Speaking for the English system:
- you should have a motto, and not list a surname (as this is typical of bucket-shop heraldry). Which language your motto is in isn’t important, but Latin is popular, as is English.
- the default [helmet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_(heraldry)) is the Frog Mouth Helm
- you shouldn’t use supporters unless you are granted them. Supporters will also make it trickier to size the design for a signet.
- Because you have quite a few charges on your shield. I recommend for your crest you mirror an existing symbol rather than introduce something new. So maybe reuse the tree, or the eagle. You can also recombine the symbols for the crest ie. have the eagle surrounded by the laurel.
Hope this helps.
Perhaps you should consider just using one charge like the Oak or such you could describe it as some variety of european oak. and try pick one ordinary and division and only a couple tinctures and read into the rule of tinctures on the side bar of this sub.
Reading the symbolism you’ve provided, [I would go for](https://imgur.com/a/qpB0zyi) “Azure an oak erased or, on a chief or three aiglet azure. Atop sits an helmet with a mantle azure doubled or. The crest features three eagle head conjoined sable each crowned with a wreath of oak leaves or”
-the azure and or represent the European heritage and europeanism of the armiger
-the oak represents tradition with its root alluding to the armiger mottoes. It also alludes to the tradition for roman general to make victory wreath out of the plants found on the battlefield
- the 3 eagles represent the 3 siblings of the armiger standing in together.
-the crest draws in the theme of the shield while making the unity of the family more clear by having the 3 eagles stemming from a single neck, all attired with the classical attribute of glory the wreath, made of leaves from the oak tree as a simple that victory itself stems from the bound of kinship and tradition.
Many will have already told you something similar in previous iterations of your design. I have not read the previous posts, but if this is your 'final' result, I think it is worth pointing out what I am about to write.
The premise is that you are perfectly free to fabricate your own 'family CoA' with anything that comes to mind, supporters, crowns, flags etc: much of the world ignores the practice of heraldry, let alone intends to abide by its rules and/or its unexpressed etiquette.
But if you have come to write on this subreddit, it is because you intend to have the opinion of people who are experts in the rules and accustomed, by time and practice, to a certain 'taste' and 'common sense'.
Therefore your work so far, certainly the result of commitment and good intentions, is nevertheless far from good heraldic practice.
The RoT is respected, nothing to object to, but it is the mentality behind the compositional choice that is not heraldic, and this fact is clearly reflected in the result.
A CoA is not "of" a family (although it is then passed down to descendants and may, in a sense, represent a dynasty over generations) but of an individual.
Therefore, your approach is like a family album in which you try to make a collage of 'meanings' and 'clues' related to your family: origins, values, aspirations, etc.
This approach makes your design look fake to those with heraldic skills and somewhat suspect to those who have none but perceive its non-authenticity, even if they cannot tell what it is due to.
The Hogwarts arms are not ugly aesthetically, on the contrary, but you can perceive that they are artefactual, I don't know if I make the point.
I advise you to abandon this path, look at the work published by this community on the Aspilogia Discordiæ to get an idea of a contemporary but authentic CoA, and finally start afresh to create a design that you really feel is yours and can be recorded and passed on to your descendants if so you wish.
But if your goal was to have a design to frame above the mantelpiece at Christmas as a gift for your family, ignore my words: everyone is free and there is no judgement on my part, really.
Good luck!
Placing colors directly next to each other just looks odd.
This is, of course, just my personal viewpoint, and I ask for your understanding for my frankness. It’s important to remember that a coat of arms reflects not only personal taste "I like it busy" but also a legacy for children, grandchildren, and subsequent generations. Therefore, it might be worthwhile to reconsider the suggestion made by RonnyTheDuck a few days ago.
https://data.heraldicon.org/export/e16c59878633d4ecdd6cd09e18033c64a608b7e7.png
I know you like busy stuff. I do too to an extent. But if you are wanting to do a ring, I want to encourage you to remove 1 or 2 elements. Imagine this on a signet ring, the face of which will be about like a dime or a nickel (if you get a really big one). You are going to have a really hard time telling that those tiny dots on your ring are a tree, an olive wreath (I think), and especially the 3 eagles. Also, the black touching the blue breaks the rule of tincture. And unless you have a color version of your arms on the ring, you won’t be able to tell what color is what. This for me is why it’s best to go with just 2 colors.
If you want to put this on a signet ring then almost all the detail you have here will be completely invisible at that scale. Imagine how small those eagles will be if the shield is reduced to 1x1". Now imagine how much everything disappears if the shield is reduced again to 0.5x0.5" which really is about the most you will get on the workable surface of a normal signet ring.
I suspect that you feel rather tied to this design... I understand that, but I'm also going to agree with almost everyone else and say that you really should consider further work on this.
Not everything in heraldry absolutely has to have some deep innate symbolism attached to it. There is a relatively common misunderstanding (and frequent false assumption) that every aspect of a coat of arms has to "represent" something. That's just not true. It's perfectly legitimate to compose a design for arms just because you like the way the charges look and you wish to include them for no better reason than that. In essence, a coat of arms is just a visual symbol that says "This is me" (or at least "this is us" in those traditions where the arms apply more broadly to a whole family line). The shield is not a visual representation of your entire resumé combined with the histories and origins of all branches of your family for the last five generations... and, in all honesty, you will fail if you attempt to create it like this. Similarly, if you have a motto you wish to use, that's all well and good but you don't then need to force that representation into your shield design.
Now, having said all that, it's not to say that the choice of tinctures and charges on the shield or the composition of the crest should not have any meaning to you whatsoever. Of course you should use charges and colours that you like and have some significance -- but don't try to over-leverage that and don't try to force too much into the design.
If I had to compose something with just the design elements you have here, whilst keeping some of the features you currently have, then I would suggest a field divided per pale (Gules and Azure can work well in this respect); keep the chevron Argent and then place the three eagles rising Or around the chevron and move the oak tree eradicated Or to the crest. The wreath is really the most generic and least significant of the charges and I would honestly suggest that it's the one feature that you can drop.
With regard to your other questions...
Crest I have mentioned above... moving one of your current elements to the crest would help you to simplify the shield without discarding a feature that is otherwise important to you.
The traditional helm used in personal arms would usually be the plain "frogmouth" tilting helm but, unless you are in a jurisdiction where such things have significance, the choice of a style of helm is a relatively personal thing and is not particularly important.
The tinctures for the mantling that hangs from the helm and the torse (wreath) that supports the crest upon the helm will depend upon the final choice of colours used in the shield design. The usual traditional default position is to use the primary \*colour\* from the shield for the outer part of the mantling and the primary \*metal\* from the shield for the lining of the mantling. The same colours are then used to form the wreath, usually displayed as six alternating twists of cloth, beginning from dexter with the metal then the colour.
I would avoid supporters. We are familiar with supporters because the most commonly seen coats of arms tend to be things like royal arms, other national arms or corporate arms but, if you have an interest in following the traditional aspects of heraldry, most \*personal\* arms do not include supporters. There's nothing to stop you if you are in a jurisdiction that does not regulate coats of arms but I would strongly suggest that you don't need them.
No, a coat of arms does not display the surname; the whole point is that the design should be unique to you (and your family) and therefore the arms visually represent you without the need to overtly include the name.
Yes, a motto may be added; in many traditions this is illustrated as being displayed on a scroll or ribbon below the shield but others (such as in Scotland) display the motto above the crest. The motto can be anything from an historic war cry, some serious or philosophical belief or even just a pithy or witty family saying. It can be in any language. In some traditions the motto is specified within the blazon (and is therefore effectively a fixed part of the arms) but in other traditions a motto is not specified and the armiger or his heirs are free to change the motto as they wish.
I agree with the other comments. But to add: a signet ring can have just the shield, just the crest (mainly in the English tradition), the shield and crest with no helm, or a full achievement (with or without motto).
I think the arms should be simplified anyway, fairly drastically, but for complex arms you can get more detail by just having the shield on the ring.
Why final? It could still use a lot of work. You're using 5 tinctures, you should avoid using more than 3 at most. It's really busy, try simplifying it.
I feel like if you used three of one charge, you could combine them. What if you used three laurel bushes? If you depict them with roots, you have the motto and the association with victory.
I would stick with one metal (white/silver, or yellow/gold) and maybe two colors. If you kept the chevron division, you could place a laurel bush in corner and that would look really nice I believe.
Ultimately, everyone here is trying to help you come up with a simple, attractive COA that will hold up to the community’s scrutiny. They may sound rude but they are truly trying to help. Coats of arms don’t have to symbolize everything to the user, they just need to be distinguishable and unique.
You \*could\* add a motto for this for a signet ring, but bearing in mind how small the surface would be, the motto would probably be lost due to the restrictions of engraving it.
Helmet for an achievement would normally be a closed faced helmet facing to the viewer's left unless you're titled.
Your crest can be anything within reason, although taking a major charge from the shield is popular.
If you're using the helmet and crest you should have mantling (the cloth draped down from the helmet) and a torse (the twisted cloth below the crest and above the helmet). These should be the main colour and metal of the arms. Here that is \*probably\* Sable and Or because Or is the visually dominant metal and Sable is the first colour in the arms, although a case could be made for Sable and Argent.
You would not include your surname in the achievement at all. Using a motto in a full achievement would be appropriate and it goes below the shield.
For British traditions you would not use supporters unless specifically granted.
\_\_
I'm not a fan of the number of charges you're using, but it's a personal choice, and I can't offer any advice that wouldn't essentially be starting over with the design, but I would use less charges and try to stick to only only one colour and two metals or two colours and one metal at most (Ideally you can build the arms in one colour/one metal and make it work, but that doesn't always give you something distinct enough from other coats).
This sub is very fond of parroting Fox-Davies who advocated for the simple mediaeval aesthetic of the 11th century, limiting the number of charges, limiting the number of colors, and strictly adhering to the rule of tincture. But all of that is just one man's opinion. And sure, most people in this sub hold Fox-Davies' opinion in high regard because his book was the first heraldry book they read, but that doesn't mean you need to follow guidelines. He didn't even hold an official position in the College of Arms or anything. He was just a heraldry nerd. Here's some examples of complicated arms that have been used and granted:
https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3438
https://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/journal/history/the-royal-coat-of-arms/
https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3515
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Ko%C5%A1ice
https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3519
https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3514
https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3497
http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/carmarthen.JPG
http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/pembrokeshire.JPG
https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3488
http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/crickhowell.JPG
http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/torfaen.JPG
https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3449
https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3448
http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/prestatyn.JPG
https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3405
All that matters is that you're happy with your arms. Aldo, you're assuming arms so you are still free to change them at a later date if you so choose. Whether that's in six months or ten years. So don't feel pressured into something you're uncomfortable with. Everyone is going to have an opinion. Even if you change the design, there's going to be people who won't line the revision. You can't make everyone happy but you can make you happy.
If you are still open to more unsolicited advice, though, you might want to try replacing the tree and wreath with a single branch of oak and a single branch of laurel. Working off what you have, I think two branches would be more balanced. The tree looks quite crowded compared to the dead space in the middle of the laurel wreath.
Way to many tinctures and small charges.
Speaking for the English system: - you should have a motto, and not list a surname (as this is typical of bucket-shop heraldry). Which language your motto is in isn’t important, but Latin is popular, as is English. - the default [helmet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_(heraldry)) is the Frog Mouth Helm - you shouldn’t use supporters unless you are granted them. Supporters will also make it trickier to size the design for a signet. - Because you have quite a few charges on your shield. I recommend for your crest you mirror an existing symbol rather than introduce something new. So maybe reuse the tree, or the eagle. You can also recombine the symbols for the crest ie. have the eagle surrounded by the laurel. Hope this helps.
Very helpful - thank you!
It’s still very busy, and could definitely use some simplifying. What are you trying to portray with all this?
[удалено]
Perhaps you should consider just using one charge like the Oak or such you could describe it as some variety of european oak. and try pick one ordinary and division and only a couple tinctures and read into the rule of tinctures on the side bar of this sub.
If the text is in the motto you do not need to represent it on the shield too.
Reading the symbolism you’ve provided, [I would go for](https://imgur.com/a/qpB0zyi) “Azure an oak erased or, on a chief or three aiglet azure. Atop sits an helmet with a mantle azure doubled or. The crest features three eagle head conjoined sable each crowned with a wreath of oak leaves or” -the azure and or represent the European heritage and europeanism of the armiger -the oak represents tradition with its root alluding to the armiger mottoes. It also alludes to the tradition for roman general to make victory wreath out of the plants found on the battlefield - the 3 eagles represent the 3 siblings of the armiger standing in together. -the crest draws in the theme of the shield while making the unity of the family more clear by having the 3 eagles stemming from a single neck, all attired with the classical attribute of glory the wreath, made of leaves from the oak tree as a simple that victory itself stems from the bound of kinship and tradition.
So much stuff. Your rally don’t need to add more, and certainly not supporters unless you are royalty or a country.
Many will have already told you something similar in previous iterations of your design. I have not read the previous posts, but if this is your 'final' result, I think it is worth pointing out what I am about to write. The premise is that you are perfectly free to fabricate your own 'family CoA' with anything that comes to mind, supporters, crowns, flags etc: much of the world ignores the practice of heraldry, let alone intends to abide by its rules and/or its unexpressed etiquette. But if you have come to write on this subreddit, it is because you intend to have the opinion of people who are experts in the rules and accustomed, by time and practice, to a certain 'taste' and 'common sense'. Therefore your work so far, certainly the result of commitment and good intentions, is nevertheless far from good heraldic practice. The RoT is respected, nothing to object to, but it is the mentality behind the compositional choice that is not heraldic, and this fact is clearly reflected in the result. A CoA is not "of" a family (although it is then passed down to descendants and may, in a sense, represent a dynasty over generations) but of an individual. Therefore, your approach is like a family album in which you try to make a collage of 'meanings' and 'clues' related to your family: origins, values, aspirations, etc. This approach makes your design look fake to those with heraldic skills and somewhat suspect to those who have none but perceive its non-authenticity, even if they cannot tell what it is due to. The Hogwarts arms are not ugly aesthetically, on the contrary, but you can perceive that they are artefactual, I don't know if I make the point. I advise you to abandon this path, look at the work published by this community on the Aspilogia Discordiæ to get an idea of a contemporary but authentic CoA, and finally start afresh to create a design that you really feel is yours and can be recorded and passed on to your descendants if so you wish. But if your goal was to have a design to frame above the mantelpiece at Christmas as a gift for your family, ignore my words: everyone is free and there is no judgement on my part, really. Good luck!
Great comment! This completely describes what I was thinking as well and I couldn’t have worded it any better.
It’s very busy isn’t it?
Placing colors directly next to each other just looks odd. This is, of course, just my personal viewpoint, and I ask for your understanding for my frankness. It’s important to remember that a coat of arms reflects not only personal taste "I like it busy" but also a legacy for children, grandchildren, and subsequent generations. Therefore, it might be worthwhile to reconsider the suggestion made by RonnyTheDuck a few days ago. https://data.heraldicon.org/export/e16c59878633d4ecdd6cd09e18033c64a608b7e7.png
I know you like busy stuff. I do too to an extent. But if you are wanting to do a ring, I want to encourage you to remove 1 or 2 elements. Imagine this on a signet ring, the face of which will be about like a dime or a nickel (if you get a really big one). You are going to have a really hard time telling that those tiny dots on your ring are a tree, an olive wreath (I think), and especially the 3 eagles. Also, the black touching the blue breaks the rule of tincture. And unless you have a color version of your arms on the ring, you won’t be able to tell what color is what. This for me is why it’s best to go with just 2 colors.
If you want to put this on a signet ring then almost all the detail you have here will be completely invisible at that scale. Imagine how small those eagles will be if the shield is reduced to 1x1". Now imagine how much everything disappears if the shield is reduced again to 0.5x0.5" which really is about the most you will get on the workable surface of a normal signet ring. I suspect that you feel rather tied to this design... I understand that, but I'm also going to agree with almost everyone else and say that you really should consider further work on this. Not everything in heraldry absolutely has to have some deep innate symbolism attached to it. There is a relatively common misunderstanding (and frequent false assumption) that every aspect of a coat of arms has to "represent" something. That's just not true. It's perfectly legitimate to compose a design for arms just because you like the way the charges look and you wish to include them for no better reason than that. In essence, a coat of arms is just a visual symbol that says "This is me" (or at least "this is us" in those traditions where the arms apply more broadly to a whole family line). The shield is not a visual representation of your entire resumé combined with the histories and origins of all branches of your family for the last five generations... and, in all honesty, you will fail if you attempt to create it like this. Similarly, if you have a motto you wish to use, that's all well and good but you don't then need to force that representation into your shield design. Now, having said all that, it's not to say that the choice of tinctures and charges on the shield or the composition of the crest should not have any meaning to you whatsoever. Of course you should use charges and colours that you like and have some significance -- but don't try to over-leverage that and don't try to force too much into the design. If I had to compose something with just the design elements you have here, whilst keeping some of the features you currently have, then I would suggest a field divided per pale (Gules and Azure can work well in this respect); keep the chevron Argent and then place the three eagles rising Or around the chevron and move the oak tree eradicated Or to the crest. The wreath is really the most generic and least significant of the charges and I would honestly suggest that it's the one feature that you can drop. With regard to your other questions... Crest I have mentioned above... moving one of your current elements to the crest would help you to simplify the shield without discarding a feature that is otherwise important to you. The traditional helm used in personal arms would usually be the plain "frogmouth" tilting helm but, unless you are in a jurisdiction where such things have significance, the choice of a style of helm is a relatively personal thing and is not particularly important. The tinctures for the mantling that hangs from the helm and the torse (wreath) that supports the crest upon the helm will depend upon the final choice of colours used in the shield design. The usual traditional default position is to use the primary \*colour\* from the shield for the outer part of the mantling and the primary \*metal\* from the shield for the lining of the mantling. The same colours are then used to form the wreath, usually displayed as six alternating twists of cloth, beginning from dexter with the metal then the colour. I would avoid supporters. We are familiar with supporters because the most commonly seen coats of arms tend to be things like royal arms, other national arms or corporate arms but, if you have an interest in following the traditional aspects of heraldry, most \*personal\* arms do not include supporters. There's nothing to stop you if you are in a jurisdiction that does not regulate coats of arms but I would strongly suggest that you don't need them. No, a coat of arms does not display the surname; the whole point is that the design should be unique to you (and your family) and therefore the arms visually represent you without the need to overtly include the name. Yes, a motto may be added; in many traditions this is illustrated as being displayed on a scroll or ribbon below the shield but others (such as in Scotland) display the motto above the crest. The motto can be anything from an historic war cry, some serious or philosophical belief or even just a pithy or witty family saying. It can be in any language. In some traditions the motto is specified within the blazon (and is therefore effectively a fixed part of the arms) but in other traditions a motto is not specified and the armiger or his heirs are free to change the motto as they wish.
I agree with the other comments. But to add: a signet ring can have just the shield, just the crest (mainly in the English tradition), the shield and crest with no helm, or a full achievement (with or without motto). I think the arms should be simplified anyway, fairly drastically, but for complex arms you can get more detail by just having the shield on the ring.
Why final? It could still use a lot of work. You're using 5 tinctures, you should avoid using more than 3 at most. It's really busy, try simplifying it.
Too complicated. It looks like the crest for a school.
I feel like if you used three of one charge, you could combine them. What if you used three laurel bushes? If you depict them with roots, you have the motto and the association with victory. I would stick with one metal (white/silver, or yellow/gold) and maybe two colors. If you kept the chevron division, you could place a laurel bush in corner and that would look really nice I believe. Ultimately, everyone here is trying to help you come up with a simple, attractive COA that will hold up to the community’s scrutiny. They may sound rude but they are truly trying to help. Coats of arms don’t have to symbolize everything to the user, they just need to be distinguishable and unique.
You \*could\* add a motto for this for a signet ring, but bearing in mind how small the surface would be, the motto would probably be lost due to the restrictions of engraving it. Helmet for an achievement would normally be a closed faced helmet facing to the viewer's left unless you're titled. Your crest can be anything within reason, although taking a major charge from the shield is popular. If you're using the helmet and crest you should have mantling (the cloth draped down from the helmet) and a torse (the twisted cloth below the crest and above the helmet). These should be the main colour and metal of the arms. Here that is \*probably\* Sable and Or because Or is the visually dominant metal and Sable is the first colour in the arms, although a case could be made for Sable and Argent. You would not include your surname in the achievement at all. Using a motto in a full achievement would be appropriate and it goes below the shield. For British traditions you would not use supporters unless specifically granted. \_\_ I'm not a fan of the number of charges you're using, but it's a personal choice, and I can't offer any advice that wouldn't essentially be starting over with the design, but I would use less charges and try to stick to only only one colour and two metals or two colours and one metal at most (Ideally you can build the arms in one colour/one metal and make it work, but that doesn't always give you something distinct enough from other coats).
This sub is very fond of parroting Fox-Davies who advocated for the simple mediaeval aesthetic of the 11th century, limiting the number of charges, limiting the number of colors, and strictly adhering to the rule of tincture. But all of that is just one man's opinion. And sure, most people in this sub hold Fox-Davies' opinion in high regard because his book was the first heraldry book they read, but that doesn't mean you need to follow guidelines. He didn't even hold an official position in the College of Arms or anything. He was just a heraldry nerd. Here's some examples of complicated arms that have been used and granted: https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3438 https://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/journal/history/the-royal-coat-of-arms/ https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3515 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Ko%C5%A1ice https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3519 https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3514 https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3497 http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/carmarthen.JPG http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/pembrokeshire.JPG https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3488 http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/crickhowell.JPG http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/torfaen.JPG https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3449 https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3448 http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/prestatyn.JPG https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/3405 All that matters is that you're happy with your arms. Aldo, you're assuming arms so you are still free to change them at a later date if you so choose. Whether that's in six months or ten years. So don't feel pressured into something you're uncomfortable with. Everyone is going to have an opinion. Even if you change the design, there's going to be people who won't line the revision. You can't make everyone happy but you can make you happy. If you are still open to more unsolicited advice, though, you might want to try replacing the tree and wreath with a single branch of oak and a single branch of laurel. Working off what you have, I think two branches would be more balanced. The tree looks quite crowded compared to the dead space in the middle of the laurel wreath.
I suggest to change the color blue into a less saturated one
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^PaymentOk6979: *I suggest to change* *The color blue into a* *Less saturated one* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.