I’ve been working on a coat of arms for a friend of mine with the surname of Sparks. The arms are for her father and he has been actively participating in the design process, though he is leaving a lot of it to her. Today I received an email saying that they love this design and have decided to move forward with this. Per my advisement, it is currently undergoing a ‘refrigerator’ test at the moment.
I was asked to specifically use an elephant on the design to represent the bearer due to the attached symbolism (from various sources) including knowledge, strength, compassion, and fortitude. Additionally, it is a direct nod to his Republican ideals.
The three chevrons represent each of the bearers children and the etiencele is a pun towards the Sparks name. Lastly, the crane was requested by the bearer specifically.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Snydercrew/d3ededed-e20a-4f0f-b7a5-168db88490e9.jpg
What about putting a firesteel at the foot of the crane. Then if it ceases to be vigilant it’ll strike sparks 
James
Not my favorite new design (de gustibus & all that), but certainly unique, and—most important—the product of the family itself, who will therefore have ownership and more likely to actually use it.
JD’s suggestion of a firestone at the crane’s foot is both a great if subtle pun (some would say the best kind), and doesn’t interfere with or overpower the design as it now stands. If the family likes it, of course.
I would recommend moving the "sparks" off of the inverted chevronels and semy onto the field making them Argent so they allude more to actual sparks.
I would remove the elephant head off the field and put the nicely posed crane grasping its stone in the vacated place in the chief.
I would place the elephant in the crest (probably the entire critter rather than just the head), since "nods" to temporal preferences of an individual (such as political interest) would be better placed in the crest in my opinion.
I’d be inclined to leave the elephant out altogether. It would make sense if the person were, say, the chairman of the RNC or something, but any mere expression of partisan preference in a coat of arms will end up with every emblazonment being put in a closet (or worse) as soon as an heir decides he/she is a die-hard democrat.
If it were only in reference to the qualities of the beast itself, that would be a different matter, but with Michael’s explanation here on the Internet, the elephant is out of the bag.
Over the past couple of months that I have been working on this, I’ve developed quite a few designs using both the elephant and the crane and different placements of the pattern itself. The original version of this design, was with the sparks in the background, but the bearer asked if they could be put onto the chevronels so I showed him. I also showed him the same design with the crane, but the bearer and family kept going back to this design.
The firesteel is a great idea and feel that it should have been a natural progression. I presented it to the family, but have not heard back on it yet.
As for the elephant…
I humbly disagree with you Joe based on the fact that the same logic could be directly implied to religious charges or, going a bit petty, with any charge with alternative associations like a sports team logo. If it was the entire body of an elephant with three stars on the design I would understand the concern, but an elephant head is far enough from association to survive political differences that may or may not be shared in future generations. People don’t assume that because you use a lion in your arms that you are a member of the Lions Club.
Snyder;99741 wrote:
As for the elephant…
I humbly disagree with you Joe based on the fact that the same logic could be directly implied to religious charges or, going a bit petty, with any charge with alternative associations like a sports team logo.
Yup.
Quote:
If it was the entire body of an elephant with three stars on the design I would understand the concern, but an elephant head is far enough from association to survive political differences that may or may not be shared in future generations. People don’t assume that because you use a lion in your arms that you are a member of the Lions Club.
True, for lion, elephant, or any other animal in the heraldic menagerie.
But they don’t need to assume the elephant means "Republican" if they go back and find out that the designer stated publicly that the (or a major) reason for the elephant was the original armiger’s "Republican values" (whatever those may be from one generation to the next).
You’re right, they don’t need to assume anything. He is a registered Republican.
Snyder;99755 wrote:
You’re right, they don’t need to assume anything. He is a registered Republican.
I’m going to try once more, then shut up.
The issue isn’t assuming what he is or isn’t, but assuming what the elephant symbolizes. Your original post says you chose the elephant because he represents "knowledge, strength, compassion, and fortitude."
Great. If the explanation stops there, then when the descendants ask, "why do we have an elephant in our coat of arms," the answer doesn’t have to be, "because your great-grandfather was a Republican," and the descendant asking the question doesn’t then feel the need to reply, "Well then I’m changing it to a donkey because I’m a Democrat."
Second Joe’s last posting above—keep the elephant’s head, but leave the party affiliation out of the written explanation. Some in the family will know, and can smile or smirk, but no need or benefit to make it a formal part of the writeup and a stumbling block to future generations who may not care for the then-current image of that party.
(FWIW I’m both a small-r and a 3rd-generation big-R republican; but only the small-r part, which is common to most Americans regardless of party preference, is at all relevant in the context of heraldry.)
“Iūstum Fac” (Latin: “do the right thing”)
It’s not my favorite design. To my eye the three chevronels and the elephant’s head are a bit too much to fit in – something is going to have to be “too small”. Like others, I don’t think that expressing political ideologies is a good idea for an inheritable coat of arms.
I like the use of the semé of sparks for a cant – under this surname, my Burke’s has a series of “chequey Vert and Or, a bend Ermine” arms.
The idea of a firesteel is a good one – if not too detailed.
steven harris;99790 wrote:
“Iūstum Fac” (Latin: “do the right thing”)
It’s not my favorite design. To my eye the three chevronels and the elephant’s head are a bit too much to fit in.
This might be fixed with an elephant’s head caboshed instead of in profile. It would fit well into a triangular space above chevron(els).
(Sorry, on travel without a graphics program to put this on the shield.)
Joseph McMillan;99796 wrote:
This might be fixed with an elephant’s head caboshed instead of in profile. It would fit well into a triangular space above chevron(els).
I should take a little more time to position the trunk better, but this is a very good solution!
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2549/ysr8.png
Joseph McMillan;99796 wrote:
(Sorry, on travel without a graphics program to put this on the shield.)
I’ve got your back. 
That does fill the field better - I’m half tempted to put it on a pile, since it’s almost there anyway.
How about the caboshed elephant head with a chief estencele and three 6-pointed mullets to represent his children? Might help with the congestion on the field.
Sorry, Matthew, that just looks like the elephant has received a nasty blow and is seeing stars.
