Luis Cid;89303 wrote:

There is another important value to having one’s arms recorded with a public or private heraldic register and that is quality control.  An individual who assumes arms without the assistance of a trained herald is not likely to have as good a result unless they spent a great many hours of study on the subject.

Unfortunately some register a design they’ve already assumed.  Which is a mistake in general.  Most registries will assist in design or membership here or at IAAH can assist.

Kathy McClurg;89310 wrote:

Unfortunately some register a design they’ve already assumed.  Which is a mistake in general.  Most registries will assist in design or membership here or at IAAH can assist.

I think some of the arms that come out of the design assistance program at the IAAH are stinkers, too, just perhaps more heraldically correct stinkers than some other assumed arms.

Kenneth Mansfield;89314 wrote:

I think some of the arms that come out of the design assistance program at the IAAH are stinkers, too, just perhaps more heraldically correct stinkers than some other assumed arms.

And not always that.

But then we occasionally see arms from the "official" foreign heralds that…well…what can I say?—oh yeah, "we’ve seen worse."

Not impugning the foreign heralds—on the whole their work is pretty good, but "official" doesn’t always guarantee "excellent." Likewise self-assumption doesn’t necessarily imply "inferior"—some of the assumed arms we see (and sometimes help to create) are really quite admirable.

Kathy McClurg;89310 wrote:

Unfortunately some register a design they’ve already assumed.  Which is a mistake in general.  Most registries will assist in design or membership here or at IAAH can assist.

This is unfortunately true, a good number of ugly or silly designs get registered - but at least they are heraldically correct.

Maybe I don’t understand what "heraldically correct" means.

Is it just "doesn’t violate the tincture rule?" Well, what about these arms from the ACH’s website:

http://americancollegeofheraldry.org/ACH MANGUM_tm.jpg or worse yet

http://americancollegeofheraldry.org/ACH JOHNSON NORBERT_tm.jpg

Maybe it means "doesn’t inappropriately infinge on existing arms?"

Then how do we explain the arms of the Federal Republic of Germany—even down to outright theft of the emblazonment of the eagle used on the flag of the Federal President—differenced for cadency?

http://americancollegeofheraldry.org/ACH FALZINI_tm.jpg

Or perhaps "doesn’t create a brand new coat of arms that masquerades as the marshalling of pre-existing arms?"

http://americancollegeofheraldry.org/ACH CLAN MCSHANE_tm.jpg

It probably isn’t fair to pick only on the ACH, which generally does excellent work, but the other American registries don’t have examples of their work online. I could go to some of the German societies and give examples that are just as questionable when it comes to heraldic correctness.

Caveat emptor.

I am in debt to Kenneth Mansfield for his help on my arms! I did a lot of research before but with his help my arms are something I am greatly pleased with!

For those who didn’t see them…...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6135/5933816544_b89e47a377_b.jpg

No institution run by human beings is going to be perfect, the ACH and the German heraldic societies included. It does not change the fact that most people interested in heraldry would have a tough time designing arms for themselves without a lot of study time (which a lot of folks who would otherwise wish to have a coat of arms will not or cannot give to the subject) or assistance from someone else.  Institutions devoted to heraldry and registration of arms (especially in the USA) should be encouraged.  Publication of arms through heraldic societies (and otherwise) should also be encouraged.  The ACH and the German heraldic societies have done this for many decades.  If not for the publication of arms by the ACH, how else would certain individuals be able to find their occasional errata!  (How many UNPUBLISHED assumed arms with errors are out there? - - hard to tell since they are UNPUBLISHED).

I’m certainly not discouraging publication of rolls of arms and don’t think I said anything that could be so construed.  My point is that serious study is in fact what we should encourage, that people shouldn’t think that just leaving the matter to a so-called expert will necessarily lead to properly heraldic results.  Certainly working with the ACH or the Augustan Society or one of the German societies—or even joining the AHS and designing one’s arms within the members area of the forum—can be a smart move, but in a non-regulated environment a person is ultimately responsible for the quality of his own arms.

Joseph McMillan;89341 wrote:

I’m certainly not discouraging publication of rolls of arms and don’t think I said anything that could be so construed.  My point is that serious study is in fact what we should encourage, that people shouldn’t think that just leaving the matter to a so-called expert will necessarily lead to properly heraldic results.  Certainly working with the ACH or the Augustan Society or one of the German societies—or even joining the AHS and designing one’s arms within the members area of the forum—can be a smart move, but in a non-regulated environment a person is ultimately responsible for the quality of his own arms.

With this I could certainly agree.  I would take it a step further and say that each person is ultimately responsible for the quality of his own arms in both regulated and unregulated jursiditions since all heraldic authorities and societies allow for collaboration with the petitioner/registrant in the design of the arms and normally require the petitioner to approve the final design - thus ultimate responsibility always resides with the petitioner.