WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference.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. Revised {$revisiondate}.

Illustrations:

Period source/s:

Livro

Solomon's

Modern Sources:

Pictorial Dictionary of SCA Heraldry (3rd edition):

The knots taken from medieval heraldry include:

The simple generic knots include:

The knots used in occupations include:

[knot]
[noose]
[knot (or surgeon’s knot)]
[knot] (disallowed)
[knot] (disallowed per PicDic)

Finally, of the Society inventions:

[knot] (disallowed)
[knot ](disallowed)
[knot]
[[1]]
[of hair]
[[2]]

Pennsic Traceable Art Project:

Sources:

Academy of St. Gabriel "Medieval Heraldry Archive" - [[3]] Archive of St. Gabriel reports - [[4]] Laurel Armory Articles - [[5]] Period Armorials

Precedents:

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - [[6]] Morsulus Heralds Website - [[7]] (to search the LoARs and Precedents) Restatement Wiki - [[8]] (restatements of Precedents) Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

Definition:

Image
October 2014 LoAR - hearts voided and braced documented:

#122Elisabetta Camilla di Raffaello. Name and device. Or, a knot of two hearts voided and braced to form a single cord azure. This charge is documented to the Armorial of the Arlberg Brotherhood of St. Christopher (Wappenbuch der Bruderschaft St. Christoph am Arlberg), Arms of Schulthaf, mid-16th C. (http://bilderserver.at/wappenbuecher/VirgilRaberEXAv2_52z2/, folio 130 image 74 of 463). http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2014/10/14-10lar.html

January 2004 LoAR - Ormond knot:

The submitter asked that the tails of the dragon be blazoned as nowed in an Ormand knot [sic]. The SCA usually uses the term Wake knot for this knot, but the term Ormond knot is found as a synonym for this knot in standard real-world and SCA sources (Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet and the Pictorial Dictionary). Since the submitter wants to use this alternate name for the knot, we have acceded to her request, although we have fixed the spelling of the knot to the documented spelling Ormond Knot. [Symmonne Deccarrette de Villette, [[9]], A-An Tir] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

April 2003 LoAR - triquetras not solid:

[triquetras argent] The triquetras are not drawn correctly. Triquetras are thin-line charges made of a single interlaced strand, like a three-lobed knot. (The triquetra is given no difference from a trefoil knot; it merely has more pointed ends than the trefoil knot.) As with a knot, the underlying field or charge shows through the loops made by the strand of a correctly drawn triquetra. In this submission, the triquetras are some sort of solid charge: both the strand making up the triquetra and the inside of the triquetra's loops are argent. Because these charges cannot be identified as heraldic charges or recreated from a blazon, they must be returned by RfS VII.7.a. [Davyd Robertson, [[10]], R-Trimaris] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

January 2003 LoAR - nowed tails:

[Sable, a lion's tail nowed in a Cavendish knot Or] The Cavendish knot is a standard knot for a nowed tail, but the exact type of knot is generally artist's license. Because in a tail-only charge the type of knot has significant visual impact, we have blazoned the type of knot explicitly. [Sadb ingen uí Cherbaill, [[11]], R-Calontir] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

February 2002 LoAR - Lacy knot:

The Lacy knot depicted in this submission is not quite the standard Lacy Knot. Please advise the submitter to draw the Lacy knot correctly. The standard SCA Lacy knot in the Pictorial Dictionary (which matches the Lacy knot illustration in Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet, Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges, and Boutell'sHeraldry) has a lozengewise orientation, as with the knot submitted here. However, the Lacy knot in the Pictorial Dictionary has a more complicated center part than the one shown here. A Lacy knot in the aforementioned sources is effectively a large Bowen knot lozengewise fretted with another crosswise which is fretted in the center with an annulet. The Lacy knot in Parker's A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry omits the annulet and is drawn with an overall delfwise orientation rather than lozengewise. (The second, smaller, Bowen knot also is drawn "tauter" than the one in the standard Lacy knot, which needs some "slack" to allow the central annulet to be fretted with it.) The Lacy knot in this submission is drawn lozengewise (like the standard Lacy knot) but without the annulet (like Parker's non-standard Lacy knot). [Thomas de Lacy, [[12]], A-Atenveldt] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

August 1992 LoAR - defining instance mascle-knot:

[Leonard the Younger: Gules, within the head of a mjolnir inverted and voided, a mascle-knot argent] This is the defining instance of the SCA charge, the mascle-knot. When the device was registered back in Oct 76, it was blazoned Gules, a Mjollnir-pendant inverted, pierced, and within the head a mascle-knot of six corners argent. It was reblazoned Feb 89 by Mistress Alisoun as Gules, on the head of a Mjollnir inverted gules, fimbriated, a mascle-knot of six corners argent. Both blazons specified the mascle-knot as having six corners; but after a little experimentation, it's hard to see that it could have any other number. A "mascle-knot of four corners" would be blazoned a Bowen cross in SCA armory, or four mascles-fretted by [[13]]; a mascle-knot of eight corners would actually be a saltire parted, voided and interlaced; and a mascle-knot of more than eight corners would probably not be permitted. I am therefore restricting the definition of "mascle-knot" to six corners, no more or less, and reblazoning the orginal registration accordingly. The mascle-knot, so defined, is still acceptable for SCA use. (Leonard the Younger, August, 1992, pg. 16) NO LONGER REGISTERABLE - see below (Madigan of Kandahar, 3/96 p. 12) [[14]]

1980 LoARs - Bowen cross, Fidelis knot:

A Bowen cross is a Bowen knot rotated 45 degrees to be in cross, with the loops straightened into straight lines and right angle bends. It looks like five mascles conjoined in cross. WVS [23] [LoAR 27 Aug 80], p. 3
A Fidelis knot is a square knot opened into a heart shape. WVS [27] [LoAR 20 Oct 80], p. 4 NO LONGER REGISTERABLE - see below (Amice Fayel, 3/96 p. 11)

[[15]]

Registerability:

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

July 2015 - No more valknuts inverted

The valknut is a period artistic motif which was not used in period heraldry. Its use carries a step from period practice. Because valknuts are not period heraldic charges, there is no documented pattern of inverting them. Thus, barring period evidence, inverted valknuts will not be registerable after the December 2015 meeting. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2015/07/15-07cl.html#5

September 2014 LoAR - valknut SFPP:

#221Grímólfr Skúlason. Badge for Spak-Hrafns hús. Gules, three drinking horns fretted in triangle mouths inward and on a chief argent a valknut between two ravens respectant sable. "The use of a valknut is a step from period practice." http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2014/09/14-09lar.html#221

August 2014 - weavers knot unregisterable

Madrun Gwehyddes. Badge. Per pale argent and sable, a bee counterchanged between three weaver's knots gules. This device is returned for insufficient contrast between a secondary charge and the field. ...the weaver's knot does not appear to have ever been documented as a period charge or artefact. As such, it is not be registerable without documentation that it meets our standards for an attested charge.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2014/08/14-08lar.html#43

January 2014 - fidelis knot unregisterable

Katarina Krista. Device. Or, a fidelis knot azure between in fess two roses gules slipped and leaved vert, a chief doubly-enarched azure. "This device is returned for using a fidelis knot, which has not been registerable since March 1996:

The Fidelis knot, as an SCA invention with only two registrations to date (the 1980 defining instance and a 1993 registration), is not sufficiently well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to continue to register it in the future. [Amice Fayel, R-Outlands, March 1996]

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2014/01/14-01lar.html#290

September 2002 LoAR - knots of different tinctures:

[a Bourchier knot entwined of strands sable and gules] Forming the Bourchier knot out of two differently tinctured strands impairs its identifiability as a knot. It also does not seem compatible with the usual heraldic practices for tincturing a single charge. The vast majority of charges are either tinctured of a single tincture or are divided by a standard heraldic division (such as per fess or checky). This design may not be accepted unless documentation is provided for period armory using knots where the strands are of different tinctures. [Mwynwen in le Willewys, [[16]], R-East] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

August 2001 LoAR - conjoining knots:

[two Wake knots conjoined in pale] A Wake knot, as per the PicDic, is fesswise by default. Two Wake knots in pale would be arranged like these. However there is no guarantee that the loose ends would tie up as neatly as in this badge. It is as likely that the loose ends would stick out and the round parts would be conjoined.

The fact that the loose ends do connect up with each other in an unbroken interlace could imply that this is "knotwork". On the other hand, the knots maintain their identifiability as Wake knots, which are themselves a standard heraldic knot. The conjunction may not be the only way to conjoin the knots, but it is an acceptable way to do so.

A pertinent precedent on the topic is in the LoAR of November 1994, for the Middle Kingdom's Order of the Cavendish Knot, [Fieldless] Four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross vert: > There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased ... as to diminish the size seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9) > It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots. This conjunction of knots is a weirdness, but as there is only one such weirdness, it is registerable. [Nottinghill Coill, Barony of, [[17]], A-Atlantia] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda - conjoined knots, Fidelis knot, mascle knot:

[registering four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross] There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased...as to diminish the size seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9) It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots. (Middle, Kingdom of the, 11/94 p. 8)
The Fidelis knot, as an SCA invention with only two registrations to date (the 1980 defining instance and a 1993 registration), is not sufficiently well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to continue to register it in the future. (Amice Fayel, 3/96 p. 11)
The mascle knot is an SCA invention, with only two registrations, and is unattested anywhere else. As such, it is not sufficiently well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to continue to register it in the future. (Madigan of Kandahar, 3/96 p. 12)

http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/daud2/daud22combined.html#armg2l_Knot

June 1992 LoAR - knots throughout:

[A reef knot bendwise sinister throughout between two <charges>] "We would have preferred to see some documentation that knots throughout are a Period style, but since none of the commenters mentioned any problems with this we did not feel comfortable returning it for modern style at this time." (LoAR 6/92 p.5). http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/daud/daud1bk.html

1980 LoARs - ligature/surgeon's knot:

The ligature knot is period and reasonable for a surgeon to register. WVS [19] [LoAR 5 Jun 80], p. 2. [The ligature knot is also known as a surgeon's knot.]

http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/wilhelm/kton.html

Conflict:

April 2003 LoAR - triquestra vs trefoil:

... there is no difference between a triquetra and a trefoil knot. The triquetra has pointier ends than the trefoil knot, but this slight change is insufficient to give type difference between these two charges. [Donnan of Whispering Wude, [[18]], R-East] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

January 2003 LoAR - pretzel vs. Stafford knot:

[(Fieldless) A pretzel Or ermined gules] This submission does not conflict with the protected non-SCA badge of the Staffords, A Stafford knot. There is one CD for tincturelessness and another for the type difference between a pretzel and a Stafford knot: "...after consideration, we feel that there is significant, although not substantial, difference between a Stafford knot and this depiction of a pretzel, as the pretzel is knotted differently from a Stafford knot" (LoAR of April 2001). This pretzel is drawn identically to the one in the April 2001 precedent. [Roberto Carlos Dominguez, [[19]], A-Calontir] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda - fret vs Bowen cross, Bourchier vs Wake knot:

[a fret vs a Bowen cross] A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
[a Bourchier knot vs a Wake knot] A visual comparison of the two blazons showed that the two knots are too similar to grant [a CD]. (Arwyn of Leicester, 12/95 p. 20)

http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/daud2/daud22combined.html#armg2l_Knot

'2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda - DC for orientation of Bourchier knot':

[Registering Argent, two serpents nowed in a Bourchier knot palewise vert, a bordure counter-compony sable and argent//.] Versus ... //Argent, a Bourchier knot vert, there are CDs for adding the bordure and for the orientation of the knot. [6/94, p.2]

http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/daud2/daud21combined.html#KNOT

May 1993 LoAR - no difference for orientation of Stafford knots:

The Stafford knots were blazoned as inverted on the LOI. Having seen mundane examples of Stafford knots in both orientations --- and since we grant no difference for the orientation of most knots --- we've left the exact posture of the knots to the artist's license. (Ingrid the Crafty, May, 1993, pg. 10) [[20]]

October 1991 LoAR - square knot vs Bourchier knot:

[A square knot of thorn] "Conflict with... {Fieldless} A Bourchier knot. There is one CVD for fieldlessness, but nothing for tincture or the difference between rope and thorns." (LoAR 10/91 p.19). [[21]]

January 1991 LoAR - quaterfoil knot vs triquetra:

"We have no trouble granting a CVD between a quatrefoil knot and a triquetra." (LoAR 1/91 p.6). [[22]]

Identifiability:

September 2002 LoAR - multicolored strands:

[a Bourchier knot entwined of strands sable and gules] Forming the Bourchier knot out of two differently tinctured strands impairs its identifiability as a knot. It also does not seem compatible with the usual heraldic practices for tincturing a single charge. The vast majority of charges are either tinctured of a single tincture or are divided by a standard heraldic division (such as per fess or checky). This design may not be accepted unless documentation is provided for period armory using knots where the strands are of different tinctures. [Mwynwen in le Willewys, [[23]], R-East] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

September 2001 LoAR - Bowen knot with annulet:

[a Bowen knot crosswise braced with an annulet] This could equally well be blazoned, absent some rather unimportant internal detail lines, as a Bowen knot crosswise surmounted by an annulet. The annulet does not hamper the identifiability of the Bowen knot or vice versa. This comes close to being the registration of a new knot, but falls on the acceptable side of that line. [Fergus O'Fey, [[24]], A-Caid] http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#KNOTS

2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda - serpents nowed:

[Returning Gules, two lion-headed serpents nowed in a Wake knot respectant within a bordure Or.] The "extra twist" that each of the serpents have outside the knot renders the identifiability of the knot somewhat problematical. Were the submitter to place the heads on the ends where the tails are now (and vice versa), and straighten out the knot into a more regular Wake knot shape, this should be registrable. As it is, it is being returned for redrawing. [6/94, p.12]