Talk:Rule of tincture

Untitled

I notice the arms of Jean Le Viste, sponsor of The Lady and the Unicorn, violate this rule. The blazon is "gules on a bend azure three crescents argent"This creates inconsistency in the art of heraldry for modern flags and opens up space for internal combustion f the system. Go to a website called bring back heraldry and sign a petition to bring some attention to it or n the education field . —Ashley Y 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Flags and the Rule

According to the article the flag of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach was changed because of violation of this Rule, presumably because it put black on green (colour on colour).

However, when I added the flags of Germany (black on red) and the U.S (red on blue) here, they were removed for not violating the Rule.

So presumably bands and corners are seen as divisions of the field? In that case the flag of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach didn't violate the Rule either. Shinobu 12:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the US flag, the blue (color) canton is placed on a striped field that is half metal and half color. It is therefore not an example of color on color.

The flag's background is not "half metal and half color". When stripes are even in count it's barry (or paly) (of 12 or of 14) of this and that. When they're odd in count, the outside stripes are the field ON which the count of only inside stripes (bars, pales, or words for their diminutives) is blazoned as a number of charges. The flag and shield don't have 13 stripes. They have six, white on the flag's red background, red on the shield's white background.

And the USA's flag does violate the rule. If it didn't, the USA's shield would match the flag (because if the flag doesn't violate the rule the shield with seven red stripes wouldn't have violated it either). The shield was changed around, with seven white stripes (including outside edges), ON which are blazoned the six reds and blue chief. Red-on-white and blue-on-white don't break the rule, and while white-on-red wouldn't break the rule, blue-on-red does.) The only credible explanation I've read for the difference in the shield is that they wanted to observe the rule for the shield but not the flag, where a white stripe might become invisible in the wind against various backgrounds, looking like 11 stripes (6 red including edges, 5 white).2604:2000:C682:B600:FC9C:4C2:2514:9A8F (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

A similar situation exists for the German flag, though it is harder to see. The German flag may be thought of as having an underlying field that if half black (on top) and half yellow (on bottom). Over this, a red fess has been added. Again, since the underlying field is half-color and half-metal, the result is not a violation of the color of tincture. See Heim's book for additional examples and discussion. --EncycloPetey 13:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

@The German flag may be thought of as having an underlying field that if half black (on top) and half yellow (on bottom).: The same could have been said for the SWE-flag too - yet it was changed. The exact history of the German flag is covered in nebulae - for all practical purposes however, the German flag consists of three equal bands. Shinobu 16:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In German heraldry, black can be either a color or a metal, and the German flag can be decomposed as the permissible metal-color-metal. T3h 1337 b0y 21:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Recently someone made some edits with the comment "flags have never been under the rule". Given the examples above, that seems extremely likely. Still, that is not the impression the article currently gives. It may be just me, but some more work is necessary. Shinobu 17:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC) follow link to crest

The UK Red Ensign with blue on red may violate the rule unless the upper-hoist canton is a "Union Jack proper". The UK White Ensign violates the rule unless it's okay for a blue canton and a red St.-George Cross to touch if both ON argent/white.2604:2000:C682:B600:FC9C:4C2:2514:9A8F (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

What about the flag of Bangladesh? Red disk on a green field. --~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.52.45 (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh isn't subject to European heraldic concerns, and thus can't be judged against european standards. 90.204.16.167 (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Emblem of Albania

According to Sable (heraldry), sable is a fur in Albania rather than a colour. Either that page or this would therefore seem to be in error... --Sabik 14:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is in whether you are treating the issue from an English/French view (in which case sable is a color) or a central European perspective (where sable sometimes functions as a fur/natural tincture). Each page is correct from its own point of view. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a cite on this bizarre theory that is sometimes expressed. The name of sable doesn't mean it's a fur. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a fur can be placed upon either metal or colour, according to Fox-Davies (A Complete Guide to Heraldry, p. 86), but I think your real point here is whether or not sable/black is a fur. On pp. 85-86, Fox-Davies makes it abundantly clear that he considers sable a colour that conflicts with gules/red, as he gives two examples of this very conflict. Confusingly, however, he lists black/sable among the "colours" on p. 70 "(in spite of the fact that it is not really a colour)," although he does not elaborate on what it really is if not a colour. Interestingly, conflicts of sable upon colour and colour upon sable abound in comparison with other violations of the rule, especially in continental heraldry. While heraldic authors just about universally classify sable as a colour, it would seem that many heralds, especially continental heralds, considered sable to be at least somewhat "amphibious". While I do not disagree that sable "should" be considered a colour for purposes of contrast, I don't think it should be swept under the rug that it often "wasn't". I think the overarching issue here is, can anyone find a suitable source for sable's use as a fur in continental heraldry? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly true that sables are "amphibious". I used to breed them (and minks and ermines) when I lived in Russia. All mustelids retain their gills until six weeks after they hatch.2604:2000:C682:B600:FC9C:4C2:2514:9A8F (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Emblem of Hungary

Just from my reading of the article: could the offending hill be considered a green hill proper, as opposed to a trimount vert, in which case there would be no violation? Eman ruse (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if the Hungarians blazon it that way, but they don't. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Examples

I was asked to explain my edit [1], which was soon after reverted [2]. I believe that in the Gallery there should be the Coat of Arms of Jerusalem, as it is discussed in the text as one of the most famous examples. I also removed the Pan-African flag and the Coat of Arms of Samogitia, as it is simpler to have one example of both colour on colour and metal on metal, however they could both stay if needed. The only other change was to replace the Coat of arms of Hungary with the SVG version, which I saw as non-controversial. If anyone has any problems with this, please discuss. --23230 ^talk 09:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So you believe the current well-documented examples should be removed in favor of your example? I disagree. Showing two examples only does not demonstrate the exceptions as well as four or even five examples would do. Removing the only flag example also biases an article that currently is used by both the heraldry and vexillology articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit late for this conversation, but I just want to say that the File:Armoiries_de_Jérusalem.svg isn't a violation because it has a black border around the crosses. Unless there is a version of it which doesn't. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this image is still technically in violation, as the black borders are not heavy enough to be considered a fimbriation (and if they were, it would be a deviation from the blazon). Perhaps it would be useful to remove them, however, just to eliminate any such confusion. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the Papal flag? See, for example <img src=http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0312o.jpg> Jhobson1 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It was formerly included here, and I agree with including it, but a couple of vocal editors objected to the inclusion of any flags as examples. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Flags that violate the Rule of Tincture

Flags

• 
  Sami flag
• 
  Morocco flag
• 
  Flag of Austrian EU Presidency

Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Godfrey of Bouillon

Godfrey was never King of Jerusalem - that is not even up for debate. He did, however, hold an ill-defined position of secular leadership, and I didn't wish to remove the contribution hastily before some discussion as to his contribution to the coat of arms. Anyone know whether he in fact did develop it? Dpodoll68 (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some research and phrased the sentence to fit the true picture more accurately. Any dissent? Dpodoll68 (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Work on references

I've done some work on the references in this article, but I don't currently have access to Heim, Llwyd, Neubecker, or Spener, but I see that these are listed under references, yet there are no inline citations regarding these sources. Would anyone with access care to add a few inline citations? These would improve the verifiability of this article. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Impossible situations?

I have a question about the rule of tincture--what happens if three shapes meet at the same spot? (An example would be a circle divided into equal thirds at the center, or any shape with a line going through it, then any other line going from the line to the border.) In this case, it would be impossible to distinguish between the three areas without at least three colors, and thus, violation of the rule of tincture would be unavoidable.

The flag of the United States would be an example: The red stripes touch the blue area on the upper-left, and there is no possible way to arrange the colors without metal on metal or, in this case, color on color.

On the SHIELD of the USA the stripes are 7 whites (including outside edges) and six reds. This means you have an argent/silver/white background with six red/gules, what do you call them, pallets, on it. Then you have a blue/azure chief also on the argent/silver/white. The blue and red are things lying ON TOP OF the argent/silver/white. The only reason it was done this way is they wanted the SHIELD to obey the tincture-rule. The flag doesn't because they wanted to the "hard edge" of the red to be visible at sea.2604:2000:C682:B600:FC9C:4C2:2514:9A8F (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Is there an exemption when the shapes are arranged in this way, or is there a corollary to the rule of tincture discouraging such designs?

I know that, among people who design maps, when they color in regions on a map, they will always have at least three shades to use because most geographical boundaries require at least that many to make sure no area has the same shade as an area next to it. Ron Stoppable (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The map-maker's minimum is four inks, not three. Make a 2D picture of a donut. Cut like a pie (make radii with a knife) into three pieces. Color the hole. Each of the three pieces will touch the hole on its inside edge and will touch the other two pipe-pieces on its and their ends. This forces four colors. The field it's lying on doesn't force a fifth color because it can be the same color as the hole.2604:2000:C682:B600:FC9C:4C2:2514:9A8F (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The rule really isn't as rigid as that; it governs the basic placing of a "charge" directly onto a "field", but is not about preventing all possible color-color or metal-metal contact (which in fact fairly often happens due to various complexities). If you had a shield of three colors per pall, that would be a division of the field, not placing a charge onto an field... AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Some of this is covered directly in the text of the article: "Simple divisions of the field are considered to be beside each other, not one on top of the other; so the rule of tincture does not apply... The rule also does not apply to charges placed upon party-coloured (divided) or patterned fields;" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed by Christopher L. Simpson as I expanded this above.69.86.131.77 (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

reorg needed

The section "Lawful exceptions" is too long and heterogeneous. I'll think about it when my head doesn't hurt. —Tamfang (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor (no) Examples

Someone needs to add some examples, instead of just a stack of violations. 120.151.160.158 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Samogitia really an example of violation?

Some sources say the emblem is a black bear. Not "a bear sable". If the reason it's called a "black bear" is to make it clear that it's not a "sun-bear" or "great-spectacled-bear", then you could say, in the blazon, that its color is "proper" rather than saying it is "sable". I think that gets you around the rule against tincture-charge-on-tincture-field.69.86.131.77 (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Exactly. Charges "proper" are neither metal nor colour so the rule does not apply to them. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There are numerous example of sable charges on gules fields, especially in areas of Germanic influence, regardless of whether they are blazoned as proper or not. In English armory, consider these items from the Dictionary of British Arms: "Gules, a lion Sable, STAUNTON. Gules, 3 garbs sable banded Or. WALDESHEFF. Gules, three bear's heads erased sable. PLN. Gules, three bugle horns Sable. HORNE of Kent." None of these are blazoned as "proper," and indeed lions and garbs proper would not be sable. The reality is that some traditions consider there to be sufficient contrast between gules and sable, regardless of whether it is an animate charge or blazoned proper or not. Mcavalletto (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the part about borders?

The article says that an exception to tincture-on-tincture is a border of the same color of the field. I am not able to grasp this. If you have a green field with a green border, how is that different from just a green field? What's the difference?69.86.131.77 (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The article talks about an exception to the rule of tincture. Any coat with a field and one or more charges is going to be "tincture-on-tincture." The article does not state that a bordure with the same colour as the field, if blazoned as such is acceptable. That means that while "Vert a bordure of the field" ("Vert a bordure Vert") is not only a violation of the rule of tincture but absolutely and completely ridiculous, it can be done if blazoned as Vert, embordured, which has the same appearance. Although, though not idea, the coat could be shown with a purfle, you are right in that neither of these identically-appearing coats are different in appearance from a plain coat of Vert. One is legal and the other is not. However, the practical difficulty with "embordured" is almost always obviated by there being charges within the bordure that give a hint as to its presence. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach

It may well be that heralds changed the flag of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach because those heralds THOUGHT that the original flag (with vert and sable adjacent) violated this rule. But those heralds' BELIEF that such flag violated the rule doesn't mean that it DID violate the rule, so the sentence could use some re-working to the effect that a change was made not because something was true, but, rather, because someone THOUGHT something was true. Not the same thing. As stated in this article, the old flag didn't violate the rule. As stated in this article the rule is against a charge "on" something, not adjacent something, and so exempts tri-colors. (I'll concede that if the stripes are, as Austria, red-white-red, you can take the position that the white fess is ON a red field and subject to the rule. But I'd say that no combination of three DIFFERENT tinctures/ metals/ furs/ patterns can violate the rule.)69.86.131.77 (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Does Hungary REALLY violate the rule?

Removed by Christopher L. Simpson as I found this answered above.2604:2000:C682:B600:FC9C:4C2:2514:9A8F (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Context

I've put the "context" banner on this article because it doesn't clearly say what this rule applies to, or whether it's purely historical or still in effect in some contexts. This information should be in the lead. Nathaniel Virgo (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a traditional guideline governing color combinations in coats of arms. Where heraldic governing bodies still exist (such as the College of Arms in London, Lord Lyon in Scotland etc.) they would usually follow the rule, though there have been some deliberate violations (such as the coat of arms of the Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem), and red-on-black or black-on-red is often not considered a violation in the Balkans and parts of Eastern Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Cousu

The section on the term cousu, the term soudé and the similar Italian term per inchiesta also mentooned there, needs to have a reference or two to sources which can verify these terms and their use. The only source given, does not mention any of those three terms. Ove Raul (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arms of Denys of Gloucestershire.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Coat of arms of the Duchy of Samogitia.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Coat of arms of Samogitia.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arms of Denys of Gloucestershire.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Boutell Reference re Bordures

The second paragraph of "Application and exceptions" claims that "Boutell also exempts bordures from the rule of tincture." It cites "Boutell, p. 43." There is a discussion of the rule of tinctures on pages 43–44 of Boutell's English Heraldry, but it does not mention bordures at all. Moreover, when looking at other references to bordures in the same volume, I was unable to find any cases where it states that the rule of tinctures does not apply to them. Is there some other edition that makes this claim, or is this reference as spurious as it seems? Mcavalletto (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)