonetheless absolutely true to say that they don’t violate the rule. It’s really annoying that these last two cases, about which there is certainly no legitimate question of their violating the rule of tincture, are nevertheless described as violating by people who certainly have a firm grasp of the rule.
It seems like nearly every thing is displayed that way in Oklahoma. I had some ancestors journey the trail of tears, my Scottish side hooked up with a Choctaw woman. My sister is in Oklahoma now and every pic she sends has a war shield in the background somewhere
Michael Swanson wrote:
Yes this makes sense.
Azure, a native American war shield with seven feathers pendant surmounted by a plain scepter and an olive branch in saltire all Argent fimbriated Or.
Forgive the lateness of this response (and that it might seem to be a bit pedantic) but as a native Oklahoman I must offer this. The war shield in question is that of the Osage and the scepter is instead a calumet. So we have:
Azure an Osage war shield with seven feathers pendant surmounted by
a calumet and an olive branch in saltire all Argent fimbriated Or.
Daniel C. Boyer wrote:
I really don’t agree with this assessment.
Do you just have a compulsion to pick fights or what? There’s nothing you wrote with which I disagree, and nothing that I wrote with which you express any disagreement. Talk about angels dancing on pinheads.
