73 replies to this topic

[LuisDantas]

As a strictly personal opinion, most if not all of them seem to be fine, if perhaps a bit too detailed to be used on the corners of the profile pictures. Alternates with less detail are IMO needed for those versions with 60 to 80 pixels of width.

[Ran]

GRRM uses ermine too! As I said, he does use some proper heraldic terms. But in other areas, he doesn't. If it's got an accent in it, for example, he probably hasn't made use of it.

[Scafloc]

About Sergio's coa's in general I prefer a bit more simple versions. A more clear field and less distinction in the charges. Most of the current ones are simple but clear. NB this for the use as main coa; in the house template. Sergios versions are nice enough but for the one in the template I prefer ones that are very clear. Easier for the reader to see.

Specific for each:
I like the Greyjoy version. Again my preference is to use to bit more simple and clear but the kraken in it is better then the current one
Mallister; I prefer the current one; for me the charge (eagle) of it is better looking
Seaworth: I like that Sergio use a small ship. The current coa has a big ship. I always found that less suitable considering Davos is a former smugler who used stealth.
Hightower: this one really has too much shadows / distinct features. The tower itself is too crooked. I prefer the current one
Dayne: current one is more clear, the charges are of equal quality
Dondarrion: I like the charge more then the current one, also comments about clear apply less then with the other ones (probably because the field is dark making it look more clear.
Martell: my preference is not Sergio's, nor the current one but the one before that. Charge is straight, very well visible, clear colours.http://awoiaf.westeros.org/images/archive/b/ba/20111111232041%21House_Martell.PNG

[Scafloc]

Forgot Stannis's coa. Like Sergio's charge, same points about using less shadows and so

[Sergio Tavel]

So, If I upload simpler versions of Dondarrion, Greyjoy, Seaworth, Dayne, and Stannis (the ones you liked), then, can I use those? What about Joffrey's sigil and Bracken's?

And about Hightower I made it to look like a medieval tower. The current one seems too modern. Towers were very crooked in the drawings of that time.

Edited by Sergio Tavel, 17 August 2012 - 02:46 PM.

[Scafloc]

Your Hightower picture is a much better example of a medieval drawing of a tower but that is not the point. For the "main coa" it should be very easily to the current reader to see what it is. Therefore it is my preference not to use shadows and so on. Just a clear field and simple charge. It is my understanding that this is the preference of Wikipedia as well.

NB this is my preference I hope the others give their opinions as well. Also I certainly have no objection include in each house article a gallery with coa's. For such a gallery diversity and artistic beauty would be assets.

I see I forgot two coa's:

• Bracken: I like your version. Also the current one has a bit too much shading (probably because it is a photo of a real wooded one). Nitpick: the description said "A red stallion upon a golden escutcheon on brown". In your version there is no escutcheon.
  
• The Joffrey one; again it is a beautiful one but especially the lion is for me less suited as a clear presentation of what the coa contains.

Edited by Scafloc, 17 August 2012 - 04:02 PM.

[Sergio Tavel]

The escutcheon can be easily added. So, you agree that I can use the simpler, clearer pictures of the Houses I mentioned? I'm sorry if I ask again, but I want to be sure.
I'll edit new ones then, the charge was drawn in Adobe Illustrator and the coat of arms edited in Photoshop, they are simple drawings, just the lines and the color, clear and visible.

I would like to hear everyone's opinion.

The idea of a gallery would be perfect. Many images are left in the dark without one.

Edited by Sergio Tavel, 17 August 2012 - 04:33 PM.

[LuisDantas]

I, too, think that there is a place for a gallery of alternate representations of any COA.  It even adds realism IMO.

I agree with Scafloc in that generaly speaking the standard implementation of a sigil should be fairly simple; one of the main desirable attributes of a coat of arms is that it should be recognizable at a distance, after all.

[Sergio Tavel]

Ok, I'll make new ones and show them to you for your approval.

[Ser Rogal Dayne]

Scafloc, on 17 August 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Dayne: current one is more clear, the charges are of equal quality

the old one IMO goes more with what the description is."a sword across a falling star all of the same" your version seems to me that the "falling star" isnt falling, its making a weird O shape, ive never seen a falling star make a "O" shape.

Edited by Ser Rogal Dayne, 23 August 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[Scafloc]

Your remark came after a decision was made. That is why I reverted your change. It is fine to discuss this again, after all new users may have new ideas, but please do not push your changes through.

Back on topic; as stated above I have a preference for coa's that are very good visible and have a clear shape. Using shadows or may seem better on an artisic level but it also makes it a bit less visible.
For the Dayne coa the colors that Sergio is using makes his version better visible, the shape of the charge is better visible that is why I prefer his version.
I did not notice the O shape. It does not bother me although I must admit that I have never seen real falling star.

[Ser Rogal Dayne]

Scafloc, on 23 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Your remark came after a decision was made. That is why I reverted your change. It is fine to discuss this again, after all new users may have new ideas, but please do not push your changes through.

Back on topic; as stated above I have a preference for coa's that are very good visible and have a clear shape. Using shadows or may seem better on an artisic level but it also makes it a bit less visible.
For the Dayne coa the colors that Sergio is using makes his version better visible, the shape of the charge is better visible that is why I prefer his version.
I did not notice the O shape. It does not bother me although I must admit that I have never seen real falling star.

oh I had not realized the discussion was finalized, sorry about that. This is what I get for just registering a few days ago and not realizing this was going on. Do we more-or-less use this subforum as the equivalent to the awoiaf's village pump? If so I will have to visit the forum more often.

What I meant by the shape of the falling star is that the imagery of the falling star is more accurate in the old Dayne CoA (imo) in that a falling star is a streak across the sky generally speaking. a google image search of falling stars yields the same imagery results (a streak across the sky)

[Sergio Tavel]

The O shape of the falling star is to add a better design and harmonize with the sword in the sigil. Just a sword and a falling star crossed tends to break the harmony as it looks like and X, cutting the shield and breaking the view point pattern (I am a graphic designer by the way). The images in coat of arms are not meant to represent real life images, the lions in several ones tend to have long tongues twisting from their mouths.

[Ser Rogal Dayne]

Sergio Tavel, on 24 August 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

The O shape of the falling star is to add a better design and harmonize with the sword in the sigil. Just a sword and a falling star crossed tends to break the harmony as it looks like and X, cutting the shield and breaking the view point pattern (I am a graphic designer by the way). The images in coat of arms are not meant to represent real life images, the lions in several ones tend to have long tongues twisting from their mouths.

I was just taking GRRM's words literally i guess when he said "a falling star" that it mean the stereotypical image of what a falling star looks like (more). I just assume that if he intended for a circular star he simply would've said "a circular star" is all.

Edited by Ser Rogal Dayne, 25 August 2012 - 01:24 AM.