steven harris;100604 wrote:
As usualy, Kenneth’s artwork is amazing! That said, I think that the crest should be connected to the torse in some manner. Thinking historically, we’d have Sir Robert de Blackard entering the lists with his crest magically floating a few inches above his helm??
I will concede that it might need to touch a little more convincingly, but it is rather common for heads erased to be barely touching. It is this that allows for the difference between heads issuing from a torse, heads couped, and heads erased. Otherwise, there would be no telling them apart. As we all know, those antlers would have pulled the head right off of Sir Robert’s helmet in the first place, so disbelief must necessarily have already been suspended. 
Kenneth Mansfield;100597 wrote:
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4909/h6qp.png
</div>
I’m in love!
(｡♥‿♥｡)
The crest perfectly sets off the entire emblazon—and .... it looks ancient! I really REALLY like this achievement.
—Guy
Off topic but tying off previous comment… badges usually imply some form of ownership. One does not wear one’s own badge… one puts it on his servants and retainers and so your brother in wearing your badge would imply acknowledgement of you as his superior (which though he is your elder, he is not armigerous so, it is not unthinkable).
If you chose the stag’s head erased Sable as your crest, that (the crest and torse) would also do double duty as your badge (especially if you also had a standard which it would then appear on, alongside any other badges you had).
If you catch anyone wearing your badge, your brother or your congressman, the first thing you should do is see if he is willing to take out your garbage. If not, you should revoke the badge until compliance is restored.
If your family, or individual members if there is no consensus, want to use some form of cadency, swell, but in the American context, purely optiopnal & unnecessary. Arms here (and in most of the world) are a badge of family identity i.e. all members of the same lineage - common descent -bearing the same surname. Of course there is courtesy use by spouses & daughters, and possibly as quarterings for other descendants.
If some or all of you do want to use differences, merely swapping the colors is not IMO a very good choice—it excessively hides the common descent and in this case also loses the cant you’ve all agreed to. A simple border would IMO be preferable.
Michael F. McCartney;100609 wrote:
If your family, or individual members if there is no consensus, want to use some form of cadency, swell, but in the American context, purely optiopnal & unnecessary. Arms here (and in most of the world) are a badge of family identity i.e. all members of the same lineage - common descent -bearing the same surname. Of course there is courtesy use by spouses & daughters, and possibly as quarterings for other descendants.
If some or all of you do want to use differences, merely swapping the colors is not IMO a very good choice—it excessively hides the common descent and in this case also loses the cant you’ve all agreed to. A simple border would IMO be preferable.
Even if "dad" still head of house, didn’t and doesn’t assume arms?
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;100612 wrote:
Even if "dad" still head of house, didn’t and doesn’t assume arms?
I would say two brothers assuming the same arms because "dad" has no interest in it is not terribly different from two cousins assuming arms in the name of a long dead great-grandfather who, in his lifetime, showed no interest in a coat of arms. You are still showing the connection of a shared Y chromosome.
While walking through a half SCA event and a pumpkin throwing event… I fond this leather shop with their CoA’s.
[ATTACH]1259[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]1260[/ATTACH]
Funny, it’s not. LOL
Maybe not funny, but also not a problem.
(Just for my own education, isn’t it an oxymoron to say something is not funny, then tag it "LOL"?)
%(
Joseph McMillan;100619 wrote:
Maybe not funny, but also not a problem.
(Just for my own education, isn’t it an oxymoron to say something is not funny, then tag it "LOL"?)
%(
I know. I was doing it ironically. lol
Kenneth Mansfield;100587 wrote:
Well, I guess I’ll be the one to cast a shadow.
I’m really disappointed that such a great opportunity for a canting coat of arms was lost because I showed the reverse of an image in illustrating how to set it up for etching. Not to take away from the good design, which it is, but the black hart was a really nice allusion and if it was presented as such to the family, I can’t comprehend why they’d have passed on that opportunity.
I mean if the surname were Whitard, sure. Oh, well.
Ditto… I haven’t finished the thread, but I do agree that the opportunity to cant with such a small switch in tincture would have been too good to pass up…
Kenneth Mansfield;100603 wrote:
I believe Matthew Smith uses some CAD software (marketed mostly to architect types I think). I draw mine in Adobe Illustrator. Others here opt for the free Inkscape (an Open Source vector drawing program).
Huh, i have to try something new i guess. lol
I truly didn’t know about this, but it least mines somewhat different.
[ATTACH]1265[/ATTACH]
1. Bladen, William (b. 1670/1673, Hemsworth, Yorks; d. 1718, Anne Arundel Co, Md)
2. Bladen, Gov. Thomas (b. 1698, Maryland)
I don’t think there is any implied connection in your arms. If that’s what you’re worried about.
Having a hart’s head in the crest is a great idea. You might want to consider the possibility of having the mantling flow directly from it, without a torse.
Here’s one Ronny Andersen has made for me:
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://joomla.heraldik.se/joomla/images/stories/kandisar/Berntsen-full-web.png
</div>
I agree with Ken that the Bladen arms are not so close as to make your arms with the stag in chief an infringement. The stag is a major charge which is IMO quite sufficient to constitute a new & unique design.
