Poll
Question:
Which would you pick?
Option 1: Keep Montana Wing patch as it is?
Option 2: Design one with Prop?
Option 3: Design two without Prop?
MTWG, with the help of NHQ is set to align our wing patch to modern heraldry standards. It makes me want to throw up, but what is done is done.
Perhaps a little heraldry would be nice to understand this patch. Why four white stars and one yellow star?
Generally speaking, there should be less than three elements. So you have: 1) mountains; 2) river; 3) stars; 4) tri-prop
Also, compared to the current patch, which does have historical value, almost anything is better:
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/large/000000CAP0637Y_LRG.jpg)
Not really liking how they have the word Montana in the scroll. It is so off kilter, but I'm not sure if you could fix it.
AF heraldry standards insist that subordinate-unit emblems don't parrot existing emblems, like the flag, higher-headquarters insignia, yada yada. I'd go with the one without the triangle. When it's seen, it will be in a CAP context, so it's not like anyone's going to mistake it for, say, the Salvation Army. Knowhatamean?
And RiverAux, your concern can be remedied. I do just that, but I do that stuff for a living.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 29, 2014, 04:20:59 AM
AF heraldry standards insist that subordinate-unit emblems don't parrot existing emblems, like the flag, higher-headquarters insignia, yada yada. I'd go with the one without the triangle.
Interestingly, the Guide to AF Heraldry allows it:
QuoteOn the other hand, an organization wishing to incorporate on its own emblem, an element common to its parent organization's emblem may do so.
However, AFI 84-105 simply states support organizations may incorporate a common element. In general, it is assumed that the parent organization's emblem is the immediate higher HQ. So, it should be incorporated from the region emblem. For CAP though, I could go either way.
Whats the significance of the 4 white stars and the 1 yellow star?
Not in Montana....don't care.
Remember when NVWG redesigned our patch and got similar "I don't like it" comments.
Like the fact that they used the sheild but other then that.....don't care.
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 29, 2014, 05:52:45 AM
Whats the significance of the 4 white stars and the 1 yellow star?
five wings in RMR with MT as gold?
Quote from: Garp on August 29, 2014, 11:39:21 AM
five wings in RMR with MT as gold?
then really that should not go onto a wing patch as the significance of the stars represent an echelon higher than MTWG.
Looking at the RMR emblem, it is obvious that the MTWG is barrowing heavily from this design. As quoted above, you may only incorporate one element from your parent organization. Here you are using the elements: 1) stars; 2) mountains; 3) tri-prop. Of course, stars are common in many emblem designs, but it is not just the fact that stars and mountains are used. When comparing the two emblems, the use of the mountains, stars, and tri-prop are the same for both, which is why the emblem is incorporating more than one element.
(http://rmrcapnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/cropped-rmrheader.jpg)
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
MTWG, with the help of NHQ is set to align our wing patch to modern heraldry standards. It makes me want to throw up, but what is done is done.
I would like to know who you are Ground? There are only 31 members in MT-012 and I know them all so I'm curious who you are. Feel free to send me a message if your not comfortable to post on here. I would love to hear your feedback about this transition.
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 29, 2014, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
MTWG, with the help of NHQ is set to align our wing patch to modern heraldry standards. It makes me want to throw up, but what is done is done.
I would like to know who you are Ground? There are only 31 members in MT-012 and I know them all so I'm curious who you are. Feel free to send me a message if your not comfortable to post on here. I would love to hear your feedback about this transition.
I will send you an email!
I love our wing patch as it is, but I know how things are as far as the new heraldry push from NHQ.
I like the second without the tirangle. Both are solid designs but as mentioned by others, including heraldry would provide more validation/context.
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 02:08:04 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 29, 2014, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
MTWG, with the help of NHQ is set to align our wing patch to modern heraldry standards. It makes me want to throw up, but what is done is done.
I would like to know who you are Ground? There are only 31 members in MT-012 and I know them all so I'm curious who you are. Feel free to send me a message if your not comfortable to post on here. I would love to hear your feedback about this transition.
I will send you an email!
I love our wing patch as it is, but I know how things are as far as the new heraldry push from NHQ.
Actually, the slides from the NUC meeting indicated that NHQ doesn't encourage changes to current Wing patches. So, not sure there is a "push" from NHQ.
Quote from: Garp on August 29, 2014, 03:14:03 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 02:08:04 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 29, 2014, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
MTWG, with the help of NHQ is set to align our wing patch to modern heraldry standards. It makes me want to throw up, but what is done is done.
I would like to know who you are Ground? There are only 31 members in MT-012 and I know them all so I'm curious who you are. Feel free to send me a message if your not comfortable to post on here. I would love to hear your feedback about this transition.
I will send you an email!
I love our wing patch as it is, but I know how things are as far as the new heraldry push from NHQ.
Actually, the slides from the NUC meeting indicated that NHQ doesn't encourage changes to current Wing patches. So, not sure there is a "push" from NHQ.
I seem to recall something along the lines of "Does your wing have the money to purchase the entire current Vanguard stock of patches?" if you're going to change a wing patch. I may be wrong, however...but Vanguard isn't going to take a bath on old wing patches. Not good business.
Jack
Correct. If you design a new wing emblem, then the wing will be required to purchase the remaining stock.
Now I would be curious to know if Vanguard would just keep selling current stock until it runs out. Then as a replacement, instead of ordering more patches, vanguard orders the new design and you have a phase-in timeline.
However, NHQ is not pushing any wings to design any new patches. There is no requirement nor any pressure to do that. This is only if the wing wants too.
Who made that deal? Has CAP agreed to buy out the stock of any patch or other uniform item that it changes? Guaranteed profit - gotta love that.
I can concur this is what happened to my wing a few years ago. The question being, is VG asking the
wing how many to make and when to re-manufacture them? Because if they aren't, then its a VG problem, AFAIC.
As to the above insignia, it needs to be run by whoever did RMR's to get the scrolls done properly - so tired
of otherwise decent insignia left "unfinished" because they were done in Paint and the artist doesn't understand
how to shape text properly.
Quote from: ColonelJack on August 29, 2014, 03:17:15 PM
Quote from: Garp on August 29, 2014, 03:14:03 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 02:08:04 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 29, 2014, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
MTWG, with the help of NHQ is set to align our wing patch to modern heraldry standards. It makes me want to throw up, but what is done is done.
I would like to know who you are Ground? There are only 31 members in MT-012 and I know them all so I'm curious who you are. Feel free to send me a message if your not comfortable to post on here. I would love to hear your feedback about this transition.
I will send you an email!
I love our wing patch as it is, but I know how things are as far as the new heraldry push from NHQ.
Actually, the slides from the NUC meeting indicated that NHQ doesn't encourage changes to current Wing patches. So, not sure there is a "push" from NHQ.
I seem to recall something along the lines of "Does your wing have the money to purchase the entire current Vanguard stock of patches?" if you're going to change a wing patch. I may be wrong, however...but Vanguard isn't going to take a bath on old wing patches. Not good business.
Jack
I was at the Uniform Brief...and that was the stated policy....before NHQ authorities a wing patch change the wing must buy up the existing stock.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
I was at the Uniform Brief...and that was the stated policy....before NHQ authorities a wing patch change the wing must buy up the existing stock.
Considering Wing patches are no longer required, VG should discontinue supplying them and let their inventory run out.
Those wings that want to require them can source them locally, most likely cheaper and with better quality, but
regardless with the ability to control inventory / reorder levels and change at the will of the CC.
There are vendors now that can create patches at very low quantities, so no issues with sourcing.
That's a good idea
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:29:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
I was at the Uniform Brief...and that was the stated policy....before NHQ authorities a wing patch change the wing must buy up the existing stock.
Considering Wing patches are no longer required, VG should discontinue supplying them and let their inventory run out.
That makes a lot of sense to me. The only potential problem with that is ensuring proper distribution within the Wing. I would hope our folks would be better at getting these to buyers than Vanguard. Shouldn't be too hard to have each squadron purchase some to keep on hand and then sell individually as needed.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:29:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
I was at the Uniform Brief...and that was the stated policy....before NHQ authorities a wing patch change the wing must buy up the existing stock.
Considering Wing patches are no longer required, VG should discontinue supplying them and let their inventory run out.
Those wings that want to require them can source them locally, most likely cheaper and with better quality, but
regardless with the ability to control inventory / reorder levels and change at the will of the CC.
There are vendors now that can create patches at very low quantities, so no issues with sourcing.
They may not be required in
YOUR wing, but they are required in many other wings. FYI, all of the Wings in Pacific Region require wing patches.
Quote from: PHall on August 29, 2014, 11:15:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:29:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
I was at the Uniform Brief...and that was the stated policy....before NHQ authorities a wing patch change the wing must buy up the existing stock.
Considering Wing patches are no longer required, VG should discontinue supplying them and let their inventory run out.
Those wings that want to require them can source them locally, most likely cheaper and with better quality, but
regardless with the ability to control inventory / reorder levels and change at the will of the CC.
There are vendors now that can create patches at very low quantities, so no issues with sourcing.
They may not be required in YOUR wing, but they are required in many other wings. FYI, all of the Wings in Pacific Region require wing patches.
I think he was suggesting that.....because it is a WING requirement....then the wing should bear the burden of supplying the required patch not NHQ through Vanguard.. It is what we do at the squadrons....and it is a lot harder to do bulk buys.
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
MTWG, with the help of NHQ is set to align our wing patch to modern heraldry standards. It makes me want to throw up, but what is done is done.
The person who wants the change is likely the newest person on Wing Staff or did your Wing King/Queen just start their tour? I like the original MTWG patch. BTW, the RMR patch is lame 8)
Quote from: PHall on August 29, 2014, 11:15:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:29:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
I was at the Uniform Brief...and that was the stated policy....before NHQ authorities a wing patch change the wing must buy up the existing stock.
Considering Wing patches are no longer required, VG should discontinue supplying them and let their inventory run out.
Those wings that want to require them can source them locally, most likely cheaper and with better quality, but
regardless with the ability to control inventory / reorder levels and change at the will of the CC.
There are vendors now that can create patches at very low quantities, so no issues with sourcing.
They may not be required in YOUR wing, but they are required in many other wings. FYI, all of the Wings in Pacific Region require wing patches.
Yes. We know. Shocked.
Vanguard has been very good to work with during this process. They stopped making the old patch a few months ago. What ever inventory is left will be purchased by the wing.
And yes I am the new "Wing King".
The Wing has supported this idea from the get go. We are excited for the change.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2014, 03:48:22 PM
Who made that deal? Has CAP agreed to buy out the stock of any patch or other uniform item that it changes? Guaranteed profit - gotta love that.
There is a corollary in the pro sports world ... if Nike, or whoever, makes a facsimile jersey for the fans of a professional athlete, with the player's name and number on it, and the player wants to change his number (but stays on the same team), the league's contract with the vendor states that the player has to buy up all remaining stock of the old jersey before the league will approve the number change. (If the player is traded the team has to eat that cost, unless I'm mistaken.)
Either way, the vendor isn't going to be out any money.
Jack
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 30, 2014, 03:39:37 AM
Vanguard has been very good to work with during this process. They stopped making the old patch a few months ago. What ever inventory is left will be purchased by the wing.
And yes I am the new "Wing King".
The Wing has supported this idea from the get go. We are excited for the change.
Congratulations on your appointment, Colonel! The best to you and MTWG!
Jack
Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
Quote from: ColonelJack on August 29, 2014, 03:17:15 PM
Quote from: Garp on August 29, 2014, 03:14:03 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 02:08:04 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 29, 2014, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
MTWG, with the help of NHQ is set to align our wing patch to modern heraldry standards. It makes me want to throw up, but what is done is done.
I would like to know who you are Ground? There are only 31 members in MT-012 and I know them all so I'm curious who you are. Feel free to send me a message if your not comfortable to post on here. I would love to hear your feedback about this transition.
I will send you an email!
I love our wing patch as it is, but I know how things are as far as the new heraldry push from NHQ.
Actually, the slides from the NUC meeting indicated that NHQ doesn't encourage changes to current Wing patches. So, not sure there is a "push" from NHQ.
I seem to recall something along the lines of "Does your wing have the money to purchase the entire current Vanguard stock of patches?" if you're going to change a wing patch. I may be wrong, however...but Vanguard isn't going to take a bath on old wing patches. Not good business.
Jack
I was at the Uniform Brief...and that was the stated policy....before NHQ authorities a wing patch change the wing must buy up the existing stock.
If that truly is how they want the process to work, then NHQ should stated this in a policy letter/reg and published somewhere.
Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
Quote from: ColonelJack on August 29, 2014, 03:17:15 PM
Quote from: Garp on August 29, 2014, 03:14:03 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 02:08:04 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 29, 2014, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 29, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
MTWG, with the help of NHQ is set to align our wing patch to modern heraldry standards. It makes me want to throw up, but what is done is done.
I would like to know who you are Ground? There are only 31 members in MT-012 and I know them all so I'm curious who you are. Feel free to send me a message if your not comfortable to post on here. I would love to hear your feedback about this transition.
I will send you an email!
I love our wing patch as it is, but I know how things are as far as the new heraldry push from NHQ.
Actually, the slides from the NUC meeting indicated that NHQ doesn't encourage changes to current Wing patches. So, not sure there is a "push" from NHQ.
I seem to recall something along the lines of "Does your wing have the money to purchase the entire current Vanguard stock of patches?" if you're going to change a wing patch. I may be wrong, however...but Vanguard isn't going to take a bath on old wing patches. Not good business.
Jack
I was at the Uniform Brief...and that was the stated policy....before NHQ authorities a wing patch change the wing must buy up the existing stock.
If that truly is how they want the process to work, then NHQ should stated this in a policy letter/reg and published somewhere.
It's a standard business practice. Nothing unusual about it. Nothing unusual at all.
I like the new Montana Wing crest a lot better than some of the extant crests.
I think one of the worst in terms of being overly gaudy is Indiana Wing.
The decision to revise the MTWG patch was discussed at length by the NUC and, as Col Teel noted, was instigated by MTWG and not NHQ. Generally speaking, there is a strong reluctance by NHQ and the NUC to change the wing and region insignia. Two wings, including MTWG, approached the NUC about changing their design. In both cases the rationale, cost, design, heraldic and historical aspects were discussed, not to mention the impact on the wing membership in terms of cost and identity. Col Teel has reached out to the National History Program for advice and guidance, and the wing's handling of this matter has been both professional and thorough.
Quote from: MisterCD on August 30, 2014, 04:19:40 PMthe impact on the wing membership in terms of cost and identity.
The "identity" nonsense regarding wings is more detrimental then positive to the organization.
In many respects there are 52 Civil Air Patrols instead of the "one" that's purported in the brochures.
And I'm not referring to the odd uniform supp, we're talking about 52 different flavors of doing the same
job, which forces everyone to relearn everything (after the initial fighting) for just about every activity and mission.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 30, 2014, 05:00:28 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on August 30, 2014, 04:19:40 PMthe impact on the wing membership in terms of cost and identity.
The "identity" nonsense regarding wings is more detrimental then positive to the organization.
In many respects there are 52 Civil Air Patrols instead of the "one" that's purported in the brochures.
And I'm not referring to the odd uniform supp, we're talking about 52 different flavors of doing the same
job, which forces everyone to relearn everything (after the initial fighting) for just about every activity and mission.
Bob, it's pretty much that way in the Air National Guard too. Each TAG has "their" way of doing stuff.
So it's not just a CAP "problem".
Quote from: PHall on August 30, 2014, 05:21:45 PM
Bob, it's pretty much that way in the Air National Guard too. Each TAG has "their" way of doing stuff.
So it's not just a CAP "problem".
I don't doubt it, but saying others do it doesn't fix the issue.
It's one thing when you're talking about which way the helmets go in a locker, or whether you salute or not,
but we're talking mission management systems, separate administrative systems, "different" GOBN rules,
nonsense like requiring nomex or not being able to drive with a trailer, etc., etc.
This kind of stuff should be decided and
closed at the national level because all it does it cause
conflict and angst to no one's benefit.
Quote from: PHall on August 30, 2014, 02:47:07 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
If that truly is how they want the process to work, then NHQ should stated this in a policy letter/reg and published somewhere.
It's a standard business practice. Nothing unusual about it. Nothing unusual at all.
Except for the fact the Wing did not directly enter into the agreement with Vanguard, National did. Yet, the Wing will be held financially responsible for items the vendor chose to carry. That is indeed an unusual arrangement. If the Wing were allowed to select their own vendor, then I'd agree with you.
Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 08:52:14 PM
Quote from: PHall on August 30, 2014, 02:47:07 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
If that truly is how they want the process to work, then NHQ should stated this in a policy letter/reg and published somewhere.
It's a standard business practice. Nothing unusual about it. Nothing unusual at all.
Except for the fact the Wing did not directly enter into the agreement with Vanguard, National did. Yet, the Wing will be held financially responsible for items the vendor chose to carry. That is indeed an unusual arrangement. If the Wing were allowed to select their own vendor, then I'd agree with you.
that's like arguing that regiments shouldn't have to go to the TIOH because it's got a centrally mandated fee structure.
Quote from: Garp on August 30, 2014, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 08:52:14 PM
Quote from: PHall on August 30, 2014, 02:47:07 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
If that truly is how they want the process to work, then NHQ should stated this in a policy letter/reg and published somewhere.
It's a standard business practice. Nothing unusual about it. Nothing unusual at all.
Except for the fact the Wing did not directly enter into the agreement with Vanguard, National did. Yet, the Wing will be held financially responsible for items the vendor chose to carry. That is indeed an unusual arrangement. If the Wing were allowed to select their own vendor, then I'd agree with you.
that's like arguing that regiments shouldn't have to go to the TIOH because it's got a centrally mandated fee structure.
Designs have to be approved by TIOH, yes... but TIOH nor the Army require a Regiment to purchase from a single source vendor like Vanguard.
Patches like that are usually made to order in a batch, and the entire batch is purchased by the end user. The manufacturer doesn't carry them in their stock. The manufacturer has no potential financial burden that way. The buyer carries the burden for unsold items.
Quote from: shuman14 on August 30, 2014, 10:45:29 PM
Designs have to be approved by TIOH, yes... but TIOH nor the Army require a Regiment to purchase from a single source vendor like Vanguard.
In this case, I would point out the US Air Force requires all USAF personnel purchase uniform items from their in-house vendor: AAFES (AFI 36-2903, para 1.5.1). How that is exercised is not always all encompassing (service coats are limited to AAFES [at least I've never seen them made available easily from another vendor] but ribbons can come from about anyone).
And so while the USAF may not require all items to be sourced through AAFES in practice, the principle holds that they do expect purchases for the majority of the core items to come from AAFES. Seems like CAP is doing the same thing the USAF does through an in-house vendor, just that NHQ has chosen to draw a fairly narrow circle around some items (like insignia) and less around others (like blazers and aviator shirts).
It would seem reasonable that the cost is about $215 ($2.15*100 say) that it might cost to by out CAP's in house vendor. Optionally, the Wing could just tell Vanguard not to make anymore and then put the new patches in after the stock is expired. Either way, an in house vendor is a well established practice in the DOD.
Quote from: Garp on August 30, 2014, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on August 30, 2014, 10:45:29 PM
Designs have to be approved by TIOH, yes... but TIOH nor the Army require a Regiment to purchase from a single source vendor like Vanguard.
In this case, I would point out the US Air Force requires all USAF personnel purchase uniform items from their in-house vendor: AAFES (AFI 36-2903, para 1.5.1). How that is exercised is not always all encompassing (service coats are limited to AAFES [at least I've never seen them made available easily from another vendor] but ribbons can come from about anyone).
And so while the USAF may not require all items to be sourced through AAFES in practice, the principle holds that they do expect purchases for the majority of the core items to come from AAFES. Seems like CAP is doing the same thing the USAF does through an in-house vendor, just that NHQ has chosen to draw a fairly narrow circle around some items (like insignia) and less around others (like blazers and aviator shirts).
It would seem reasonable that the cost is about $215 ($2.15*100 say) that it might cost to by out CAP's in house vendor. Optionally, the Wing could just tell Vanguard not to make anymore and then put the new patches in after the stock is expired. Either way, an in house vendor is a well established practice in the DOD.
Not exactly.
AAFES is a distributor, not a primary vendor. They have contracts with various manufacturers to provide various uniform items, Vanguard being one for insignia and accessories.
Quote from: Garp on August 30, 2014, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on August 30, 2014, 10:45:29 PM
Designs have to be approved by TIOH, yes... but TIOH nor the Army require a Regiment to purchase from a single source vendor like Vanguard.
In this case, I would point out the US Air Force requires all USAF personnel purchase uniform items from their in-house vendor: AAFES (AFI 36-2903, para 1.5.1). How that is exercised is not always all encompassing (service coats are limited to AAFES [at least I've never seen them made available easily from another vendor] but ribbons can come from about anyone).
And so while the USAF may not require all items to be sourced through AAFES in practice, the principle holds that they do expect purchases for the majority of the core items to come from AAFES. Seems like CAP is doing the same thing the USAF does through an in-house vendor, just that NHQ has chosen to draw a fairly narrow circle around some items (like insignia) and less around others (like blazers and aviator shirts).
It would seem reasonable that the cost is about $215 ($2.15*100 say) that it might cost to by out CAP's in house vendor. Optionally, the Wing could just tell Vanguard not to make anymore and then put the new patches in after the stock is expired. Either way, an in house vendor is a well established practice in the DOD.
While AAFES to include (MCCS)is the primary source for uniform items, members of the armed services can buy uniforms and insignia from other sources as long as they meet the services standards. These uniforms would be required to have a label certifying that the item meets that standard.
Quote from: MSG Mac on August 31, 2014, 03:02:13 AMWhile AAFES to include (MCCS)is the primary source for uniform items, members of the armed services can buy uniforms and insignia from other sources as long as they meet the services standards. These uniforms would be required to have a label certifying that the item meets that standard.
Marlow White (http://www.marlowwhite.com/ (http://www.marlowwhite.com/)) manufactures dress uniforms for the Army and Navy (but not for the Air Force(???)) and first responders to military specifications. Kel-Lac Uniforms of San Antonio, Texas used to offer a double-knit polyester version of the Air Force service dress uniform some years ago but no longer does so - the AF discontinued their use around 2006. (They have plenty of ABU and Multi-cam stuff, though.)
Quote from: PHall on August 30, 2014, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 30, 2014, 05:00:28 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on August 30, 2014, 04:19:40 PMthe impact on the wing membership in terms of cost and identity.
The "identity" nonsense regarding wings is more detrimental then positive to the organization.
In many respects there are 52 Civil Air Patrols instead of the "one" that's purported in the brochures.
And I'm not referring to the odd uniform supp, we're talking about 52 different flavors of doing the same
job, which forces everyone to relearn everything (after the initial fighting) for just about every activity and mission.
Bob, it's pretty much that way in the Air National Guard too. Each TAG has "their" way of doing stuff.
So it's not just a CAP "problem".
I've seen no actual evidence that it's a "problem" at all.
Multiple groups doing similar jobs in similar, but not identical, ways is a great way to find best practices. Push down one way of doing things from the top and you end up with mediocrity at best.
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 30, 2014, 03:39:37 AM
Vanguard has been very good to work with during this process. They stopped making the old patch a few months ago. What ever inventory is left will be purchased by the wing.
And yes I am the new "Wing King".
The Wing has supported this idea from the get go. We are excited for the change.
Excited, how awesome. In the corporate world we get excited with change. I guess that could work in CAP too.
But, if we changing just to be changing what is the purpose? In management, in the corporate world we do stuff like that to remind people who is in charge. In the military world it is different. History, tradition, etc, etc. The traditional MTWG with the outline of the state reminds people of "1941", "CAP", "the humble beginnings", "etc", "etc".
Good luck sir.
Quote from: MisterCD on August 30, 2014, 04:19:40 PM
The decision to revise the MTWG patch was discussed at length by the NUC and, as Col Teel noted, was instigated by MTWG and not NHQ. Generally speaking, there is a strong reluctance by NHQ and the NUC to change the wing and region insignia. Two wings, including MTWG, approached the NUC about changing their design. In both cases the rationale, cost, design, heraldic and historical aspects were discussed, not to mention the impact on the wing membership in terms of cost and identity. Col Teel has reached out to the National History Program for advice and guidance, and the wing's handling of this matter has been both professional and thorough.
Thank you for sharing the additional information.
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 31, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 30, 2014, 03:39:37 AM
Vanguard has been very good to work with during this process. They stopped making the old patch a few months ago. What ever inventory is left will be purchased by the wing.
And yes I am the new "Wing King".
The Wing has supported this idea from the get go. We are excited for the change.
Excited, how awesome. In the corporate world we get excited with change. I guess that could work in CAP too.
But, if we changing just to be changing what is the purpose? In management, in the corporate world we do stuff like that to remind people who is in charge. In the military world it is different. History, tradition, etc, etc. The traditional MTWG with the outline of the state reminds people of "1941", "CAP", "the humble beginnings", "etc", "etc".
Good luck sir.
Do you remember Gen Mc Peak.....and his ideal of preserving history, tradition, etc? The "real military" is just as bad as the corporate world.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 31, 2014, 08:45:39 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 31, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 30, 2014, 03:39:37 AM
Vanguard has been very good to work with during this process. They stopped making the old patch a few months ago. What ever inventory is left will be purchased by the wing.
And yes I am the new "Wing King".
The Wing has supported this idea from the get go. We are excited for the change.
Excited, how awesome. In the corporate world we get excited with change. I guess that could work in CAP too.
But, if we changing just to be changing what is the purpose? In management, in the corporate world we do stuff like that to remind people who is in charge. In the military world it is different. History, tradition, etc, etc. The traditional MTWG with the outline of the state reminds people of "1941", "CAP", "the humble beginnings", "etc", "etc".
Good luck sir.
Do you remember Gen Mc Peak.....and his ideal of preserving history, tradition, etc? The "real military" is just as bad as the corporate world.
Pat, do you mean Gen. McPeak's ideas of throwing everything out the window in favor of the new uniform he wanted? The one with the sleeve stripes, no U.S. cutouts, and - in the beginning, anyway - no headgear at all?
That Gen. McPeak?
Never heard of him. ;)
Jack
I was thinking more of how units with "significant" history were more important than other units and they made 20-30 units change their names. But yes that guy
I actually like the design.
I am curious about the symbolism of the different elements.
If you have the blazon I'd love to read it!
Quote from: lordmonar on August 31, 2014, 10:12:07 PM
I was thinking more of how units with "significant" history were more important than other units and they made 20-30 units change their names. But yes that guy
The only "good" thing McPeak did for the uniform was the Aircrew Style Name Patch being worn on the DCU's and BDU's.
It was a LOT easier and cheaper to sew just one 2" x 4" piece of velcro on then the half a dozen individual patches.
..and for all the "good" it was, you see where that went.
*Poof*
At least with the ABU they got on the "right path" by authorizing the minimum number of stuff to sew on.
They could reduce futher by dumping the sleeve and collar grade insignia and just go with grade worn on the front of the blouse like the Army does with the ACU.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 31, 2014, 08:45:39 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 31, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on August 30, 2014, 03:39:37 AM
Vanguard has been very good to work with during this process. They stopped making the old patch a few months ago. What ever inventory is left will be purchased by the wing.
And yes I am the new "Wing King".
The Wing has supported this idea from the get go. We are excited for the change.
Excited, how awesome. In the corporate world we get excited with change. I guess that could work in CAP too.
But, if we changing just to be changing what is the purpose? In management, in the corporate world we do stuff like that to remind people who is in charge. In the military world it is different. History, tradition, etc, etc. The traditional MTWG with the outline of the state reminds people of "1941", "CAP", "the humble beginnings", "etc", "etc".
Good luck sir.
Do you remember Gen Mc Peak.....and his ideal of preserving history, tradition, etc? The "real military" is just as bad as the corporate world.
http://www.thewalkingdead.org/ (http://www.thewalkingdead.org/)
Remember the "The Walking Dead"? Marine Infantry Battalion from WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, Desert Storm, OIF, OEF & various police actions. Their motto was changed by a Battalion Commander to "Walking Death", because as a English Major (college 'know-it-all' not military 'know-it-all) it was not proper? 70+ years and the motto was incorrect? Now it is back to "The Walking Dead". At least somebody has a clue 8)
Pretty sure I heard this week that they were being deactivated.
Quote from: Shotgun on September 01, 2014, 12:47:20 AM
I actually like the design.
I am curious about the symbolism of the different elements.
If you have the blazon I'd love to read it!
I am curious too. 8)
Quote from: RiverAux on September 02, 2014, 12:24:06 AM
Pretty sure I heard this week that they were being deactivated.
Yes. I am not happy about it but somebody has to retire their colors in downsizing.
Semper Fi :)
Quote from: LSThiker on August 29, 2014, 02:51:42 AM...
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/large/000000CAP0637Y_LRG.jpg)
It is what it is. Something your great grandchildren would appreciate. 8)
Quote from: PHall on September 01, 2014, 02:57:42 PM
At least with the ABU they got on the "right path" by authorizing the minimum number of stuff to sew on.
They could reduce futher by dumping the sleeve and collar grade insignia and just go with grade worn on the front of the blouse like the Army does with the ACU.
I've always liked the old Army officer insignia on their BDUs (not ACUs) with their grade on the wearer's right collar, and their specialty on their left.
Quote from: PHall on September 01, 2014, 02:57:42 PM
...with grade worn on the front of the blouse like the Army does with the ACU.
I was not a fan as I didn't like losing my branch insignia when went to the ACUs.
Quote from: Panache on September 02, 2014, 03:56:13 AM
I've always liked the old Army officer insignia on their BDUs (not ACUs) with their grade on the wearer's right collar, and their specialty branch on their left.
What he said.
Quote from: PHall on September 01, 2014, 02:57:42 PM
At least with the ABU they got on the "right path" by authorizing the minimum number of stuff to sew on.
They could reduce further by dumping the sleeve and collar grade insignia and just go with grade worn on the front of the blouse like the Army does with the ACU.
Much rather have my Rank/Branch back on the collar but to each their own.
Quote from: Panache on September 02, 2014, 03:56:13 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 01, 2014, 02:57:42 PM
At least with the ABU they got on the "right path" by authorizing the minimum number of stuff to sew on.
They could reduce futher by dumping the sleeve and collar grade insignia and just go with grade worn on the front of the blouse like the Army does with the ACU.
I've always liked the old Army officer insignia on their BDUs (not ACUs) with their grade on the wearer's right collar, and their specialty on their left.
Me too.
Quote from: PHall on August 29, 2014, 11:15:08 PM
They may not be required in YOUR wing, but they are required in many other wings. FYI, all of the Wings in Pacific Region require wing patches.
Cite please. I didn't know that to be the case.
..and even if it is, unless those supplements are re-submitted, it's not.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 08:23:28 PM
As to the above insignia, it needs to be run by whoever did RMR's to get the scrolls done properly - so tired of otherwise decent insignia left "unfinished" because they were done in Paint and the artist doesn't understand how to shape text properly.
Artists don't use Paint, Word or Publisher. Amateurs do.
The RMR type isn't as good as it could be, either, though it's a far better example than many. Some of the problem is type choice — the Air Force has standardized that fairly well with a Century alphabet — and some of it is just that you have to hand-align every letter on some occasions, especially where letters and words break on the point. It takes someone who respects type and has the right tools to do that.