arriano;46977 wrote:

I presume you say "bad" because of color on color. But I strongly believe that the reason for the rule is to show contrast, and I think sable on gules does that—or is that sanguine?

Ok, I’ll accept that this is a rare exception.

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Guide.Guidelines#toc3
Quote:

2.1.1.1. Heraldry is an art form constrained by certain rules of composition. While a limited degree of flexibility is permissible, at a certain point a composition that diverges too far from these rules ceases to be a coat of arms. In particular, arms should, with very rare exceptions, comply with the heraldic "rule of tincture": a metal object—that is, one that is gold (yellow) or silver (white)— should not be placed on a metal field, while a colored object—one that is black, red, blue, green, purple, etc.—should not be placed on a colored field. Objects displayed on the shield (known as charges) should normally be oriented toward the dexter (viewer’s left), particularly if only one of a particular charge appears on the shield.

Michael Swanson;46989 wrote:

Ok, I’ll accept that this is a rare exception.

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Guide.Guidelines#toc3

I’m going to note again (very, very tired) that the rule is theoretical, not practical, even though the reason for its genesis was practical.  Thus charges proper can be placed on fields with which they have next to zero contrast, potent can be placed on vair, &c.

Daniel C. Boyer;47009 wrote:

I’m going to note again (very, very tired) that the rule is theoretical, not practical, even though the reason for its genesis was practical.  Thus charges proper can be placed on fields with which they have next to zero contrast, potent can be placed on vair, &c.

What is the difference between a theoretical and practical rule?  Are not all design rules in heraldry "theoretical" (i.e., generalized from practice), and are not all theoretical rules broken in practice?

Michael Swanson;47011 wrote:

What is the difference between a theoretical and practical rule?  Are not all design rules in heraldry "theoretical" (i.e., generalized from practice), and are not all theoretical rules broken in practice?

The overwhelming majority of theoretical rules are broken in practice (one hardly sees the same astonishment that, while murder is usually illegal, people still go out and commit it), but isn’t that the very point? That if the rule is broken it’s a broken rule, and the violation isn’t, by virtue of its being a violation, an exception?  The arms of Smith exist, for example, but they are armes fausses, so to speak—they are recognised as rulebreaking.  There isn’t an exception generated by the arms that says it’s o.k. to place a chevron gules on a field vert.  The existence of the arms of Smith can’t be used as a precedent to create (design) another coat with a gules charge on a field vert (or perhaps the exception is restricted only to chevrons?).

Michael Swanson;46989 wrote:

Ok, I’ll accept that this is a rare exception.

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Guide.Guidelines#toc3

This is insufficiently clear—charges face to the dexter by default (unless otherwise mentioned).

This is not blazoning guidance, it’s design guidance, and the custom is that arms are designed with the charges facing to dexter, which has them facing in the direction of the knight’s advance on a shield borne on the left arm or on a flag carried by him.

yeah…well…i’m not sure where this came from, or started, but i want to add my POV but i’m afraid i’ll be trying to jump on a moving train. so, if it is off please excuse.

i think the theoretical rules are in fact born out of an original practical guiding force.

that being said i see no reason to run-a-muck of them in today’s world. i know on some things in armory i am a ‘to each their own’ kinda guy - like helms for women. but, i don’t think that because someone broke the rules in making the arms for say the Kingdom of Jerusalem with goild on silver that now everyone can, or should, do it. could they? sure. but in my not so humble opinion this is in very bad form. the same can be said of colors…except for the all saving band-aid of "Proper," which should be used sparingly again in my not so humble opinion.

in my own practice i have yet to come across a client who wants, or is adamant about having, a color on color or a metal on metal. but, then i have a list of what i wont do in designing arms or in emblazoning arms that i make every client read before i even begin the whole thing.

so, for me anyway, this is a the theoretical rule born out of practice long ago, but there is no need whatsoever to continually break it. rules are there for a reason and even though i can be a bit of a rebel i just can’t see breaking rules all the time so that the very rare exception becomes the norm. if that were to become the case heraldry would loose IMO a very good rule for no reason and therefore will loose a big part of its soul. and then…it would become a very mundane, if not ugly, art-form and then what’s the purpose of even messing aroud with it then?

OK off my soap box…leaping on to the moving train…and falling right down on the tracks….ouch

I agree with you, Denny.  The tincture rule should only be broken in extreme cases.  I think it’s okay to stretch it a bit when desirable, but never without good reason.

Donnchadh;47028 wrote:

i don’t think that because someone broke the rules in making the arms for say the Kingdom of Jerusalem with goild on silver that now everyone can, or should, do it.

Right.  Ultimately the answer to someone who says, "The King of Jerusalem did it, so why can’t I?" is "Because you’re not the King of Jerusalem."

Quote:

so, for me anyway, this is a the theoretical rule born out of practice long ago, but there is no need whatsoever to continually break it.

I agree.  What makes it heraldry is that it follows multi-century old customary rules.  You can stretch the rules a little bit, maybe, but if you stretch them too far, it’s not heraldry any more.  That doesn’t make something illegal, immoral, unethical, or even ugly.  It just makes it something other than heraldry.

And the fact that there’s no sharp dividing line between OK and not-OK is neither here nor there.  The same is true with most things in life.

I agree Joe.

See for me anyway it comes down to rules used for design, like color and tincture rules, and then the rules of what some call “paper heraldry”. I think both are valuable and both are good. But, like von Volbroth I sometimes grow tired of some of the extras of the “paper heraldry” rules (again thanks for the translation of that interview Ton ... very informative), but usually still abide by them in their proper context.

However, when one starts to play around with design rules it is very serious IMO, as it then crosses over into that category of what is, or is not, heraldry and can actually make a heraldic rendition not heraldry at all. In fact we then start to get into the whol ‘logo’ sphere of art when we start making all sorts of colors come together, which is fine for logos and other forms of art, but it then ceases to be heraldry IMO.

I will say, however, that the part where I, as an artist, struggle is where to draw the line between artistic expression and rule. For example, if I choose to use rangoon red for Gules, which I wouldn’t even if it looks absolutely perfect on 1964 1/2 Ford Mustang Fastback, I then get into the orangish (is that a real word?) looking red and away from a more clearly red version of red. Or if I get too deep on my Purpure I then get too close to Azure. Etc. It is the same with metals I think. You can start to get away from the color, stain or metal if you let your artistic fancy get the better of you, which I have done before and I dare say no artist worth his salt hasn’t at one time or another – or else he aint being very artistic. So, I force myself to conform to a rather basic pallete … even if I want to try another form of one of the basics simply because I think it would look better. But then I also push the limit a bit, as pushing the envelope in some cases is good … you’ve just got to be able, or ready, to admit failure when you push it too far.

So, for me I try to hold on to almost all of the rules (except rules on females using helmets et al, but even then if I were a female I would choose the traditional form for myself), but I simply do not flex on the design ones … even if they are only theoretical. But, that’s me.

OK ... again off soap box ... and leaping for moving train again ... and ... oh no ... another face plant on the tracks! ... ouch ...some people never learn.

I’ve come up with a new way of stating an old rule on the available tinctures in a coat of arms:

"If you couldn’t have drawn it with the original 8-crayon Crayola box, you shouldn’t draw it at all."

The first box of Crayola crayons introduced by Binney & Smith in 1903 had eight colors:  red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, black, and brown, with white being provided by the paper being drawn upon.

Joseph McMillan;47064 wrote:

I’ve come up with a new way of stating an old rule on the available tinctures in a coat of arms: "If you couldn’t have drawn it with the original 8-crayon Crayola box, you shouldn’t draw it at all." The first box of Crayola crayons introduced by Binney & Smith in 1903 had eight colors:  red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, black, and brown, with white being provided by the paper being drawn upon.

This sounds like a most generous but reasonable guideline to follow. I suppose that the brown crayon is the limited concession to Proper.

David Pritchard;47065 wrote:

This sounds like a most generous but reasonable guideline to follow. I suppose that the brown crayon is the limited concession to Proper.

Yup.  And as any 4-year-old knows, you approximate Caucasian skin tones by coloring very lightly with orange.  Of course, that makes it look like all your people have jaundice, but then heraldry isn’t supposed to be realistic anyway.

(And yes:  fans of sanguine, murrey, and bleu celeste are simply out of luck under my scheme.)

What about fer?  Does your scheme disregard it as well?

Stephen R. Hickman;47083 wrote:

What about fer?  Does your scheme disregard it as well?

Press the black crayon down lightly.

Joseph McMillan;47064 wrote:

I’ve come up with a new way of stating an old rule on the available tinctures in a coat of arms:

"If you couldn’t have drawn it with the original 8-crayon Crayola box, you shouldn’t draw it at all."

 

The first box of Crayola crayons introduced by Binney & Smith in 1903 had eight colors:  red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, black, and brown, with white being provided by the paper being drawn upon.

Rather Fox-Davies of you.