There’s a Facebook group that some of you may already know about; it’s called the Heraldry Hall of Shame and posters to the group will put up pictures of what they consider to be really poor coats of arms. (You can find the Heraldry Hall of Shame on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/groups/132206840210041/) A recent poster there put up the “Particularly ghastly arms of Vermont.”
Now, I’ll admit that they’re not the best heraldic composition in the world by any means. But I’m not sure that they can really be called “ghastly,” either. Indeed, they’re pretty typical of much landscape heraldry from the era in which they were designed. (And it is even possible to have a bit of fun with them, at least until you get caught, as I noted in this post: http://blog.appletonstudios.com/2012/02/heraldry-in-news.html)
And really, are they any worse than this coat of arms, from a near neighbor, the State of Maine?
Technically the seal of Maine is a poor rendition of what would otherwise be a fine shield. The actual blazon is: A Shield, argent, charged with a Pine Tree, a Moose-Deer, at the foot of it, recumbent.
ReplyDeleteI may be biased, but I say the Maine shield is a better design ;-)
If that's really the blazon of the arms of Maine, then they need to follow it more closely. Mentioned nowhere in that blazon are the sky (assuming the clouds to be argent), the forest behind the tree, the grass, nor the river in base.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, some might suggest that you are a little bit biased about it. (You can see Jeremy's blog, Maine Heraldry, linked here under "Other Blogs of Heraldic Interest" in the left-hand column.)