Speaking of no bueno...

[NIN]

The top SDWG patch looks like the cover of The Beatles' Revolver album.

<Keanu Reeves>
"Whoa!"
</Keanu Reeves>

[Private Investigator]

*snip*

The top SDWG patch looks like the cover of The Beatles' Revolver album.

RODL   :clap:

[Майор Хаткевич]

They started making the nametapes out of the "grade" cloth once the national conference announced the proposed new tape colors. The word apparently was "VG has a lot of ultramarine left over".

So I'm guessing we're seeing them using up the grade cloth to cut down on all the supplies, and tapes made the most sense.

[winterg]

Too bad Vanguard can't get the badges from the same place the Hock Shop (R.I.P.) used to.  At least theirs was better proportioned.   I'm sure I'll be recycling mine from there for a while.

As for the name tapes, I switched to fabric ones years ago when we changed to those at the sheriff's department I worked at the time.  Huge improvement.  They retain their color better and don't curl.  Much more professional looking.

[Eclipse]

I would say there are. Everything incorrect in both versions is nearly the same.

Considering that VG's badges used to look muddy and all of a sudden (relatively speaking) they are very tight and clear, looks to
me like the same setup source.

Scratch that - a closer look in Photoshop shows they aren't really that close, beyond probably using similar software for an embroidery system.

[winterg]

I don't think so for a few little details I have noticed.  On the Hock Shop version, the star is a litter fatter, the triangle is not cut off and the lettering is not elongated.  Again, still not perfect, but a little better than the current Vanguard version and a LOT better than the old Vanguard "blob" version. *shudder*

[SAREXinNY]

As a new member last year I was shocked and appalled by the poor quality of the GTM badge I received.  It makes us look unprofessional to say the least.

[Terry W.]

It really is nothing new that Vanguard blows. I am not sure when, but a few years back they appeared to take over as the primary vendor to AAFES and the MCSS. The quality of insignia is atrocious at best, ribbons fall apart, paint chips on insignia or paint just running. It really is frustrating. I remember when AAFES used to carry more IRA green stuff and I consider their stuff better quality. Some of the stores on certain posts carry the IRA Green stuff and it seems like stores that carried only Vanguard are starting to carry more of IRA Green as well now. I am hoping it shifts back that way.

[NIN]

Just need a wing patch and I'm done...

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Garibaldi]

Kinda makes me not want to be a GBD because I'd have to get a MGTM badge and replace my good SGTM with krep.

[winterg]

Just need a wing patch and I'm done...

Looks great.  Too bad they clarified the rules for badge placement and I can't wear my GT badge and my USAF Maintenance badge.

[dwb]

You don't need a Wing patch...

[a2capt]

You don't need a Wing patch...

Not every Wing has made it optional or removed it. There are many supplements that retained it for use on *BDUs, and flight uniforms.

[PHall]

You don't need a Wing patch...

Please convince the California Wing Commander about that.

[jayleswo]

You don't need a Wing patch...

Please convince the California Wing Commander about that.

Well, interestingly, the current CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 (dated 15 NOV 2011) does not contain any verbiage requiring the wear of the CAWG patch on field uniforms (except for the CAWG GT uniform). It amends table 6-4 to describe placement of the CAWG patch but that's all. The NHQ ICL dated 12 MAR 2012 para 2.a. would appear to supersede the requirement for mandatory wear of the Wing patch. I know that's not the intent so an update to the CAWG Supplement to clarify that, perhaps after the new 39-1 is published, might be a good idea.

[PHall]

You don't need a Wing patch...

Please convince the California Wing Commander about that.

Well, interestingly, the current CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 (dated 15 NOV 2011) does not contain any verbiage requiring the wear of the CAWG patch on field uniforms (except for the CAWG GT uniform). It amends table 6-4 to describe placement of the CAWG patch but that's all. The NHQ ICL dated 12 MAR 2012 para 2.a. would appear to supersede the requirement for mandatory wear of the Wing patch. I know that's not the intent so an update to the CAWG Supplement to clarify that, perhaps after the new 39-1 is published, might be a good idea.

The CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 has NEVER had anything about the wing patch being required.
But every Wing Commander since National made it "optional" has said that it is required.
Matter of fact, Virginia Nelson get pretty upset with me for even asking that question.

[jayleswo]

The CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 has NEVER had anything about the wing patch being required.
<snip>

Actually, not true. The CAWG Supplement dated 1 APR 2006, and signed by Col Virginia Nelson did specifically state in Fig 6-14 (added) which uniforms the CAWG patch was required on. "The patch will be worn on the optional Ground Team uniform, BDU, Field Uniform, CAP Utility Uniform and all flight suits." I can PM you the pdf if you like. My point was, since the current supplement does not contain that verbiage, one might incorrectly infer that it is not required. I don't think that is the case, but would be good to clarify that by revising the supplement if it is.

[PHall]

The CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 has NEVER had anything about the wing patch being required.
<snip>

Actually, not true. The CAWG Supplement dated 1 APR 2006, and signed by Col Virginia Nelson did specifically state in Fig 6-14 (added) which uniforms the CAWG patch was required on. "The patch will be worn on the optional Ground Team uniform, BDU, Field Uniform, CAP Utility Uniform and all flight suits." I can PM you the pdf if you like. My point was, since the current supplement does not contain that verbiage, one might incorrectly infer that it is not required. I don't think that is the case, but would be good to clarify that by revising the supplement if it is.

The current supplement seems to have been written to govern the wearing of the CAWG Ground Team Uniform.
Everything else seems to have been an afterthought.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Anybody ask Spur if they could make the badges?
Just a thought!

Old news ...

From the National Headquarters Civil Air Patrol United States Air Force Auxiliary, we don't have the "exclusive right to name, insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, marks and words" the corporation adopts. 


So, we no longer offer C.A.P. items. 

Please direct any and all questions or comments to the Civil Air Patrol Headquarters.

I wondered how long it would be before that lot got a C&DOE.

I am wondering, and I may have posted this before, forgive me if I have, what this bunch is:

http://www.1800nametape.com/chrc.htm

I Binged it (I do not use Google much) and could not find a lot.

My first thought was of the former Generalissimo's little band, but it does not seem the same.

[a2capt]

Nah..
CHRC isn't the Generalissimo's Merry Men.

CHRC is a "Minutemen" like vigilante acting bunch that wants to deal with illegals in the southwest, themselves.

With Spur putting all these sections for various groups in there, it's certainly cheapening their own image.