On the “Signers of the Declaration of Independence” page, the arms of Oliver Wolcott (1726-1797, who represented Connecticut) are given as: Argent a chevron Ermine between three chess-rooks Sable.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Notable/wolcott.gif
Is an ermine charge on an agrent field considered a tincture violation? It almost has to be one. Right?
I feel that Wolcott’s arms would have been a much improved design if he had used an ermines chevron instead of the ermine one. But that’s just my opinion (only two centuries after the fact).
The pedants insist it’s not a violation, but I agree that it should be. I’m running across numerous examples of this in updating the early American roll of arms with Bolton, etc. I suspect that what’s happened is that the various arms spotters looking at early sources in monocrome (seals, bookplates, engraved silverware) interpreted everything with tails on it as ermine and everything without hatching as argent, even though we know that many 17th-18th century engravers simply didn’t use hatching at all. Add to the mix that many blazons were given with abbreviations for tinctures, and that "erm" would equally well mean ermine, ermines, or even erminois. More digging to be done on this whole subject.
Joseph McMillan;92910 wrote:
The pedants insist it’s not a violation, but I agree that it should be. I’m running across numerous examples of this in updating the early American roll of arms with Bolton, etc. I suspect that what’s happened is that the various arms spotters looking at early sources in monocrome (seals, bookplates, engraved silverware) interpreted everything with tails on it as ermine and everything without hatching as argent, even though we know that many 17th-18th century engravers simply didn’t use hatching at all. Add to the mix that many blazons were given with abbreviations for tinctures, and that "erm" would equally well mean ermine, ermines, or even erminois. More digging to be done on this whole subject.
Perhaps the blazons-writters of the day expected that those who are "skilled in the art" would know that "Arg. a chevron Erm." could not possibly have meant an ermine chevron.
I would still have to consider Erminois as metal-on-metal. Just as Ermine is essentially "Agrent ermined Sable", Erminois is just fancy-talk for "Or ermined Sable".
A chevron pean (which could just be "Sable ermined Or") could be an option - but then he’d loose the stark contrast of one metal and one color.
steven harris;92911 wrote:
Perhaps the blazons-writters of the day expected that those who are "skilled in the art" would know that "Arg. a chevron Erm." could not possibly have meant an ermine chevron.
I would still have to consider Erminois as metal-on-metal. Just as Ermine is essentially "Agrent ermined Sable", Erminois is just fancy-talk for "Or ermined Sable".
A chevron pean (which could just be "Sable ermined Or") could be an option - but then he’d loose the stark contrast of one metal and one color.
My speculation is that the Wolcott chevron should be Ermines. There seem to be other Walcott/Wolcott arms with a chevron Sable between three chess-rooks, and Ermines would be a sensible way of differencing.
On the naming: the NEGHS COH’s practice is, or at least used to be, to call white tails on black "Counterermine," to reduce confusion. I think this was originally suggested by Oswald Barron.
For better or worse, furs have traditionally been considered as neither metal nor color, so no tincture "rule" violation. IMO if the tails are large & fat enough, and the furry part is next to a plain metal or color, the contrast is sufficient if not ideal.
In any case, if the arms were historical rather than newly designed & assumed, then any aesthetic "correction" however desirable, would lessen or break the historical connection to the family and defeat the primary function of arms as identification.
e.g. the historic "stem" arms of Moncrieffe (sp?) in Scotland are Argent a lion Gules and a chief Ermine. One of the greatest heraldists of modern times was Sir Ian Moncrieffe of Easter Moncrieffe, who bore the chiefly arms with the ermine chief indented before succeeding as Chief of his clan, when the indentations disappeared. Either version—and IMO especially the Easter Moncrieffe indented version—would ideally have been a better design if either the Argent field or the Ermine chief had been of contrasting color; but then the arms, however nice, would not have been "Moncrieffe." Sometimes historical or other symbolic reality (oxymoron?) will trump artistic perfection.
And I’ll add my particular brand of nonsense by adding that if the chevron is not outlined for contrast in black (as it is in the above illustration), all you will see are a semy of ermine spots arranged in chevron pattern. Actually not such a bad design after all. The only way to get this effect is to use ermine on a metal field so it is actually kind of a clever exploitation of loopholes in the tincture rule.
Actually the emblazonments of Ian Moncrieffe’s arms by the late Don Pottinger in "Simple Heraldry, Cheerfully Illustrated" did not IIRC show a black line between the chief & field. But the arms were still quite clearly his arms.
Michael F. McCartney;92937 wrote:
Actually the emblazonments of Ian Moncrieffe’s arms by the late Don Pottinger in "Simple Heraldry, Cheerfully Illustrated" did not IIRC show a black line between the chief & field. But the arms were still quite clearly his arms.
YYRC
.... yes, you recall correctly. I have Simple Heraldry… open in front of me as I type.
—Guy
Michael F. McCartney;92937 wrote:
Actually the emblazonments of Ian Moncrieffe’s arms by the late Don Pottinger in "Simple Heraldry, Cheerfully Illustrated" did not IIRC show a black line between the chief & field. But the arms were still quite clearly his arms.
YYRC
.... yes, you recall correctly. I have Simple Heraldry, Cheerfuly Illustrated open in front of me as I type.
—Guy
A minor triumph of my aging memory, but they are so few & far between as not to be ignored!
(Hmmm…who did I last loan my copy of "Cheerfully"??)
Michael F. McCartney;92949 wrote:
...(Hmmm…who did I last loan my copy of "Cheerfully"??)
NOT MEEEEEEE! Mine is an old library discard obtained from Amazon.com (used).
(^__^) V
—Guy (smiling with a "V" for victory sign)
steven harris;92909 wrote:
Is an ermine charge on an agrent field considered a tincture violation? It almost has to be one. Right?
No. It absolutely is not. It’s so simple: you can’t have metal on metal or colour on colour. Argent is a metal. Now, is ermine a metal? No, you can tell from the name that it’s a fur. Furs are amphibious. Is this coat the best idea ever? Of course not. But it’s obviously not a violation of the rule of tincture either.
