I’ve registered my arms with the US Heraldic Registry. I was looking at my description today and I realized something. I didn’t specify what color the dogwood should be. I could just smack myself right now.
Dogwood blossoms can be either white or pink. Well,azure and gules, since as far as I’m aware pink isn’t a color you can use.
Is it okay that I forgot to state the color of the dogwood? I assume most people would use the white dogwood. It really doesn’t matter to me which one is used. I just want to know if I should contact them and ask to make a slight modification.
Thank you.
Well, the Canadians use pink…they call it rose I believe…plus if it were blazoned "proper" and "proper" could mean pink, wouldn’t the artist be obliged to render it pink?
It should be an easy thing to explain to Michael Swanson the situation. At the worst, just cancel your original submission and re-submit with the appropriate correction(s).
rose sounds good.
Here’s a quick tossed-together image of my arms. The cat should be maintaining a slip of dogwood proper. Rose? I like that. I’ll see what I can do. If not, it’s fine.
In my own opinion, your arms should be blazoned as follows:
Azure, a sheep dog statant Argent, between three dogwood blossoms two and one Proper.
The reason that the term proper is preferable to rose is that the natural bloom of the pink dogwood is multi-coloured being pink, white and yellow. The other issue with using rose for the blazoning of the blooms would be that this combination would violate the colour on colour rule.
Could you provide a few more details about your crest, I am unsure as to what it depicts exactly.
I was just using whatever images I could find online to make it.
Currently, it reads as follows:
Arms: Azure, a rough coated collie statant coward Argent between three dogwood flowers proper two over one.
Crest: A cat passant Argent with wings of a butterfly Azure maintaing a slip of white dogwood proper.
Motto: Ibi tenebras in lux et lux in tenebras
Each item has a meaning. It’s not just random stuff I liked.
eta : I did mention what color dogwood the cat was holding. Just not the ones on the shield. I’d assume and artist would assume white dogwood as I have white dogwood with the cat.
Hi, Abby!
Two and one is assumed with three identical charges, so it’s only necessary to state position when it varies from that. A rough coated collie statant coward Argent between three dogwood flowers proper is enough.
Through all this discussion, I’m confused as to whether you want pink or white dogwood on your shield. If you want white dogwood, then dogwood blossoms Argent should suffice. If you want pink dogwood, then pink dogwood blossoms proper will get you there, but it is a violation of the color on color rule. I shoved the ‘pink’ in there because all dogwood flowers are not pink - here in Wisconsin, as an example, we have a few species of dogwood whose flowers are always white and a couple who start out pink but get white in maturity.
Good luck on this one!
David Pritchard wrote:
The other issue with using rose for the blazoning of the blooms would be that this combination would violate the colour on colour rule.
While this rule is not made hard and fast or set in stone and has been violated more than once quite nicely in the past, it should still be adhered to. That said, I think blazoning them as proper would give the artist some leeway and they would contrast nicely on the blue field whether depicted pink or white. I also feel that a good heraldic artist would understand the tincture rule and emblazon them as white, or at least a very light shade of pink.
Nice design, Abby! :D
Take care,
I was allowed to have it fixed. It now reads:
Arms: Azure, a rough coated collie statant coward Argent between three dogwood flowers Rose two over one.
Crest: A cat passant Argent with wings of a butterfly Azure maintaing a slip of dogwood proper flowered Argent.
About the discussion on dogwood, and the colour pink. It is useful to realise that pink in heraldic terms is always "carnation". This is derived from carne meaning meat ie flesh toned. The flower carnation is named similarly, the natural "before domestication" colour is light pink.
Quote:
About the discussion on dogwood, and the colour pink. It is useful to realise that pink in heraldic terms is always "carnation". This is derived from carne meaning meat ie flesh toned. The flower carnation is named similarly, the natural "before domestication" colour is light pink.
This is not my understanding within the Canadian experience. Perhaps a Canadian Heraldic expert, Darren, would be willing to step up and clarify the situation. I’d like to know where you get your information that it is “always” blazoned “carnations” and where this is the rule so to speak.
By the by, M85324, I again welcome you, but like Joe and others who routinely mention this to newbies, I ask you to please observe our courtesy towards each other and be a gentleman and use your name…unless your parents did in fact name you M85324…don’t laugh…I have two friends whose parents were hippies in the 60’s and 70’s and their names are not too far removed from M85324…
M85324 wrote:
About the discussion on dogwood, and the colour pink. It is useful to realise that pink in heraldic terms is always "carnation". This is derived from carne meaning meat ie flesh toned. The flower carnation is named similarly, the natural "before domestication" colour is light pink.
The color pink may be used as the common name of the species Pink Dogwood, or Pink Flowering Dogwood, and the tincture of the flower is Proper.
Azure, a rough coated collie statant coward Argent between three Pink Dogwood Tree flowers proper two over one.
"Carnation" does not mean pink in heraldic terminology. It means what we used to call flesh-colored—the color of a Caucasian person’s skin—as the etymology of the word would suggest.
Harking back to earlier in this thread—IMO blazoning a dogwood as "proper" would suggest, if the field is a "color" (red, blue, etc) that the flower would be white; & if the field were a metal (white or yellow) then the flower would be as dark a shade of pink as one could get away with, without losing the idea of it being a dogwood. That is, where "nature" allows a range of colors all of which wopuld be "proper" the artist would opt for the coloring with the greatest contrast.
Of course if you want it to be pink notwithstanding the opinion above, simply specifying the color, or the particular variety of dogwood, is quite sufficient to overcome my notion of the "default" coloration.
Patrick Williams wrote:
Hi, Abby!
Two and one is assumed with three identical charges, so it’s only necessary to state position when it varies from that. A rough coated collie statant coward Argent between three dogwood flowers proper is enough.
Through all this discussion, I’m confused as to whether you want pink or white dogwood on your shield. If you want white dogwood, then dogwood blossoms Argent should suffice. If you want pink dogwood, then pink dogwood blossoms proper will get you there, but it is a violation of the color on color rule.
It is absolutely not a violation of the rule of tincture. Proper is not a colour; azure is. When you put proper, not a colour, on azure, a colour, obviously there is no violation. The Oxford Guide to Heraldry explains it well when it says that "charges blazoned as proper" do not fall under the rule. Proper functions as amphibious.