i don’t see these as particularly ‘eccleiastical’ at all. technically i could see any achievement with a cross in it, as that and since there is no other most used charge in heraldry, as ‘ecclesiastical’. in truth i agree with the good Father Guy in that what makes them ecclesiastical is the adornments.

when i look at the arms the first thing i think of is Christian and secondly as crusader as well. but, that’s me and i could be wrong.

I agree with father Guy as well. Technically, the external ornaments make the CoA ecclesiastical or not, but when I see a CoA it tells me something (it’s a bussines, it’s a school, it’s a church, etc) and this one seems to me either a church or a religious organization. Just my opinion.

Obviously, once finished and with external ornaments, people with some knowledge in heraldry will be able to distinguish between church’s, priest (bishops, cardinals etc) or individual but most of the people may not.

Anyway, this is a matter of personal preference and Stephen mention some concern about the possible “ecclesiastical” overtone of the design.

What makes it seem ecclisiastical is the passion cross.  That’s why I was hoping to see the CoA with a "+" cross instead.  That would lessen (though not neccessarily eliminate) the ecclisiastical look, and give it a more "crusader-like" look as well, as Donnchadh pointed out. Unfortunately, I don’t own an actual computer—I have MSNTV (formally WebTV), which has no hard-drive on which to download anything, so I couldn’t show Linusboarder what I was trying to convey.  Thankfully, he figured it out anyway.  (He apparently speaks Newbese!)

I think what’s giving it that look is that the cross is the central piece in the design. It’s the focal point of your shield. My arms feature crosses as well, but the effect is different due to size and number, or compisition of you will.

That makes sense, Ioaba, thanks!  I guess I’m just going to have to accept the fact that my CoA will, in all likelyhood, appear ecclisiastical.

Honestly, I think I can live with that…:)

Hickman wrote:

That makes sense, Ioaba, thanks!  I guess I’m just going to have to accept the fact that my CoA will, in all likelyhood, appear ecclisiastical.

Honestly, I think I can live with that…:)

I have a couple ideas hickman, I will try them tomarrow.

Thanks, Linusboarder!  I already know they’ll look good! :D

I’ve been thinking about other possible designs for several days now, but I just keep coming back to the original one.  I think I’ll drop the passion cross for the "+", though, for both designs (same reasons).

As for the dog in my mom’s crest, could a specific breed be depicted, or just a basic type of dog?

Also, just out of curiosity, would olive branches placed on each side of the shield be O.K., or would they be construed as supporters?

A reminder to all participants in the AHS Forums:

The American Heraldry Society was not established to serve as a free armorial design service.  As stated in the description of the "Heraldic Design" area of the open forum, "The use of the AHS Forum for extensive discussions working through the design is limited to AHS members and should be conducted in the section of the members’ area established for that purpose. Non-members may use this area to raise specific questions, but any exchanges concerning detailed design work should be pursued either by e-mail or using the personal messaging feature."

It should go without saying that the same rule applies to other areas of the open forum, yet there has been a distressingly frequent usage of the open forum for this purpose in recent weeks.  All members and guests are urged to respect the rule so that more formal moderation is not necessary.

There are a number of other channels available for design assistance, including direct e-mail among forum participants, Mike Swanson’s U.S. Heraldic Registry, the International Association of Amateur Heralds, and the American College of Heraldry.  We don’t want to discourage anyone from adopting well-designed arms, but the AHS Open Forum is not the place to develop them.

Thank you for your attention.

Joe—if that’s the rule then we should respect it, though in my case with some reluctance.  While designing of new arms is not "per se" the function of the society or its online forum, IMO it serves as a particularly good vehicle for several other functions which are core to our goals and purpose—in particular, generating interest and involvement in heraldry (and the AHS); educating, or advancing the heraldic education, of both old hands and new; and hopefully elevating the standard of heraldic practice, "one coat at a time."

I agree that we shouldn’t attempt, or be seen to be attempting, to monopolize the exercise to the detriment of the other avenues you mention.  They can provide a level of one-on-one assistance that can be invaluable.  On the other hand, an open discussion in a public forum does provide a range of ideas and - for lack of a better term - "peer review" that non-public discussions here or elsewhere cannot.  Having that peer review before a newbie commits to a particular design, rather than after the fact, strikes me as the better practice,  If nothing else, it allows the newbie to focus on good design rather than defensiveness.  (We get enough of that already when a newbie already has a strong attachment to a half-baked idea.)

Many of the "older hands" here, myself included (OK, older but perhaps not wiser…), cut our heraldic eye teeth "back in the day" when rec.heraldry was the most vibrant heraldic forum if not the only game in town; and "playing herald" was one of our favorite, and most useful, exercises.  That forum has unfortunately lost much of its vigor, and IMO nowadays—at least in the American context—we’re "it."  To the degree that we allow a vacuum, it cedes the field not only to the "quality" avenues you mention, but also to the more numerous arms vendors on line, at the mall or the fairgrounds.

Of course there is a balance that needs to be struck.  I do agree that arms design discussions should be channeled into one, or a limited few, defined areas of the forum—but that’s IMO true of any topic, not just this one.  If the consensus is that in this case it should be in the members-only areas, so be it, but we should recognize that there is a trade-off in making that decision.

Joe, if you or the other officers think this discussion should be moved to the "members only" discussion areas, please feel free to do so.

ok I am only a guest on this forum and this is only a suggestion. I personally enjoy seeing arms designs evolve, so if design help were to stay on this forum please let it be at the open forum perhaps in a special section.

Michael F. McCartney wrote:

Joe—if that’s the rule then we should respect it, though in my case with some reluctance.  While designing of new arms is not "per se" the function of the society or its online forum, IMO it serves as a particularly good vehicle for several other functions which are core to our goals and purpose—in particular, generating interest and involvement in heraldry (and the AHS); educating, or advancing the heraldic education, of both old hands and new; and hopefully elevating the standard of heraldic practice, "one coat at a time."

I agree that we shouldn’t attempt, or be seen to be attempting, to monopolize the exercise to the detriment of the other avenues you mention.  They can provide a level of one-on-one assistance that can be invaluable.  On the other hand, an open discussion in a public forum does provide a range of ideas and - for lack of a better term - "peer review" that non-public discussions here or elsewhere cannot.  Having that peer review before a newbie commits to a particular design, rather than after the fact, strikes me as the better practice,  If nothing else, it allows the newbie to focus on good design rather than defensiveness.  (We get enough of that already when a newbie already has a strong attachment to a half-baked idea.)

 

Many of the "older hands" here, myself included (OK, older but perhaps not wiser…), cut our heraldic eye teeth "back in the day" when rec.heraldry was the most vibrant heraldic forum if not the only game in town; and "playing herald" was one of our favorite, and most useful, exercises.  That forum has unfortunately lost much of its vigor, and IMO nowadays—at least in the American context—we’re "it."  To the degree that we allow a vacuum, it cedes the field not only to the "quality" avenues you mention, but also to the more numerous arms vendors on line, at the mall or the fairgrounds.

 

Of course there is a balance that needs to be struck.  I do agree that arms design discussions should be channeled into one, or a limited few, defined areas of the forum—but that’s IMO true of any topic, not just this one.  If the consensus is that in this case it should be in the members-only areas, so be it, but we should recognize that there is a trade-off in making that decision.

 

Joe, if you or the other officers think this discussion should be moved to the "members only" discussion areas, please feel free to do so.

Michael, I just started a new thread for this very discussion in the member’s area. As I recall from previous threads, the board prefers that policy be debated "behind the wall", as it were and not in public.

Patrick Williams wrote:

Michael, I just started a new thread for this very discussion in the member’s area. As I recall from previous threads, the board prefers that policy be debated "behind the wall", as it were and not in public.

Patrick,

It has been my intention to join as soon as I conclude the design process of my CoA with Geoff at IAAH…however knowing such debates are "behind the wall" I might have to join today!

Greetings Everyone…here is my input as a guest and a newbie.

I have been very interested as various CoAs emerge in this forum through the collaborative process.  The ability to observe these creations has been very helpful as I have worked on my CoA individually with Geoff.  Seeing the process has increased my understanding and provided additional insight to the range of possibilities at the same time I am being instructed and guided by one individual.  For these reasons, I am glad the collaborations occurred and that they occurred in a venue I could access.

Yet, I recognize the potential number of evolutions a newbie might go through before finalizing a project.  It is understandable such extensive work may be better suited to a different forum and quite frankly as a newbie I would not have felt the freedom to try as many variations in this forum as I have been able to try in working with one individual.

Is there a way to balance these needs?  My preference would be collaborative design:

- in a dedicated area

- with access to non-members

- with recognition that extensive design is done elsewhere (what is extensive?)

This would enable the relatively short creative efforts of late (from concept to a finished CoA in a handful or two of posts is just amazing!) and provide a venue for periodic group input and "peer review" as individuals work more extensively through private email or other means.  And provide one more area where the benefits of membership are evident!

Best Regards,

Rob

p.s. See what happens when debate is in the open…you get unsolicited opinions!

Rob McLaughlin wrote:

Patrick,

 

p.s. See what happens when debate is in the open…you get unsolicited opinions!

Yay! The more the merrier.

Ton, good points indeed my friend.

Patrick all the more reason to have the input of guests and not be restricted to members only.

of course i can also paly the other side of that coin and see its merit.

this is a difficult one all the way around…

Rob, how is it coming? last i heard via PM you were still desidin on layout… is it still that way?