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
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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... |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.