Unto Lord Dagonell Collingwood, Garnet Herald of the glorious Sylvan Kingdom of Æthelmearc, come Greetings from the Heraldic Flying Circus and Moving Company.

My apologies for the lateness of this letter. Due to technical difficulties beyond our control, I was not able to do the necessary research until today. At any rate, here are comments and observations on ILOI #AE46, dated 11/1/00.

First, a recurring comment Cigfran mentioned that in several names on this letter, there were inconsistencies in the Gaelic spelling of names, specifically in the use of diacriticals. In several places a purportedly Gaelic spelling uses the "O-apostrophe" Anglicized spelling. If anything, they should be using an "O-fada" (the accent mark looking thingy, which I will represent as {O'}. These will be pointed out in the individual commentaries.

Suggested re-blazon "Purpure, _on_ a bend argent three decrescents _palewise_ gules". There was considerable discussion about the blazoning of the position of the decrescents.

Some of us felt that, due to the convention that "up" on a bend follows the bend., the decrescents should be blazoned as "palewise". Others felt that since "decrerscent " implies points to sinister, "palewise" was unnecessary. A consensus was finally reached that it couldn't hurt to include "palewise" as insurance that the decrescents would be emblazoned correctly.

We suggest that the pen be blazoned specifically as a "quill pen", to match the emblazon. Now for the fun part two colors with a complex line of division.. The argument starts here:

"In the Rules published at the end of Master Wilhelm's tenure as Laurel, it is clearly stated (IX.4) 'those partitions allowed to use two colors or two metals should not use complex lines of division, as those will be difficult to discern at a distance, due to poor contrast" and (IX.5) 'the basic requirement in all cases is that there be sufficient contrast for clear visibility." (LOAR 29, Mar 87, p.23, from the on-line precedents of Alison MacCoul of Elphane)

This rule was not carried over into the new Rules, as published November 1, 1995, and in several cases involving a complex line of division between two colors, instead of citing this rule for a automatic return, more specific arguments are used, to wit:

In reference to "Per chevron nebuly gules and purpure...", "The complex line of division of the field was almost entirely unidentifiable at any range because of the extremely poor contrast between gules and purpure. This is a color combination which should be avoided when using a complex line of division." (LOAR 1/91, p. 21, from the on-line precedents of the first year of the first tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda, ).

Also, "[t]he contrast between sable and purpure is too poor to permit the use of this complex [wavy} line of division." (LOAR 29, Mar 87, p.15, from the on-line precedemts of Alison MacCoul of Elphane)

Note that in both cases, the respective Laurels do not cite poor contrast as a reason for return, but "the _extremely_ poor contrast" and "[t]he contrast...is _too_ poor" (emphasis mine), which might be taken to imply that other color/color combinations might be acceptable. Both precedents mention a specific combination of colors as being unacceptable, but do not rule out all combinations..

On the other hand, it can be argued that if the wavy is not deep enough, it would be more difficult to identify it on an azure/vert field than on, say, a gules/argent one.. Since there is no way to guarantee how the wavy will be drawn, the device should be returned.. The problem with this is that a similar argument could be made for every two-color field with a complex line, yet no blanket rule or precedent currently in force forbids it, and, in fact, an earlier blanket rule was specifically omitted when the Rules were revised. This would seem to imply that the college of arms has relaxed its standards on this question, and is willing to consider such armory on a case-by-case basis.

Although no consensus was reached at the meeting, my personal opinion is to let Laurel have at it.

This is actually _closer_ to the device it conflicts with than the original submission.

This is one of those instances mentioned by Cigfran. If he's going to use the fada in the given name, he should use it correctly in the surname

Another case of inconsistent use of apostrophes and fadas.

New Device

There was some question whether the central cross divided quarterly violated the principle of not dividing a long object along its long axis.. However, in the mean time, Silver Buccle has reported that Laurel has accepted the badge of Iago Benitez, "Quarterly gules and Or, a cross botony within a bordure counterchanged." ( Dec. XXXV issue of _AEstel_, p.13). There was also a question whether the crosses needed to be specified as "in saltire", or if that is the default arrangement for five objects.

There was considerable discussion whether the laurel wreath is sufficiently prominent in this device, or if putting it on the pall forces it to be too small. No consensus was reached.

Since gryphons do not exist, they do not have a "proper" tincture. The tincture(s) of the heads should be specified.

Yours in heraldic Service'

Cigfran o Caer Gwalch, Icedragon Pursuivant
Dagonell Collingwood of Emerald Lake, Garnet Herald
Elizabeth Law, Haelstone Pursuivant
Juliana Rosalia Dolce di Sienna
and
Otfrid Ammerthaler, reporting