This paper explores the contradictions of the advent, dissemination and use of the terms “intangible value” and “tangible value.” We examine their logical and grammatical incoherence, and the “work” that these strange terms, so often used in tandem, do to domesticate what are for some people the uncomfortable implications of the concept of intangible cultural heritage. In developing our argument, the paper draws on a range of policy and academic documents to illustrate the extent of the professional and academic unease with the concept of intangible heritage, and the degree to which this unease unintentionally fosters the maintenance of the authorized heritage discourse.