David_T;96954 wrote:
Not all distillers make single malt whisky, nor do all lawyers handle corporate mergers.
So if you want single malt whisky, you should seek a distiller who makes it; and if you want to do a corporate merger, you should go to a lawyer who specializes in corporate mergers; but if you want to design a coat of arms, you should do what feels right and ignore the advise of those who specialize in heraldry?
No. You should find an artist capable and willing to do what you specify—as you did for your marmot, for example.
David_T;96926 wrote:
For the record, my blazon reads:
Arms: Argent an American Brown Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) passant reguardant proper, on a chief engrailed Azure seven novae Argent.
Crest: On a wreath of the liveries, a Dara Celtic Knot argent between two branches of Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) proper.
Motto: “In vis gnaritas libertas”
(my emphasis)
I get the desire for the particular bear (really, I do), but is there a reason not to simply say a grizzly bear? That’s what the Canadian Heraldic Authority uses.
Can you provide an image of what you’re terming a Dara Celtic knot (just for clarification)? As previously stated, I’ve found no fewer than five with the same attribution.
Kenneth Mansfield;96966 wrote:
I get the desire for the particular bear (really, I do), but is there a reason not to simply say a grizzly bear? That’s what the Canadian Heraldic Authority uses.
I don’t know. For every way I’ve attempted it, and aside from the classic heraldic generic "bear", there is an objection somewhere in this thread. I did notice that you spelled out the species info for your marmot.
I am not trying to be difficult, argumentative or glib here, but rather trying to understand.
I did a very rough drawing approaching what I have in mind, with my extremely limited drawing and Photoshop Elements skills…
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/240/grizzlyscan0001.jpg
I have not yet figured out a way to clean up the coloring. and I am not locked in to this particular color, nor this exact pose, which is based on a composite of Google images.
Quote:
Can you provide an image of what you’re terming a Dara Celtic knot (just for clarification)? As previously stated, I’ve found no fewer than five with the same attribution.
I am sure that you have seen the same variety of online images that I have. My purpose in being specific in this case is to exclude some other common forms of Celtic knot, such as a Celtic cross and triskelon which do not carry the symbolism of the Dara knot. I did have a circular form in mind.
I do think that I can simplify the branches description to simply "cedar". 
The problem with your image, David, is that it doesn’t conform to the basic principles of heraldic art. Animals are typically depicted either in profile or straight on (affronty). The degree of realism may vary (see Joe’s examples above), but other aspects are fairly well established, the goal of course being ready identification. Heraldic art is a field to itself with varying degrees of proficiency and a wide variety of styles, but the act of painting an animal on a shield doesn’t make heraldic art….IMO.
I might do something like this for a grizzly bear passant reguardant.
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/1954/thorpedavidfull.png
</div>
With animal charges, it’s often difficult to accurately translate non-mythical species into the often limiting spaces available on shields (my biggest headache is eagles displayed in chief for example). Combine that with the fact that armigers didn’t always get to choose their artists (some arms only remain as entries on rolls at events or tournaments?) and thus a bear is often hardly discernable from a panther, let alone another type of bear. Combine this with the need to limit poses and attitudes of animal charges to specific heraldic formats as Kenneth illustrates, and you are darn near doomed to fail in accurately rendering a realistic (and non-heraldic) beast without ending up with something other than heraldry (this could range from being termed a logo to the worse moniker of "bad heraldry).
Again I say, go ahead and blazon the bear in whatever specific manner you want to, but know that most artists who have really plugged in to the medieval roots of heraldry (rather than 17th - 18th century realism and scenes which are shunned by modern heraldists at best and utterly detested at worst) will see the species as cumbersome to the blazon, unneccessary and at any rate, if they are true heraldic artists, be unable to render your bear accurately and still create what can be termed heraldry.
I am regurgitating what Joe, Kenneth, Terry and most everyone has already said, but I want to add my voice to this.
I probably speak for everyone when I say that the critic and advice that one gets in these design threads is somewhat abrasive seeming for a reason. We want your arms to be the best that they can be, and when we see arms that are deficient in some way, we feel its our duty to you to bring it up in answer.
(EDIT: wow, I LOVE Kenneth’s clip art rendition witht he grizzly!)
Individually, we are not always correct, but you have enough people here collectively who have decades of study on the subject (not myself of course) and who have written white papers, hob-nobbed with scholars, moderated societies and groups, given lectures and generally made this subject their obsession, that as Terry says, it’s certainly worth considering and I would add, meditating long on their advice.
On the other side of the coin, if you feel that a given point is one worth battling for, you may find in the end that you were right all along, however, you should (<—i used the word should, ah!) take a significant amount of time defending the idea before you write it in stone. I’m talking months here. Keep revisiting the conversation until one or the other side falls from exhaustion. lol
I’d like to ask, are you familiar with our famous "fridge test" method? :grin:
Clip art?
Thanks, Jeffrey. Points all taken.
Yes, I understand the "fridge test" - thus the thread title. I am in no particular hurry. I have waited 62 years already.
Kenneth, I understand what you mean about postures. I worked (and not at all skillfully) with what I could find, knowing full well that what I came up with was still far from the ideal finished figure.
I like very much what you have done. Everything is close to what I envisioned, with two minor exceptions.
1) Would a more natural, less threatening facial expression be pushing the envelope? I would like to portray strength versus ferocity.
2) The novae, as explained to me, have much sharper, narrower points, more like eight compass points than an eight-pointed star. Jeffrey’s shield features a large black, sorry, sable one.
Thank you for giving it an excellent (in my uneducated opinion) first shot! I feel like it is coming to life.
David_T;96965 wrote:
No. You should find an artist capable and willing to do what you specify—as you did for your marmot, for example.
Certainly you could find someone who will paint you a coat of arms with a naturalistic bear, if that’s what you want. You could probably also find a distiller who would age your single malt in a charred oak barrel to make it taste more like bourbon. The reaction you’re getting here to your species-specific bear is more or less the reaction you’d get at the Caledonian Club to a bourbon-flavored single malt.
Re marmots: marmots are not part of the standard heraldic menagerie, so it may make sense to give the Linnaean designation just for clarity (although I personally wouldn’t). I think that should only be done when the artist could make an enormous error in depiction. For example, the Alabama state bird is called a yellowhammer. The official ornithological name in English is "Northern flicker," but clearly you wouldn’t blazon the Alabama state bird as a northern anything. The scientific name is Colaptes auratus, and using it would help differentiate the American woodpecker you intend from the Old World bunting with the same common name.
Yellowhammer (Colaptes auratus)
http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchable-wildlife/images/yellowhammer.jpg
Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella)
I’m having difficulty with this crest. How would it exist in reality? That is, actually affixed to the helm of a jousting knight?
“In Vis Gnaritas Libertas” is no good – see post #10 in this thread.
At a bear minimum (pun intended), use “In Vi Gnaritatis Libertas”, this would at least be grammatically correct.
Personally, I’d urge you to go with “In Scientia Libertas” to express your sentiment; or with “Ipsa Scientia Libertas Est” if you are feeling particularly philosophical.
Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least let you know that there is no heraldic law requiring that your motto be in Latin, or in any other language that you do not speak. If you want your motto to be “In The Strength Of Knowledge, Freedom”, then let your motto be “In The Strength Of Knowledge, Freedom”. I’ve been studying Latin for two decades at this point – and my motto is in English.
steven harris;96982 wrote:
I’m having difficulty with this crest. How would it exist in reality? That is, actually affixed to the helm of a jousting knight?
Much more easily, I would think than say a disembodied arm grasping a sword, the front half of a lion, a 20-ton Viking longboat, etc.
Quote:
“In Vis Gnaritas Libertas” is no good – see post #10 in this thread.
At a bear minimum (pun intended), use “In Vi Gnaritatis Libertas”, this would at least be grammatically correct… ...I’ve been studying Latin for two decades at this point – and my motto is in English.
Noted. Thank you. I evidently missed post # 10 before.
Oops, my apologies Kenneth, I didn’t actually mean "clip art" ...I meant graphic art… my brain was half asleep while posting that lol.
David_T;96984 wrote:
Much more easily, I would think than say a disembodied arm grasping a sword, the front half of a lion, a 20-ton Viking longboat, etc.
My objection was not to the size of the crest, but in regards to the fact that the knotwork is floating above the torse - it is not physically attached to the helm, which is the definition of a crest. Perhaps you could assume it as a badge or heraldic (un)knot instead??
Instead of having your two braches of Eastern Red-Cedar (J.virginiana) sticking up willy-nilly, have you considered having it woven into a wreath? Out of which could come the rest of your crest? I think that could work very well.
steven harris;96987 wrote:
My objection was not to the size of the crest, but in regards to the fact that the knotwork is floating above the torse - it is not physically attached to the helm, which is the definition of a crest.
That is my fault. But I was so psyched about how the knot fit between the branches. I think if I turn it 45° (there is no right-side-up), I can rest it on the torse and have it still fit nicely. I have no trouble imagining that one might have pulled off some blooming (or in this case, coning) greenery and stuck it in the folds of the mantling. And as to the knot itself "resting" on the wreath, it is no more far fetched that Kelisli’s interwoven crescents which date back to the 1700s. And there is plenty of precedent in the realm of paper heraldry.
Kenneth Mansfield;96988 wrote:
I think if I turn it 45° (there is no right-side-up), I can rest it on the torse and have it still fit nicely.
That’d work, too! :D
