I didnt see it as a republican sign either, I read nothing more into it that it was a personal preference, I kinda like it
As a republican, and a conservative one at that, I never saw your elephant as a symbol of our Grand Old Party at all. Of course I am not the one who will have to bear the arms as your dad and gramps will so…
A bit off topic, but one more thing… the elephant is most assuredly NOT the symbol of the conservatives, as you stated above. Rather, it is the symbol of the GOP. They are two different things…very different. I know that most people in the middle, and certainly on the left, either do not, or can not recognize that. But, being both a conservative and a republican I can attest they are in fact two different beasts all together. In fact you will likely see a presidential nominee from the GOP who is nowhere near conservative in ‘08. Both McCain and Giuliani are middle to left and are not conservatives though I know the left sees the two beasts as the same.
But, again, for clarity, they are not the same at all. Conservative is an ideological movement, whilst GOP/Republican is the party we use to promote our ideas as this party supports the conservative movement’s ideas more so than any other party. So, please try and explain to your dad they are not the same and the symbol can’t be seen as always GOP (let alone conservative) any more so than the ass of the Democratic people can be always seen as liberal, or democrat for that matter. But, it is his call after all.
Linusboarder wrote:
Maybe I’ll pair that with a fat cat to be bipartisan :rolleyes:
.
Naw, that would make the arms look too cluttered. (Please understand that if your arms had been a donkey and an otter, and your father was a conservative Republican, I still would have said you included the weasel to be bipartisan—these days I tend not to discriminate in sarcasm about politicians.)
Joseph McMillan wrote:
Naw, that would make the arms look too cluttered. (Please understand that if your arms had been a donkey and an otter, and your father was a conservative Republican, I still would have said you included the weasel to be bipartisan—these days I tend not to discriminate in sarcasm about politicians.)
Oh i understand, I took it all in good natured fun.
And Denny you’re right they are different, and my dad doesn’t have a problem with conservatives, per say, he has a problem with the republican party. He has always had a healthy respect for conservatives, and even agrees with them in some aspects, he just hates the current GOP leadership, and since the elephant DOES represent that I think that is where the slight uneasiness may occur.
It wouldn’t have to be an elephant to convey the desired meaning. It could be a rhinosarus (sp?) which would display those same qualities, while at the same time be completely non-partisan. Just a thought…
I think very few people, particularly very few people familiar with heraldry, are going to associate the elephant in a heraldic context with the GOP unless there is a very specific reason for doing so—what I mean is, unless the arms would be those of the Republican Party itself or some component part thereof. I really wouldn’t be worried about this.
Here’s the news…
No one had a problem with the elephant, obviously I was doing a lot of worrying for not. My aunt (a very fine artist, albeit not a heraldic one) had a few suggestions that seemed pretty reasonable, but they are minor and I may not make them just because i don’t want to ask Louis to rework on them (such as making the otter look as if he is on his back, since that’s how a recognizable otter would swim. Especially since he has been mistaken for a rat a couple of times)
So there’s the 4-1-1 on what’s going on, I just don’t see it changing, other than some minor things
Linusboarder wrote:
...(such as making the otter look as if he is on his back, since that’s how a recognizable otter would swim. Especially since he has been mistaken for a rat a couple of times)...
It is probably just as well that you’re not changing this aspect as it would also necessitate a change in blazon from salient to naiant.
I have taken notice of your arms on this forum since my first visit but the occasion to ask about how the design came about has not arisen until today, thus I shall pose a few questions:
Is the colour of the ordinary and charges Azure or Bleu Celeste? My own opinion is that the ordinary and charges would have more contrast in Azure rather Bleu Celeste.
Is it just my eyesight or is the bend in your arms narrower than the average bend? This of course could be an optical problem because of the chequey field.
Does it not seem odd or incongruous that the elephant is smaller than the otter? This is very uncomfortable to me visually. If you are trying to intimate swimming or water, you could simply have a bend wavy, drop the otter and fill the void with a second elephant.
The French blazon chequey fields by number and rows. Have you considered that fewer divisions of the field of checks could be less visually distracting?
Not wanting to ask for a redesign or redrawing of a coat-of-arms is a very poor reason to settle for a deficient armorial design. After all this symbol represents you and will someday represent your children. This is analogous to presenting your family with a copy of your driver’s license photograph instead of making the effort to have a photograph taken in a studio. Is this really how you want to be known?
As we all know, frankness can be a double edged sword. My comments are intended to assist you, please take no offense.
I think the discussion was that David’s arms had a bendlet rather than a bend… and I suspect that the size of the charges is irrelevant… after all if we were going to start rendering all charges relatively to scale my mullet would be tiny, probably the size of the boar’s eye… and your fowl (geese perhaps) would have to be much smaller relative to the horses… So, I see no problem with the scale.
I would agree, however that a darker hue of blue would be better… but I suspect that it is the artists choice…
ESmith wrote:
and your fowl (geese perhaps) would have to be much smaller relative to the horses… So, I see no problem with the scale.
My fowl are swans so the scale is actually closer to reality than you initially thought. If we think large (Trumpeter) swans and small (Mongolian) horses it works out quite well.
I don’t think David meant scale in that sense. It could be the rendering or the shade of blue, but the elephant looks a little squished up there in the corner.
David Pritchard wrote:
I have taken notice of your arms on this forum since my first visit but the occasion to ask about how the design came about has not arisen until today, thus I shall pose a few questions:
Is the colour of the ordinary and charges Azure or Bleu Celeste? My own opinion is that the ordinary and charges would have more contrast in Azure rather Bleu Celeste.
It’s Azure, just when I did the colors in my avatar I used a lighter shade of blue because i liked it.
David Pritchard wrote:
Is it just my eyesight or is the bend in your arms narrower than the average bend? This of course could be an optical problem because of the chequey field.
Nope it’s a bendlet
David Pritchard wrote:
Does it not seem odd or incongruous that the elephant is smaller than the otter? This is very uncomfortable to me visually. If you are trying to intimate swimming or water, you could simply have a bend wavy, drop the otter and fill the void with a second elephant.
There are reasons behind the Otter. The Otter is a charge from my mother’s arms, as I feel in this modern day and age that the family rights (such as inheritance, etc) come from both parents. Most of the arms are inhereted from my father but the otter is a symbol off of my mom’s shield. My plan, for generations to come, is to have that charge replaced with a charge from the mother’s shield.
As for the scaling problem, well to be honest I never noticed, and if anyone else noticed no one said anything about it. I don’t see it as a problem though. I think there are many cases where 2 charges aren’t really to scale. You’re probably right, i should go back, on my avatar edition, and beef up the elephant a little.. I have some room to do so.
David Pritchard wrote:
The French blazon chequey fields by number and rows. Have you considered that fewer divisions of the field of checks could be less visually distracting?
I want the cheque field to be noticed, and noticed first. To me it’s a sign of intelligence (like a chess board) and that’s what I want to be noticed. Do you mean columns and rows? I don’t know what you mean by numbers…
David Pritchard wrote:
Not wanting to ask for a redesign or redrawing of a coat-of-arms is a very poor reason to settle for a deficient armorial design. After all this symbol represents you and will someday represent your children. This is analogous to presenting your family with a copy of your driver’s license photograph instead of making the effort to have a photograph taken in a studio. Is this really how you want to be known?
No i don’t feel it’s all that drastic. I don’t think I have a poor design. I like my arms a lot as they specify what I think is important about me and my family. They are unique (Tenne and argent cheque) and symbolize intelligence (cheque), Strength and sturdiness (elephant) and playfulness without irresponsibility (otter). If i were to change it up it would not be like using a drivers license photo as a portrait, but more like having that portrait airbrushed to make it a litle better looking. Sure it might look slightly better, but what do i lose from that slight airbrushing.
[
David Pritchard wrote:
As we all know, frankness can be a double edged sword. My comments are intended to assist you, please take no offense.
As a scientist i appreciate honest frank criticism. The best way to improve is to hear the truth so I don’t think anyone ever has a reason to apologize. My avatar is my own little rendition and much of the flaws can be attributed to the fact that, I am not an artist and don’t claim to be one. A much better emblazon of them was done by Louis. Here is a much better emblazonment (click on the picture for a much larger and better view)
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4243/colinssarmsartist2wy2.th.png
ESmith wrote:
I think the discussion was that David’s arms had a bendlet rather than a bend… and I suspect that the size of the charges is irrelevant… after all if we were going to start rendering all charges relatively to scale my mullet would be tiny, probably the size of the boar’s eye… and your fowl (geese perhaps) would have to be much smaller relative to the horses… So, I see no problem with the scale.
I would agree, however that a darker hue of blue would be better… but I suspect that it is the artists choice…
you mean Colin?
By the way my aunt’s suggestions were to put the otter on his back to make it a better representation of an otter, and maybe put the trunk up on the elephant, since that is a symbol for good luck. Both of which i consider thoughtful (if minor) suggestions that I will consider
I have to review everything now that I have the facts. Tenney and Argent not Gules and Argent, bendlet not bend, Azure rather than Bleu Celeste.
My first interpretation of your arms was that you were a bandoleer wearing Croatian elephant herder who liked to swim. How wrong I was. Since your arms are chequey Tenney and Argent you must not be a Croat, as the elephant charge represents strength and your profession is that of a scientist you must not be an elephant herder; since the otter comes from you mother’s arms rather than from your deep appreciation of swimming, that leaves only one assumption left to be dis-proven, that being the bendlet representing your a penchant for bandoleer wearing (and hopefully not with suits or swimwear)?
I amuse myself so easily. 
PS: I like your more formal rendering. The true Azure looks much better than the Bleu Celeste and Tenney combination that makes one think of the Miami Dolphins.
