Coat of Arms

[muphigammaLOVE]

What makes a coat of arms more "genuine" than another? Just because it's been around for centuries and you decided that you liked a certain family's design... Coats of arms were originally meant to tell something about who you were, so I think designing your own (looking into symbolism of traditional heraldry, or even just thinking about designs that represent your ideals) would be more fun and unique

[MsDGP007]

Originally Posted by muphigammaLOVE

What makes a coat of arms more "genuine" than another? Just because it's been around for centuries and you decided that you liked a certain family's design... Coats of arms were originally meant to tell something about who you were, so I think designing your own (looking into symbolism of traditional heraldry, or even just thinking about designs that represent your ideals) would be more fun and unique

Actually, there is a lot more to it than that. "Geniune" (read traditional) coats-of-arms can be blazoned. Blazoning is a specific language regarding the elements and the design of a coat-of-arms. The following is the blazon for Alpha Sigma Phi:

Gules, a pall or, between, in chief two retorts crossed argent, in dexter base a quill sable surmounting a key in saltire, of the third, in sinister base a hammer fesswise of the fourth debruising a compass, points downward, of the third; over all the escutcheon of pretense, azure, charged with a castle or, masoned sable, with a bordure argent.

Crest, over a duke's helmet and a torse of the colors, a dexter cubit arm, proper, grasping a thunderbolt, winged or
Mantling: Gules doubled, or
Supporters: Two lions, rampant, proper

Motto: Sigma Phi Delta, in upper and lower case Greek letters

Because many of the NPC and NIC organizations were founded more than 75 years ago...there was a different mindset in terms of "authenticity". Therefore, the individuals that would create coat-of-arms were very particular to research the official rules of heraldry. For example, Emily Helen Butterfield designed the crests/coat-of-arms for many organizations and was quite learned in heraldry.

You do have a point in that the coat-of-arms is suppossed to mean something and be unique. That's where the innovation of newer organizations come in and they have taken the crest/coat-of-arms thing to a different level. However, from a standpoint of tradition, the idea of a coat-of-arms is unique to England and a choice few other European families. Currently, there are very few groups that grant or register coats-of-arms. All of those groups will not register any design that cannot be blazoned. The notion of granting/registering a coat-of-arms has advantages -- but not enough for most American groups to be concerned about it (America does not "grant" coats-of-arms....only registers them). However, it could be an issue internationally (it's very involved as to why....but it could prevent you from using your insignia in some countries; you would have to consult an intellectual property lawyer for details why).

It's purely a preference; just like some people like traditional furniture and others like modern furniture. But you cannot ignore the fact that every organization that is centered around the recognition of coats-of-arms (like the College of Arms, the Canadian Heraldic Authority, and the American College of Heraldry) have strict rules regarding what is and what is not a coat-of-arms.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by MsDGP007

Actually, there is a lot more to it than that. "Geniune" (read traditional) coats-of-arms can be blazoned.

I don't think genuine and traditional can be equated. Just about any coat of arms can be blazoned, whether its design is traditional or not.

Originally Posted by muphigammaLOVE

What makes a coat of arms more "genuine" than another?

In this country -- nothing. MsDGP007 is right that there are many heraldic rules and conventions in the design and blazoning of arms. These rules can vary from country to country, even in Europe, where heraldry developed. For example, German, Spanish, Italian and Scandanavian conventions (even color usage) may vary from each other and from the British usage that is most familiar to Americans. But all of these conventions are generally intended to produce arms that are unique and that "read" well (are easily identified).

But as for "genuine," there is nothing in the US that makes one coat-of-arms more "genuine" than another. There is no authority here to regulate the use of coats of arms, so there is nothing to make them "genuine" and opposed to "not genuine."

The same is not true of some other countries. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, for example, the College of Arms is the governmental authority (not just an organization) that grants heraldic designs and regulates their use; the Lord Lyon King of Arms has this authority in Scotland. In these and some other countries, arms are not just symbolic designs, they are property that can be inherited and their usage is subject not just to convention but to law. In these countries, a coat of arms can only belong to an individual (legally speaking, there is no such thing as a family coat of arms) or a corporate body.

So, the bottom line is that in the United Kingdom, a coat of arms is only "genuine" or "authentic" if it has been granted and registered by the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon. (I believe the Canadian Heraldic Authority fills this function in Canada, but I'll admit to not really knowing whether it has quite the exclusive jurisdiction of its British counterparts.)

But in this country, anybody can adopt any design they want, and it's "authentic" and "genuine." Whether it abides by traditional rules of heraldry may be another matter -- much American heraldry does not.

[MsDGP007]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't think genuine and traditional can be equated. Just about any coat of arms can be blazoned, whether its design is traditional or not.

Ah...I see your point. Given your explanation, I stand corrected on the inaccurate terminology; I see where it can be misleading. The only disagreement I [personally] have with your post is that I think that the originators or grantors (i.e. ~ The College of Arms in England and others of the like) should have their designations and rules be acknowledged as a valid minimum standard for that item; even if we don't reside in those countries. Maybe it's just the way I see things. For example, I see Bob Marley, Burning Spear and Toots & the Maytals as "genuine" reggae; Sublime, UB40, and Ace of Base is "modified reggae"....while No Doubt, Madness, and D'Yer Mak'er by Led Zeppelin sort of resembles reggae...but is a whole new thing really. But if they want to say they make reggae music (anyone listed)...that's fine, although the statement could be challenged on many grounds (which I'm sure they could understand).

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by MsDGP007

For example, I see Bob Marley, Burning Spear and Toots & the Maytals as "genuine" reggae; Sublime, UB40, and Ace of Base is "modified reggae"....while No Doubt, Madness, and D'Yer Mak'er by Led Zeppelin sort of resembles reggae...

Oh, we completely agree on that, LOL. And let's not get started on Kool and the Gang and "Reggae Dancin'."

I guess where I see things a little differently is that when one is talking about heraldry is that all of the heraldic authorities in Europe and elsewhere don't quite employ the same rules and conventions. Sure, many if not most of the basics are the same, but heraldic practice in Germany, for example, has historically differed from, say, practice in Italy, England, France or Scotland. Some things that are accepted in one of these countries is not accepted elsewhere. Newer authorities like those in Canada and South Africa just add to the differences.

The question that leaves is which standard should Americans, if they are going design new arms, use as the "valid minimum"? (And I agree with you that that is desirable.)

I think context has to come into play. For example, an organization with German roots might look to German practice, while the English traditions and rules are probably usually considered the "default" here. (I could make an argument, though, that an "American tradition" has developed with much less stringent rules -- look at the coat of arms of New York State, for example.) Latino groups might prefer to avoid that "Anglo-default" and look instead to Spanish traditions or its Latin-American offshoots. Meanwhile, an Asian group might prefer to avoid heraldry as we understand it altogether and look instead to Asian equivalents, like Japanese mon.

The reality is that while many GLOs have heraldically "correct" coats-of-arms, many, including many older ones, do not. My own fraternity's arms, while very meaningful, are not completely "correct" according to the traditional rules. It works for and identifies us, though, and that's really the main point. As much as I value the "bare minimum rules," I can't deny that some perfectly good designs don't fit those rules.

[AGDee]

/hijack

I didn't realize Emily had a Wikipedia page.. how cool.

/end hijack

[MsDGP007]

Our final crest was finished last week! You can see it on our webpage under "About" and "symbols & facts"