Yes, we can help with blazons, if I mis-spoke I apologize. Having said that, we often find ourselves headed for design critique and getting along the "border" - Sorry for any misunderstanding. I thought was clear that design work was members and specific questions/blazons could be done here.. I thought.
Not being overly familiar with St. John’s symbology, I guess I’m confused how the Eagle facing sinsiter is readily distinguished from one facing dexter as "St. John" From some google searches I haven’t found the distinction.
I agree that 1914 isn’t a motto. Do specific scout organizations have their own mottos, or would they all use "be prepared"?
As to the arms themselves - excellent job of relative simplicity with meaning.
Dear David,
Well done!
My only real quibble is the eagle’s head.
I am so used to seeing animal’s heads facing the dexter that it does not feel right for the single head to be facing in the other direction.
With all due respects, there is no such things as a ‘secular’ eagle as against a ‘religious’ eagle, hence, no reason to turn the head around.
Artistically, I would like to suggest that the ‘per chevron reversed’ be given a more acute angle so that the division line terminates further up the side of the shield. (I would tend to use ‘reversed’ rather than ‘inverted’ in the blazon.)
Also, can the stars on the roundel be turned slightly so that the first two stars are in line across the top with the third star directly below it. The ‘lopsided’ placement of the stars in your current illustration is not normal.
I appreciate the significance of the number of battlements to you and your troop.
However, it would be more usual to blazon the field simply as "Per chevron reversed embattled argent and gules . . ." and leave the number of battlements up to the artist.
In fact, without the symbolism this is how most heraldists would start the blazon.
All the best,
Iain Boyd
Iain Boyd;83782 wrote:
My only real quibble is the eagle’s head.
I am so used to seeing animal’s heads facing the dexter that it does not feel right for the single head to be facing in the other direction.
With all due respects, there is no such things as a ‘secular’ eagle as against a ‘religious’ eagle, hence, no reason to turn the head around.
I completely agree, Iain.
Iain Boyd;83782 wrote:
Also, can the stars on the roundel be turned slightly so that the first two stars are in line across the top with the third star directly below it. The ‘lopsided’ placement of the stars in your current illustration is not normal.
Iain, they are mimicking the state flag of Tennessee, which is this:
http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst069.gif
Iain Boyd;83782 wrote:
I appreciate the significance of the number of battlements to you and your troop.
However, it would be more usual to blazon the field simply as "Per chevron reversed embattled argent and gules . . ." and leave the number of battlements up to the artist.
I prefer many fewer battlements, but figured I’d leave that one alone.
I like the design and the symbolism behind it. I agree with Iain’s comment; I’d prefer the eagle facing dexter.
However, whether you are soliciting input or not, well done!
I agree, well done!
I’ll admit when I heard "Design by concensus," I was bracing myself for something with a bunch of colors, quartered with as many different symbols as could fit on the shield.
I second lining up the stars. That way you are suggest the symbol on the tennessee flag rather than just using it directly "as is." A small distinction, yes, but given that it’s been decided already…
If I were to tweak the design further without changing things too much, I would get rid of the blue circle and:
1) make the base blue and place 3 white stars in it. Would work well with the red eagle head and it carries the message of the symbol on the flag (east, middle, and west tennessee) just fine.
or,
keep the base red, with 3 white stars, and change the bird’s feathers to blue to still reference the flag’s colors and make the bird pop a bit more.
In either case, I might go one step further to make sure the arms were original, and consider something for the eagle to hold in his beak (such as a rose on a stem, to reinforce the crest.)
Actually, I would change the crest. The Tudor rose is after all a royal English symbol, which, in my opinion, should not be used lightly, or even without explicit consent.
Furthermore, please, not proper! Make the eagle azure or gules. It will work just as fine. If you want to really push "St. John" give it a gold halo…
Kathy McClurg;83781 wrote:
Yes, we can help with blazons, if I mis-spoke I apologize. Having said that, we often find ourselves headed for design critique and getting along the "border" - Sorry for any misunderstanding. I thought was clear that design work was members and specific questions/blazons could be done here.. I thought.
Not being overly familiar with St. John’s symbology, I guess I’m confused how the Eagle facing sinsiter is readily distinguished from one facing dexter as "St. John" From some google searches I haven’t found the distinction.
I agree that 1914 isn’t a motto. Do specific scout organizations have their own mottos, or would they all use "be prepared"?
As to the arms themselves - excellent job of relative simplicity with meaning.
I’ve found that in some clerical heraldry things are reversed, and that’s why the eagle’s head faces the opposite direction.
The "Boy Scout" motto is "Be Prepared", but we opted to come up with a troop "motto". "1914" isn’t a traditional motto, but neither is the motto used in this coat of arms: http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Heraldry/ArmyDUISSICOA/ArmyHeraldryUnit.aspx?u=3736
I second the idea of turning the eagle’s head to dexter and giving it a halo. If the whole point of the eagle’s head is to represent St. John that will go a lot further to meeting that goal. Otherwise it just looks like bad heraldry. I’ve never heard of the notion of items being intentionally reversed in clerical heraldry. I have seen many examples of poor clerical heraldry, though.
http://www.stjohnsramsey.org/images/Eagle.gif http://dwromberger.com/stjohneagleicon.gif http://www.art-imagery.com/images/Dimma_St_John_Eagle.jpg
Claus has the right solution. To make the eagle’s head represent St. John, one does not turn it it but surrounds it with a halo.
dhjohnson;83807 wrote:
The "Boy Scout" motto is "Be Prepared", but we opted to come up with a troop "motto". "1914" isn’t a traditional motto, but neither is the motto used in this coat of arms: http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Heraldry/ArmyDUISSICOA/ArmyHeraldryUnit.aspx?u=3736
The motto of the 506th Infantry Regiment (which you cite) is "Currahee" - Cherokee for "Stands Alone" or "We Stand Alone Together" - probably derived from the Currahee Mountain near Camp Toccoa. How is this a not a "traditional motto"?
steven harris;83814 wrote:
The motto of the 506th Infantry Regiment (which you cite) is "Currahee" - Cherokee for "Stands Alone" or "We Stand Alone Together" - probably derived from the Currahee Mountain near Camp Toccoa. How is this a not a "traditional motto"?
Currahee is a place. The "Stands Alone" is at best, a secondary meaning, and was probably added to the "symbolism" after the fact.
I would only be concerned that 1914 by itself could be misleading, that is, potentially construed as a date stamp coincidentally occurring on a scroll rather than being viewed as an actual motto. Having things be easily misinterpreted goes against my own goal of heraldry being simple and clear, however, mottos are probably the least important part of the achievement in my mind and 1914 isn’t bad just because it’s a number, it is only unwieldy to me because of lack of clarity. If everyone in the troop understands the meaning and purpose, then the clarity issue disolves, at least for those it serves… so… <Forest Gump Voice>: "That’s all i got tuh’say about thay-at."
Guys,
Please don’t nitpick the design. It has apparently already been voted by the troop.
Which means a bunch of kids just approved a design that is much much better then the crap 99% of Bishops insist on using, despite the fact nobody from this forum was nudging them towards a better design.
Yeah the justification of the reversed Eagle’s head is a bit odd, and the charge on TN’s flag is a bit weird-looking, but cut ‘em some slack. There’re a lot worse heraldic sins one can commit then insisting the eagle look the wrong way and borrowing a complicated charge from the state flag.
Nick
Kenneth Mansfield;83761 wrote:
So it’s my understanding that, right or wrong, good or bad, the boys have already voted on this and you need help with the blazon, not a critique of the arms themselves. Correct?
dhjohnson;83762 wrote:
That’s correct, although I wouldn’t mind a critique.
Nick B II;83820 wrote:
Please don’t nitpick the design. It has apparently already been voted by the troop.
With all due respect, Nick, we asked first. We don’t know what the other designs were that these boys voted on, but if David were to go back to them and say something along the lines of "hey guys, I’ve done a little more looking into the design you’ve chosen and a discussion with members of the American Heraldry Society has yielded the following suggestions for changes…." there is a chance that they could say, "Wow. Thanks, Mr. Johnson. Now we have the best coat of arms ever!" There is almost always room for improvement after a decision has been made and unless they’ve sent out a press release announcing their new coat of arms I don’t see why they can’t tweak it just a bit. No one has suggested a complete overhaul.
I was thinking, why not write out 1914 to turn it into a phrase instead of a date?
I quickly threw this together to help visualize some of the various ideas here: