The symbol of local St. James Catholic School is a good example of the tincture rule violation in action.
Here is the symbol:
http://americanheraldry.org/forums/albumthumbs/0/4b40fae8f0100e9e1ecac3f1740966ed_865.jpg?dl=1291269046
Here is how it looks at a distance:
http://americanheraldry.org/forums/albumthumbs/0/7a96d7144ad9ed3546acbae88d6fefa5_864.jpg?dl=1291268536
Rather like a paw print.
Every time I see the bumper sticker I groan, for it could have been done so much better.
I’m reminded of the Ichthus, whose original purpose is completely destroyed when the name Jesus is placed within. Ugh.
Same thing here; lose the wording and let the heraldry speak for itself.
yes, but, this isn’t heraldry. this is an advertisement logo…let’s be honest there. if this were heraldry, then, yes a violation. but, as it’s not it’s just poor design of a logo/emblem imo.
I agree with Denny. You can’t violate the tincture "rule" for something that isn’t heraldry.
Though others will call it something else, the "tincture rule", at its core, is just a design principle. I think Charles is just pointing out an example of why it is important in heraldry, given the identifying nature of the art form and its historical use on the battlefield.
Donnchadh;80465 wrote:
yes, but, this isn’t heraldry. this is an advertisement logo…
I disagree. This is a seal which contains charges of a heraldic nature not unlike a crest. It may not be a coat of arms but it is heraldic in its general design.
I think the point of why this is designed poorly is still made and illustrated well by this example even though it is not of a coat of arms.
So the argument is whether its bad heraldry or bad logo? Seems like there’s a common thread…
Actually as a logo its not all that bad (how’s that for high praise?)—at least the designer(s) stuck to one geometric & one avian charge, if I can borrow that term.
Its certainly better IMO than the all-too-common busy-bric-a-brac, sometimes in the form of a quasi-heraldic shield etc., that one often finds on school logos or ecclesiastical arms—witness some of the episcopal excesses we’ve seen posted here.
And if viewed as a logo, the arms-at-a-distance test isn’t IMO really relevant; or at least much less so than, say, for an armorial banner.
But of course others may—& clearly so—see it differently…
The question is: apart from the objection to the words (which I don’t find a problem in principle—they’re not part of the design), how would they make this better? The dove is going to be white, inevitably. Can’t put the white dove on a metal cross; can’t put the colored cross on a colored field. All I can see is to make the field gold and live with the fact that parts of the dove will overlap.
Alternative: think of the central design as a badge. Then it doesn’t matter what tincture the field is and the design is fine as it is.
Although the web-published version has a gold field, the bumper sticker field is white. The dove is fimbriated sable, but that is completely lost at a distance.
Were I re-designing this, I would make the field azure and the cross gold, but a darker gold to create more contrast. Otherwise, I might leave the field gold, but make it darker, with the fimbriation on the dove a bit heavier.
The point is, what might look Ok up close, fails at a distance. A decent image at a distance is what the bumper sticker is intended to accomplish, but fails to do.
Contrast is needed to make this look other than the paw print of the hound of God.
Ah. But, Charles, what you are suggesting costs more money to print.
More bad school heraldry. This one could actually be thought of as an heraldic attempt. I saw the shield on a car bumper sticker this morning and couldn’t recognize anything other than it was quartered.
http://www.canyonheightsacademy.com/aboutus/traditions_files/page13_1.png
School Motto & Crest Explanations
"Always Higher" ... sounds like the motto could belong to Ridgemont High.
—Guy
Joe wrote (in part - hopefully not too out of context): "All I can see is to make the field gold and live with the fact that parts of the dove will overlap."
This would surely help; but maybe one could just draw the cross a good deal fatter, or make it nowy or quadrate (sp?)—so the dove wouldn’t "slop over" into the field.
Or maybe switch the colors of the field & cross, i.e. blue field & white or gold cross, and move the dove to dexter chief.
Charles E. Drake;80459 wrote:
The symbol of local St. James Catholic School is a good example of the tincture rule violation in action.
Here is the symbol:
http://americanheraldry.org/forums/albumthumbs/0/4b40fae8f0100e9e1ecac3f1740966ed_865.jpg?dl=1291269046
...Every time I see the bumper sticker I groan, for it could have been done so much better.
Not the best example of design, but I don’t see it as a tincture rule violation at all. If this were a shield it would be Or a latin cross couped and overall a dove striking Argent… Charges placed overall do not violate any tincture rule even though there may be metal touching metal. A good example of overallis is in (RHSC Pres.) David Cvet’s arms
I agree with George. I did not see a violation, either.
As with almost any rule (or principle), it is possible to adhere to it strictly and still have a bad outcome or to break it and have a good outcome. There really is something to the old adage you have to know the rules to break the rules.
One could also argue that it’s a "white dove proper"