Coat of Arms vs. Crest
 

I've found that my National Fraternity (Alpha Phi Omega) is *very* confused about the terms "Coat of Arms" and "Crest", using the terms interchangably to refer to the Coat of Arms.

Heraldically, the crest only applies to anything attached to the top of the helmet in a Coat of Arms.

Does anyone else else have this issue?

Randy

Yes, this is often a confusing issue in Alpha Phi Alpha as well. Our "coat of arms" is properly called "The Fraternal Design."

http://www.deltalambda.org/images/as...-Arm_300px.jpg

I ALWAYS call it the Fraternal Design, not only because that's how I was taught, but because when you say Fraternal Design, there should be no mistake.

---------------------------

The Shield of the Fraternity is used on shingles, official correspondence, banners, etc -- any official fraternity thing used by officers or chapters to represent the organization and IS NOT wearable.

http://howardsites.com/images/shield.gif
Most people call this the shield. But is it really a shield? I don't know. I often call it the "seal" because of its uses, but that may be wrong too.

In other words, what nonmembers usually see in reference to Alpha Phi Alpha is the Fraternal Design (coat of arms).

Terms that often need clarification for members (some of these are different words for the same thing):
Coat of arms
Shield
Crest
Seal
Badge

ok

Yes, except in those rare occasions that you find a pre-1950 rogue fraternity sweater with the "wrong" emblem on it.

It's not just a GLO thing, it's an English usage thing. "Crest" is commonly used as a synonym for coat of arms on both sides of The Pond, despite the fact that it is an incorrect usage. A synecdoche, perhaps?

GLOs are no different from the rest of society. Some GLO are careful to use coat of arms, others use crest, others use both, and still others (like Alpha Phi Omega or Alpha Gamma Delta) use a different phrase altogether, like "The Fraternal Design" (thanks, Sen) or "Armorial Bearings."

The heraldist in me typically insists on using "coat of arms" (or simply "arms"). But the pragmatist in me is inclined to refer to specific GLO arms using the terminology employed by that GLO if it matters to them.

Within traditional heraldic design, it's definitely a shield -- a somewhat stylized shield, but a shield nonetheless.

Heraldically speaking, none of these are different words for the same thing, though in common usage they may be. "Shield" (escutcheon) and "crest" are components of a "coat of arms."

A "badge" (heraldically) is a seperate (and simpler) emblem that may be related to but is distinct from a coat of arms, and that serves as a personal or collective emblem.

A "seal" properly speaking is an emblem that may or may not include part of all of a coat of arms (or badge) that is used to attest to the authenticity of a document.

;)

I know, I know. :p

But since this whole thread is predicated on correct usage vs. common usage, I figured I might as well say it.

I saw this thread title and thought, "Where's MysticCat?" LOL

In Delta Chi it is correctly referred to as the Coat of Arms. Unfortunately many members refer to it as the crest. Most of the Associate Members in my chapter, however, learn very quickly not refer to it incorrectly around me lest they incur the wrath of God.

I know -- I thought of you, too. The title just sucked us in, didn't it? :D
I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but a coat of arms can, and often does, have a crest without a helmet. Among GLOs, think Beta, FIJI, Sigma Chi, Kappa Sig, ATO . . . .

Then again a lot of GLOs violate a lot of the rules of heraldry in their CoAs.

True, but helmets are not usually considered essential elements in coats of arms. It is, I think, quite common to omit them in corporate, as opposed to personal, arms.

I actually got a question for the heraldry nerds of GC. The Psi U coat of arms has an owl perched on a fasces suspended over the shield. Would the owl be considered the crest and the fasces standing in for a helm or torse?

I would say that with Psi U, the owl would be considered the crest and the fasces, though unusual, would be considered the torse. What do you think MC?

ETA: I thought about it and another possibility would be to consider the owl perched on the fasces to be the crest and for the coat of arms to have no torse. Hmm...

This heraldry nerd thinks your second possibility is correct. The owl on the fasces is the crest, and there is no torse (nor is there a helm or torse substitute).

Just as a helm isn't necessarily an essential element of all coats of arms, neither is a torse. Just to give two examples of coats of arms without either, you can look at the arms of the College of Arms itself (the heraldic authority in England), where a crest coronet replaces the torse:

http://college-of-arms.gov.uk/Images/Crest.jpg

and of the United States, where there is not torse or helm:

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/up...al/Graham1.jpg


As far as that goes, some arms need not have crests at all -- typically, the arms of women (except royalty), clergy and ecclesiastic institutions do not include crests.

I think I have made this comment before, but it seems worth making again: We frequently speak of arms being "correct" according to "the rules" of heraldry, but there is more than one set of rules. Each European country had its own heraldic authority and its own rules, so the rules in England could in some instances be quite different from the rules in, say, Germany. In the US where we have no heraldic authority (except as to the military), when we talk about the rules of heraldry, we're typically referring to the English (or perhaps Scottish) conventions, but the fact is we are not bound by them.

ETA: If you want to get really heraldically nerdy, the American Heraldry Society has some very good Guidelines for Heraldic Practice in the United States. These guidelines reflect "the rules" from other countries, while at the same time respecting American freedom in this regard. The guidelines say this about torses:

In armorial displays, the crest is usually depicted as joined to the helmet with a circlet of twisted cloth, called a wreath or torse. The norm in the United States is to show the torse as a twisted band, with three twists of the principal metal from the shield alternating with three twists of the principal color, starting with a twist of metal at the dexter side (the front of the helmet if shown in profile). However, there is nothing mandatory about this practice, and someone designing new arms is at liberty to choose other tinctures, to show more or fewer than six twists, to use an untwisted strip of cloth, known as a banderole, or simply to show the crest emerging directly from the mantling. Those with arms of foreign origin may either follow the normal U.S. method of depicting the torse or retain the design previously used with the arms.

I wish I were a heraldry nerd... maybe that'll be my "homework" over "thanksgiving break."

Could the Heraldry nerd in question :) look at our Coat of Arms at
http://www.apo.org/show/About_Us/His...tions/Insignia
and let me know if Alpha Phi Omega's Coat of Arms even *has* a crest? The only thing above the open helmet is stars.

The heraldry nerd in question at your humble service.

Yes, APO's arms have a crest, but before I try to describe it, can I ask a question? Are the rays that eminate from behind the helmet silver or gold? I've seen them both ways in various pictures, and am trying to figure out whether and how to take them into account.

Well looking at the Psi U website, they define the crest as the owl and the fasces both.

Um. In practice, Black if it's on a white background, Gold if it's on a black background, I think. Where have you seen Silver?

For the purposes of reproducing the crest, they are a very minor part. (not mentioned in the explanation of the coat of arms at all) For example, having the 12 drops in the center left be gules is more important.

Randy

They looked silver to me in the example to which you linked above, but maybe that was just because they were small/narrow enough that with the white, the gold (or black) looked silver.

To answer your question, I would say that the rays and stars together form the crest. Assuming that the logical color for the rays is gold and that black is an occasional substitute for the sake of contrast, and going by the arms as they appear at The Wiki, I think I would blazon the crest this way:

A demi-glory or, four mullets fimbrated of the same in chevron.

Any other heraldry nerds want to take a stab at it?

But looking at your website, I notice that only the owl is used (on a torse of school colors, it appears) as the crest in chapter arms. Still though, I think the fasces are part of the crest of the fraternity arms.

The torse is chapter colors, which can be but is not always school colors. Then again the chapter arms are a much simpler version then the fraternity arms.

gee, you all are pretty sharp on this stuff, and i am not sure i understand all of it. i need to go to the lca pedagogus book and try to understand how ours works. maybe someone can explain it a bit more for me. thanx. i thought the coat of arms which denoted the house of the group was the sheild and the hangings on the side were the capes or robes. the sheild as i was told have symbols that designate certain things that have meaning for the house of of the king or lord of the manor/estate. not sure what you are refering to as the crest other than the helment we have. yes, i have read and reread this thread. Still cloudy.

Ah, thanks.

Hi Tom!

To answer your question though, the Crest is what is suspended over the shield of the arms. In the case of LXA, it would be the Crescent and Cross.

That would be quite fun in dealing with some brothers who insist on calling it the crest. Showing just the stars and the rays and indicating that *that* is the crest.

On the bright side, I did finally get the person in the National Office in charge of Graphical Standards to look at it for next year's graphical standard guide. And if I don't get the answer I like, I'm going to propose a resolution for the December 2010 convention.

Good luck!

Thank you. And if you'd like to take a crack at the entire coat-of-arms, I'll be happy to fill in any details. But I'd feel more comfortable doing that over PM, even if the final result is posted here...

i see what you are saying now. thanx. i was not sure from some of the earlier posts.
apo is great example of a neat crest. where do you find this type of info.

At least he didn't deny being Tom this time.

Progress?

People who are interested in GLO heraldry might want to be on the lookout for an old used copy of Emily Butterfield's College Fraternity Heraldry.

It includes heraldic descriptions of GLO armorial bearings, black and white pictures (like line drawings), discussion / definition of terms, and on and on. It also mentions and sometimes briefly describes "coats of arms," "crests," whatever you want to call them, that aren't, strictly speaking, correct by heraldic standards.

The book (a paperback, at least the one I have) obviously is not up-to-date -- it was published in the 1930s, I think -- but is still interesting.

And yes, this is THE Emily Butterfield who was, among many other things, one of the founders of Alpha Gamma Delta.

See Michigan Women's Hall of Fame entry at (gasp):

http://hall.michiganwomenshalloffame...95~216~166~187

Although we call it a crest when talking about the coat of arms, we know there's a crest, a shield, and a scroll. We have a whole section of our by laws detailing publications and insignia so I've never heard of any confusion.

from the lca pedagogus in a shorter verson.
the crest is made up of many parts.
1 crest is usually a decoration of the/for the helment to protect against sabre cuts.
2.helemt if used were hung above their sheilds..
3 mantling were hung ariund the sheild. mantlings were their robes.

while with the lca coat of arms there are many other parts, these are the basics. i had forgoten much of it. glad someone brought this up so i could go back and study up on it.
thang goodness for turkey day break from classes and read something more fun.

Also, I know our coat of arms was changed one time because the original design was not correct by heraldic standards.

I don't question whether we have the right heraldry as far as our Armorial Bearings - she was indeed the creator of much of it.

I do, however, know that many members use crest, armorial bearings, etc. interchangeably. It doesn't bother me.

But all of our official documents refer to the armorial bearings.

Emily was such an interesting woman. I would have loved to have known her. I went to the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame when it first opened the exhibit about her and on the year of Alpha Gam's centennial our International President put a medallion on her grave, which I also attended. She was also a painter and many of her paintings are displayed at the Alpha Beta chapter house at the University of Michigan, as well as at our IHQ. Yes, there are no doubts that our armorial bearings are correct regarding heraldry! She assisted several other GLOs in adjusting theirs to be correct as well. Fascinating woman.

The TKE National site has this note about the Coat of Arms (not crest):

The TKE Coat-of-Arms ....
Modified slightly several times during the early years of Tau Kappa Epsilon, the present Coat-of-Arms, adopted in 1926, was designed by Dr. Carlton B. Pierce and Ms. Emily Butterfield.

I thought TKE was one of them, but I wasn't positive. Now I can tell my dad about that "You know Dad, one of our founders helped to design your Coat-of-Arms!" :)