kimon;86457 wrote:

I guess the Prince of Wales has it all wrong.

All the more so, since his signet ring depicts his badge, not his crest.

Mackinnon of Dunakin was a very engaging writer, but not infallible and in this case wrong, certainly as to the dating of the phenomenon—witness the widespread use of the crest alone in 18th century Britain and British America to mark plate, horse furniture, and many other property.

I did inquire if my shield alone would be suitable for a signet and was emphatically told ....no! Never mind, I still consider less being more in heraldry although I admit, the "bling" effect in my shield really isn’t apparent.

Joseph McMillan;86462 wrote:

Mackinnon of Dunakin was a very engaging writer, but not infallible and in this case wrong, certainly as to the dating of the phenomenon—witness the widespread use of the crest alone in 18th century Britain and British America to mark plate, horse furniture, and many other property.

Oh, well ...so it was a ‘cult of a crest’

Aquilo;86466 wrote:

.Not without reason , no grant of arms is made nowadays without a crest

This is also not true, at least not in Scotland. The Lyon Court website, at http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/232.html, quotes prices for the grant or matriculation of arms without a crest:

Quote:

Grants and Matriculations of Arms to individuals

- New Grant of shield alone, with or without motto £1,364

- New Grant of shield and crest, with or without motto £2,106

 

- Matriculation of previous Grant of shield alone, with or without motto £782

- Matriculation of previous Grant, including shield, crest and motto £892

I find it very curious that one could argue from the Continental perspective, where all members of a family own the same identical arms, let alone the Polish perspective in particular that use of the shield with crest is necessarily any more distinctive than use of the crest alone, especially if we go back to the days before the use of Petrasancta hatching to identify tinctures.  I’ll concede that in a society where almost everyone’s crest is a panache of ostrich plumes (as in Spain), the use of the crest would be inadequate, but not in the British Isles or in heraldic systems derived therefrom.

And if Dunakin chooses to describe a fashion with which he disagrees as a cult, well, there’s no point arguing with him since he’s not with us any more to argue back.

David Pritchard;86435 wrote:

I have been told that there are many hand engravers in Cuba but unfortunately the United States still maintians its out dated restrictions on commerce and travel to the country so this resource of inexpensive but highly skilled labour is not available to US citizens. Perhaps this will change in time.

That’s unfortunate.  Since I have been looking at some different engravers, it would be nice to have some personal recommendations on some of them.  Just because they say they can do it, doesn’t mean it will be done well.

Aquilo;86449 wrote:

A signet ring is a very personal piece of jewelry that can be shaped to your individual taste and preference.It is still a very widespread custom for people to have only crests engraved on signet rings when they ought not to do so ! The crest is a part of the heraldic achievement and cannot exist without the rest, so having it displayed on a signet ring is not practical , specially if you are planning to use a seal-ring as your heraldic ‘signature ’ .

Joseph McMillan;86452 wrote:

This may be true in Poland, but in English-speaking countries the custom of using the crest alone on signet rings is of very long standing.  Two of the oldest heraldic artifacts in the United States are crest rings dating to about 1585 and 1610 found in archeological digs at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Jamestown, Virginia.

Though my crest is important to me, I’ve always seen it as secondary in importance to my shield.  Even though I think my crest alone would look cool on a signet ring, I can’t see me getting a ring with only my crest.

My signet ring designed by Xavier d’Andeville ...ideally presenting the whole thing .

http://www.flickr.com/photos/60386984@N04/5994013770/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/60386984@N04/5994015154/in/photostream/

My two cents: As others have noted, the precedent for featuring the crest is of considerable antiquity here, but I think that the heraldic badge permits a level of understatement and originality that bests the crest by a notch or two. David Pritchard’s own signet ring (see his album) is illustrative of what I’m talking about. I guess my thinking is that you don’t want people asking you about your ring all the time, questioning you, insinuating that it might be pretentious and having to dress them down (or just act pedantic) as a result, etc.. but in the U.S., this is to some extent inevitable if you go with a crest or a shield or a full achievement, I suspect. But to those who get it to begin with, a badge will make the desired statement while stunning the heraldically illiterate. And making the badge a bit more standard on signet rings might be a way to differentiate American heraldry from the rest of the world, so for that reason, too, I would advocate it.

Aquilo;86466 wrote:

....Just two pictures above illustrate what I meant .Mr Drake’s winged dragon is beautiful, but I’ve seen at least a dozen of similar dragons and without shields they could just pass as nice pictures.

Dozens of them holding oak trees? If so, I would like some examples.

Quote:

If -God forbid- the signet was lost and found during archeological digs centuries later it would be hard to identify the armiger.

Rats, I would really hate to lose it. Perhaps I should engrave my name at the bottom.

Aquilo;86466 wrote:

If -God forbid- the signet was lost and found during archeological digs centuries later it would be hard to identify the armiger .

And yet archeologists were able to identify the armigers whose rings were found at Cape Hatteras (a Master Kendall who appeared in the records of the settlement) and Jamestown (William Strachey, secretary of the Colony of Virginia) based on the crests alone, 300-400 years after they were lost.

We could at least argue that it’d be easier if it had the arms, and not just the crest

J. Stolarz;86557 wrote:

We could at least argue that it’d be easier if it had the arms, and not just the crest

We could argue anything, but if we’re talking about a signet ring and not a full-sized seal, we’re typically dealing with an area of less than 2/3 of a square inch, sometimes barely 1/3 of square inch. And about an impression in wax made from that ring.

Now on a wax blob of that size, which is more identifiable: a shield topped with helm, mantling, and crest, or the crest alone? Suppose the arms concerned are those of the Fitzgerald Dukes of Leinster, Argent a saltire Gules, with the crest being a monkey wearing a collar and chain. Isn’t the crest alone going to be far more identifiable than a tiny rendering of a shield with a saltire—the tinctures of which will be invisible in wax—and some kind of animal thingy on top of the helm?

I’m not arguing against showing the full achievement, or shield and crest without helm and mantling, merely pointing out that depending on the design of the arms and the size of the cushion of the ring, using the crest alone can be a very sensible option, and in fact sometimes more distinctive than the full achievement.

I will give you that, and obviously it would end up being very dependent on how unique of a crest you have…or if your shield itself is the more unique part of the coat of arms.

If using a signet as a seal, then authentication was more important than foolproof identification.  Presumably one’s name would appear somewhere on the document in question - the seal would be simply a guarantee that the person signing was in fact who he said he was.  The intricacy of a particular crest, or even a monogram, would be difficult to duplicate.  And if one needed to authenticate the signatory, one could start by comparing the impressions of his ring.

Certainly it wasn’t foolproof - if you can forge a signature, you can find an engraver to duplicate a seal - but it was a safeguard against fraud.  I don’t think many people had rings engraved so that others could identify them blind, without any other indication of their identity.

But if we’re to buy our jewellery based on whether future archaeologists will be able to positively identify the individual owner, then that’s another matter altogether.

It’s my second attempt to post a photo and I hope it works ...

My seal-ring done by Xavier d’Andeville

http://www.flickr.com/photos/60386984@N04/5994013770/in/photostream/