Violation of Rule of Tincture?

[Brian Mearns]

I was just looking at some of the member's arms at the American Heraldry Society, and noticed this one that appears to violate the rule of tincture: http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Armorial.CarrascoJ

A chief is considered a charge, not a division of the field, right? So a chief Sable on a Vert field violates the rule. Is it considered acceptable in modern (American) heraldry to violate the rule of tincture, is this particular arm some kind of exception, or is it this just a poor design (or is there something else I'm missing)?

-Brian

[o***@gmail.com]

It isn't a rule; it's more a convention. There are scores of perfectly legitimate Arms that break this so-called 'rule'; including:

*the Arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem-Or on Argent.
*the Arms of Albania-Sable on Gules
*the Arms of Samogitia-Sable on Gules
(In Eastern Europe, quite a few Arms feature Sable charges on Gules fields.)
*the Arms of Cyprus-Argent on Or
*the Arms of Hungary have a Vert mound on a Azure field, as do many Hungarian Arms, many of which have a Vert mound on an Azure field, with another charge included

-and many, many more.

A division of a field does not count as regards this convention, and neither do quartered Arms.

[Brian Mearns]

Post by o***@gmail.com
It isn't a rule; it's more a convention.

Thanks for clarifying. So I guess it's not inviolable, but something you should think twice about before you do it.

-Brian

[Le Forgeron]

Post by Brian Mearns
I was just looking at some of the member's arms at the American
Heraldry Society, and noticed this one that appears to violate the
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Armorial.CarrascoJ
A chief is considered a charge, not a division of the field, right?
So a chief Sable on a Vert field violates the rule. Is it considered
acceptable in modern (American) heraldry to violate the rule of
tincture, is this particular arm some kind of exception, or is it
this just a poor design (or is there something else I'm missing)?

The chef might have been "cousu" (sewn), as the chevron is not reaching
the actual top.

Some would hold sable as a fur rather than a colour (and the langued
Azure of the female bear (see Portein arms (Switzerland) as well as Bern
(Germany) for a male bear) is nearly invisible on sable).

The explanation of symbolism on the page is stretched: California bear
is brown on white background (English heraldry has a colour for that, on
Argent), armed and langued Gules; and the legs are inversed (the
California front left arm is the left most). But it reinforces the idea
of sewing.

It would have been nicer (but that's personal), with chief Argent a bear
passant Sable langued Azure (but might have been too near the California
flag, despite the explanation)... or by reversing the Chevron & Acorns
as Vert on a field Argent.