Quote Originally Posted by SlackerDrummer View Post
And here again, Scott, your example above is clearly misleading. In your analogy, you suggest that heraldry is sparkling wine and that granted arms are the equivalent of Champagne and that assumed arms are sparkling wines and even though they may be good sparkling wines in their own right, they are not Champagne and are therefor not, as you put it, "the genuine article."
Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
The reason they are not the "genuine article", is that "real" champagne is defined by both law and custom (as is heraldry), and comes only from the Champagne region of France. That is the point I was hoping to make; Champagne from France, Heraldry from substantive offices of arms.
Quote Originally Posted by SlackerDrummer View Post
The problem with this argument is that heraldry is not sparkling wine, but simply wine.
Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
Kenneth, I think it may be useful for me to define a couple of terms that I use, and which-- obviously-- are not-self evident from my posts. When I use the word "heraldry" I am coming down heavily on the side of the process of granting arms. To me, and probably to nobody else other than a few old codgers struggling into their tabards, the result of heraldry is "armoury", the actual design that appears on the shield along with any external additions (crest, supporters, etc.).
Here again I have to disagree with your logic. If you are arguing process, then regardless of your preference for Champagne, Champagne is not the only wine nor is it the original method of making it.