Vanguard quality.....

[Storm Chaser]

Is Vanguard keeping us "hostage"? We're already paying a premium on all our CAP uniform items. Is it too much to ask to have some sort of quality control in place?

Last year I ordered Major gray male epaulets and the ones I got were too small. I called them to explain and they replaced them thinking they had shipped female ones instead. The second set was also small. Now I'm thinking there's a difference in sizes between male epaulets (odd). It wasn't until the third time that I got a set that seemed to be the right size. They were polite and helpful, but it shouldn't  take three tries. On another occasion, I ordered a blue polo with a Cadet Programs Badge and the embroidered badge was huge; not proportionate with the embroidered CAP seal. They again replace my shirt but, shouldn't have someone caught that before shipping?

I have more examples like that. I don't mind doing business with Vanguard (and I place orders with them several times a year), but I would like to get quality and accurate products for my hard earned money. My Air Force uniform items are definitely of higher quality and I pay much less for them.

[fokkerfrenzy]

And I think it's important to consider that from what I'm hearing it's getting worse, but it's incidents here and there. 

If there is an across the board change in the new 39-1s (patches redesigned, or ABUs (not to start a discussion this is just an example)) then in the massive, CAP-wide scramble to get with the new regs, if QC like this goes on unchecked then it is going to go from some people here and there to all members everywhere and result in one big step down in our appearance of professionalism and basically  looking like second-rate cheap crap as an organization.

[Eclipse]

I ordered a blue polo with a Cadet Programs Badge and the embroidered badge was huge; not proportionate with the embroidered CAP seal.

I've seen a fair number of people walking around with these - the insignia is bigger then the SARDog patches.

It looks utterly ridiculous.

[NIN]

I just sewed a wing patch on for someone a minute ago (not my wing, long story) and it is of the "disc with arcs" variety.

It took me a minute to realize that they were actually arcs, because where the disc and arcs meet, it was more like a downhill slalom than anything: zig this way, zag that way, no straight lines, no 90 degree turns.

Thats pretty... weak.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Garibaldi]

I'm actually surprised that no one made the obvious vanguard/quality oxymoron joke. or did I miss something? 

[jeders]

I'm actually surprised that no one made the obvious vanguard/quality oxymoron joke. or did I miss something? 

Well I do a get a chuckle every time I check this and this thread is right above the thread about the pubs for comment page being gone.

[NIN]

I'm actually surprised that no one made the obvious vanguard/quality oxymoron joke. or did I miss something? 

You know, I don't even think its anything to do with "doesn't care," or even worthy of an oxymoron joke.  I've gotten fantastic quality stuff from Vanguard too.  I was skeptical of the new fabric strip nametapes and now I'm like "pffft, I even put up with those old woven ones for all those years?"

Its just a matter of making sure things are up to snuff, and stay up to snuff.

Like I said at one point, my old unit had a patch that wound up being reproduced several times over from each previous generation of the patch to the point where someone asked me what kind of plane that was, and I said "uh, dunno.. F-14?" and then I realized "Oh, yeah, 'Eagles'.. its an F-15!"  But nobody thought to QC that, or find the original artwork.

My current squadron has had its patch for over 10 years now. We've gone back to the same manufacturer for successive runs (I think we're in our 3rd run).  I dug up the original graphics files that we had sent to the company 10 years ago and made sure they're on a thumb drive at the squadron, on the unit laptop, etc.  But thankfully, we have that ability to use the same manufacturer and they have the sewing files still, so we don't have to send someone a patch and say "Can you make this?"  No matter what, if you do that, you introduce weirdness and change into the mix.

[Ned]

I recently had an opportunity to talk with our partners at Vanguard about some of the concerns expressed here.  I found that they were extremely interested and responsive.

First, we should remember that Vanguard is a very large organization that is extremely experienced in supplying quality insignia and devices not only to CAP, but to countless other customers including AAFES.  They have many suppliers that provide the thousands of items that they sell.

That said, they agree that the embroidery quality on the command badge was not up to their standards and have changed suppliers to ensure a high quality product.  We should see the new "version" within just a week or two. 

The take away here is that once the problem was pointed out to them, they checked, wholeheartedly agreed, and took immediate action to improve the supply.  While they do watch CAPTalk from time to time, it had been a while since they had checked.  They were simply unaware of the problem.

They *want* to know when they can improve their quality.  They have  member survey link right on their home page. .  If any of us notices a quality control issue, we can simply either call the toll free number listed right on the home page, or complete the member survey to let them know there is a problem.

That said, the cadet chevron issue is a little more complicated.  They were simply doing their best to copy the samples given to them by CAP, which came from the bin in the old CAPMart.  They see the difference now that CT members have posted some detailed pictures, and will do their best to correct the issue.  Ultimately, however, there is no written "standard" for the cadet chevrons.  In contrast, the USAF metal chevrons have a detailed written standard issued by the AF logistics folks.

It sounds like things would be better for both them and us if they didn't have to "eyeball" an insignia sample, and I suspect that between Vanguard and the NUC somebody is about to get tasked with taking the USAF standard and modifying it to provide a written standard for the cadet chevrons. 

I guess the bottom line is to that is not only "OK," but actually helpful for each of us to contact the customer service folks at VG when we see an issue.  It does relatively little good to complain about it here, but a lot of good to actually contact VG.

Ned Lee

[arajca]

On the polo shirt badge size issue - multiple people complained to Vanguard at the Nat Conf in Denver. Supposedly, they were going to get the badges re-digitized to a more appropriate size, as well as get some they are missing (Logistics is one). That being said, I've been given the run-around on this issue before until they started ignoring me.

[Eclipse]

The membership should not be, and in many case can't be the QC - they don't know any better, nor do many know what the insignia is supposed to
look like.  And the comments about volume are irrelevant, or perhaps indicative of why there is a problem.  Being a supplier to
"countless other customers" means nothing if our stuff looks like junk, or is priced too high, or both.

Seriously, it took a complaint and a post here for someone at VG to noticed how bad that command insignia looks?

How about the person running the machine?

Good companies don't earn reputations "responding to customer complaints".

[Ned]

The membership should not be, and in many case can't be the QC - they don't know any better, nor do many know what the insignia is supposed to
look like.  And the comments about volume are irrelevant, or perhaps indicative of why there is a problem.  Being a supplier to
"countless other customers" means nothing if our stuff looks like junk, or is priced too high, or both.

Seriously, it took a complaint and a post here for someone at VG to noticed how bad that command insignia looks?

How about the person running the machine?

Good companies don't earn reputations "responding to customer complaints".

I pretty much agree. 

VG has a QC process, and probably should have seen the issues before the products hit the field.

That said, however, some defects are more subtle than others and military customers like us can be very quick to point out deviations and errors that might have been missed by the manufacturer and VG.  When that happens, we should help each other out by bringing the problem directly to VG's attention.

And while good companies don't earn reputations soley by responding to customers' concerns, it is important to respond quickly and decisively when customers bring matters to the company's attention.

That appears to have happened here.

[LSThiker]

That said, they agree that the embroidery quality on the command badge was not up to their standards and have changed suppliers to ensure a high quality product.  We should see the new "version" within just a week or two. 

Ned, do you know if this means that in 3 weeks when we order, we will get a better one or will we need to wait for them to run out of current stock?

[Storm Chaser]

I recently had an opportunity to talk with our partners at Vanguard about some of the concerns expressed here.  I found that they were extremely interested and responsive.

Every time I've had a problem and called them, they've been responsive and courteous as well. The problem is that, as a customer, I shouldn't have to call with problems so many times, about so many different products.

First, we should remember that Vanguard is a very large organization that is extremely experienced in supplying quality insignia and devices not only to CAP, but to countless other customers including AAFES.  They have many suppliers that provide the thousands of items that they sell.

All that means is that they should know better. I've seen some of their other products in AAFES/MCSS and the quality is much higher than with the CAP products they sell. Just compare a set of Air Force epaulet slides with CAP ones. The difference is obvious when compared side to side.

That said, they agree that the embroidery quality on the command badge was not up to their standards and have changed suppliers to ensure a high quality product.  We should see the new "version" within just a week or two.

In the mean time, all the customers that have bought embroidered badges from them are stuck. Or are they going to replace the ground team badges, observer wings, etc. that I've bought over the last couple of years?

The take away here is that once the problem was pointed out to them, they checked, wholeheartedly agreed, and took immediate action to improve the supply.  While they do watch CAPTalk from time to time, it had been a while since they had checked.  They were simply unaware of the problem.

Apparently, there are too many problems they're unaware of. That's why NHQ has to be more proactive about ensuring their official supplier complies with required/established standards.

They *want* to know when they can improve their quality.  They have  member survey link right on their home page. .  If any of us notices a quality control issue, we can simply either call the toll free number listed right on the home page, or complete the member survey to let them know there is a problem.

I have; in multiple occasions. Whenever they could help, they did. However, it doesn't do me any good if the replacement item looks just as bad as the one returned. And worse, it's not like I have another option to get these CAP specific items from.

That said, the cadet chevron issue is a little more complicated.  They were simply doing their best to copy the samples given to them by CAP, which came from the bin in the old CAPMart.  They see the difference now that CT members have posted some detailed pictures, and will do their best to correct the issue.  Ultimately, however, there is no written "standard" for the cadet chevrons.  In contrast, the USAF metal chevrons have a detailed written standard issued by the AF logistics folks.

No standard? Hmm... I've seen many graphics that could constitute design standard. Either way, this is something that must be resolved between NHQ and VG, not by the CAP membership.

It sounds like things would be better for both them and us if they didn't have to "eyeball" an insignia sample, and I suspect that between Vanguard and the NUC somebody is about to get tasked with taking the USAF standard and modifying it to provide a written standard for the cadet chevrons.

I sure hope so. And not just for the cadet chevrons, but for all CAP insignias as well.

I guess the bottom line is to that is not only "OK," but actually helpful for each of us to contact the customer service folks at VG when we see an issue.  It does relatively little good to complain about it here, but a lot of good to actually contact VG.

I agree, to an extent. I shouldn't have to call every time I purchase something. That said, I don't mind calling (and I have) if it's something they can correct (i.e. shipping me a different item). But when the current design is not up to standard, I'm stuck with it if it's required item. Otherwise, my only option is to return it.

The other side of this is when their poor design becomes the "standard". An example of that is the CAP seal on their blue polo shirt. That design (with the black stars, etc.) doesn't comply with current approved CAP seal design standards, yet that's the official CAP polo. I've seen members with polos embroidered by local embroideries with better looking and more accurate CAP seals. Unfortunately, while the colors and design are more accurate, they look odd compared to other members wearing the "official" polo from VG.

As I said before, if VG is going to be the sole, official CAP uniform supplier, then they need to do a better job of meeting CAP design specifications. They should also do a better job of ensuring they ship high quality products (especially at those prices). Otherwise, CAP may need to take its business elsewhere.

[MisterCD]

Two things that have irked me are the quality of Vanguard's badge dies (horrid) and quality control measures with ribbons. I should not have to buy another ribbon bar because the first one I ordered is a cm too short compared to my other ribbons bars. The dress medals have ribbons that vary in length over a cm from one dress medal to another. I suppose I could pay more money to have them mounted and adjusted, but one should not have to if the initial product is of standardized quality.

Another gripe are the buttons on the golf shirt. Go to a meeting and you can spot brown, blue, light blue, purple, black, and a myriad of variations. We can spend a conference call discussing the language for the style of black shoe to be worn with the uniform, but yet the uniform items we purchase from Vanguard are so poorly made that uniformity is a dream at best. One could retort that the member should then change the buttons to ensure they are a particular color and style, but why should they if buying a uniform item?

If Vanguard needs CAP to provide better examples and more detailed drawings and plans for insignia all they need to do is ask. There are storage units filled with examples of insignia and in some cases the original dies. If they in turn cannot, however, take this data and use it to produce a product of quality comparable to that of the USAF, then the organization best consider other options. The Soviet Union had better quality control than Vanguard, and that is really not saying much as considering my almost two decades of collecting such items.

[Eclipse]

If no spec is provided, you don't make the thing until the spec is provided.

A vendor concerned with quality is not going to WAG things.

There should be an officer or team assigned to QC everything any vendor makes for CAP.

It's not cricket to be C&D'ing other businesses and then not insuring the monopoly you create is
held to the proper standard.

It's one thing if NHQ was paying for this stuff, but this is member money.  It makes me happy that
I don't really have much to buy anymore and that I was lucky enough to find a "kit" on eBay of NOS
bookstore stuff for my last click-up.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

How about the person running the machine?

That is similar to what I used to tell people back in my previous life as an IT guy.

When I would make a complaint about a defective product/not recording a bill I had paid/whatever and the person I was talking to would blame "the computer," I would tell them that the computer is only as good as the human being running it.

What really stinks about this is that unless one is fortunate enough to find things on EvilBay (which I have done many times), we are subject to a monopoly.

VG has no-one to compete with, so what incentive do they have to produce higher-quality product?

I hated the berry boards, but my 2nd and 1st Lt ones I got from the CAP Bookstore were of far better quality than many of the current grey ones from VG.

[Shuman 14]

Can I ask why they went away from the in-house bookstore to Vanguard?

[Eclipse]

Can I ask why they went away from the in-house bookstore to Vanguard?

NHQ felt it was more economical to outsource.

[Shuman 14]

Can I ask why they went away from the in-house bookstore to Vanguard?

NHQ felt it was more economical to outsource.

OK, I can see that, but who produced the actual products for the bookstore?

What I'm saying is maybe CAP should go back to that company or maybe ease up on their trademark policies so that the free market will solve the quality control problems that currently exist.

[Eclipse]

Various, some was done in-house, some outsourced.  I believe VG was actually a supplier as well.

NHQ didn't want to keep the people on the payroll who were responsible for sourcing / ordering / inventorying, etc.

Personally, that sounds like an excellent job for volunteers.