Should there even be a category "later tinctures"? Some of these are quite old. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I wonder about the illustration for ermine spots. It gives the impression that there are but two forms (or close to this) when really there is an unbelievable variety of forms of representation. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:16, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Regarding "Malcolm of Applecross" (SCA) is that really a violation of the tincture rule as it is usually understood? —Ashley Y 00:01, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, if it were blazoned as one chevron on another, ("on a chevron vert, another of the field") this clearly would not violate the tincture rule. But I think the fimbriation blazon does. I am open to proof that this is wrong, however. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:21, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Firstly, I think the blazon is poorly worded, I would have preferred "argent, on a chevron voided vert...", which clearly does not violate the rule. But I also think, for instance, "argent, a chevron or fimbriated vert" does not violate the rule whereas "argent, a chevron vert fimbriated or" does. —Ashley Y 01:55, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
- An entirely unrelated issue but I would have picked "pomes" (i.e. roundels vert) rather than actual apples if I'd been designing this coat. —Ashley Y 01:55, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
Methods of hatching have been invented for other tinctures than the ones shown. Should this be gotten into? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In the case of the Borough of Richmond upon Thames supporters the light blue and dark blue oars are not that significant to this article as they are blazoned as proper. But perhaps this should be kept to show the historical development. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The only copy of the blazon I can find[1] has "On either side a Griffin Gules armed and beaked Azure each supporting an Oar proper the blade of the dexter Dark Blue and that of the sinister Light Blue." So the oars themselves are unexceptional but it's the blades that are tinctured unusually. Marnanel 00:13, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
- O.k. You're right. Mea culpa. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)