Would flopping this image be proper?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Okay, I'll wade in on this:

Setting aside the obvious question of ownership, the only way the arms will heraldically/aesthetically work on your friend's right shoulder is if he:

1) tips the shield to the viewers right, leaving the bow of the ship pointing upward;

2) reverses the direction the helmet faces (it should face toward his front);

3) redraws the crest showing the back of the armoured gauntlet (don't show thumb and fingers);

4) places the motto in the scroll, as shown.

As others have suggested he would be better off using just the badge of a clansman, in which case he would not reverse the direction the crest faces. This is because while a crest is intended to be seen in all three dimensions, a badge is only ever seen "flat"-- to change the attitude of the charge within the strap and buckle would require a separate grant describing the direction the charge would have to face--

and as a badge, within a strap gules, buckled and frimbriated or, thereon the motto "Aim High" argent, a cannon aimed dexter proper, upon a wreath of the colours argent and gules--

The idea that the badge of a clansman should only be rendered in monochrome really has to do with paper heraldry, where the use of coloured inks is often regarded as "vulgar". On letters patent the stap and buckle is usually depicted as "proper", ie: leather coloured (or sometimes derived from the livery colours of the armiger) with the edge of the strap and the "furniture" (buckle, etc.) yellow (gold), and the lettering in either gold or silver -- as in the above example.

Now a chief may instruct his clansmen as to his pleasure in how he wishes his badge to be displayed, and the Lord Lyon my provide guidance in this matter in accordance with the expressed wishes of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, but heraldry being both a legal science and an art, an especially colourful art at that, there is no reason that membership in a clan can not be celebrated in glorious technicolor!

Indeed, one may purchase a "clan crest plaque" at any tartan shop with the clansman's badge depicted in full colour-- and these are fully approved by the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs.

[BoldHighlander]

Thank you gentlemen for the great advice, I greatly appreciate it & will pass it along to my friend.

[Mike_Oettle]

MacMillan of Rathdown wrote: “The idea that the badge of a clansman should only be rendered in monochrome really has to do with paper heraldry, where the use of coloured inks is often regarded as ‘vulgar’.”
Actually, my impression is not that it has to do with printing, but rather with the metal used for the bonnet badge.
It is not generally regarded as proper to wear an enamelled crest-badge on the balmoral, glengarry or tam o’shanter.
Of course, if one is dealing with one’s own crest, one can do whatever one wishes, but if you are wearing a clan chief’s crest it is regarded as laying claim to it if it is in colour.
Paintings and other illustrations are another matter. One can even display the chief’s full armorial bearings, if one wishes – as long as the display does not suggest that the person displaying the arms is the owner.
But I would say that wearing a tattoo is more akin to wearing a bonnet badge than to what you might display on the wall.
Regards,
Mike

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MacMillan of Rathdown wrote: “The idea that the badge of a clansman should only be rendered in monochrome really has to do with paper heraldry, where the use of coloured inks is often regarded as ‘vulgar’.”
Actually, my impression is not that it has to do with printing, but rather with the metal used for the bonnet badge.
It is not generally regarded as proper to wear an enamelled crest-badge on the balmoral, glengarry or tam o’shanter.
Of course, if one is dealing with one’s own crest, one can do whatever one wishes, but if you are wearing a clan chief’s crest it is regarded as laying claim to it if it is in colour.
Paintings and other illustrations are another matter. One can even display the chief’s full armorial bearings, if one wishes – as long as the display does not suggest that the person displaying the arms is the owner.
But I would say that wearing a tattoo is more akin to wearing a bonnet badge than to what you might display on the wall.
Regards,
Mike

Mike,

I generally agree with what you are saying-- especially when it comes to the clansman's badge as worn on a hat. That said, if a lady should choose to have the badge of her clan rendered in precious stones in their correct colours, well there would be nothing wrong with that (although if she has that much money to spend on a brooch she should consider petitioning for a grant of arms in her own name!).

A tattoo, like the above mentioned brooch, really falls into the category of personal adornment, and there would be no heraldic reason that I can think of that would prevent it from being rendered in full colour.

Regards,

Scott