|WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology||(Rated Start-class)|
The article stated:
- "In the German army under the Nazi reign,"
which I changed to:
- "In the German army under the National Socialist regime,"
since it didn't seem to be the proper phrasing to fit as a encyclopaedic entry. --Carrac 21:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Use of 'Escutcheon' in electronics industry
While working for a telecommunications company, the term Escutcheon was used to describe the self-adhesive labels that were applied to two-way radio housings, prior to positioning of the control knobs. The dials for these knobs were printed on the labels (e.g. volume scale and channel number). The labels had holes corresponding to the shafts of the potentiometers and rotary switches to which the knobs were affixed. I presume therefore that an Escutcheon can be the label used on any instrumentation panel, on which the necessary markings for dials and knobs are printed.
--JAH 14:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)JAH
- This article is about the escutheon used in heraldry. That sounds like something for Escutcheon (disambiguation). Well, actually, it looks like it has already been addressed there anyway. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 07:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Requested an image to illustrate what shape an Escutcheon is. Although, would I be correct in saying that the image from the template above, Image:PB Scrope CoA.png, is an Escutcheon? --Aqua 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Done. The tone of the "u" does vary from speaker to speaker though, and I've typically heard it pronounced [ɪ'sku:tʃən] (a "long u") which is closer to the latin root word. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In the figure, the escutcheon nº 11 is from Spain. The Portuguese escutcheon is quite different. An extra note for the author of the page: Portugal and Spain are two independent and distinct countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean the shape of the shield, or the colors on it (which resemble the flag of Spain)? —Tamfang (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, replace the image with the "Brazilian escutcheon"; there is no such a thing in heraldry. This kind of shield is just used by Brazilian Football Confederation and, maybe, by some soccer teams . Giro720 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
charges vs "style"
- I think the difference appears to be whether these serve as a basis for including other charge/s (placed within inescutcheon/s that are neither borne en surtout nor in pretense–i.e. not representative of a hereditary claim), as in the Swedish Heraldry Collegium example, or used as mobile charges without other charges placed within/upon them. In the former case, they seem to function essentially like a fimbriation (enabling the bearer to place a metal charge upon a metal field, or colour upon colour). In the latter case, the inescutcheon itself is the charge. Of course, in both cases, the inescutcheon is a charge, but I guess the distinction is the point of focus. I'll see if I can find a basis in the literature upon which to clarify the distinction in the article text. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- As a side note, Fox-Davies noted an interesting use of the inescutcheon in the arms of Sir William Gordon Cummings (illustrated in Plate III in A Complete Guide to Heraldry), where an entire achievement–including helmet, crest, supporters and compartment–is placed within an escutcheon of pretense, so that the main shield of the arms of pretense forms a shield within a shield within a shield. Here, I suppose one could say that while the innermost shield is the inescutcheon of pretense, the intermediate shield is used "for style" to provide a distinct field for the helmet, crest, supporters and compartment. By way of clarification, Fox-Davies added (pp. 418-419) that these are the entire achievement of Gordon placed within an escutcheon borne in pretense over the arms of Cumming, granted in the year 1795. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- After revisiting the sources available in my personal collection (including Fox-Daivies A Complete Guide to Heraldry (1909), Woodcock & Robinson The Oxford Guide to Heraldry (1988), Volborth Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (1981/83), and Neubecker Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meaning (1976), et alii), I don't see any further clarification of insecutcheons not connected to a hereditary claim. I have clarified what I can while trying not to inject WP:SYNTH into the article, but my sources here just don't say much about inescutcheons other than those of hereditary and territorial claims. You are welcome to further amend the article's mention of it as needed. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 19:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The word style suggests that a painter could legitimately replace the escutcheons with roundels or billets or lozenges, since these serve equally well to "fimbriate". The escutcheons in the example shown are not only backgrounds for the crowns but also common charges chosen for the significance of their shape – if I may presume that the Swedish Heraldry Collegium has a particular interest in escutcheons. I would incorporate the "fimbriation" notion into the section As common charges. —Tamfang (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think there's a difference between "heraldic style" as it's used here and heraldic "style", but I see where you're coming from. Even if they are chosen for reasons of basically fimbriating another charge, they still qualify as mobile charges. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)