Does anyone know of a coat of arms which has the tincture Fer?  I’ve heard of Fer, but I’ve never seen any arms which actually has Fer in the design.  Could someone post some examples?

I don’t even know what it looks like… is it fuzzy?

Isn’t that the "proper" colour of iron?

Madalch;61162 wrote:

Isn’t that the "proper" colour of iron?

I believe you are correct. If I recall correctly, the word "fer" is French for "iron".

The FOTW page on "Heraldic Concepts" lists the tincture of "fer" as grey, but the following note concerning fer is also included:
<div class=“bbcode_indent” >
No mention of Marron or Fer. I suspect that, as Ned suggests, the term "proper" is used in (almost) all places where brown or iron-grey would be needed in (at least British) heraldry. Not that that helps us with hatching, say, the Bhutan flag!
</div>
Take care,

But I think gray for iron is "cendree." That’s the discussion I had with someone way back over at the IAAH, but it looks like they’ve changed MB software again and there’s a new thread over there here.

Editorial Note: McMillan opines that it was only used to describe things that were properly gray. Turnbull says it was used in a Welsh grant. I have been a consistent supporter of adding it and other tinctures and metals to the palette.

Hugh Brady;61164 wrote:

But I think gray for iron is "cendree."

Actually, cendrée means "ash grey" (literally, "cinder"), while fer means "iron grey".

I have no problem adding a general grey (gris) to the tincture pallette as long as we don’t get into splitting hairs with cendrée, fer, acier, aschgrau, etc. Other colors I think would be fair to add to an American heraldic pallette include celeste, rose, and buff.

Just my $.02 worth.

Take care,

Thanks for the info, guys!  There is an ulterior motive in asking about Fer.  It has been bothering me for quite some time about how similar my arms are to those of Greece, and I was thinking of various ways of differencing mine in a way that would not be Greek, and yet still be mine.  I thought of orles, tressures, contices, and even various types of crosses.  I also thought of different designs, but I just kept coming back to the one that I’ve come to love and identify with.  I even contacted the Greek Embassy in D.C. about it, but so far I’ve recieved no response.  As I’m not an elected official, I may not ever get a response.  :rolleyes:  Then I thought of different tinctures.  I want to keep the Argent, and I would like to keep the Azure, but the Azure inescutcheon is the problem.  The only other tincture that I could consider is Fer—until Hugh mentioned Cendree, and Philip mentioned Gris.  Any such tincture, though not my first choice (obviously), would be acceptable, depending on the exact respective shades of grey.  My primary consideration is to not usurp another’s arms, even if it means abandoning my own arms, which I love.

Dear Stephen,

Why not give consideration to adding a minor charge (which has some significance to you) to the middle of the cross or in the centre of the upper portion of the border?

Regards,

Iain Boyd

Hugh Brady;61164 wrote:

But I think gray for iron is "cendree." That’s the discussion I had with someone way back over at the IAAH, but it looks like they’ve changed MB software again and there’s a new thread over there here.

Editorial Note: McMillan opines that it was only used to describe things that were properly gray. Turnbull says it was used in a Welsh grant.

Does Turnbull identify what Welsh grant and in what context? If it was a fer-de-moline (millrind) Fer it supports my point.

I once went through an on-line version of Rietstap’s Armorial General looking for examples of fer, cendree, brunatre, aschgrau, etc. I don’t remember the numbers, but out of the 300,000 arms recorded there I think the examples of using these terms for anything other than more precise forms of "proper" could be counted in the single digits. Some of them were things like blazoning of the helm—where English blazonry would refer to "steel helm proper," French would say heaume d’acier. That doesn’t mean the French think acier is a heraldic term for steel-gray. Others were the normal French plain-language description of the colors of horses. Calling something un cheval gris does not make gris a heraldic color, it means the horse is a gray.

Most of the exceptions could be accounted for as canting language, e.g. blazoning an Argent field as Aschgrau for a family named Asch.

Quote:

I have been a consistent supporter of adding it and other tinctures and metals to the palette.

Good. Why not simply start blazoning in Pantone codes? Part of what makes heraldry heraldry is the bright, basic tinctures. If we let in some new colors then we can have fields barry of very light blue, light blue, turquoise, emerald green, and forest green. Then all it will take is painting in the deer brunatre, the clouds gris, and a setting sun copper. Pretty soon we can heraldicize the state seals of Idaho, Michigan, and Arizona without changing a thing except the rules of blazon.

Umm, Joseph, does that mean you really DON’T like the idea?  Come on, tell us the truth!

LOL!

Although I, as a Canadian, don’t really have a problem with brunatre<i></i>, or copper, and I really wouldn’t cashier and exile a chap for using grey.  But I agree, such "additions" to the palette should be sparingly used, until they become customary and are accepted by the majority, not of The People but of The Heralds, Pursuivants and Kings-of-Arms, which I admit is not likely to happen in my lifetime.

However, as Jeremy Hammond is much younger than me, perhaps in his. 

Joseph McMillan;61178 wrote:

Does Turnbull identify what Welsh grant and in what context? If it was a fer-de-moline (millrind) Fer it supports my point.

The post in question referred to Cendree/Ash/Grey in which I mentioned the Arms of Gwilt from South Wales (taken from Parker):

Argent, a lion rampant Sable, the head paws and half tail Ash colour.

Alternatively in the Arms of EDYE:

Gules, three men’s heads couped at the shoulders argent, crined grey.

Joseph McMillan;61178 wrote:

Why not simply start blazoning in Pantone codes? Part of what makes heraldry heraldry is the bright, basic tinctures. If we let in some new colors then we can have fields barry of very light blue, light blue, turquoise, emerald green, and forest green. Then all it will take is painting in the deer brunatre, the clouds gris, and a setting sun copper. Pretty soon we can heraldicize the state seals of Idaho, Michigan, and Arizona without changing a thing except the rules of blazon.

First, let all those who accuse Joe of being a heraldic iconoclast note the gentleman’s conservatism stated above.

Well, there is bleu celeste, after all, so rose is not that far off (although it is somewhat disturbing to view. And there’s certainly nothing to prevent a bearer of arms from saying to his printer, "PMS 193 is the closest to the shade of gules I prefer."

Adding a few additional tinctures hardly leads to paint-by-numbers heraldry or "heraldicizes" (not sure of the origin of that word) allegorical seals. And let’s be honest with ourselves: any person can have anything on their arms in any color so long as it’s blazoned proper. So an artist already has the ability to paint by numbers and that’s why you have landscape heraldry on both sides of the ocean.

I believe you have noted with some approval that Arizona’s flag would make an excellent state coat of arms, but it cannot be blazoned without the use of the metal copper (or cuivre, if we want to keep it in line with the other names of tinctures). Similarly with brunatre—you just can’t get the same color with another existing tincture.

This is especially important, I think, for Westerners who may wish their arms to reflect their heritage. Larry McMurtry talks about the way the sky looks here as opposed to Virginia—it’s a different blue—it really is a bleu celeste. Out here, a lot of the natural colors are mostly the oranges, browns, coppers, and golds of the land and the sunset.

Probably the gray is the hardest to reconcile, but I think it’s necessary because of the way heraldic art has evolved with the use of white to represent silver. I think color theory would show that viewers perceive white to be a different color than gray nowadays. And to consistently get the shade the bearer wants, he might want to specify that it is to always be rendered gray when rendered in color. Now you and I know that historically the two are interchangeable. But there has to be some evolution or the science atrophies. And maybe by recognizing some additional tinctures, designers might not be so quick as to "properize" their charges.

(This does lead me to wonder how color theory and heraldry interact. Hmmm…sounds like a wonderful article topic. Anyone?)

Doug Welsh;61181 wrote:

Umm, Joseph, does that mean you really DON’T like the idea?  Come on, tell us the truth!

LOL!

 

Although I, as a Canadian, don’t really have a problem with brunatre<i></i>, or copper, and I really wouldn’t cashier and exile a chap for using grey.  But I agree, such "additions" to the palette should be sparingly used, until they become customary and are accepted by the majority, not of The People but of The Heralds, Pursuivants and Kings-of-Arms, which I admit is not likely to happen in my lifetime.

 

However, as Jeremy Hammond is much younger than me, perhaps in his. 

But cuivre (copper) and rose are accepted by the Canadian Heralds, so who do we wait on?

Iain Boyd;61176 wrote:

Dear Stephen,

Why not give consideration to adding a minor charge (which has some significance to you) to the middle of the cross or in the centre of the upper portion of the border?

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd

Dear Iain,

I had considered that, but I decided against it for two reasons.  1.)  I want to keep the arms simple, and able to pass the Postage Test; and 2.)  I want to reserve ample space for the charges placed on it by future generations.  Marks of cadancy are generally placed in the center chief, and my daughter has suggested that her cadancy mark should be in the center of the cross.  It is with these reasons that I have declined to add charges to my shield.  Besides, adding charges to the border would not difference the inescutcheon, which is the same as the Arms of Greece.

Joseph McMillan;61178 wrote:

I think the examples of using these terms for anything other than more precise forms of "proper" could be counted in the single digits.

This prompts me to ask what is the threshold test, then? How many times must a tincture other than the canonical ones be used before it is acceptable? I mean, you have to start somewhere. And if indeed the item could have been blazoned proper, then why the need to specify the tincture?

Looking at Reistap, there are two coats with a copper boiler as a charge ("à une chaudière de cuivre"). A boiler could be constructed out of more than one metal, copper being one. The fact that the heralds specified the tincture ought to mean something. A fair reading could also mean that that the heralds really meant to say "a copper boiler proper", but then couldn’t they just have easily said just that. Or did the heralds never use proper? There are many records where a charge is emblazoned "au naturel," which to me seems to be the equivalent of "proper."

As for bleu celeste, I don’t know why everyone acts like it’s not a tincture. As Brooke-Little noted in 1973, bleu celeste was "borrowed" from the French heralds and used in England primarily for grants connected with aviation.

Hugh Brady;61189 wrote:

This prompts me to ask what is the threshold test, then? How many times must a tincture other than the canonical ones be used before it is acceptable? I mean, you have to start somewhere. And if indeed the item could have been blazoned proper, then why the need to specify the tincture?

The Rietstap blazons weren’t written by "the heralds," as far as I know.  They were written by Rietstap.  As for the last question, keep reading.

Quote:

Looking at Reistap, there are two coats with a copper boiler as a charge ("à une chaudière de cuivre"). A boiler could be constructed out of more than one metal, copper being one. The fact that the heralds specified the tincture ought to mean something. A fair reading could also mean that that the heralds really meant to say "a copper boiler proper", but then couldn’t they just have easily said just that. Or did the heralds never use proper? There are many records where a charge is emblazoned "au naturel," which to me seems to be the equivalent of "proper."

I think you’re reading more systematization into this than ever existed.  Isn’t "proper" superfluous if you’ve just said "a boiler of copper"?  I suspect that "au naturel" was only necessary if there was no other clear indication of something in natural tinctures:  "an oak tree," for example.

The fact is that English heralds have repeatedly treated these sorts of things as evidence that the lesser breeds without the law (foreigners) are heraldic barbarians who don’t keep introducing these non-heraldic colors into heraldry, while Continental heraldic scholars are just as insistent as their English counterparts that the heraldic tinctures are only two metals, five colors, and the furs.

Quote:

As for bleu celeste, I don’t know why everyone acts like it’s not a tincture. As Brooke-Little noted in 1973, bleu celeste was "borrowed" from the French heralds and used in England primarily for grants connected with aviation.

But Brooke-Little didn’t show, as far as I’ve seen, that it was ever actually used by French heralds, the last of whom had gone out of business in roughly 1700.  If someone sometime described a sky as "bleu celeste" instead of proper, I don’t think the intention was to add that to the heraldic palette.