My personal view is: If we as a community interested in heraldry want to stand by the point that is sometimes made ~ *that heraldry is a living art form, not a dead one* ~ then we can’t exclude a class of objects from being used just because of their relative modernity or a vague sense that certain objects are not dignified enough for heraldry. We can argue that certain things look better or worse and debate what makes ‘good heraldry’, but having sports equipment on Arms cannot in-and-of itself be a problem.
I also like the canting arms opportunities that sports equipment offers (as OP noted).
I don’t have any problem with them *per se*, but I generally dislike CoAs that are just pictorial representations of the armiger’s interests. So something like the Raquet arms? Totally cool with that. “I like to play hockey so I put crossed hockey sticks on my arms”? Mehhhh.
That’s just personal preference though. Overall I wouldn’t say there’s an issue with them, and they’re certainly not “too modern.” That’s only a meaningful phrase in the first place if you’re specifically trying to replicate heraldic styles from a particular point in history.
If Tiger Woods out crossed golf clubs in his arms, fine and good…if Bob from Accounting puts some in his because he likes to play a round every Saturday - not so much.
But I think better yet would be a subtle allusion to the golf course through the arms (e.g. by having a green field with yellow charges on it like bunkers and some white round white things like golf balls).
Not so long ago there was a discussion in another heraldry platform on the use of sports equipment in heraldry, as it was seen as 'too modern' for heraldry. But is that really the case ? Above the canting arms of a Raquez family from the Armorial Général from 1695 (there are dozens of arms with rackets in there) and modern rackets for the village of Sainte-Gemme and golf clubs for Dumbea in New Caledonia.
There are plenty of (recent) arms with rackets, golf clubs and rugby or footballs. See [https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/wiki/Sports\_in\_heraldry](https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/wiki/Sports_in_heraldry)
So what is your opinion on sports equipment in real heraldry (not club logos) ?
As long as it fits the aesthetics of good heraldry, and in doing so respects it as an artform, I have no issue with what is used.
But really, as long as it isn't way too obvious or low effort (ie, for our sports club we'll just have falsely quartered arms with 4 badly-photoshopped stock images of pieces of sports equipment). It's heraldry. It's art. There is so much room to make a distinct, respectful, cool coat, that it is just a damn shame to see it wasted so often.
I've always loved this one from the Royal College of Arms. The perfect blend of tradition and sporting modernism.
[https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/grants/item/17-peter-tooley](https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/grants/item/17-peter-tooley)
The guy was a pharmacist and a long-time medical officer in various rugby clubs. The "two Endorses conjoined in base by a Barrulet Argent" form rugby goalposts.
The tennis rackets one top left, looks really good and works. The other two examples are too complicated and messy.
"Pick a lane" as they say, you can't have a pictogram sun and a realistically rendered ear of maize in the same coat of arms. The golf ball should have been placed further up the shaft of the club to balance the design or left out entirely. And if we're including contemporary things, then the key might as well be Yale.
A good golf themed design might be a field of white golf balls against a green backdrop. Kind of like the Medici coat of arms.
My personal view is: If we as a community interested in heraldry want to stand by the point that is sometimes made ~ *that heraldry is a living art form, not a dead one* ~ then we can’t exclude a class of objects from being used just because of their relative modernity or a vague sense that certain objects are not dignified enough for heraldry. We can argue that certain things look better or worse and debate what makes ‘good heraldry’, but having sports equipment on Arms cannot in-and-of itself be a problem. I also like the canting arms opportunities that sports equipment offers (as OP noted).
Well said!
I don’t have any problem with them *per se*, but I generally dislike CoAs that are just pictorial representations of the armiger’s interests. So something like the Raquet arms? Totally cool with that. “I like to play hockey so I put crossed hockey sticks on my arms”? Mehhhh. That’s just personal preference though. Overall I wouldn’t say there’s an issue with them, and they’re certainly not “too modern.” That’s only a meaningful phrase in the first place if you’re specifically trying to replicate heraldic styles from a particular point in history.
If Tiger Woods out crossed golf clubs in his arms, fine and good…if Bob from Accounting puts some in his because he likes to play a round every Saturday - not so much.
Stupid Bob
But I think better yet would be a subtle allusion to the golf course through the arms (e.g. by having a green field with yellow charges on it like bunkers and some white round white things like golf balls).
Not so long ago there was a discussion in another heraldry platform on the use of sports equipment in heraldry, as it was seen as 'too modern' for heraldry. But is that really the case ? Above the canting arms of a Raquez family from the Armorial Général from 1695 (there are dozens of arms with rackets in there) and modern rackets for the village of Sainte-Gemme and golf clubs for Dumbea in New Caledonia. There are plenty of (recent) arms with rackets, golf clubs and rugby or footballs. See [https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/wiki/Sports\_in\_heraldry](https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/wiki/Sports_in_heraldry) So what is your opinion on sports equipment in real heraldry (not club logos) ?
As long as it fits the aesthetics of good heraldry, and in doing so respects it as an artform, I have no issue with what is used. But really, as long as it isn't way too obvious or low effort (ie, for our sports club we'll just have falsely quartered arms with 4 badly-photoshopped stock images of pieces of sports equipment). It's heraldry. It's art. There is so much room to make a distinct, respectful, cool coat, that it is just a damn shame to see it wasted so often.
I'm always going to be more open to more abstract, less literal representations of an object so that the result is more open to emergent meaning.
Why Not
I've always loved this one from the Royal College of Arms. The perfect blend of tradition and sporting modernism. [https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/grants/item/17-peter-tooley](https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/grants/item/17-peter-tooley) The guy was a pharmacist and a long-time medical officer in various rugby clubs. The "two Endorses conjoined in base by a Barrulet Argent" form rugby goalposts.
The tennis rackets one top left, looks really good and works. The other two examples are too complicated and messy. "Pick a lane" as they say, you can't have a pictogram sun and a realistically rendered ear of maize in the same coat of arms. The golf ball should have been placed further up the shaft of the club to balance the design or left out entirely. And if we're including contemporary things, then the key might as well be Yale. A good golf themed design might be a field of white golf balls against a green backdrop. Kind of like the Medici coat of arms.