Neither black AND red nor black AND green necessarily violate the tincture rule, at least as it’s been understood in British and American heraldry.

Worshipful Company of Coopers (London):  Gyronny of eight Sable and Gules…

http://www.heraldicmedia.com/site/info/livery/livcoarms/coopers.gif

5th Bomb Wing, USAF:  Per pale nebuly Vert and Sable…

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/rso/images/wings_groups_images/0005bw.jpg

The rule is color on color, not color next to color.  (I believe the Scandinavians and perhaps the Germans are stricter about this, and don’t allow "next to," either.)

For everyone else, it seems that Joe and I were writing at the same time.  I tend to post then edit myself.  He is responding to a comment that I deleted mentioning that my favorite color combinations "violate the tincture rule".

gselvester;47111 wrote:

Now, the fact that we have no such heraldic authority in the USA does not give us the right to do whatever we want because there is no one to stop us. That’s the reasoning of an adolescent.

I concur. Let’s remember that heraldry is like other disciplines in the humanities: a mix of art and science. To appreciate it and practice it, one must understand the fundamentals of the discipline. Also, we know that heraldry fell into near desuetude at one time because the heralds slavishly followed hoary rules and produced mediocre and pedestrian work.

Quote:

I put it to you that until such time (if at all) that the USA has some kind of heraldic authority it is better that we err on the side of going with basic, commonly accepted practices and customs (like sticking to five basic colors, two metals and several furs) rather than coming up with new ideas simply because we can and there’s no one to stop us.

I tend to agree that we shouldn’t go around willy-nilly innovating for innovation’s sake alone. However, our neighbor to the north has a heraldic authority that has done some very nice things. I see no reason why we can’t follow Canada’s lead rather than waiting for acceptance by Garter or Lord Lyon.

The metal Copper is attractive, unique, and suited to many applications in the U.S., especially the western states. In fact, I would be willing to say that copper is an American innovation that was accepted by the Canadian heralds since it first appeared in the flag of Arizona, which I believe Joe and others have shown is a correct composition under Scots-English rules of heraldry. Rose is a natural compliment to Bleu Celeste. Brunatre is also suited to the U.S., and should be considered worthy of use. Cendree is another candidate for consideration.

And especially regarding the law of arms, as distinguished from the rules of heraldry, we must alter the rules to fit with our unique legal tradition.

Thank you all, especially Joe and Fr. Guy. This is giving me good arguments with which to counter the pups. I’d like it even better if there was a reason beyond "it’s our custom" and I do have to say that the "do it our way or not at all" argument a little too "too" (does heraldry first serve the armiger or the herald, after all?).

Hugh, I agree: innovation for it’s own sake is pointless and makes things more difficult in the end, but a living art/science must and will change over time. If the changes have reason and purpose, I, too, see no reason not to welcome them.

Joseph: to revisit the baseball analogy - at least in pro baseball there’s a single rulebook that appears to be accepted universally and I can point to it to demonstrate that clockwise baserunning is ‘illegal’. And while there may be almost universal agreement about our palette, it’s ‘almost’ universal (Canada’s use of copper, f’rinstance).

Eric: indeed artists do push the limits and traditionalists push back. What I’m fishing for here, however, is a rationale beyond "that’s the way it is".

Everyone: Why do we have such a limited palette? If the answer is no more than "because we do" then how do we rationalize our customs to our clients? The response "we don’t have to rationalize our customs to our clients" is, in my view, worse than bad heraldry; it’s pompous and exclusionary heraldry based on arbitrariness.

Joseph McMillan;47016 wrote:

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.

O.k.; point well taken.

Patrick Williams;47116 wrote:

Everyone: Why do we have such a limited palette? If the answer is no more than "because we do" then how do we rationalize our customs to our clients? The response "we don’t have to rationalize our customs to our clients" is, in my view, worse than bad heraldry; it’s pompous and exclusionary heraldry based on arbitrariness.

One argument to this would be, in my opinion, is something I think Hugh alluded to earlier in this discussion. If you specify the exact tincture then you are taking away the art of heraldry. It becomes paint by numbers, and contrains the artists ability to produce his unique vision for the arms. While this may sound too much like this is for the artist not the armiger, I would say "when you have a portrait taken of you, do you say "Paint my skin this way and paint it a certain way"? no you look at the artists work and decide whether you like his/her style, and let him create the portrait of you.

Another, more practical, argument would also be that it would allow easier usurption of others arms. Someone could adopt the following arms

Crimson three lions passant gardant in pale Sunshine armed and langued Saphire

and make a perfectly legitimate case that these are different from the English royal Arms, even though we all know they aren’t. A person could say "I don’t even have the same colors as they do how can it be the same." While this is certainly a silly example I think there would be cases where the distinction of seperate arms could be cloudy if given 256 colors instead of 8-10.

The case remains that if someone wanted, say, Turquoise they have every right to tell the artist that they like the green in their arms to be closer to turqoise than forrest green. It would still be blazoned green, but nothings stopping them from getting turqoise in any emblazonments.

Patrick Williams;47116 wrote:

Everyone: Why do we have such a limited palette? If the answer is no more than "because we do" then how do we rationalize our customs to our clients? The response "we don’t have to rationalize our customs to our clients" is, in my view, worse than bad heraldry; it’s pompous and exclusionary heraldry based on arbitrariness.

I don’t think it’s pompous and exclusionary at all—certainly not exclusionary.

But if you want a utilitarian answer, it’s this.

Client A is just in love with the color teal. He insists that his arms be "Argent a bend teal." You give into his demand—the customer’s always right, and you don’t want to be arbitrary.

Client B is equally enthusiastic about the color turquoise. She simply must have "Argent a bend turquoise." Again, you give her what she wants. To do otherwise would be pompous and exclusionary.

Client A sees a picture of client B’s arms. Perhaps the lighting has a yellowish cast to it; perhaps the pigments have faded a little; perhaps he (like most of us) simply can’t distinguish reliably between one shade of greenish blue and another. He’s outraged! "Why have you sold my arms to someone else?"

This is avoided by following the traditional rule that any shade of blue is blue, any shade of red is red, and so on, and that colors which cannot clearly be identified as one or another of the classic tinctures simply are not used (as the main color of a charge, that is—I’m not talking about diapering, molding, shading, etc.).

The very practical and unromantic men who invented maritime signal flags understood this perfectly well. By trial and error, they came up with patterns and color combinations that are recognizable at a great distance taking account of wide variations in production specifications, fading, wind, weather, and lighting. (This is why you will find no signal flags that contain purple or orange—if it looks purple, it’s blue; if it looks orange, it’s red. There are also very few with green—none in the International Code and only two pennants in the NATO naval code—and none with both blue and green in the same flag. Only one flag (Z) has both blue and black, and it’s of a totally unique pattern that would still be identifiable even if the blue were mistaken for black or vice versa.

And we will note, among the many flags used in maritime signals:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/Seaflags/signals/sigflags.html#intlltr

that there’s no teal, turquoise, magenta, fuchsia, maize, pearl, cappucino, chartreuse, burnt umber, tangerine, or any other designer colors.

Joseph McMillan;47123 wrote:

Client A sees a picture of client B’s arms. Perhaps the lighting has a yellowish cast to it; perhaps the pigments have faded a little; perhaps he (like most of us) simply can’t distinguish reliably between one shade of greenish blue and another. He’s outraged! "Why have you sold my arms to someone else?"

This is avoided by following the traditional rule that any shade of blue is blue, any shade of red is red, and so on, and that colors which cannot clearly be identified as one or another of the classic tinctures simply are not used (as the main color of a charge, that is—I’m not talking about diapering, molding, shading, etc.).

 

.

THANK YOU! That is exactly the rationale I needed! Leave it to you, Joseph, to give me the perfect words! YAY!!

Patrick Williams;47116 wrote:

I’d like it even better if there was a reason beyond "it’s our custom" and I do have to say that the "do it our way or not at all" argument a little too "too" (does heraldry first serve the armiger or the herald, after all?).

Neither. Heraldry serves the world at large as a means of identification and, as some would have it, decoration. The constant need to satisfy the self doesn’t work well with heraldry. If you want something to use as a means of personal identification but you want absolute control over it then choose something other than a coat of arms because heraldry has rules. From its very beginnings heraldry has had referees, if you will, the heraldic officers who could in fact tell an armiger "you may do this" or "you may not do that". This is because heraldry isn’t all about giving the customer (i.e. the armiger) what he wants. There have always been ways for people to devise distinguishing marks even long before heraldry existed. If an individual must have absolute control over their personal ID then heraldry may not be for them. It is an area where the wishes of the individual are in fact subordinated to the dictates of custom, tradition and even rule of law. Just as a referee keeps everyone in line during a game so too the heralds keep everyone in line so that the heraldry stays correct and good. Recoiling from the idea that tradition and custom deserve some respect in themselves seems incongruant with heraldry since it is built on tradition and custom. Sometimes the answer that it is a certain way, "because it is" can suffice. I don’t agree that everyone has a right to demand to know why a thing is a certain way as though whether or not a custom will be honored depends on whether or not an individual deems its "rationale" a convincing one. It is the job of the herald (or the heraldic enthusiast in our cases) to explain what the rules/customs/traditions are. When we can also explain their origin that is both interesting and helpful. However, when an individual thinks the reasoning behind a certain custom "isn’t good enough" or "doesn’t apply to them" or "doesn’t make sense in our contemporary idiom" I’m afraid the problem becomes theirs. I don’t have to sell you on the rules I just have to explain them.

Patrick Williams;47116 wrote:

Everyone: Why do we have such a limited palette? If the answer is no more than "because we do" then how do we rationalize our customs to our clients? The response "we don’t have to rationalize our customs to our clients" is, in my view, worse than bad heraldry; it’s pompous and exclusionary heraldry based on arbitrariness.

I simply disagree.

First, let me ask since when heraldry was supposed to be egalitarian and inclusive? The very nature of a coat of arms is a personal mark of identification unique to an individual that no one else can use. It doesn’t get more exclusive than that!

We don’t have to keep re-inventing the wheel for each successive generation in order to make heraldry more appealing to them. Perhaps, just perhaps, there will come a day when heraldry will have outlived its usefulness to society and will completely disappear and that may, or may not, be a bad thing. Better that it maintain its integrity and character and cease to be than to constantly change to suit the fashions and tastes of each era. I do in fact agree that as an art it has to keep evolving but in the area of the creativity of the herald to devise new designs within the limitations of heraldic customs and rules. It also evolves in the various styles of different heraldic artists who bring unique ideas in the way they depict, not design, achievements. Why does a haiku have so many lines and so many syllables per line? Because it does! If you want poetry with more syllables per line or more lines you may have it…but then it’s not a haiku. That isn’t stagnating the art of haiku poetry. The challenge is to create within the limitations. That’s actually more challenging than constantly changing them.

To continue the discussion about palette how about this: the reason there is a rather limited palette has to do with time period in which heraldry flourished and the ability at that time (given the limitations of the contemporary technology) to produce a broad spectrum of colors as well as the preponderance of gold and silver in decoration as well as the use of some fur to embellish armor? That explains the origins of the limitations on color. Furthermore, the art of heraldry is happily married to the science of heraldry in our own time as we try to be ever more creative while still adhering as much as possible to the same limitations of early armorists even though we don’t suffer from the technological limitations they did.

That is an explanation that doesn’t seek to rationalize. It states simply that there was a compelling reason for the limit at one time and even though we don’t have the same limitations as those who went before us we maintain the limit by tradition. In a sense, it is saying, "We do it this way because we do. That’s the way the game is played".

Patrick Williams;47116 wrote:

I’d like it even better if there was a reason beyond "it’s our custom" and I do have to say that the "do it our way or not at all" argument a little too "too" (does heraldry first serve the armiger or the herald, after all?).

Neither. Heraldry serves the world at large as a means of identification and, as some would have it, decoration. The constant need to satisfy the self doesn’t work well with heraldry. From its very beginnings heraldry has had referees, if you will, the heraldic officers who could in fact tell an armiger "you may do this" or "you may not do that". This is because heraldry isn’t all about giving the customer (i.e. the armiger) what he wants. There have always been ways for people to devise distinguishing marks even long before heraldry existed. If an individual must have absolute control over their personal ID then heraldry may not be for them. It is an area where the wishes of the individual are in fact subordinated to the dictates of custom, tradition and even rule of law. Just as a referee keeps everyone in line during a game so too the heralds keep everyone in line so that the heraldry stays correct and good. Recoiling from the idea that tradition and custom deserve some respect in themselves seems incongruant with heraldry since it is built on tradition and custom. I don’t think that everyone has a right to demand to know why a thing is a certain way as though whether or not a custom will be honored depends on whether or not an individual deems its "rationale" a convincing one. It is the job of the herald (or the heraldic enthusiast in our cases) to explain what the rules/customs/traditions are. When we can also explain their origin that is both interesting and helpful. However, I don’t have to sell you on the rules I just have to explain them.

Patrick Williams;47116 wrote:

Everyone: Why do we have such a limited palette? If the answer is no more than "because we do" then how do we rationalize our customs to our clients? The response "we don’t have to rationalize our customs to our clients" is, in my view, worse than bad heraldry; it’s pompous and exclusionary heraldry based on arbitrariness.

I simply disagree.

First, let me ask since when heraldry was supposed to be egalitarian and inclusive? The very nature of a coat of arms is a personal mark of identification unique to an individual that no one else can use. It doesn’t get more exclusive than that!

We don’t have to keep re-inventing the wheel for each successive generation in order to make heraldry more appealing to them. I do in fact agree that as an art it has to keep evolving but in the area of the creativity of the herald to devise new designs within the limitations of heraldic customs and rules. It also evolves in the various styles of different heraldic artists who bring unique ideas in the way they depict, not design, achievements. Why does a haiku have so many lines and so many syllables per line? Because it does! If you want poetry with more syllables per line or more lines you may have it…but then it’s not a haiku. That isn’t stagnating the art of haiku poetry. The challenge is to create within the limitations. That’s actually more challenging than constantly changing them.

To continue the discussion about palette how about this: the reason there is a rather limited palette has to do with time period in which heraldry flourished and the ability at that time (given the limitations of the contemporary technology) to produce a broad spectrum of colors as well as the preponderance of gold and silver in decoration as well as the use of some fur to embellish armor? That explains the origins of the limitations on color. Furthermore, it states simply that there was a compelling reason for the limit at one time and even though we don’t have the same limitations as those who went before us we maintain the limit by tradition. In a sense, it is saying, "We do it this way because we do even though we don’t have to. That’s the way the game is played".

Fr. Guy, you said: That is an explanation that doesn’t seek to rationalize. It states simply that there was a compelling reason for the limit at one time and even though we don’t have the same limitations as those who went before us we maintain the limit by tradition. In a sense, it is saying, "We do it this way because we do. That’s the way the game is played".

For some reason, the system won’t let me quote that in the normal way.

Anyhow, perhaps, in a sense, it does say that, but it says it in an eloquent and understandable manner. I tend to believe that it is our responsibility to explain the whys and wherefores; that’s part of education. And here, in the case of color, Joseph’s utilitarian explanation makes perfect sense and presents an argument that would be almost impossible to refute.

Thanks for your response, it makes explaining heraldic custom easier.

The arms of DePaul University is a good case.  The original arms appear here:

http://mission.depaul.edu/_graphics/campusArt/coat_of_arms.jpg

The graphical standard shows this:

http://mission.depaul.edu/_graphics/coatOfArms.gif

There are at least two issues raised.  Are the new arms a version of the same arms, and are the new arms heraldry at all?

Joe wrote:

If a graphic designer produces something in multiple shades of magenta, burnt umber, and fuchsia in 3-D perspective, then whatever it is, it isn’t a coat of arms, even if he slaps it on a shield.

Guy wrote:

To continue the discussion about palette how about this: the reason there is a rather limited palette has to do with time period in which heraldry flourished and the ability at that time (given the limitations of the contemporary technology) to produce a broad spectrum of colors…

Joseph McMillan;47123 wrote:

the traditional rule that any shade of blue is blue, any shade of red is red, and so on, and that colors which cannot clearly be identified as one or another of the classic tinctures simply are not used

Well, not entirely true. If any shade of red was gules, you wouldn’t have murrey or sanguine. And, as Brooke-Little found through research, we know both were used before the 16th century. The House of York used murrey and azure as livery colors, and there was a grant using sanguine. See J.P. Brooke-Litttle, Boutell’s Heraldry 289 (rev. ed., Frederick Warne & Co. 1973). Further, I don’t believe rose (pink) would be considered by anyone to be red.

I agree that there are utilitarian purposes for the limited palette, well-stated by Joe, but I think the use of the palette and additions to it should be governed by the principle of "intelligent interpretation." "[T]he ‘rules’ of heraldry are really conventions which act as guides to [heralds] but which in no way bind them. As the basic conventions of heraldry are essentially functional, it is the spirit not the letter of the convention which an able herald will follow. . . .[if a metal/metal or color/color composition does] not defeat easy recognition [it] is not so much ‘an exception to the rule’ as an intelligent interpretation of an ancient convention." A.C. Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry 63 n.26 (J.P. Brooke-Little ed., rev. ed., Bonanza Books 1985)

To shut the door on additional, distinctive, tinctures because they are either borrowed from France or Germany or conceived by a herald in modern times is foolhardy and detrimental to heraldry.

gselvester wrote:

the reason there is a rather limited palette has to do with time period in which heraldry flourished and the ability at that time (given the limitations of the contemporary technology) to produce a broad spectrum of colors as well as the preponderance of gold and silver in decoration as well as the use of some fur to embellish armor

Again, not entirely so, as with the case of murrey and sanguine. Also, I would note that the time period of heraldry’s initial conception is not the marker by which the science is practiced today.

Heraldry must evolve if it is to survive. The conservative period of heraldry (from the late 16th century to the mid-19th century) was a time when "heraldry was to remain essentially retrospective, preferring to rearrange old and by then well-established creatures rather than branching out to seek new additions to its monstrous menagerie." Peter Gwynn-Jones, The Art of Heraldry 80 (Barnes & Noble 1998 ). Indeed, "y 1684, the conservatism of heraldry was such that its survival seemed in question." Id. at 108

Heraldry "is very much a living thing," Brooke-Little writes, adding that his goal in writing textbooks was to "present heraldry as it really is, alive, diverse, and frequently capricious." Boutell’s Heraldry at v.

Hugh Brady;47132 wrote:

And we have stated that women in the United States may use a shield with a crest. See id. at Secs. 3.2.1-3.2.3. I see no reason to permit these innovations and not consider others.

I think your conclusion does not follow because the cases are not analogous.  Changing ownership rules does not imply changing standards of good design is a good idea.  The former has to do with civil rights, the latter has to do with pragmatic and historical visual utility.  Its like saying since because women have the right to vote, it follows that the Electoral College should be reformed.

Hugh Brady;47132 wrote:

Well, not entirely true. If any shade of red was gules, you wouldn’t have murrey or sanguine. And, as Brooke-Little found through research, we know both were used before the 16th century. The House of York used murrey and azure as livery colors, and there was a grant using sanguine.

It is my own opinion that Murrey is merely the Medieval predecessor of the modern heraldic tincture Purpur. As one can read below, Cardinal’s Purple was scarlet red in the year 1464, around the same time as Murrey was being used in England as a distinct heraldic tincture. As I have put forth elsewhere, the Purple Finch is an excellent example of the evolution of the name of the colour of dark red into purple. This North American bird received it scientific name, Carpodacus purpureus, in 1789. The bird’s name in Spanish is pinzón purpúreo and in French it is roselin pourpré despite the fact that the bird is not purple by modern standards but rather heraldic Murrey or ancient purple.

History, Shellfish, Royalty, and the Color Purple

Dr. Richard M. Podhajny has been in the packaging and printing industry for more than 30 years