NEW Georgia Wing patch

[skymaster]

For those of you who might not have heard, the Georgia Wing patch has been redesigned to conform more closely to AF standards for wing-level emblems.  What do all of you think of the new design? http://www.gawg.cap.gov/picts/ga_wing/Georgia_Wing_Emblem_large.jpg

[DC]

Kinda boring, IMHO. Glad it's the right shape for a wing though. They could have been much more creative with the elements on the shield, instead of just slapping the state flag on there and calling it a day.

[BillB]

It's a modified Confederate National Flag.

[lordmonar]

In what way could they have been more creative?

I think it is a very good patch.  Simple, to the point and no frills.

It does not have a bunch of symbology that no one knows or cares about.

I remember when we redesigned the NVWG patch....we got the same critisim....."you just took the state flag and add a CAP triangle".

It's a good patch.

[skymaster]

It's a modified Confederate National Flag.

Probably because the Georgia state flag (shown here) IS patterned closely after the first Confederate National Flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Georgia_%28U.S._state%29.svg

[Rowan]

It's okay, I suppose.  I like it better than the former one.

Does anyone know when the new wing patches will be available from Vanguard?  Cadets going to encampment will need these on their BDUs.

[AirAux]

No, they won't need them for encampment.  Encampment commanders do not have the authority to require the wearing of the Wing patch..   

[manfredvonrichthofen]

So I take it that every Wing will have to change their Wing Patch to conform to the shield pattern, understandable. However does this mean that all squadrons will have to change their Squadron Patch to conform to the squadron patch as well, even those that have been around for more than 20 years?

[EMT-83]

No one is required to change anything.

[RiverAux]

So I take it that every Wing will have to change their Wing Patch to conform to the shield pattern, understandable. However does this mean that all squadrons will have to change their Squadron Patch to conform to the squadron patch as well, even those that have been around for more than 20 years?

There is a small group here that advocates for establishing such standards for CAP patches, but just about everyone in favor of that is in favor of grandfathering in existing patches and only imposing such requirements on new patches or if an existing patch is going to be significantly changed. 

[Eclipse]

^Exactly. 

My wing did it right.  They put a freeze on existing insignia that did not conform to the guidelines, and notified the respective commanders that they
may continue to wear and use the existing non-compliant insignia, but may not order anything further with that insignia (no coins, patches, signs, etc.).

At such time that a new order becomes necessary, the unit must redesign their insignia to be compliant and get that insignia properly approved before
spending any money.

"Old" doesn't mean "good", especially when you consider that anything designed before the mid-90's was probably hand-drawn and the only
spec sheets are scans of scans.

[Major Carrales]

When Wing pays for Squadron patches, I will support such nonsense.  CAP is local with its local traditions, not everything "new" is good.  I freak out on how many people want to consign tradition to the crapper.

[Eclipse]

This is not about "tradition", but even if it were, it doesn't have to go out the window.  It is about setting and mandating a standard - one that
helps us look professional and "bigger than we are" through the use of a few simple rules and structures.

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.

For every well-done but outdated unit patch that has some real history and weight, their are ten that feature combatant aircraft or other images that
have no connection with, or are inappropriate for use with CAP.  Some, read by those who understand Heraldry, mean something the artist did not intend, are such multi-generational sub copies that any detail was lost long ago, or simply look terrible and busy.

Wrong is wrong, and the actual cost to fix wrong is zero.  A new insignia can be designed for no cost if you ask the right people, and can be used day-1 on letterhead, sign-age, websites, etc., for nothing.  Then, once you need more patches, the cost is a wash since you had to order them anyway.  No decent patch vendor these days charges for setup.

[Major Carrales]

There is no "wrong" until this is in a regulation somewhere.  And to expect that everyone will get the "freebies" you describe is disingenuous at best.

Most squadron patches I have seen have featured some local art connected to some local tradition and history.  They have been designed against a round background (due to the cost) and approved by Wing Commanders.

[Eclipse]

A roundel is fine, and would not need to be updated if the only issue is the shape.

As to the "freebies", if you're seriously implying that not every wing had a few members good enough with Photoshop or Illustrator to
design a decent patch, then you are pretending just to make the argument.

[Major Carrales]

A roundel is fine, and would not need to be updated if the only issue is the shape.

As to the "freebies", if you're seriously implying that not every wing had a few members good enough with Photoshop or Illustrator to
design a decent patch, then you are pretending just to make the argument.

I have those skills, I took it to mean that some company would simply let you "set up" without a fee.

[RiverAux]

There is no "wrong" until this is in a regulation somewhere. 

Apparently it is in the reg where Eclipse is at (and a few other wings) so there isn't a problem.

[Major Carrales]

There is no "wrong" until this is in a regulation somewhere. 

Apparently it is in the reg where Eclipse is at (and a few other wings) so there isn't a problem.

Well then, keep that stuff out of my Wing.  It will not find a supporter in me, unless they agree to pay to replace everything.  "Change" for "change's sake" is from whence inefficiency and waste are nursed.  Suckling from the bosom of good intentions, yet yielding only sour milk!!!

[Eclipse]

I have those skills, I took it to mean that some company would simply let you "set up" without a fee.

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.

There is no "wrong" until this is in a regulation somewhere. 

Apparently it is in the reg where Eclipse is at (and a few other wings) so there isn't a problem.

Yep, though a properly approved supplement.

Well then, keep that stuff out of my Wing.  It will not find a supporter in me, unless they agree to pay to replace everything.  "Change" for "change's sake" is from whence inefficiency and waste are nursed.

I agree, that isn't what this is.  This is fixing something that was implemented incorrectly from day one.

It should be a national mandate.

[Major Carrales]

It should be a national mandate.

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.

[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?

[RiverAux]

Yes there is in a growing number of Wings such a standard is being accepted.

[Major Carrales]

Yes there is in a growing number of Wings such a standard is being accepted.

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

[flyboy53]

Yes there is.

You've decided to be judge and jury in this instance...when the wing commander is the ultimate authority. Since you're not a member of the Georgia Wing, you have not vote and no real place to make comment in this case.

[Major Carrales]

 

The matter at hand is the idea of some system-wide change forcing people to comply to a standard, Wings and National imposing some standard on patch existence and design and the traditions held by long time units with patches. 

As it stands now, a Wing Commander can approve any design for unit use.  That is the only system-wide standard.

As for the Georgia Wing...since when did their members get a vote on anything?

[tarheel gumby]

As to standards for new unit/wing patches when thinking about changing a design the need to should be considered. When designing a new patch any questions should be directed to both the CAP National Historian (Col. Blascovich) or the National Curator (LtCol Shaw), they can tell you what is appropriate or not. There currently no CAP specific Heraldry guidelines, but as a CAP historian I have been encouraged to use the AF standards. The patches need only to pass the review and approval of the Wing CC involved. As to the GAWG patch it reflects the choice of the wing personell involved in selecting the new patch, and the approval of the GAWG CC. He/She is the final word on that.

[PHall]

Maybe we should adopt the standard the Air Force uses with the Airman Battle Uniform.

NO PATCHES AT ALL!!!

Think of the money everybody will save....

[Major Carrales]

Maybe we should adopt the standard the Air Force uses with the Airman Battle Uniform.

NO PATCHES AT ALL!!!

Think of the money everybody will save....

Yes, might as well throw all history and tradition out while were at it.  You miss the point.   

[PHall]

Maybe we should adopt the standard the Air Force uses with the Airman Battle Uniform.

NO PATCHES AT ALL!!!

Think of the money everybody will save....

Yes, might as well throw all history and tradition out while were at it.  You miss the point.

But aren't you the one who is always complaining on how much our uniforms cost?
So you get a "no cost" solution and now you don't like it bacause of "tradition"?

[BillB]

What tradition? In the Southeast Region alone, every Wing except Puerto Rico has changed Wing patches in the past 15 years. Florida alone has had three patches in the past ten years.

[caphornbuckle]

Honestly, folks, the unit patch is an optional item anyways.

But if one is insistant on using an emblem with heraldry and strong support, why can't it be used everywhere but the patch (sign, wall plaque, side of a building, etc.)?  This would keep the emblem close to the unit and remind those within the unit what its history is all about.

If a patch change is needed, it wouldn't take much to take the original patch and set it in the new design to comply with the standards.

[Major Carrales]

Maybe we should adopt the standard the Air Force uses with the Airman Battle Uniform.

NO PATCHES AT ALL!!!

Think of the money everybody will save....

Yes, might as well throw all history and tradition out while were at it.  You miss the point.

But aren't you the one who is always complaining on how much our uniforms cost?
So you get a "no cost" solution and now you don't like it bacause of "tradition"?

I'm willing to pay for what I am willing to pay for...not because some bloke in another Wing thinks their vision of CAP uniforms should be system wide.   We put a great deal into our local units...we build them up from nothing into being assets to CAP and the USAF.  A patch that has been a long time moniker of a unit is a reflection of that spirit.

You people would trash all that in favor of imposing the standards and practices of another organization on us.  It seems that we have a real qunadry here...CAP is not the USAF.  And the USAF has demanded we not be them in style and form save for the wear of the USAF style uniform....that we be distinctive.  Yet you all want us to mimic their practices.   Is that not why the CSU was nixed?  People would have us believe that.

As I said before...make it policy and I'll change my tune.    Until then, there is no standard.  Leave people alone about it.

[Dragon 3-2]

A roundel is fine, and would not need to be updated if the only issue is the shape.

As to the "freebies", if you're seriously implying that not every wing had a few members good enough with Photoshop or Illustrator to
design a decent patch, then you are pretending just to make the argument.

or people like me who love to design stuff in photoshop outside of their wing

and Being an former member of GAWG, I gotta say this is a nice looking patch, but could use a little more flavor to it.

[NC Hokie]

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.

Can you point me towards an example of this? I'd like to offer that as an option to my squadron membership, as we're in the market for a new batch of patches and are considering redoing our old patch to make it "compliant" with AF standards.

[flyboy53]

Here's the 14th Air Force patch that I used to wear. This one has a gray backgroud. There are other examples of current numberd Air Forces.  The others, like the 3rd, 12th and 8th Air Forces have the same color blue background as the field of the patch.

Will that work for you, or would you like other examples?

Remember that that shape of a squadron patch is round with a scroll on the top or bottom. The crest or shield as you see here is generally reserved for group, wing, region, etc.

[tarheel gumby]

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.

Can you point me towards an example of this? I'd like to offer that as an option to my squadron membership, as we're in the market for a new batch of patches and are considering redoing our old patch to make it "compliant" with AF standards.

Make sure that you send a copy of the new design to the Wing Historian for approval. The Wing Historian is Phil Saleet. PM me for his adderss. Col. Douglas will require it before he signs off on it.

[NC Hokie]

Will that work for you, or would you like other examples?

That'll do just fine.  Thanks!

[rt1111]

I'm new to here so I'm gonna keep it as simple as possible. I'm opposed to this issue on a few grounds.

1 the cost of buying new patches will be shifted completely on individual members.  as a high school kid without a job, even though my parents supported my membership in CAP they eventually began to say no on the grounds of their wallet to new uniform and ground team stuff i needed.

2 think about how this is gonna look on the ABUs when CAP switches.

3. the Georgia flag is just a confederate flag with the Georgia seal on it. theirs nothing wrong with that but the new wing patch is a Georgia flag without the seal........   its inappropriate. as an organization supporting the US government, why should we be wearing a symbol of open rebellion against the US government? its also a little insensitive to African American Members.

4. unless the Wing commanders were ordered to change (which i dint think they were) the Georgia wing patch was great the way it was. It was distinctive to the state with the seal on it. it didn't add alot of frills and unnecessary colors that some wing patches do. (that wasn't a cheap shot, it was an observation) and it worked in concert with the other patches and color schemes already on the uniform.  Were in CAP, not the Circus. the more colors you add the less professional you look.  if you don't believe me look at the old patch. its simple and timeless, take a look: http://www.shepherdtactical.com/images/cap/wing_patches/GA.jpg

I for one will never wear this new patch. I'm going to continue to hang on to the old one, because I'm not sure if wing patches are grandfathered in. and if I'm called on it I wont wear a wing patch. GA wing is a hot mess right now.

[flyboy53]

First, not to burst your bubble, but CAP Talk is not the forum to address your concerns. You should direct such issues through your chain of command.

Second, your new wing patch was approved by your Wing Commander following a review by other leadership and wing members. What the implementation plans are, again are a matter of your chain of command. Either way, the wing patch is now an optional uniform item in some wings or subordinate units and mandatory in others. If the new patch is approved, the old one is out. Unless there is a unit policy to the opposite, you will not be forced to wear it.

Third, your attempt at relating the Georgia State Flag to the CSA, though emotional, is unwarranted because the emblem was approved. I suggest you again ask through your chain of command about the significance of the new wing patch. You may even want to research the significance of your state flag. Also, don't be surprised if the new wing patch enjoys great acceptance from others in your wing. I know there are those outside the wing that find the patch appealing.

Fourth, although your insignia cost concerns are warranted and felt by all of us, I hope your inability to purchase future rank and ribbons doesn't interfer with your continued participation in the cadet program....something that should have been considered when joining.

Finally, who said anything about ABUs...besides shield shaped wing patches look just fine on ABUs.

[RiverAux]

Gee, CAPTalk isn't an appropriate place to complain about CAP policies?

[BGNightfall]

I do not agree that the AF standard is the best fit for our organization.  We got by for years (and years and years) wearing our "incorrectly" shaped patches on the AF uniform (blues and BDUs).  Our units are community-based, and while they are part of a national command structure, our member base is much more bottom-up, in terms of culture than the Air Force is.  I believe that our unit patches should reflect this, and that a heraldry standard that specifically discourages location-specific iconography is counter to that very culture. 

Personally, I welcome as much diversity in patch shape and design as our members are willing to produce, provided that they do not depict iconography of hate or illegal activity (Hemp leaves, KKK, NAZI symbolism, etc.).  If Berkley Senior Squadron wants their squadron patch to be in the shape of a circle, with a peace sign over a tie-dyed riot of color, more power to them!  I do not feel that "amateur" or "cluttered" images are a detriment to the uniform, or to our culture. 

I do, however, feel that a large-scale redesign of our insignia would strip us of a lot of our heritage.  How much to we want to lose to embrace abstract designs on all of our patches that will ultimately leave them all looking extremely similar? 

[ColonelJack]

I'm new to here so I'm gonna keep it as simple as possible. I'm opposed to this issue on a few grounds.

1 the cost of buying new patches will be shifted completely on individual members.  as a high school kid without a job, even though my parents supported my membership in CAP they eventually began to say no on the grounds of their wallet to new uniform and ground team stuff i needed.

Okay, I'll give you that one.  I'm not a high school kid without a job, I'm a grown man with three jobs, and I have trouble affording all the stuff they say I'm supposed to have.  My wallet screams in protest a lot these days.

2 think about how this is gonna look on the ABUs when CAP switches.

A non-issue, since the ABU is not even remotely on CAP's radar just yet.  We're in BDUs for the long haul, son.

3. the Georgia flag is just a confederate flag with the Georgia seal on it. theirs nothing wrong with that but the new wing patch is a Georgia flag without the seal........   its inappropriate. as an organization supporting the US government, why should we be wearing a symbol of open rebellion against the US government? its also a little insensitive to African American Members.

Well, following that particular line of reasoning, the state flag itself is inappropriate -- Georgia is, after all, part of the United States, and has adopted a modified flag of the rebellion.  The same thought applies to the issue of insensitivity.

4. unless the Wing commanders were ordered to change (which i dint think they were) the Georgia wing patch was great the way it was. It was distinctive to the state with the seal on it. it didn't add alot of frills and unnecessary colors that some wing patches do. (that wasn't a cheap shot, it was an observation) and it worked in concert with the other patches and color schemes already on the uniform.  Were in CAP, not the Circus. the more colors you add the less professional you look.  if you don't believe me look at the old patch. its simple and timeless, take a look: http://www.shepherdtactical.com/images/cap/wing_patches/GA.jpg

As has been pointed out, the new patch was approved by Col. Boylan and those in the chain of command who are empowered to approve such things.  I like the old patch too ... a darn sight better than the one that preceded it.  If we were still wearing the WWII-era GAWG patch, you'd probably jump for this newest one in a heartbeat.  But you have to remember one very important thing, my friend ... it's not my call, and it's not your call, to "approve" or "disapprove" of the wing patch.  Our job is to salute and execute; other people above our pay grade make those decisions.  (I'm not disputing your right to an opinion or even to express it; I'm just sayin'.)

I for one will never wear this new patch. I'm going to continue to hang on to the old one, because I'm not sure if wing patches are grandfathered in. and if I'm called on it I wont wear a wing patch.

Again, since wing patches are optional, feel free to do whatever you like (and whatever your Squadron CC tells you to do).  Unlike some wings, GAWG won't hold a gun to your head and make you wear the patch.  Me, I plan to re-equip my kit with them as soon as they're available; I like the new design.  Once it's out there, you won't be able to hang on to the old one at all; there's no grandfathering such things.

GA wing is a hot mess right now.

Not sure which Georgia Wing you serve in ... the one I am in seems to be in pretty good shape.

Jack

[exFlight Officer]

Checked Vanguard today. The new style GAWG patch is now available for sale. Im saving my current patches.

[SoCalMarine]

Look, I personally like the new patch. Yeah, I'd imagine that the patch we just switched from could just have been made to fit in the new Command Patch style design to keep people from getting upset.

The only issue I have is all the complaining. I don't know how some of these people will ever make it in the military (or if they were military how they lasted an enlistment) when everything in the military is constantly changing. Things change. Get used to it. Personally, I feel that the shape of the new patch is much better. It makes it more AF like. Have you seen some of the other wing's patches? Some have horrible shapes or design. I mean, some states look as if they belong in the Boy Scouts, or the 1950's, rather than 2011 as an affiliate of the USAF.

I've already made the switch on my uniform and thinks it looks great.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^Agreed on that one.

I personally don't see the need for shoulder patches beyond this one:

[SoCalMarine]

I personally don't see the need for shoulder patches beyond this one:

Yeah, I don't disagree with you. I like them nevertheless! I think that the different patches follow the Army/Air Force culture and history of wearing unit patches. I think it helps people take some pride, especially at national events. When I was at NESA last year I talked to individuals specifically because I saw what state they were from just to ask questions and so on.