NEW Georgia Wing patch

[Eclipse]

It isn't OK, and all echelons should have to comply.

[RiverAux]

An when they agree to pay everyone's set up fee to replace long time patches, I will be on board with it.  If you think that is ridiculous or smacks of the ludicrous, why is it OK to burden SQUADRONS with this expense and not WING or NATIONAL?  WASTE is WASTE at any level....much more at the squadron were 1) the rubber hits the road and 2) money comes most from member pockets.

As Eclipse mentioned, it is extremely likely that when most squadrons get to a point where they're going to have to re-order patches that they're going to have to start from scratch anyway and pay a setup fee so I don't see this as an issue.  For example, in my squadron we bought patches in 2001 and I think it wasn't until 2008 that we needed more (and we have a relatively large squadron) and we had to go with a different company than the first, so had to pay to get things set up even though we didn't change the patch design at all. 

[SarDragon]

Setup, in most cases these days, entails nothing more that loading a file of the correct format (usually vector art) into the machine, stringing thread of the correct colors through the mechanism, and hitting the Go button.

[Major Carrales]

Setup, in most cases these days, entails nothing more that loading a file of the correct format (usually vector art) into the machine, stringing thread of the correct colors through the mechanism, and hitting the Go button.

Good then National can pay for everyone's set up.

[SarDragon]

Setup, in most cases these days, entails nothing more that loading a file of the correct format (usually vector art) into the machine, stringing thread of the correct colors through the mechanism, and hitting the Go button.

Good then National can pay for everyone's set up.

That is what I meant, but I also meant that most decent patch vendors charge little to nothing these days for
setup.  I know my vendor has no setup charge and they can be used by anyone in the know universe.

Meaning - at no additional charge. You order 100 patches at $5 per patch, and you pay $500 + tax. How simple is that?

[JC004]

...
The military and corporations update their logos all the time without completely disavowing tradition, the USAF's new(er) Hap Arnold logo
updated the insignia without losing the lineage.
...

But CAP constantly updates its logo and does a hack job on tradition in its latest.  Honestly, I am all for standards in patches, but why have them for subordinate units if National has none?  They can't even pick a color.  They should have standards at all levels.

[flyboy53]

Sometimes I'm really amazed at the stubborness and arguments that appear on this site...its nothing more than excuses why something can't be done.

Please remember, we took the wing patches off the Air Force uniforms for two reasons. First, the Air Force didn't think they looked professional enough and a certain ex-national commander was trying to promote a one organization mentality. The thing was that some of those patches evolved from the roots of our organization and costal patrol operations. Then there became an identity issue.

There are insignia we wear now that people loath...like the Dog ES patch, but people forget that emblem has a long proud history with this organization, representing more than ES, but also a wartime mission and the now defunct Owner/Pilot Service. I wear it, even though I firmly believe it needs to be elevated to the right shoulder on a flight suit....try to get that idea changed!

Overseas squdrons wear the original CAP emblem because that was the emblem registered with things like the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention authority in World War II. It hasn't changed.

You forget that the personnel of the wing may be progressive enough to want change. You forget that there may be a majority of acceptance of the new emblem...set up fees or not...you forget that another CAP Wing may have opted to do it right and follow the Air Force's guidelines for healdry and the proper design of patches representing different organizational levels.

Personally, I like the patch and would be proud to wear it if I were in that wing.

As for changing an existing unit patch to comply with the acceptable standard, it's really simple...and I'm putting on my old Air Force and new CAP historian hat here. If the unit wants to keep the existing patch, make sure it was approved by wing. If the unit membership continues to agree with the design, you simply put it on a gray or blue field inside the acceptable shape. The Air Force has been doing that for years.

[Major Carrales]

Sometimes I'm really amazed at the stubborness and arguments that appear on this site...its nothing more than excuses why something can't be done.

Please remember, we took the wing patches off the Air Force uniforms for two reasons. First, the Air Force didn't think they looked professional enough and a certain ex-national commander was trying to promote a one organization mentality. The thing was that some of those patches evolved from the roots of our organization and costal patrol operations. Then there became an identity issue.

There are insignia we wear now that people loath...like the Dog ES patch, but people forget that emblem has a long proud history with this organization, representing more than ES, but also a wartime mission and the now defunct Owner/Pilot Service. I wear it, even though I firmly believe it needs to be elevated to the right shoulder on a flight suit....try to get that idea changed!

Overseas squdrons wear the original CAP emblem because that was the emblem registered with things like the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention authority in World War II. It hasn't changed.

You forget that the personnel of the wing may be progressive enough to want change. You forget that there may be a majority of acceptance of the new emblem...set up fees or not...you forget that another CAP Wing may have opted to do it right and follow the Air Force's guidelines for healdry and the proper design of patches representing different organizational levels.

Personally, I like the patch and would be proud to wear it if I were in that wing.

As for changing an existing unit patch to comply with the acceptable standard, it's really simple...and I'm putting on my old Air Force and new CAP historian hat here. If the unit wants to keep the existing patch, make sure it was approved by wing. If the unit membership continues to agree with the design, you simply put it on a gray or blue field inside the acceptable shape. The Air Force has been doing that for years.

Good, now look up my address in e-services and send me the money.   You forget that a member only has so much money to spend on CAP, that if needless expenses continue to be generated by people seeking to make their CAP "pipe dreams" a reality they take funds away from the purchase of needed items to make the mission work.

Yes, there is an expense that must be made to be in CAP, but you people need to stop your "bright ideas" from reaching into our pockets needlessly.

[Eclipse]

What expense?

Redesign costs zero.

Reorder is a wash because you'd have to buy them anyway.

Unit insignia is optional, so expense requirement is zero.

Having a professional, compliant insignia is a mark of distinction and attention to detail, one of the places where zero expense and membership initiative can build esprit-de-corps and make us look bigger then we are.

The insistence that fixing unit insignia is an unfunded mandate is simply untrue.

[Major Carrales]

What expense?

Redesign costs zero.

Reorder is a wash because you'd have to buy them anyway.

Unit insignia is optional, so expense requirement is zero.

Having a professional, compliant insignia is a mark of distinction and attention to detail, one of the places where zero expense and membership initiative can build esprit-de-corps and make us look bigger then we are.

The insistence that fixing unit insignia is an unfunded mandate is simply untrue.

By your own admittance, then.  There is no problem to fix.  These are worn on bdus...and optionally and have been allowed for quite a while going back to fatigues.  Why change it?  To conform to someone else's standard.  The USAF has not imposed it on us...that I see no problem with them the way they are now testifies to the fact that what you say is not universally accepted.  In fact, most people I know in the three the squadrons I associate like their patches as they are and see no need to conform to the rantings of CAP officers Wings away from us trying to force something down out throats.

[Eclipse]

Its nice to "like things", that doesn't make them any more correct.  Simple professionalism, in most cases, compels people to makes changes when they are shown to be incorrect.

Further, if the only place you're using the insignia is on the BDU patch, you're doing it wrong.  What about letterhead, websites, sign-age, coins, business cards, promotion certificates and other collateral that shows your image to the internal and external public?

No one is forcing anything, however that also won't change opinions, either.  Its one thing to make a stand on a point, its another to stamp your feet and insist something is "too expensive", or "unnecessary", etc., to fix when the actual argument is too compelling to disagree with.

Bottom line, there is a guideline, if not an actual standard, set by our parent service, and adhered to as a matter of course by more and more units and other echelons and activities within the organization. The fix costs nothing, if only in preparation for the future and acknowledgement of the situation.
Any other response is just smoke, or an insistence that "you can't tell me what to do...", which is factually correct, but doesn't change things.

In regards to the "non-existent standard", would you also say that new units or insignia should not conform to the know guidelines as well?

Are non-compliant unit patches the end of civilization as we know it?  No, of course not, and to understaffed, overburdened unit members, they may seem like one more piece of background noise that "no one has time to deal with", but they are a piece of the bigger issue of the lack of baseline standards and push towards attention to detail. 

Simple conversations, simple answers, simple compliance.  Answer, fix, move on.  Big deal?  No.  Just add it to the pile of the 100 other details
we ignore, but stop wondering why we have morale and performance issues when simple baseline details are allowed to be ignored because they
"aren't important".

[Major Carrales]

Its nice to "like things", that doesn't make them any more correct.  Simple professionalism, in most cases, compels people to makes changes when they are shown to be incorrect.

Further, if the only place you're using the insignia is on the BDU patch, you're doing it wrong.  What about letterhead, websites, sign-age, coins, business cards, promotion certificates and other collateral that shows your image to the internal and external public.

No one is forcing anything, however that also won't change opinions, either.  Its one thing to make a stand on a point, its another to stamp your feet and insist something is "too expensive", or "unnecessary", etc., to fix when the actual argument is too compelling to disagree with.

Bottom line, there is a guideline, if not an actual standard, set by our parent service, and adhered to as a matter of course by more and more units and other echelons and activities within the organization. The fix costs nothing, if only in preparation for the future and acknowledgement of the situation.
Any other response is just smoke, or an insistence that "you can't tell me what to do...", which is factually correct, but doesn't change things.

In regards to the "non-existent standard", would you also say that new units or insignia should not conform to the know guidelines as well?

We use or moniker for all those purposes...it conforms to a circular shape, no "rockers" that costs money. 

When our parent service sees fit to impose those standards on us officially, or our Command Level people make that decision...then I will sing a different tune.  But, if it is coming from random rantings on CAPTALK, I take it for what it is...CAP PIPE DREAMING.

My stand is on a simple issue, one many of you forget.  We are CAP, not the USAF.  We have our own history that y'all seem to want to exchange away for traditions that are not our own.  The USAF had made it clear that want us distinctive...why does this issue not pertain to that?

CAP Units were build locally, with the sweat and toil of local people most times getting little more than a nod of approval from Wing and National.  People who went out and made the deals, with little help from the USAF or CAPNHQ, to get what they have.  I know, I have done that...TWICE in 13 years!  Mostly with local (member) funds, local support and people from local communities.   

Now you want me to see worth in making some change for the sake placating another Organization, a parent yes...but one that wants us "distinct."    Plus, moves that, across the nation, will result in tens of thousands of dollars to change patches (also generated locally) in a move that will likely go unnoticed by the USAF?

That , my friend, is where my stand is.  The USAF, contrary to CAPTALK belief, cares little about what shape out patches are.  I doubt its discussed at Pentagon briefings.  Let local toil be expressed by the local patch and let the USAF be glad that local communities support their auxiliary.

[EMT-83]

I have to agree with Sparky on this one. My unit patch is not "compliant" with new guidelines. It does, however, illustrate the history of the squadron and the city.

The newer patches I've seen and generic and lack character. I guess boring would be a better description.

As far as wasting resources to design a new patch, we've got enough to deal with without that needless time-suck.

[Eclipse]

No one said or implied this was a USAF concern, also, falling on the "we're not the military" argument?  Seriously?

Most historical unit insignias were hand-drawn well before the idea of a "personal" computer even existed, let alone being something
we all carry in our pockets.  Many look amateurish, cluttered, or hold inappropriate images or symbols.  In a lot of cases they were done
by distracted cadets because no one cared enough to bother to take the time to do it correctly.

Then over time they somehow become "art" or "history" just because no one in the unit can remember anything else.

[Major Carrales]

No one said or implied this was a USAF concern, also, falling on the "we're not the military" argument?  Seriously?

Most historical unit insignias were hand-drawn well before the idea of a "personal" computer even existed, let alone being something
we all carry in our pockets.  Many look amateurish, cluttered, or hold inappropriate images or symbols.  In a lot of cases they were done
by distracted cadets because no one cared enough to bother to take the time to do it correctly.

Then over time they somehow become "art" or "history" just because no one in the unit can remember anything else.

Leave us alone to have our local connections reflecting the local unit...having local units connected to the community is an old CAP tradition and reality.  Again, until CAPNHQ make this mandatory...I am not on board with it.

I would rather some crude drawing be the symbol supported by "my grandpa designed that when we was a cadet" situation than, we have this symbol because "someone in another state felt we needed to chance it from an old one your grandpa made up.'"

Heaven forbid that grandpa was a distinguished CAP member who went from cadet to a respected 50 year member.  After all, we have to scrap all that to conform to CAPTALK standards.

Now, its time to hold you to the fire...

show me these "offensive patches?"

http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/index.html#Gallery

[Eclipse]

Local connection and guideline compliance are not mutually exclusive, and anyone with a little creativity can take an existing insignia, update it
to look professional and polished, while still retaining the original flavor and connection.

[Major Carrales]

Local connection and guideline compliance are not mutually exclusive, and anyone with a little creativity can take an existing insignia, update it
to look professional and polished, while still retaining the original flavor and connection.

But you said existing insignia was "amateurish, cluttered, or held inappropriate images or symbols. " that were "in a lot of cases they were done by distracted cadets because no one cared enough to bother to take the time to do it correctly."

What's it gonna be?  If it ain't sis, you can't miss, its got to be your brother.  Can't you see, it's gotta be, one way or the other.  (apologies to Benny Goodman)

I think you just "want it that way"  based on your own understanding of the world and want to impose system wide.  Fine...let's just agree then that I find that ridiculous and will not support it until it is carried by force of policy.

[tarheel gumby]

I see alott of argument against changing a patch that may need to be updated. I have personally reviewed 3 patches to make sure that they were appropriate to CAP. In my wing unit patches have to be approved by the wing commander, after a review by the wing historian. IMHO there is not a wholesale requirement to redsign wing patches or unit patches. There is no need to get upset with the idea of using the same standards as the AF, just as most of our old patches show a connection with the AAF and our origins the new designs can show our connection with the USAF. The older patches were designed with Army guidance and standards.
Squadron patches are optional and should be in good taste and relevant in some way.

[Eclipse]

Sparky, seriously, now you're going to pick apart every word to make your argument?

I didn't say all, and you know I didn't say all, but a lot of them still fall into an area which is amateurish, inappropriate, or too cluttered for a unit insignia, not to mention having heraldry which doesn't necessarily mean what was intended.

If yours fits, even by the skin, whatever, integrity is what we do when no one is looking, but for those hundred of units with no insignia, or a poorly-done / non-compliant insignia, fixes them costs nothing and should be done as a matter of course.

If the "history" is so all-important, use your VHF radio to alert wing HQ that you are sending the updated drawings via fax machine.  That should
feel nostalgic enough.

[Major Carrales]

Since no such standard exists for CAP, there is really nothing to argue about, is there?