On August 4 the Most Rev. Michael G. Woost (63) was ordained as the Titular Bishop of Sertei and Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of Cleveland, OH where the had previously served as a priest.
His arms are blazoned: “Argent, a cross emerging from a pile embowed reversed Or, charged in base with a closed book Gules, in dexter chief a gutté d’eau surmounted in bend sinister by a gutté de sang, and in sinister chief a tongue of flame Proper.”
I don’t concern myself with the artwork here. In addition, the charges chosen are all clear and the overall design is simple. I do know that many, myself included, might take issue with the two droplets, one of water and the other of blood, slightly overlapping each other. As a general rule charges should not do that but it is done in a very minor way that I don’t think really detracts from the overall design or the ability to discern what they are. That, after all, is what is most important for a coat of arms.
No, my only issue –and it is admittedly a very minor one– is with the blazon. Now, it must be said at the outset that the art of blazon is not as precise as some might assert. That is to say there is often more than one way to blazon the same coat of arms. There can be slight differences in the way a phrase is turned, etc. While the essence of a coat of arms “lives” in the blazon rather than in the emblazonment that does not mean there can only be one single way to blazon a particular coat of arms.
My issue is with the use of the word “gutté” to refer to a single drop or droplet. Generally speaking a single drop is a “goutte” and the word “gutté” indicates a field or a charge that is covered with numerous drops of whatever liquid is being depicted. So, my minor criticism is that the blazon should read, “…in dexter chief a goutte d’eau surmounted in bend sinister by a goutte de sang…”
Nit picky? Perhaps. But, the blazon should try to be as precise as it can be assuming that someone who is familiar with the language of blazon could depict the coat of arms without ever having seen it just by following the blazon. Since gutté means covered with several drops and these arms contain a single drop each of water and of blood the blazon is confusing.
EXARANDORUM 
Fr Guy, the blazon is odd: are you sure that the accents are not mere typos? A goutte de sang surmounted of a goutte d’eau would have been perfectly proper.
You’ve made precisely the same point that I did in my post.
Quite a beautiful design, simple and clear, but metal on metal, hmmmm. Looks good on paper but Or upon Argent on a real shield would be difficult to distinguish.
Then you need to read Bruno Heim’s book, “Or and Argent”. There are numerous (as in hundreds) of examples of shields employing or and argent…including Heim’s own inherited coat of arms. People tend to make far too much of the so-called “tincture rule”. It’s not as hard and fast as is often supposed.
I wonder what it would look like of depicted according to the blazon.