http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=112&pictureid=1677
Hello, all!
I’m new here.
I just created my first coat of arms, and I think I let the genie out of the bottle!
Hopefully you can see the image - I can’t attach anything because the moderators said so. Hopefully you can see the same coat of arms in my profile pic.
Can anyone help me with design critique and ideas?
Am I breaking any laws of tincture or anything else?
Can someone blazon this for me?
Any help on the Latin? If you can tell me what it says, I’ll listen to you :D
What do you think?
Hi Michael and welcome.
With humble respect, I have to admit there is a lot wrong with this armorial achievement; design-wise I believe it is very poor. That being said, there are no tincture violations or actual issues that can be considered technically wrong.
I have a question, is this supposed to be two coats marshalled together (if so that would reduce the negative design critique somewhat)? Or is this one coat of arms?
My major complaint is that it seems to suffer from what we here at the AHS forums refer to as "Lucky Charms Syndrome."
Now, I know how awful it is to suffer criticism, so I want to say something nice as well… the first design that you have shared with us is not nearly even close to the worst we have seen which means by the time we are through with you… if you survive the process… you will be heraldically born again and able to magically walk on a bar wavy Azure without sinking.
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;94063 wrote:
I have a question, is this supposed to be two coats marshalled together (if so that would reduce the negative design critique somewhat)? Or is this one coat of arms?
My major complaint is that it seems to suffer from what we here at the AHS forums refer to as "Lucky Charms Syndrome."
Jeffrey,
Thanks so much for the honesty. The good thing about forums is that you can’t see my tears lol.
You are correct in that it is a marshalling (?) of two coats of arms. I guess i was so excited about finally creating a coat of arms and finding someone to show it to who would appreciate it that I forgot to explain the symbolism.
In short, the dexter(?) side is my wife’s side. Her parents are from Curaçao and Trinidad. The colors are from the flag of Curaçao(yellow and blue) along with the stars. The scarlet ibis is the national bird of Trinidad, so i feel that this represents her well. My side, the sinister(?) side is charged with a variant Jerusalem cross that I designed(which i have adopted as an emblem or a badge or whatever you properly call it) and a hand of tobacco leaves. I love cigars and pipes, and i was born in a tobacco field in North Carolina. The colors of the sinister side have meaning to me as well. Also, the small emblems on either side of the banner are symbols of my family.
Is that all the criticism you can muster? I didn’t think we heraldry geeks were such pansies :razz:
Okay, marshalled arms… then take back all the criticism… neither coat is bad alone.
EDIT: Dexter (right side, which means viewer’s left) should actually be your arms and wife’s should be sinister under normal circumstances.
Hi Michael and welcome to the forum.
I commend you for your efforts on creating an armorial achievement. You’ve obviously put a lot of effort into this. I’m assuming this is a first design, and as always when submitted for peer review, there are elements that can be discussed and perhaps even revised. The object of course is for you to have an achievement that you can be truly satisfied with, proud of, and in keeping with the traditions of good heraldic practice.
Are you aware of the Guidelines for Heraldic Practice in the United States Recommended by the American Heraldry Society? They can be found here
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Guide.Guidelines
Perhaps after reading the guidelines through, you might have further questions. Look forward to hearing form you.
Hi Michael
Echoing what Jeremy and Richard have said.
My own comments are -
Your arms : green leaves don’t show up very well against a red and blue field. If you blazon them as ‘proper’, then technically there’s no breach of the rule of tincture, but that doesn’t make them any more visible. How about making them gold, which will be much bolder and easy to make out?
Your wife’s arms : the silver stars don’t show up too well against the gold checkers, and the red bird doesn’t show up too well against the blue checkers. Does the checkered background have a special meaning, or could it be changed to, say, blue in chief and gold in base? A further comment is that the charges reflect her parents’ countries of origin, rather than they or her as individuals. Are there not other charges that would make the arms more personal to her?
If you don’t have a crest, you don’t really need a helmet. It looks incomplete without a crest.
Supporters : I’m not going to go there, because it can be a touchy subject, with strong views for and against them. However, I would suggest that, if they are to stay, perhaps some kind of differencing would be in order to personalise them. Plain gold lions are a dime a dozen as supporters.
Hi Michael,
The above suggestions are excellent.
For me, the checkered pattern on both coats makes your charges very hard to see. It’s as if the background and the charges are competing for attention with the charges lost in the background. The background also hurts my eyes and makes we want to turn away rather than looking at your arms - rarely a good thing in heraldry. I don’t know if others would agree. You might consider incorporating those colors important to you and your wife in another design rather than rely on checkering. Sorry if I sound harsh. Just my two cents, but as they say "suum cuique" (To Each His Own).
Your first attempt is nowhere near as bad as mine was, let me tell you.
The other have made excellent suggestions.
For my part, I tend to avoid the ""symbols-about-me-and-my-life" designs. Many people love them, I’ll admit, and there are some amazing designs out there that fiollow that theme. However, it is important to remember that, if you intend these arms to be hereditary, they may be born by generations hence with little to no connection to those symbols. On the other hand, if you design the arms, you get to pick the symbols.
I like to use the crest as a way of personalizing a design. As I said, though, others here can make powerful cases for other means.
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;94063 wrote:
the first design that you have shared with us is not nearly even close to the worst we have seen
Despair not, my friend, my first strike at arms were much MUCH worse! (if I can find v.1 I’ll post it)
FWIW, I like the Jerusalem or Crusaders’ cross variant that you’ve designed. This is just the sort of innovation that heraldry welcomes. I might suggest making it the central element of your shield.
mpnmatthews;94062 wrote:
Any help on the Latin? If you can tell me what it says, I’ll listen to you :D
I am a Latinist – what sentiment are you attempting to express with “Doctrinam Pro Divinitas”?
Joseph Staub;94071 wrote:
For my part, I tend to avoid the ""symbols-about-me-and-my-life" designs.
I would have to echo Joseph’s comments here as well. I too made the mistake of trying to incorporate every possible aspect of myself & family into my early achievement. Boy, howdy! Do I ever regret that.
It wasn’t until I went back & re-visited a design from my jr-high days, did I find a design that worked for me. It had meaning back then, and proved even more appropriate to my life today.
My boys (ages 6 & 4) love my current design. You should hear them sit & discuss it from time to time. Good to know I am planting those "seeds" with them so young.
Find one or two aspects of you (and your wife), and keep it simple. Otherwise, you’ll end up with something crazy like this.
Great start; keep at it. 
In the interest of full disclosure, my arms do have a particular meaning for me, but I like to think they would be easy to reinterpret by those who might wish to do so.
eploy;94069 wrote:
Hi Michael,
The above suggestions are excellent.
For me, the checkered pattern on both coats makes your charges very hard to see. It’s as if the background and the charges are competing for attention with the charges lost in the background. The background also hurts my eyes and makes we want to turn away rather than looking at your arms - rarely a good thing in heraldry. I don’t know if others would agree. You might consider incorporating those colors important to you and your wife in another design rather than rely on checkering. Sorry if I sound harsh. Just my two cents, but as they say "suum cuique" (To Each His Own).
I completely agree with this. The biggest detraction from the design is the checkered background. Everything else in the foreground is too hard to see. If the charges were lying on top of a solid background the design would pop a lot more.
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;9406 wrote:
Dexter (right side, which means viewer’s left) should actually be your arms and wife’s should be sinister under normal circumstances.
Duly noted. Change number one.
Arthur Radburn;94067 wrote:
Your arms : green leaves don’t show up very well against a red and blue field. If you blazon them as ‘proper’, then technically there’s no breach of the rule of tincture, but that doesn’t make them any more visible. How about making them gold, which will be much bolder and easy to make out?
Your wife’s arms : the silver stars don’t show up too well against the gold checkers, and the red bird doesn’t show up too well against the blue checkers. Does the checkered background have a special meaning, or could it be changed to, say, blue in chief and gold in base? A further comment is that the charges reflect her parents’ countries of origin, rather than they or her as individuals. Are there not other charges that would make the arms more personal to her?
If you don’t have a crest, you don’t really need a helmet. It looks incomplete without a crest.
Supporters : I’m not going to go there, because it can be a touchy subject, with strong views for and against them. However, I would suggest that, if they are to stay, perhaps some kind of differencing would be in order to personalise them. Plain gold lions are a dime a dozen as supporters.
All of this is great. As for my tobacco leaves, that is actually a great idea, since no one smokes green tobacco these days. Change number two.
On my wife’s arms, she wanted them to reflect her heritage. She’s from Brooklyn, which in itself is not very heraldically significant. It is te influences of her parents that make her who she is, so symbols of those countries together are a direct representation of her. Or so she says.
The supporters: i just read the Guidelines for Heraldic Practice in the United States Recommended by the American Heraldry Society and i will remove them. Rookie mistake. Change number 3.
Joseph Staub;94071 wrote:
For my part, I tend to avoid the ""symbols-about-me-and-my-life" designs.
That’s interesing, Joseph. If the symbols in your heraldry do not have any true relation to you or your life, then what exaclty do they represent more than a collage of pretty pictures?
Arthur Radburn;94067 wrote:
...Does the checkered background have a special meaning, or could it be changed to, say, blue in chief and gold in base? ...
That would be nice; I like the idea of dividing the fields. Perhaps something like Or an ibis Gules and on a chief nebuly Azure a mullet Argent. ... and however one would properly blazon the baby star.
And yours: Gules three tobacco leaves Or and on a chief Azure a Jerusalem cross Argent.
Set for crest upon a wreath of liveries a cubit arm in fess proper [or whatever tincture] the hand holding three tobacco leaves Vert [or whatever tincture or metal].
Cheers,
—Guy