Coat of Arms vs. Crest

[Gusteau]

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...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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?

Originally Posted by Gusteau

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:



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




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.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

This heraldry nerd thinks your second possibility is correct.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by naraht

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.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by naraht

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?

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?

[naraht]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

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.