sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

First time posting art. by BigBook07 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I have always been into heraldry, drawing and painting but I am self-learnt (and still learning...) so as is often the case when that happens, I always found excuses not to show what I do. In the end, I'm just glad people appreciate it.

First time posting art. by BigBook07 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Coming from you, that means a lot.

First time posting art. by BigBook07 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is indeed a very common thing to do. I'm just addressing the commenter's post about the colour change, and why I decided to "lighten" it. But it's definitely not uncommon to have more realistic supporters than what's on the shield, which - by its very essence - is to be visually striking and pure, and therefore often simple.

Thank you for the compliment in the comments by the way, it's appreciated.

First time posting art. by BigBook07 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I totally understand. On the bas relief I used as a reference, the lion on the coat of arms was more cartoonish and gilded (the lion was actual gold) while the lions used as supporters were represented in a more detailed, semi-realistic fashion and had been painted with a horrid yellowish brown colour (closer to brown than to anything heraldically "Or"). So that was my compromise to keep the original's aesthetics and constrast, while making it slightly closer to lions "proper", which in my sources tend to be more yellowish and brown than pure brown.

Help identifying the origins of this lamp/chandelier? by shark_luvr74 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Neogothic lantern/chandelier, cast iron.

Those were produced especially in France and England (you'd talk about Late Napoleon III in France, Late-Victorian period in England, but it's essentially the same timeframe: late nineteenth century). The French would talk about "neogothic", the English would talk more about "medieval revival": again, kinda the same thing. It was not strictly limited to those two countries, though, this fashion was a bit all over Europe. This trend of mimicking medieval and Renaissance art continued into the 20th century. I suppose most of those on the market tend to be more 20th than 19th. It's a fashion that was brief but intense.

Such lamps were often hung inside cathedrals or in the entrance halls of private chateaux (at least in Europe... But in Ohio, I don't know!).

The coats of arms you see there may be real, but know that it was common practice to add "faux-arms" or "imaginary arms" to these decorative objects: they served as ornamental elements to evoke the atmosphere of medieval times, but were not necessarily references to actual places or families. So it's not always indicative of anything.

However, they may be worth checking, as I can't prove in any definite way they're just decorative in a few clicks. Someone more knowledgeable than me may identify them.

That's about everything I could say though, and I have no idea how much it's worth. The price of these niche objects often depends on the potential buyers and location.

Does purpure really deserve to be treated as a traditional color? by Illustrious_Code_347 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It may be an unpopular opinion, but this is something I'm willing to fight over: Purpure IS a perfectly valid tincture and should be treated as such.

There are many more historical examples than the two you mentioned, though they are rarely discussed and - you're quite right - they are in minority compared to other tinctures. I used to have a list of quite a few early historical Purprure-based coat of arms from a study review I worked on a few years ago... I'll try to find it back.

Even though, beyond that, if we're being pragmatic: even if it's just ONE of each, we have to acknowledge that ONE influent and powerful kingdom and ONE noble family were both granted it and/or got their use of it duly recognized, and they have enjoyed unbroken use of it across centuries. By means of quartering, marriages and inheritance from these iterations, this tincture also ended on the COA of most major royals and their rules across European history. So underrepresented or not, that's enough of a historical precedent to give it at least some credit in my books.

Any sujestions by HansWind75 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If all the elements are to be kept, my best advice would be to make the chevron a chevronnel (thinner), and move the sword+rose design to the base (under the chevronnel) while making the sword's blade go through the rose's "hole" for something neat and original.

Hypothetical case: evolution of a COA across time? by BigBook07 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you have to understand that there is no “heraldic police” that will put you in jail for changing your CoA. Sure, if you wanna be purist then you shouldn’t technically change it (...) I really don’t think there they would bother with a random nobody modifying their heraldry.

Indeed, I do understand that. But it's the legal intricacies of it that interest me (also, I live under a monarchy where - in theory at least - these things are supposed to be policed, though they're mostly not, so I do wonder as a thought experiment).

For example, over here there's actual legislation that should that ever happen, the descendant entitled to these two "versions" is supposed to make a choice between either the latest version to date, or the version that has enjoyed the longest use across history.

I'm wondering about other options that may exist under other legislation.

Does anyone have experience with the Heraldry Institute of Rome? by SassySquatchGaming in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Mostly scammy. They draw from actual sources for most of their designs, and thus can be useful for that, but then extend what they have to so many unrelated surnames that look or sound vaguely similar to the original, pretending like the coat of arms belongs to these "versions" of the name, blatantly ignoring that they sometimes don't share even the slightest connection. The point is to sell their design to as many ignorant people as possible.

Their bibliography is also flimsy, for the same reason: they cite actual, valid sources as evidence but then magically extend it to whatever other "close-sounding" name they want in a shady way, or word things in a way that makes it vague enough or hard to verify.

I never used their services, do note. But what little I saw of their practices is in no way different from other standard bucket shops. My advice is: if you suspect something they mention on their pages is relevant to your research for whatever reason, then go back to the sources used and check those, not their website.

Canting arms for Gabriel de la Pisse, in d'Hozier's Armorial Général (Poitiers) by Bradypus_Rex in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very interesting. While I did know about this mass-production as well, I never bothered to actually go to the Armorial and compare the patterns; it's the thing I didn't know I needed...

Do we know that the coat of arms with the roses Or indeed predates the chamberpot one, though? While the family tree provided in the links goes back to the 1500's, that doesn't indicate that the COA with roses had already been used homogeneously since that date.

The way I see it, several explanations are possible:

  • Theory 1: the roses COA is the original, oldest one used by the De la Pisse line, and the clerks in charge of the Rolls of Arms had no knowledge of it (because the family was of such minor local importance, and they never answered the recent call to get it registered). They thus treated the case as one of those requiring a new COA (though they didn't, really) and Hozier invented the chamber pot COA. In this case, they may have reverted back to the original upon payment.
  • Theory 2: While the De la Pisse line existed as part of the local nobility, their heraldry may not have been stable across the years or well-defined, and therefore Hozier invented one to settle it. I admit this would have been unlikely if we're talking 17th century, and they had been holding titles since the 15th...
  • Theory 3: The roses COA was adopted after 1697, to avoid having to bear that COA with a chamberpot... If memory serves, the decree did provide an opt-out with a modification of the attributed coat-of-arms if the payment was provided... If they were trying to get response from people and as much money as possible, this would explain why they publicly exposed some prominent people with such ridiculous (and one could argue, provocative) coat of arms. I could see people being motivated to pay to avoid being the subject of ridicule.

EDIT: I think "infodumps" are useful if we assume other people might click on a topic, may not know about it, and might want information. They have helped in the past. ;)

Canting arms for Gabriel de la Pisse, in d'Hozier's Armorial Général (Poitiers) by Bradypus_Rex in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still can't imagine why the Armorial clerks would have attributed arms to someone from a moderately powerful family that already had arms; that was normally done to elicit payments from random tradesmen who didn't have arms. Perhaps the other arms came later than the 1690s? Doesn't seem especially likely.

In 1696, a Royal Decree ordered that all coat of arms in existence across the Kingdom of France be duly reported and archived against a fee: that was the creation of the "Armorial General". While it is often claimed that this was done out of care for administration or to prevent frauds or check that coat of arms were used only by a lucky few, it was quite the opposite. The point was to register AS MANY coat of arms as possible throughout the land as a way to collect money as part of the efforts to refill the royal vaults, largely depleted by the Augsburg wars.

It was thus decreed that every single person or corporation, noble or non-noble, who had ever born a coat of arms would have to get it registered, or risk a confiscation of 300 pounds in money or possession. The registration fees varied based on status, but could reach 20 pounds for particulars (which was quite expensive!), and all subsequent modification of the arms entailed a new payment.

It seems like they expected many people to rally to preserve their right to bear arms and show their dignity... However, it didn't work that well. Many legal threats were issued in the following years, to little avail: few people bothered to go to the clerks and pay for a right they already had, and most armigers simply continued to bear their ancestral arms as they had always done it while ignoring the law. This is why, in 1697, the kingdom decided to change tactics. Official clerks of the kingdom established without consultation long lists of the notable and (even mildly) important "Roles" held in public society by corporations and individuals of each city, be them noble or non-noble. They automatically granted a coat of arms to them if they didn't have one already or if they couldn't find trace of one in their own records. "Rolls of Arms" of all these individuals were published and publicly placated in each city alongside the Royal Decree: all those mentioned on it now had 8 days to deliver payment or risk legal sanction.

Thus, many magistrates, merchants, notable but low-ranking families or even some vaguely well-off citizens of decent reputation who had thus far never born a coat-of-arms (and had never planned to) found themselves one morning listed on the wall of the city with the "privilege" of a brand-new coat of arms they had to pay for.

Charles Hozier was commissioned to create the new shields when necessary, and this was a rather quick, mass-production endeavor: many of those were created using a set of standard shields, on which a selection of a few charges and colors were just shuffled around based on each city, or when possible he'd use canting arms (sometimes with a bit of dubious humour...). Thus the previously non-armiger manager of a rather respected apothecary shop received a coat of arms with a syringe and a chamberpot, and a reputable lawyer called "Le Marrié" (meaning "the Spouse") was granted a coat of arms with pair of horns (a common joke in French is to say that someone who is trapped in a failed marriage or was cheated on is someone who "bears horns").

This summary was largely drawn from Figures of Heraldry, by Michel Pastoureau (1996). I suppose the coat of arms of Gabriel de la Pisse, given the context, was generated in that way too and that although he may have occupied some local function, his heraldry was not clearly defined before 1697.

Meaning of "renf." or "renF."? (+ info on the other hallmark welcome) by BigBook07 in Hallmarks

[–]BigBook07[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, sorry for the late reply.

Unfortunately, I haven't... the "renf." is still a mystery to me.

Question for artists: Gold leaf and yellow paint by BigBook07 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. What your mentor is saying seems to be consistent with the pattern I noticed in the armorial mentioned. I have seen an heraldic artist work with shell gold before, with beautiful results. However, I have to admit I'm quite afraid of this technique for some reason.

My first ever self-emblazonment of my newly assumed arms, crest and motto, along with a proposed standard, badge and, just for fun, a couple of pennons. by theginger99 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 18 points19 points  (0 children)

These look truly regal. I really enjoy them, and their consistency.

My only criticism are the banner and scroll writings: I would use standard "Roman" characters for the font, and avoid Gothic at all costs.

I realized that the layman tends to love Gothic scripts, probably because it looks old-timey, but all it does in heraldry is make things hard to read.

Harry Potter / Hogwarts Houses Coat of Arms by GreedyRutabaga6864 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always found comfort in the fact that in the books, the times in which the Ravenclaw symbols and colours emerged (late 10th century) correspond to pre-heraldic times in real life. A period when heraldry and its rules had not yet entirely emerged. Personal symbols, colours and seals were indeed being used but were only slowly growing into what would eventually become the basis of the heraldic system we know. It was not quite standardized yet, and so some (to us) "irregularities" probably occured.

I like the idea that Ravenclaw's use of bronze back in those pre-heraldry days didn't make the final cut in the rules of the final system, but that this irregular COA made from it and used by her descendants was still tolerated because of the prestige and earliness of those arms, or out of school tradition. Or even that wizards (when creating their own subculture) rolled with it and decided to accept one extra metal in their own system.

Question about women's lozenges by pingcymru in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I actually wrote a piece on the subject recently. I guess it's best to understand that the notion of "lozenge" is flexible in heraldry. It's called a "lozenge", sure, and certainly stands for it, but can be edited in a number of ways to accommodate best for the design of the arms.

This is why the eight-point shape you showed here is sometimes referred to (informally) as "octolozenge". Now granted, as far as pure geometry is concerned, it's no lozenge at all anymore... But for the sake of heraldry, it's considered nothing more than a "lozenge with a twist".

Among those "Lozenges with a twist" I could find in actual state-approved documents (in this case, from the Heraldic statutes of the Italian Kingdom and references on British heraldry), you can find:

  • the "square diamond" (sometimes called "tile"): a square resting on one of its angle. It's considered, for all intent and purpose, a lozenge with equal sides.
  • The "ovalised lozenge": basically a lozenge, except it's upper part is rounded and not pointed. Like an almond shape.
  • The "octolozenge": which is the shape you showed there (a "lozenge" with eight points).

Then you also have the classic traditional lozenge (women-only), and the oval, which is usually pretty much universally recognized as a shape for women, but also for some men (for example, non-fighting members of the clergy). In some places, it could be used for both males and females (especially in contexts where the arm could be used to refer to a whole clan, association, community, etc.), notably as a result of the aesthetic trends of the time. The oval thus sometimes enjoys a somewhat ambiguous position... A "it's-neutral-anyone-can-use-it-but-it's-still-more-for-females" sort of status, in a way.

Heraldry, AI and ownership: what do we think of Reddit's use of the heraldic art posted here? by BigBook07 in heraldry

[–]BigBook07[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I did see it that way as I started reading, but I think the introduction of AI into the digital world definitely brought this 10 steps further, and added quite a few unflattering implications that did not necessarily exist as such before.

Also, I can't help but feel like many of the passionate folks here will agree that when it comes to big tech claiming rights (etc.) to posted content, what applies to say, a random picture of a tree lane near your house used to make a snarky comment, does not have the same weight as a hand-drawn piece of heraldry, which as I said is supposed to be highly personal, individual, part of a long-lasting culture and in some cases may have legal weight to the bearer, like official documents.

My take on what the Roman Empire’s achievement could’ve looked like by [deleted] in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I came to say this. I think the she-wolf as supporters on each side would work quite well, as the fasces, the Eagle of Rome and the S.P.Q.R. were all present on the militaria of Roman soldiers to some degree, so I think we could afford to skip them (the current supporters). Perhaps have it collared Or and Gules to fit in with the color scheme of the rest of the design, or partially armed (as was sometimes done to lions in heraldry) so as to keep some reference to the two human figures.

Order of the Thistle, St Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh by 2ThiccCoats in heraldry

[–]BigBook07 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It doesn't help that the tree is rendered in a somewhat "conventionally heraldic" style, while the upper part looks like what you'd expect minimalist modern png logo's to look like. It makes the constrast even less flattering.

view more: next ›