"
I take some exception to what you're saying, Xander, though I agree with it in bulk. While there is artistic licence for an heraldic artist to interpret the blazon broadly, I am not at all familiar with any convention allowing for adding embellishments. Can you please provide a reference for same? I am completely unaware of any convention which allows an heraldic artist to add elements that are not described in the blazon. The arms are the blazon, period, and nothing more or less. Beyond My Ken, perhaps a better way to explain this to you... you think the representation of the arms is what matters, yes? That is not in fact the case. Blazons are much more like recipes; Mrs Fields has a single recipe for e.g. their chocolate chip cookie. That is the important thing. Anyone, possessing the recipe, could make a reasonable facsimile thereof. So there's that.
However, this is all fairly abstruse heraldic knowledge which not a lot of people know, which gives us the problem you are having; you feel that presenting a given cookie as a Mrs Fields cookie is inappropriate unless it was actually made by Mrs Fields. In one sense, you're right, but you're only right out of totally understandable ignorance of how heraldry works. 
All that being said, it is true that there are 'official' coats of arms inasmuch as they are the ones approved for use by the holder of the arms. For example, the representation of the Arms of Canada currently in use has been personally approved by The Queen and is thus 'official' for government use.  
And with all of that being said: the reference in question does not support the adornments added to the image. It supports only the blazon, and any depiction which follows only the blazon is both heraldically correct and properly sourced. →  ₪ 
"