Complex1

						The Rules for Submission, VIII.3 state:

						3. Armorial Identifiability - Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability.

						Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the design. For instance, a complex line of partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if most of the line is also covered by charges.

Laurel precedents have also established that certain colors do or do not have sufficient contrast when used with complex lines of division. The following have been compiled from the published Precedents of the various Laurel Sovereigns of Arms and from recent Letters of Acceptance and Returns. Newer rulings override old ones, so I have arranged them in reverse chronological order. Past precedents, especially those before the 1989/90 implementation of the current Rules for Submission, do not necessarily indicate the current policies and practices of the College.

<Webminister's Note: Significant tinctures have been capitalized and highlighted in a contrasting color.>

[Quarterly indented VERT and SABLE, three gilly flowers in bend argent seeded Or.] Note: this is registerable because very little of the line of division is covered by the flower. (JoA, LoAR March 1999, p. 8)

There is insufficient contrast between PURPURE and SABLE to use a complex line of division such as urdy to separate them. It becomes unidentifiable. (JoA, LoAR January 1999, p. 14)

This is being returned for unidentifiability. From any distance, the wavy line separating the AZURE and COUNTER-ERMINE cannot be seen. This submission was ruled on at the roadshow meeting at the 1997 Known World Heraldic Symposium, and the people sitting in the second row could not tell what the line of division was. This return is in line with current CoA precedent. In the January 1993 return of Elspeth of Oxfordshire, Master Bruce as Laurel said: "[Per chevron embattled azure mullety of six points Or, and sable, in base a <charge> argent] The low contrast between azure and sable renders the embattled line indistinguishable from any distance. As with the recent case of Per pale embattled purpure and sable (LoAR of Aug 92, p.25), I must return this for lack of identifiability, per Rule VIII.3. (JoA, LoAR June 1997, p. 11)

[Per fess rayonny PURPURE and GULES] In the large emblazon, the line of division was clear even from all the way across the room the long way. (DiA II, LoAR December 1994, p. 8)

[Per bend sinister nebuly GULES and SABLE, a cross moline and an increscent argent] Note that the complex line of partition on this badge is between black and red, which have perhaps the best contrast of any two colors, and that nothing obscures the line of partition [badge registered]. (BD, October, 1993, pg. 10)

[Per bend potenty OR and ARGENT, a <charge> sable and a <charge> gules within a bordure potenty sable] The complex line of division is indistinguishable from any distance. As in the case of Landric D‘gmaer (LoAR of Aug 92), a complex line of division between two metals or two colors may be returnable for unidentifiability, per Rule VIII.3, regardless of whether the line is obscured by a charge. It only matters that the field portions have so little contrast that the complex line cannot readily be identified from a distance. That appears to be the case here. (BD, October, 1993, pg. 14)

[Per chevron embattled AZURE mullety of six points Or, and SABLE, in base a <charge> argent] The low contrast between azure and sable renders the embattled line indistinguishable from any distance. As with the recent case of Per pale embattled purpure and sable (LoAR of Aug 92, p.25), I must return this for lack of identifiability, per Rule VIII.3. (BD, January, 1993, pg. 30)

[Per bend sinister nebuly VERT and AZURE, two <charges> argent] The low contrast between vert and azure renders the nebuly line indistinguishable from any distance. As with the recent case of Per pale embattled purpure and sable (LoAR of Aug 92, p.25), I must return this for lack of identifiability, per Rule VIII.3. (BD, January, 1993, pg. 30)

PURPURE and SABLE are the darkest of heraldic colors, and there's insufficient contrast between them to permit [identification] of the embattled line. Rule VIII.3 requires all elements of the design --- including complex lines of division, if any --- to be identifiable. The Rule goes on to give examples of cases that wouldn't be identifiable: "For instance, a complex line of partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if most of the line is also covered mby charges." Those examples are just that: examples, not an exhaustive list. It is quite possible for a complex line of partition to be unidentifiable, even if not covered by charges; that is the case here. [For a full discussion, see LINES OF DIVISION --General] (BD, August, 1992, pg. 25)

[Per chevron nebuly GULES and PURPURE, three charges 2 and 1, not overlying the line of division] "The complex line of division of the field was almost entirely unidentifiable at any range because of the extremely poor contrast between gules and purpure. This is a color combination which should be avoided when using a complex line of division." [the device was returned for this reason only] (DiA I, LoAR 1/91 p.21).

OR does not have adequate contrast with ERMINE in our system. (AMoE, LoAR 21 May 89, p. 24)

The contrast between SABLE and PURPURE is too poor to permit the use of this complex [wavy] line of division. The overlying barrulet only makes the situation worse since it distracts the eye from such contrast as does exist between the two tinctures. (AMoE, LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 15)

In the Rules published at the end of Master Wilhelm's tenure as Laurel, it is clearly stated (IX.4) "those partitions allowed to use two colors or two metals should not use complex lines of division, as those will be difficult to discern at a distance, due to poor contrast" and (IX.5) "the basic requirement in all cases is that there be sufficient contrast for clear visibility". (AMoE, LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 23)

One of the requirements for the use of a complex line of division with two tinctures draws from the same class is that they have "sufficient contrast". Although the rules do make allusion to fields which are all "light", in most cases fields entirely divided of OR and ARGENT do not support most complex lines of division. In this particular case, where the wings of the birds, lying along the line of division, distract the eye from its nature, it is difficult to determine which line of division has been used. (AMoE, LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)