Greetings!
About five years ago I registered as a forum (not society) member in search of design advice on assumed arms. There’s an old thread about the initial design here. The design evolved quite a bit, but I have ended up using the final result, sparingly, as my own arms. I have held off on registering them for lots of reasons, but it seems like the time is ripe to finalize things. After letting my web contacts fade, it seemed like a good idea to return and get y’all’s opinion. I am planning on registering the arms in the name of my father, initially with the US Heraldic Register and either the ACH or the HGW.
So, here goes.
blazon includes some alternatives taken from Jamie’s suggestions
Shield:
Version 1: Chevronny wavy of six counterchanged per pale argent and azure, a salmon hauriant or
Version 2: Per pale and chevrony wavy of six Azure and Argent counterchanged a salmon hauriant or
Crest:
Version 1 Holding in his dexter paw a key or and in his sinister paw a book proper, a demi-bear azure, his coat continuing into the mantling.
version 2 A demi-bear Azure, his coat continuing into the mantling, holding in its dexter paw a key in pale wards upwards Or and in its sinister paw a closed book Proper clasped and banded Or
Design notes:
The field represents water running downhill, and implies a salmon run or other obstacle to be overcome. (And counterchanging rules.) :D
John Mck;70590 wrote:
questions:
1) What is the clearest possible blazon for the field of the shield? I based mine off of a diagram in Rietstap’s, which I found in Neubecker’s Heraldry: Symbols, Sources, and Meaning p. 93. But it can probably be cleared up.
You need to specify that the chevrons are wavy so I would suggest
Per pale and chevrony wavy of five Azure and Argent counterchanged
John Mck;70590 wrote:
2) Likewise, is there a more efficient way to blazon the crest in English?
I can’t really see one. I would suggest.
Azure a demi-bear holding in its dexter paw a key in pale wards upwards Or and in its sinister paw a closed book Proper clasped and banded Or
Normally British (i.e. English, Scottish & Irish) heraldry doesn’t feature crest-skins continuing into the mantling so there is no standard way of saying it.
John Mck;70590 wrote:
3) Are there any gross errors in the design itself? Or indeed minor errors?
Not that I can see.
John Mck;70590 wrote:
4) I am the second son of the family - would it be appropriate, in keeping with central European practice, to show cadency by altering the crest? (Say, by altering the tincture of the bear or changing one of the other charges he holds?)
I can’t quote on Central European practice. It would not be appropriate in Scottish practice and probably not in Irish.
John Mck;70590 wrote:
5) Which is a better design for the salmon - hauriant or naiant? I have points in favor of both but I’d be curious to hear what people think.
Hauriant definitely. Heraldry tends to be shown in a form that is taller than it is broad so a thin and tall charge works better than a wide and short one. Plus a salmon is not going to be naiant sideways in a current as strong as that implied by the chevronny :D
James
James Dempster;70592 wrote:
You need to specify that the chevrons are wavy so I would suggest
Per pale and chevrony wavy of five Azure and Argent counterchanged
-Doh. Forgot to add the waves. Fixed
-According to Rietstap (via Neubecker), a chevronny blazon counts every partial chevron - even the little corners - which I think here means six
Quote:
I can’t really see one. I would suggest.
Azure a demi-bear holding in its dexter paw a key in pale wards upwards Or and in its sinister paw a closed book Proper clasped and banded Or
Normally British (i.e. English, Scottish & Irish) heraldry doesn’t feature crest-skins continuing into the mantling so there is no standard way of saying it
Sounds good. In the edited v2 blazon I basically used yours but kept the bit about the mantling.
Quote:
Hauriant definitely. Heraldry tends to be shown in a form that is taller than it is broad so a thin and tall charge works better than a wide and short one. Plus a salmon is not going to be naiant sideways in a current as strong as that implied by the chevronny :D
James
- I agree with your reasoning. . .
- My motive for for trying naiant is to better show off the field division rather than obscure it. But it still works hauriant, which is superior for reasons you state.
Thanks for the feedback.
A beautiful design, but (in a continuation of an old conversation having nothing to do with John) I still do not think the word "counterchanged" is necessary or appropriate in blazoning such fields.
Chevronny wavy and per pale…
Joseph McMillan;70594 wrote:
A beautiful design, but (in a continuation of an old conversation having nothing to do with John) I still do not think the word "counterchanged" is necessary or appropriate in blazoning such fields.
Chevronny wavy and per pale…
I am in agreement with Joseph on the beauty of the design and regarding the word ‘counterchanged" in the blazon. Some years ago, I worked with the South African State Herald trying to devise a unique but simple coat-of-arms employing a trout for my father but the effort came to nothing. Instead I switched to swan charges out of frustration with the trout. Stunning design! I wish that I had thought of it years ago.
Add me to the list of those who don’t think "counterchanged" is required here. The way I would test it’s necessity is to remove the word, and then render the arms from the blazon…I would still come up with the same image. When the field is "per" more than one thing the counterchanging is part of the package.
Indeed, very beautiful design. I have seen arms with similar "layout" and it was blazoned counterchanged. I will have to locate the sources and let you all know. I am not saying it is the correct blazon, but I have seen the term counterchanged used on multiple occasions, to indicate similar design.
John Mck;70590 wrote:
Greetings!
About five years ago I registered as a forum (not society) member in search of design advice on assumed arms. There’s an old thread about the initial design here. The design evolved quite a bit, but I have ended up using the final result, sparingly, as my own arms. I have held off on registering them for lots of reasons, but it seems like the time is ripe to finalize things. After letting my web contacts fade, it seemed like a good idea to return and get y’all’s opinion. I am planning on registering the arms in the name of my father, initially with the US Heraldic Register and either the ACH or the HGW.
Also, it is great to be back here again! :D
Hmmm…. If I had to guess what Barrie’s favorite shield shape is…. What would it be?
Kenneth Mansfield;70621 wrote:
Hmmm…. If I had to guess what Barrie’s favorite shield shape is…. What would it be?
:D
Nope - I bet they made him do it… yep, twisted arm and all!
Kenneth Mansfield;70621 wrote:
Hmmm…. If I had to guess what Barrie’s favorite shield shape is…. What would it be?
Thanks for pulling that up!
Always nice to have someone else’s emblazonment of one’s arms.
I have an urge to print it all of the shields to poster-size and replace all the federal highway signs in a 50-mile radius
:twisted:
John Mck;70635 wrote:
Thanks for pulling that up!
Always nice to have someone else’s emblazonment of one’s arms.
I have an urge to print it all of the shields to poster-size and replace all the federal highway signs in a 50-mile radius
:twisted:
John, That’s a cool idea, let me know how you get on. (How are the salmon swimming these days?)
More like a tweaked version combining elements from the first postings.
I pulled the original vector line art into photoshop and re-did the tinctures of everything from the ground up (as opposed to vector art + lots of digital effects in the earlier versions), and tarted up the whole thing with some filters.
Heraldically, I combined the shield from the first version and the shield from the second. the bear now has properly bloody claws and fangs too 
[QUOTE=John Mck;7068
...tarted up…...
Now that is an anachronistic colloquialism one does not encounter outside of period films and novels!