Gurges: Difference between revisions

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 9: Line 9:
{|
{|
| http://mistholme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/gurges_ancient-257x300.jpg || http://mistholme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/gurges_tudor-263x300.jpg  
| http://mistholme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/gurges_ancient-257x300.jpg || http://mistholme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/gurges_tudor-263x300.jpg  
|-
| Gurges, ancient || Gurges, Tudor
|}
|}



Revision as of 14:56, 4 July 2019

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources as linked below to verify the information and use them for your documentation.

Illustrations:

Period

Modern

Pictorial Dictionary of SCA Heraldry (3rd edition):

gurges_ancient-257x300.jpg gurges_tudor-263x300.jpg
Gurges, ancient Gurges, Tudor

An Ordinary of Siebmacher's Wappenbuch


Modern:

Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:

Vector Graphics:

Book of Traceable Heraldic Art

Annotated Pennsic Traceable Art Project

Sources:




Precedents:

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents.html
Morsulus Heralds Website - http://www.morsulus.org/ (to search the LoARs and Precedents)
Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

Definition:

(includes defaults, proper tinctures, blazoning)

July 1993 - gurges are a single, throughout charge

It has previously been ruled (LoAR of Oct 90) that the gurges may not be couped: "Whirlpools or gurges are used as a single, throughout charge on a field." July 1993 LoAR


Registerability:

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

April 1992 - no gurges on fieldless badges

"Fieldless badges cannot use charges which issue or are defined by the edge of the field. The gurges is such a charge, and therefore may not be used on a fieldless badge." April 1992 LoAR

Conflict:

July 2005 - no difference for reversing gurges tinctures

"no difference will be granted between <tincture 1>, a gurges <tincture 2> and <tincture 2>, a gurges <tincture 1>."

===July 2005 Cover Letter: The question was raised this month about what difference is granted between a schnecke and a gurges. Current precedent, set by Da'ud Laurel, grants a CD between the two, but not substantial (X.2) difference:

  • There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges, but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting [was] that RfS X.2 does not apply between them. [Peter Schneck, 5/96]

Unlike the gurges, the schnecke seems to have started its heraldic life as a field division. Walter Leonhard's "Grosse Buch der Wappenkunst," 1984, p.165, classes the schnecke with other complex field divisions such as Schraegflammenspaltung (Per pale rayonny). Some of his schnecke-like field divisions are similar to period armory found in Siebmacher's "Wappenbuch of 1605": v. the arms of Fridesheim (plate 37), von Ellershofen (plate 106) and die Megentzer (plate 119). Leonhard blazons them all as divisions of the field, e.g. dreifacher Schneckenschnitt ("three-part Snail-cut"). But the schnecke itself he blazons as a charge: //linke geschuppte Schnecke// ("left-handed scaled Snail," which we'd blazon a schnecke invected reversed). This too is in Siebmacher, plate 198, as the arms of von Rordorf. This last example not only establishes the schnecke as a charge, but also lets us distinguish between the charge and the field: the invected line marks the charge. In SCA usage, the schnecke is always considered to be a charge.

The only thing the gurges and the schnecke have in common is a spiraling form. The schnecke never has more than a single revolution to its spiral: that is, if it issues from the chief, it circles the fess point of the shield once and comes to its point from chief. The gurges has at least four revolutions (if we take the concentric annular form as a baseline).

The research presented affirms the May 1996 precedent. Given their divergent evolutions and consistently differing emblazons, there is significant difference (a CD) between a gurges and a schnecke. However, there is not substantial (X.2) difference between the two.


Identifiability:

Collected Precedents:

The Ordinary: