I am in the process of attempting to design my own arms. After having studied and hunted through what little is available on the internet about the proper way to blazon arms, I’ve come up with the following:
"Sable two wavy bendlets Or in Sinister Chief an anchor erect of the second the ring surmounted by a mullet reversed Argent in dexter base a two-bladed airscrew in pale of the second winged and issuant of the third."
The sable field is representative of my ideals for stead-fastness and honor.
The wavy bendlets, the anchor and the mullet are representative of my 20+ years in the US Navy and my final rank (SCPO) when I retired.
The airscrew also ties to my service career in that it was the symbol of my first rating (career field) after graduating from Boot Camp. (I was originally an Aviation Machinist’s Mate (AD - Jet Engine Mechanic))
If I am correct in my surmise, then this is the blazon for my avatar.
Please let me know if I have managed to get it correct.
Thanks, in advance, for the assistance.
There is certainly nothing wrong with the design. It’s very attractive.
I guess my only question is whether you have or plan to have children, and if you want them to inherit your arms. Having military insignias specifically about you might make them less desirable to future generations.
referring to tinctures as "of the second" and "of the third", etc. is considered somewhat antiquated. In the USA especially it has become more common simply to reiterate the tincture by name each time it occurs.
arriano;51865 wrote:
I guess my only question is whether you have or plan to have children, and if you want them to inherit your arms. Having military insignias specifically about you might make them less desirable to future generations.
I am in full agreement with this. Should a son or daughter become an infantryman, the navy specific charges would certainly be out of place with them. What would be wrong with the bendlets wavy representing your love of the sea? The navy charges could be replaced with hexagonal bezants or a number of hexagonal bezants which could represent bolt head and thus your mechanical inclinations.
This antique American coin is the shape of the hexagonal bexant that I proposed as an heraldic charge in the above post:
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8327/usassayoffice50dollars1sz1.jpg
</div>
David Pritchard;51869 wrote:
This antique American coin is the shape of the hexagonal bexant that I proposed as an heraldic charge in the above post:
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8327/usassayoffice50dollars1sz1.jpg
</div>
That’s an octagon.
Madalch;51872 wrote:
That’s an octagon.
You are right. I suppose that they make octagonal bolt heads, do they not?
Thanks for the input…
I agree that the anchor as depicted, if considered as only an indicator of rank in the US Navy, would be difficult to inherit. If we were to look at it in an antiquated mode however, i.e., as the symbol of hope, it works fairly well if one of my children decided to difference the arms by removing the mullet (hense me rank) and adopting my arms as thier own.
Being an American by bith (myself and all four of my children) we are not required to use differencing. Even the English system has, for the most part, decided to ignore the requirement for differences.
The really hard part is going to be designing arms along similar lines for my daughters, both of whom are VERY independent sorts!
Again, thanks for the input and incouragement.
gselvester;51866 wrote:
referring to tinctures as "of the second" and "of the third", etc. is considered somewhat antiquated. In the USA especially it has become more common simply to reiterate the tincture by name each time it occurs.
This is true, unfortunately, I have been ‘blessed’ with a bit of a perfectionists nature and if I am going to involve myself with something that I find interesting, I think it should be done in a traditional manner. This is not meant to imply that the way we ‘Americans" do things is wrong, but that we are following along with the general rules established by our ancestors.
Beyond this debate, I am still looking for any coraboration about whether or not I managed to get the Blazon correct!
Thanks agai for the feedback.
gscsderby;51882 wrote:
This is true, unfortunately, I have been ‘blessed’ with a bit of a perfectionists nature and if I am going to involve myself with something that I find interesting, I think it should be done in a traditional manner. This is not meant to imply that the way we ‘Americans" do things is wrong, but that we are following along with the general rules established by our ancestors.
Beyond this debate, I am still looking for any coraboration about whether or not I managed to get the Blazon correct!
Thanks agai for the feedback.
Well if you really want to be traditional you would actually drop the "of the first" and "of the second". I believe (and others will correct me if I am wrong) that this form of blazon was kind of made up in the 17 or 1800’s as a way of being fancy. When people blazon using the colors/metals names they are bypassing the more recent blazoning form, and reverting back to a more traditional form. The general rules of our ancestors would be the colors, not "the first. In fact I don’t ever recall seeing a French, Spanish, or Italian blazon that uses "Premier" or anything of the sort
I believe your blazon is correct, but to be honest I am having a hard time corroborating your blazon because the image is small. From what I can tell it’s correct.
Dear Jim,
Based on your avatar I would blazon your arms as follows -
"Sable, two bendlets wavy Or between in chief an anchor erect Or the ring surmounted by a mullet reversed Argent and in base a two-bladed airscrew in pale Or winged Argent."
Regards,
Iain Boyd
Are the two charges not in violation of the metal-on-metal rule? I would think that they would need to be blazoned as proper (Aviation Machinist’s rate badge and Senior Chief rank insignia). In actual usage as badges in real life, the Argent bits would be white…which creates a bit of a problem in heraldry unless they are blazoned as proper.
WBHenry;51896 wrote:
Are the two charges not in violation of the metal-on-metal rule? I would think that they would need to be blazoned as proper (Aviation Machinist’s rate badge and Senior Chief rank insignia). In actual usage as badges in real life, the Argent bits would be white…which creates a bit of a problem in heraldry unless they are blazoned as proper.
I didn’t think it was a problem. If you look at Rand Westgate’s arms in our armorial you’ll see a white horse with gold wings, crown and collar. I think those are fine too
As to the blazon of these arms: I believe the two-bladed airscrew ought to be described as "palewise," not "in pale." "Palewise" means "vertically, in the direction of a pale." "In pale" means either "placed on the central axis of the shield" or "arranged in a vertical column, one above the other."
If one needs to be more specific about the configuration of the wings, one can also blazon the charge in base: A pair of wings conjoined displayed fesswise Argent surmounted by a two-bladed airscrew palewise Or.
As to the repetition of the names of tinctures vs "of the second" etc., it is worth noting that the Royal College of arms repeats tinctures in letters patent; it does not use the style "of the second" etc.
gscsderby;51882 wrote:
This is true, unfortunately, I have been ‘blessed’ with a bit of a perfectionists nature and if I am going to involve myself with something that I find interesting, I think it should be done in a traditional manner. This is not meant to imply that the way we ‘Americans" do things is wrong, but that we are following along with the general rules established by our ancestors.
Repeating the names of the tinctures is the traditional manner: it is the traditional American manner and this is America. Using phrases like "of the second", etc. have been abandoned for good reason. It makes the blazon confusing and the blazon should be anything but confusing. The standard set in American blazon is to repeat the names of the tinctures each time they come up.
What "ancestors" are you referring to?
I think it is a nice design, but to me this design looks more like the Coa of a millitary unit then personal arms.
