FWIW I think a helmet & crest would be gilding the lily (oooh—"a garden lily Or"?)
But if we must have a crest, then—at least for the Forum—an heraldic bonacon would sometimes seem the most appropriate reflection of the debate…
Kathy McClurg;89962 wrote:
It’s like supporters, don’t need em! <chuckle, lets see where this one goes!>
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Joseph McMillan;89955 wrote:
Actually, I don’t think we need either a crest or a motto. In any case, "Nobilitatis virtus non stemma" and variants thereof are trite.
I agree with Joseph.
We need a crest and a motto "like a fish needs a bicycle" (to quote Bono of the band U2).
Joseph McMillan;89955 wrote:
In any case, "Nobilitatis virtus non stemma" and variants thereof are trite.
Well, it’s true that "Nobilitatis Virtus Non Stemma" may have become a bit cliché (probably due to its use by a great number of the institutions patronized by the Duke of Westminster), that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true for the AHS.
Kathy McClurg;89962 wrote:
I think we are just fine without crest or motto - although always fun to discuss designs… particularly with a bit of levity…
It’s like supporters, don’t need em! <chuckle, lets see where this one goes!>
I wholeheartedly agree. We do not need a crest or a motto, but it a fun exercise to throw options around. And if one sticks, then that would be great too!
Michael F. McCartney;89963 wrote:
But if we must have a crest, then—at least for the Forum—an heraldic bonacon would sometimes seem the most appropriate reflection of the debate…
I had to look up this beast: http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast80.htm
eploy;89966 wrote:
I agree with Joseph.
We need a crest and a motto "like a fish needs a bicycle" (to quote Bono of the band U2).
I believe that Mr Hewson may have borrowed that line from somebody…
Nobilitatis virtus non stemma character is also the motto on the arms "granted" to LBJ by the short-lived American College of Heraldry and Arms (no relation to the ACH) in 1968.
Perhaps a badge might have been a better proposition at first? A shield in many eyes is part of a coat of arms and as such would generally have a crest associated with it. I think that the artist that did the excellent version used here realised that a shield alone looked somewhat out of place and so the laurel wreath was a smart idea in that it transformed it into looking more, for want of a better word, ‘complete’.
With the wreath, it essentially is (or can be viewed as) a badge.
And IIRC the AHS—or some company authorized to do so—sells membership badges consisting of the shield (don’t recall with wreath or without). Adding a helm and/or crest would, IMO, make a much less suitable badge in that either the shield would have to shrink beyond easy recognition, or the badge bloat beyond usefulness.
We may be accustomed to seeing every coat of arms with a crest and motto, but this is far from the norm for corporate bodies in general. The arms of Oxford and Cambridge Universities have no crests, nor do those of most of their constituent colleges. The same is true of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Lacking a crest scarcely makes a design upon a shield into a badge. And Lord Lyon actually offers arms consisting only of shield and motto at a slightly lower price point than for arms with a crest.
On the AHS "badge," yes, one can buy a lapel pin of the AHS arms, the same emblazonment seen on the top of this page. The announcement of its availability is "sticky" at the top of the open discussions thread in the members section, http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5337&highlight=lapel
joseph mcmillan;90042 wrote:
we may be accustomed to seeing every coat of arms with a crest and motto, but this is far from the norm for corporate bodies in general.
yes!
Thank you.
Joseph McMillan;90042 wrote:
We may be accustomed to seeing every coat of arms with a crest and motto, but this is far from the norm for corporate bodies in general. ...
E.g.:
while it’s true it is not unheard of for corporate bodies not to have a crest, as Joe points out, i’ve seen more images of corporate bodies in the few heraldry books i have (i say few as i’m sure many here have more than i do) than of ones that don’t. that combined with the fact that the general public would see arms with a crest, again generally, and they could be personal or corporate, it isn’t far fetched to say/see/believe that people generally see a shield as a component of the arms, which would include a crest and motto than without. of course this is all imo only. i don’t pretend to be an expert. just what i see in my own books and on websites of different heraldry societies and of artists etc.
besides, i could use the same argument that our arms are anathema, well not quite that bad, but definitely not good in that they are the typical "bad heraldry" arms (that many here scoff at of others) in that they violate, err i mean get around, the color on color rule by ‘wimping’ out with the "Proper" designation. yes, examples exist of Proper on color, but most people here have said that’s generally bad heraldry and yet we have that as our own arms.
p.s. before anyone gets their panties in a bunch i’m not advocating revamping the arms, or in any way disparaging them or those involved in their design. i’m only trying to make a connection based off of what many here have said about other arms like ours and how i could use the same argument others have made for not having a crest and motto and us not having these arms at all…again not advocating that…just saying…
There is an interesting historical aspect to this. Many ancient armigerous "corporations" didn’t have crests probably because, their nature meant that there was no "head" to wear the helm and crest. Oxbridge colleges have been mentioned in this regard, and the same is often true of older civic arms. From the early modern period, crests became more common, and there is hardly a British town or corporation with 19th century arms that does not have the full complement, often with a knight’s helmet.
My university (Aberdeen) had simple arms with only shield and motto. Supporters and a crest were granted for its quincentenery.
On a similar (if shorter) note. The Heraldry Society of Scotland made do with arms and motto - a crest was only granted on its 30th anniversary.
The question might then be, do we wait till 30 years are up or 500?
James
James Dempster;90052 wrote:
The question might then be, do we wait till 30 years are up or 500?
James
ha! i probably won’t be alive for either! lol 
I think the shield as is should stay in place and the crest/motto thing is not necessary or desired at this point…
Gentlemen the Lady has spoken.
