http://imgur.com/mL8IaS7 (http://imgur.com/mL8IaS7)
I saw it. On the internet. I believe that's a CAP member at a squadron change of command. Can someone explain this, please?
That looks like a person giving a talk (probably on the history of CAP) in a historical CAP uniform from WWII-era time period.
We're not getting ABU's, but apparently we're going back to Khakis! :clap:
(Hey, a guy can hope...)
Quote from: Panache on March 08, 2014, 04:08:38 AM
We're not getting ABU's, but apparently we're going back to Khakis! :clap:
(Hey, a guy can hope...)
(http://i.imgur.com/mL8IaS7.jpg)
This is the pink and green uniform, not even close to Khakis. >:D
There are also CAP Re-enactor groups (I know of one on Facebook). This gentleman could belong to one of them.
He certainly looks sharp in his pinks and greens. I would sell both my AF-style uniforms and my G/W to be allowed to wear that.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 08, 2014, 05:50:34 AM
There are also CAP Re-enactor groups (I know of one on Facebook). This gentleman could belong to one of them.
He certainly looks sharp in his pinks and greens. I would sell both my AF-style uniforms and my G/W to be allowed to wear that.
I agree.. pinks and greens are by far the best and distinctive!
There's a clear need for a better corporate service dress equivalent, any particular reason this would be a poor suggestion?
Quote from: Archer on March 08, 2014, 09:12:20 AM
There's a clear need for a better corporate service dress equivalent, any particular reason this would be a poor suggestion?
Availability. Because of economy of scale issues, I'm guessing that this uniform would cost half again as much as the regular Air Force uniform.
We currently have 34253 senior members (as of 28 Feb 2014). Not everyone is going to buy one of these new uniforms. We'll guess half, and round to 17,500.
11 male coat sizes (32-52), times 3 (S, R, L) gives us 33 guys sizes. Let's add the same numbers for gal's sizes. That's 66 sizes. We'll assume 80% guys, and 20% gals. Crunching the numbers, we get 425 male uniforms in each size, and 107 female uniforms in each size. That's not hardly worth doing the setup.
Then how do you figure out how many more for new acquisitions each year? Who gets to stock them? I'm sure there are other Qs I can't come up with at 0145.
Bottom line, as kool as you think this uniform is, it's not practical.
http://onlinemilitaria.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=105&cat=OFFICERS+UNIFORMS (http://onlinemilitaria.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=105&cat=OFFICERS+UNIFORMS)
$95.00 for just a shirt.
However, I'd think that if a place that was already producing this stuff for re-enactors had a sudden inject of 35000 customers the price would drop to a reasonable level per contract.
The Army khaki stuff is $335 for the package deal. Add accessories, and it's well over $400. There's another package deal that might be pink & greens (no pic) for $425. Add accessories, and it's over $500. Currently available sizes seem to be for the larger folks, leaving our younger, smaller members wanting.
Since this uniform seems to be popular with the reenactors, I see another problem - how do we maintain a difference between the real members, and the "fake" folks?
I see ideas, but no plan.
Time for bed. See y'all in the morning.
Quote from: Archer on March 08, 2014, 09:12:20 AM
There's a clear need for a better corporate service dress equivalent, any particular reason this would be a poor suggestion?
Because it's green? In all seriousness, SarDragon hit the nail on the head.
I agree with all the logic posted above, but I have to admit that it is one dang sharp uniform. All practicalities aside, I'd wear it in a heartbeat.
We went to a WWII re-enactment event a couple of years ago (photos here (http://flic.kr/s/aHsjE5MQP6)), and it was a ton of fun. My wife & I have thought about taking up that hobby, and I would love to get that uniform.
Quote from: Walkman on March 08, 2014, 03:02:36 PM
I agree with all the logic posted above, but I have to admit that it is one dang sharp uniform. All practicalities aside, I'd wear it in a heartbeat.
Yeah. Financial realities aside, it's stylin'. I too would wear it in a heartbeat.
Quote from: rugger1869 on March 08, 2014, 09:57:02 AM
http://onlinemilitaria.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=105&cat=OFFICERS+UNIFORMS (http://onlinemilitaria.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=105&cat=OFFICERS+UNIFORMS)
$95.00 for just a shirt.
However, I'd think that if a place that was already producing this stuff for re-enactors had a sudden inject of 35000 customers the price would drop to a reasonable level per contract.
Sharp duds, and while I'd probably give it a pass, I'd have no issue with it. But I think the potential CAP market is smaller than the official SM count - remember, a lot of folks aren't participating, just renewing annually. Other folks get by on the polo shirt, a rare wear of the blazer, and a flight suit.
What you're missing is that re-enactors pay for clothing that match the period (ie Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc.) and the periods production methods.
For example, a Confederate Officer's coat, made out of polyester blend wool on a modern loom would turn a re-enactors stomach. They want home-spun wool, hand sown for a "realistic" look.
There are current police and security uniforms made in Khaki color: http://www.elbeco.com/Products.aspx?id=5462 (http://www.elbeco.com/Products.aspx?id=5462)
These are California Highway Patrol shirts. To modify for a "proposed" CAP khaki corporate uniform, simply remove the the tab with eyelets (for the badge) and unstitch the epaulets so rank shoulder slides can be attached.
I would bet that it wouldn't cost much more than a USAF blue shirt or a commercial white aviators shirt.
CHP uses matching khaki trousers. If CAP was to use them for a "proposed" corporate uniform, just order them without the piping that CHP uses.
Again, not much more than USAF blue trousers and equal in price to a quality pair of grey uniform trousers. (Yes you can get cheaper junky looking grey trousers but that's a personal choice to be a cheapskate and look shabby. )
The expense would come in finding a service coat/jacket/blouse in matching khaki. Haven't been able to find that but if you have the matching khaki cloth for shirts and trousers and a loom pattern for an existing service coat, it wouldn't be too hard or too expensive to get it made.
As I outlined in another thread, use the USAF blue flight cap and combination cap, blue tie, and blue belt to show CAP's link to Ma Blue.
Pin on rank on the coat epaulets for officers, USAF blue sleeve rank for NCOs, old style CAP blue rank slides for shirts, ditch the U.S. cutouts for C.A.P. cutouts (circle C.A.P. cutouts for NCOs) and blue nametags for everyone. Authorize military awards and badges on it too.
You have a uniform for everyone: fit, thin, fat and/or fuzzy and maybe cadets too.
Then ditch BDUs for BBDUs for everyone.
And guess what, you'd have uniformity across CAP and a professional uniform that is martial but not military that links to CAP's past in the USAAC, USAAF, and USAF and cannot be confused for a current USAF officer or NCO.
Still on a khaki kick I see. You do realize that it is not cost effective right and this has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions...
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 10, 2014, 04:07:32 AM
Still on a khaki kick I see. You do realize that it is not cost effective right and this has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions...
That's the thing about people whose only participation in a program is through an internet forum, they don't really care about the rubber meeting the road or what that costs.
Who does Texas A&M use to get their uniforms? Aren't they the same pink and green?
Quote from: Walkman on March 08, 2014, 03:02:36 PM
We went to a WWII re-enactment event a couple of years ago (photos here (http://flic.kr/s/aHsjE5MQP6)), and it was a ton of fun. My wife & I have thought about taking up that hobby, and I would love to get that uniform.
I prefer comic con. The Star Fleet ABUs are fantastic nerd chick magnets.
Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock 8)
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 10, 2014, 04:07:32 AM
Still on a khaki kick I see. You do realize that it is not cost effective right and this has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions...
The advantage of the khaki dickies is the CERT I belong to look really sharp in them regardless if you are 18 or 81 years young or if you wear "S" or "XXXL". JMHO, YMMV 8)
Quote from: Offutteer on March 10, 2014, 03:23:45 PM
Who does Texas A&M use to get their uniforms? Aren't they the same pink and green?
I was thinking the same thing. The Corp of Cadets uniforms minus the knee high Cav boots would look amazing.
It will never happen, but CAP would be a lot cooler if it did (said in a Wooderson voice)
(https://www.flyingcross.com/images/Class%20A%20photos%20(use).jpg)
Just don't do the baggy pants...
(http://s524.photobucket.com/user/terrellmiller/media/corps3.jpg.html)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 11, 2014, 03:56:30 AM
(https://www.flyingcross.com/images/Class%20A%20photos%20(use).jpg)
Just don't do the baggy pants...
"Hi? Vanguard? Yes, I was wondering if you carry jodhpurs."
I knew there was a term for it...lets leave that in the pre-1950s era.
Not to worry... only seniors in the Corps of Cadets at TAMU are extended the privilege of wearing cavalry boots (with spurs!) and jodhpurs. And the boots ain't cheap, either!
Is that Cadet wearing a BSA Eagle Scout medal?
Quote from: GroundHawg on March 12, 2014, 12:27:38 AM
Is that Cadet wearing a BSA Eagle Scout medal?
Sure looks like one
It is authorized:
Texas A&M Corps of Cadets Pinks and Greens are called Midnights and look very sharp. Not sure who they get their uniforms from but would be sharp looking for us to wear and would give us a historical link to our past. I do 13th Air Force from WWII Pacific Theater and the uniforms for reenactors are to cost prohibitive for the average Senior Member. Would still make a nice dress uniform though. Would love to know the cost of the CoC Midnights. The primary dress uniform from what I have seen is straight leg and standard looking oxfords from what I can tell. They also wear khakis as well.
If you are wearing that get up.... you better be on a horse
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 12, 2014, 04:56:20 PM
If you are wearing that get up.... you better be on a horse
I am glad I own a horse otherwise I will be confused for a Village People. 8)
Quote from: TarRiverRat on March 12, 2014, 02:08:10 AM
Texas A&M Corps of Cadets Pinks and Greens are called Midnights and look very sharp. Not sure who they get their uniforms from but would be sharp looking for us to wear and would give us a historical link to our past. I do 13th Air Force from WWII Pacific Theater and the uniforms for reenactors are to cost prohibitive for the average Senior Member. Would still make a nice dress uniform though. Would love to know the cost of the CoC Midnights. The primary dress uniform from what I have seen is straight leg and standard looking oxfords from what I can tell. They also wear khakis as well.
When people tout "pinks and greens" as a supposed CAP uniform solution, they do so while wearing blinders. Specifically, that uniform combination is not now and never was intended as a year-round uniform. It would be tough to have to invest in it, as nice as it is, only to get a 3-4-6 month wearing period.
The summer-weight alternatives to that uniform were either a tan version of the coat and trousers, or a khaki uniform. Neither looks like "pinks and greens," so that look is lost.
I'm just old enough to have worn Khaki 1505's in the Air Force, very briefly. You looked like an unmade bed about five minutes after putting them on. Starched or not, if I recall. They were comfy, and light weight enough.
If you weren't wearing a hat, you looked like a janitor. With a hat, you looked like a crossing guard or milkman.
Quote from: SunDog on March 13, 2014, 10:04:41 PM
I'm just old enough to have worn Khaki 1505's in the Air Force, very briefly. You looked like an unmade bed about five minutes after putting them on. Starched or not, if I recall. They were comfy, and light weight enough.
If you weren't wearing a hat, you looked like a janitor. With a hat, you looked like a crossing guard or milkman.
Amen to that. I wore those things, too. No fun at all.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 10, 2014, 04:07:32 AM
Still on a khaki kick I see. You do realize that it is not cost effective right and this has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions...
Oh my, in a post about "Pinks and Greens", a uniform in two shades of... (wait for it)... khaki, I'm off base. ::)
I just showed you above that there are currently available khaki uniforms, that with minimal modification, could be used for a proposed khaki corporate uniform at comparable prices to the top end of the current grey/white uniform.
Now if you want to buy uniforms at the low end of the scale for grey/white and look like a rag-a-muffin, then you're right it's not cost effective. ::)
Quote from: SarDragon on March 13, 2014, 10:52:16 PM
Quote from: SunDog on March 13, 2014, 10:04:41 PM
I'm just old enough to have worn Khaki 1505's in the Air Force, very briefly. You looked like an unmade bed about five minutes after putting them on. Starched or not, if I recall. They were comfy, and light weight enough.
If you weren't wearing a hat, you looked like a janitor. With a hat, you looked like a crossing guard or milkman.
Amen to that. I wore those things, too. No fun at all.
You gentlemen do realize that textile manufacturing has come a long way since the early 1970's right?
I don't think ANYONE is talking about going back to the original Khaki 1505's, but a modern fabric cut in the style of the old 1505's.
I'll use my police uniform as an example.
Visually it looks exactly the same as the wool gaberdine blend police dress/service uniforms of the 1950's thru the 1970's but they are made out of modern poly-rayon blend fabric.
They are durable, light, and breathable. Machine wash/dry and if you take them out a little damp and hang them up, you'll NEVER need to iron them.
Strong as BDU's yet sharp as a dress uniform.
Order them in khaki and you'd be good to go.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 13, 2014, 07:21:49 PM
When people tout "pinks and greens" as a supposed CAP uniform solution, they do so while wearing blinders. Specifically, that uniform combination is not now and never was intended as a year-round uniform. It would be tough to have to invest in it, as nice as it is, only to get a 3-4-6 month wearing period.
The summer-weight alternatives to that uniform were either a tan version of the coat and trousers, or a khaki uniform. Neither looks like "pinks and greens," so that look is lost.
Back in the WWII era, sure. But, as shuman14 pointed out above, that is a non-issue with modern fabrics.
Make the "pinks & greens" with the same material that is used to make modern USAF blues and service coat, and you have a year-round solution.
Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 03:30:10 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 13, 2014, 07:21:49 PM
When people tout "pinks and greens" as a supposed CAP uniform solution, they do so while wearing blinders. Specifically, that uniform combination is not now and never was intended as a year-round uniform. It would be tough to have to invest in it, as nice as it is, only to get a 3-4-6 month wearing period.
The summer-weight alternatives to that uniform were either a tan version of the coat and trousers, or a khaki uniform. Neither looks like "pinks and greens," so that look is lost.
Back in the WWII era, sure. But, as shuman14 pointed out above, that is a non-issue with modern fabrics.
Make the "pinks & greens" with the same material that is used to make modern USAF blues and service coat, and you have a year-round solution.
Exactly!
Quote from: shuman14 on March 14, 2014, 02:55:06 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on March 13, 2014, 10:52:16 PM
Quote from: SunDog on March 13, 2014, 10:04:41 PM
I'm just old enough to have worn Khaki 1505's in the Air Force, very briefly. You looked like an unmade bed about five minutes after putting them on. Starched or not, if I recall. They were comfy, and light weight enough.
If you weren't wearing a hat, you looked like a janitor. With a hat, you looked like a crossing guard or milkman.
Amen to that. I wore those things, too. No fun at all.
You gentlemen do realize that textile manufacturing has come a long way since the early 1970's right?
I don't think ANYONE is talking about going back to the original Khaki 1505's, but a modern fabric cut in the style of the old 1505's.
I'll use my police uniform as an example.
Visually it looks exactly the same as the wool gaberdine blend police dress/service uniforms of the 1950's thru the 1970's but they are made out of modern poly-rayon blend fabric.
They are durable, light, and breathable. Machine wash/dry and if you take them out a little damp and hang them up, you'll NEVER need to iron them.
Strong as BDU's yet sharp as a dress uniform.
Order them in khaki and you'd be good to go.
:)
I know fabric maanufacture has
gone a long way, mostly in the direction of south asia. But sure, new fabrics that hold up (and won't melt on me in a fire), I'm in, all for it.
Quote from: SunDog on March 14, 2014, 03:52:25 AM
I know fabric maanufacture has gone a long way, mostly in the direction of south asia. But sure, new fabrics that hold up (and won't melt on me in a fire), I'm in, all for it.
(looks at tag of uniform shirt)
Hmmm. "Made in 血汗工廠."
Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 03:56:00 AM
Quote from: SunDog on March 14, 2014, 03:52:25 AM
I know fabric maanufacture has gone a long way, mostly in the direction of south asia. But sure, new fabrics that hold up (and won't melt on me in a fire), I'm in, all for it.
(looks at tag of uniform shirt)
Hmmm. "Made in 血汗工廠."
Interesting mine says "Hecho en 血汗工廠" 8)
Quote from: shuman14 on March 14, 2014, 02:44:36 AM
Now if you want to buy uniforms at the low end of the scale for grey/white and look like a rag-a-muffin, then you're right it's not cost effective. ::)
Which, as I see it, is the main drawing card of the grey/white: it's cheap.
I have certainly not found many (if at all) who actually find it sharp-looking.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2014, 07:50:50 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on March 14, 2014, 02:44:36 AM
Now if you want to buy uniforms at the low end of the scale for grey/white and look like a rag-a-muffin, then you're right it's not cost effective. ::)
Which, as I see it, is the main drawing card of the grey/white: it's cheap.
I have certainly not found many (if at all) who actually find it sharp-looking.
That's what happens when you have a "uniform" that's not uniform.
If
any grey pair of slacks and
any white shirt with epaulets and flapped pockets meets the standard, then there really is no standard and many will look like rag-a-muffins.
Imagine an Airman showing up in any medium blue trousers and any light blue shirt with epaulets and pocket flaps to a squadron formation... think that would fly?
Uniformity is the key. If the grey/white corporate uniform is the equivalent of the USAF style uniform, then the quality of fabrics and manufacture of the clothing articles themselves should/must meet the same minimal standards of the USAF style uniform.
Meaning standards must be set and enforced. Such as a regulation/instruction that reads:
"Trousers will be of straight leg manufacture with two front slit pockets and two button tabbed rear pocket. Pleated trousers and flapped pockets are not authorized. Trousers will be manufactured in a 65% polyester and 35% rayon blend in Grey color shade #141907. No other shade or blend is authorized."
Or something similar, but the point being... everyone, who wears grey/white, will be in the SAME uniform. It's expected of those who wear the USAF style uniform, why is it NOT expected from those who wear the corporate uniform? ???
Shuman have you even cracked 39-1 at all? There is a set color and criteria for grey pants more so with the draft that will hopefully be implemented shortly. Again you do a whole lot of lip flapping on something you still know nothing about.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 08:56:51 PM
Shuman have you even cracked 39-1 at all? There is a set color and criteria for grey pants more so with the draft that will hopefully be implemented shortly. Again you do a whole lot of lip flapping on something you still know nothing about.
There are
guidelines, but not
specifics.As Shuman said, any pair of blue trousers will
not do for the AF uniform, but I have seen more variations on grey trousers in CAP (Dickies, Dockers and basically anything you can buy at Goodwill/Salvation Army/St Vince's) than I can remember...some of them quite threadbare.
The ones I wear are true
uniform pants. I got them from a vendor in Great Britain that services law enforcement personnel. They are much sharper (and almost identical to the rank slides/nameplate) than most grey trousers I have seen. They cost a bit more, but it was worth it.
A big idea behind the G/W is
for them to be cheap and easily obtainable, which means uniformity (in all senses of the word) is rather secondary.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 08:56:51 PM
Shuman have you even cracked 39-1 at all? There is a set color and criteria for grey pants more so with the draft that will hopefully be implemented shortly. Again you do a whole lot of lip flapping on something you still know nothing about.
Yes I have and vague is a word I would use to describe the instructions for the grey/whites.
Also, one doesn't have to be a member of an organization, to observe said organization at a function and see that the members are all in different shades of grey, different cuts of shirts, and some have pleated dress pants on, some tactical pants and others grey dockers.
If that's "right" in your mind, I don't know what to tell you.
I figured I would post the requirements for the gray pants:
Quote from: Current CAPM 39-1
Of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Commercial dress trousers (No jeans or causal trousers made of cotton or twill fabric.) Front of trouser legs rests on the front of shoe or boot. No bunching at waist or sagging at seat. Trousers must be worn at natural waist.
Quote from: Draft CAPM 39-1
4.2.5.5 Trousers. Medium gray (solid color). Wool, polyester‐wool blend or polyester‐ cotton trousers. Either slim, straight leg or loose fit with or without pleats or cuffs is allowed. 100% cotton, cargo, cotton twill weave trousers, jeans or casual trousers are not authorized with the aviator shirt uniform. "Chinos" style slacks are not authorized with the aviator shirt uniform
^^^ See my point, vague enough to provide a plethora of options so that uniformity is completely lost.
Now imagine a USAF formation with the same instructions for the medium blue pants/trousers.
It would look like a soup sandwich.
So again, how is THAT good for CAP and the professional image that CAP wants to present? ???
The Army white shirt is a great alternative to the Vanguard Aviator. Better fabric, lower price, longer shelf life.
Seems clear to me what the paragraph is saying. What it boils down to is membership not asking the questions and leadership not enforcing the standard. If membership doesn't read the applicable instructions and leadership doesn't enforce the standard this is what you get.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 05:36:04 PM
Seems clear to me what the paragraph is saying. What it boils down to is membership not asking the questions and leadership not enforcing the standard. If membership doesn't read the applicable instructions and leadership doesn't enforce the standard this is what you get.
I think you are missing what he is saying. He is saying:
With the service pants, there is shade 1620 and 1625 only. The cut and design of the pants are the same for all male personnel and all female personnel. Those are the only two options you have.
For the corporate uniform you can wear:
Cotton blend
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with cuffs
Flannel
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with cuffs
Tropical Worsted
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with cuffs
Other Commercial blend 1:
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with cuffs
Other Commercial blend 2
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 1 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 1 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 2 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 2 with no pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with no cuff
Medium gray shade 3 with pleats with cuffs
Medium gray shade 3 with no pleats with cuffs
Etc.
You can have people in a formation, which are supposed to look uniform, in all of these combinations.
So while the standard allows all of these, he is suggesting to narrow the standard so that it is similar to the USAF style in which there are only two shades and really only 1 option if you wear the Service Dress Coat.
Quote from: shuman14 on March 16, 2014, 03:38:39 PMYes I have and vague is a word I would use to describe the instructions for the grey/whites.
Vague is also a word which describes your involvement in CAP.
Quote from: shuman14 on March 15, 2014, 06:24:25 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2014, 07:50:50 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on March 14, 2014, 02:44:36 AM
Now if you want to buy uniforms at the low end of the scale for grey/white and look like a rag-a-muffin, then you're right it's not cost effective. ::)
Which, as I see it, is the main drawing card of the grey/white: it's cheap.
I have certainly not found many (if at all) who actually find it sharp-looking.
That's what happens when you have a "uniform" that's not uniform.
If any grey pair of slacks and any white shirt with epaulets and flapped pockets meets the standard, then there really is no standard and many will look like rag-a-muffins.
Imagine an Airman showing up in any medium blue trousers and any light blue shirt with epaulets and pocket flaps to a squadron formation... think that would fly?
Uniformity is the key. If the grey/white corporate uniform is the equivalent of the USAF style uniform, then the quality of fabrics and manufacture of the clothing articles themselves should/must meet the same minimal standards of the USAF style uniform.
Meaning standards must be set and enforced. Such as a regulation/instruction that reads:
"Trousers will be of straight leg manufacture with two front slit pockets and two button tabbed rear pocket. Pleated trousers and flapped pockets are not authorized. Trousers will be manufactured in a 65% polyester and 35% rayon blend in Grey color shade #141907. No other shade or blend is authorized."
Or something similar, but the point being... everyone, who wears grey/white, will be in the SAME uniform. It's expected of those who wear the USAF style uniform, why is it NOT expected from those who wear the corporate uniform? ???
Ewwww. . .nope, no poly. . .I got fire fear, having seen the effects of melt. I get lazy and wear the polo and gray slacks in the airplane when it gets hot, but it creeps me out a bit. I'm was gonna ditch the "standard" polo this summer, and go with an all cotton polo, as are my gray flying slacks. It actually doesn't cost that much to have a cotton clone of the polo whipped up.
Still, to keep the peace, the other option could have been to fly exclusively in flight suit, if your idea came to fruition.
Eleventy Twelveteen Million GA pilots fly in shorts and a T-Shirt from the FBO, CAP for some reason needs Nomex.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 06:40:57 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on March 16, 2014, 03:38:39 PMYes I have and vague is a word I would use to describe the instructions for the grey/whites.
Vague is also a word which describes your involvement in CAP.
Personal attack aside... it still doesn't change the fact the instruction is vague and does not promote uniformity among CAP members that choose the Corporate uniform option.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 06:57:25 PM
Eleventy Twelveteen Million GA pilots fly in shorts and a T-Shirt from the FBO, CAP for some reason needs Nomex.
That's because the CAP pilots are at 500 ft AGL at the low end of the power curve, where the room for error is pretty darn small, looking for those GA pilots.
The type of flying CAP does tends to be a lot less forgiving of errors. So we compromise by wearing PPE, aka NOMEX flightsuits and gloves.
You know, that ORM stuff...
Quote from: PHall on March 16, 2014, 08:29:09 PM
You know, that ORM affectation stuff...
FTFY.
Unfortunately statistics, probability, and facts fly directly in the face of the assertions that Nomex is anything but a hardkewl affectation in a CAP context.
QuoteEwwww. . .nope, no poly. . .I got fire fear, having seen the effects of melt. I get lazy and wear the polo and gray slacks in the airplane when it gets hot, but it creeps me out a bit. I'm was gonna ditch the "standard" polo this summer, and go with an all cotton polo, as are my gray flying slacks. It actually doesn't cost that much to have a cotton clone of the polo whipped up.
Still, to keep the peace, the other option could have been to fly exclusively in flight suit, if your idea came to fruition.
Why would you want to fly in a Service uniform? ???
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 06:57:25 PMEleventy Twelveteen Million GA pilots fly in shorts and a T-Shirt from the FBO, CAP for some reason needs Nomex.
Add to that the other 11tybillion that board airliners every year.
That's it, I'm showing up at the gate in nomex. When they ask me... "Just incase this thing crashes, I'll have -> <- that much more chance at surviving the flash so I can help whoever isn't melted to their seat, out the door.. that's why I picked the exit row!"
I bet I'll miss that flight.. and be stamped SSSS next time I go. ;)
Has anyone considered that there was some leeway given in the pants due to the fact that the uniform's target wearers are all built differently? Look, I weigh 300lbs, if you ask me to wear anything cut the same way for a bazillion people, it's either not going to fit or look horrible. At least with the GWs I can go to my local JC Penny and wear what fits and looks best on me.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled session of "bigger fish to fry".
A valid point - the whites are intended for the average member to be able to go into their closet and find something
approximating most of the parts.
They didn't originate as a color-alternative to the blues, the original incarnation only had a black nameplate, and then
evolpromised® over time in order to quell the more then 50% of the adult members who found they could not
participate in the bling fest.
"evolpromised®" is registered trademark of eClipseco Mining and Heavy Machinery Consortium. All Rights Reserved. Let eClipseco service all of your rhetoric and propaganda needs!
That's how the G/W was when I first joined CAP.
I remember actually feeling that those who had/chose to wear that kit were being discriminated against, because they had no way to wear the awards they had earned.
My opinion of the G/W is well-known, but at least the current form allows CAP members to wear their CAP awards/speciality badges, which is an improvement.
Quote from: shuman14 on March 16, 2014, 08:34:52 PM
QuoteEwwww. . .nope, no poly. . .I got fire fear, having seen the effects of melt. I get lazy and wear the polo and gray slacks in the airplane when it gets hot, but it creeps me out a bit. I'm was gonna ditch the "standard" polo this summer, and go with an all cotton polo, as are my gray flying slacks. It actually doesn't cost that much to have a cotton clone of the polo whipped up.
Still, to keep the peace, the other option could have been to fly exclusively in flight suit, if your idea came to fruition.
Why would you want to fly in a Service uniform? ???
Because they did in WWI? ???
Quote from: Private Investigator on March 17, 2014, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on March 16, 2014, 08:34:52 PM
QuoteEwwww. . .nope, no poly. . .I got fire fear, having seen the effects of melt. I get lazy and wear the polo and gray slacks in the airplane when it gets hot, but it creeps me out a bit. I'm was gonna ditch the "standard" polo this summer, and go with an all cotton polo, as are my gray flying slacks. It actually doesn't cost that much to have a cotton clone of the polo whipped up.
Still, to keep the peace, the other option could have been to fly exclusively in flight suit, if your idea came to fruition.
Why would you want to fly in a Service uniform? ???
Because they did in WWI? ???
As did the RAF/Commonwealth in WWII...
(http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607990382177158127&pid=15.1)
(My compliments on this very well-modelled Flying Officer, Battle of Britain era)
...until they got their own blue battledress (patterned after the British Army's, and from whence our own "Ike" jackets came), shown by this Canadian Flight Sergeant:
(http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/book_images/high/v3_c5_s01_ss02_01.jpg)
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 16, 2014, 08:52:08 PM
Has anyone considered that there was some leeway given in the pants due to the fact that the uniform's target wearers are all built differently? Look, I weigh 300lbs, if you ask me to wear anything cut the same way for a bazillion people, it's either not going to fit or look horrible. At least with the GWs I can go to my local JC Penny and wear what fits and looks best on me.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled session of "bigger fish to fry".
The "high end" grey trousers we are discussing are commercially available law enforcement uniform trousers.
I've seen some cops that are well over 300 lbs, Both Hulk Hogan types and Fat Albert types.
So I'm pretty sure they could be acquired in the size that you need.
If CAP was to standardize a grey color shade and style cut of course.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 08:59:08 PM
A valid point - the whites are intended for the average member to be able to go into their closet and find something
approximating most of the parts.
They didn't originate as a color-alternative to the blues, the original incarnation only had a black nameplate, and then
evolpromised® over time in order to quell the more then 50% of the adult members who found they could not
participate in the bling fest.
"evolpromised®" is registered trademark of eClipseco Mining and Heavy Machinery Consortium. All Rights Reserved. Let eClipseco service all of your rhetoric and propaganda needs!
But the point is Sir that they HAVE morphed into a "color-alternative" corporate uniform.
Shouldn't that uniform have uniformity across CAP?
Quote from: Private Investigator on March 17, 2014, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on March 16, 2014, 08:34:52 PM
QuoteEwwww. . .nope, no poly. . .I got fire fear, having seen the effects of melt. I get lazy and wear the polo and gray slacks in the airplane when it gets hot, but it creeps me out a bit. I'm was gonna ditch the "standard" polo this summer, and go with an all cotton polo, as are my gray flying slacks. It actually doesn't cost that much to have a cotton clone of the polo whipped up.
Still, to keep the peace, the other option could have been to fly exclusively in flight suit, if your idea came to fruition.
Why would you want to fly in a Service uniform? ???
Because they did in WWI? ???
That was almost 100 years ago... why would you want to do that now? ???
Quote from: CyBorg on March 17, 2014, 09:40:13 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on March 17, 2014, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on March 16, 2014, 08:34:52 PM
QuoteEwwww. . .nope, no poly. . .I got fire fear, having seen the effects of melt. I get lazy and wear the polo and gray slacks in the airplane when it gets hot, but it creeps me out a bit. I'm was gonna ditch the "standard" polo this summer, and go with an all cotton polo, as are my gray flying slacks. It actually doesn't cost that much to have a cotton clone of the polo whipped up.
Still, to keep the peace, the other option could have been to fly exclusively in flight suit, if your idea came to fruition.
Why would you want to fly in a Service uniform? ???
Because they did in WWI? ???
As did the RAF/Commonwealth in WWII...
(http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607990382177158127&pid=15.1)
(My compliments on this very well-modelled Flying Officer, Battle of Britain era)
...until they got their own blue battledress (patterned after the British Army's, and from whence our own "Ike" jackets came), shown by this Canadian Flight Sergeant:
(http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/book_images/high/v3_c5_s01_ss02_01.jpg)
And that was over 70 years ago, again why today? ???
Quote from: shuman14 on March 19, 2014, 10:40:01 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 17, 2014, 09:40:13 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on March 17, 2014, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on March 16, 2014, 08:34:52 PM
QuoteEwwww. . .nope, no poly. . .I got fire fear, having seen the effects of melt. I get lazy and wear the polo and gray slacks in the airplane when it gets hot, but it creeps me out a bit. I'm was gonna ditch the "standard" polo this summer, and go with an all cotton polo, as are my gray flying slacks. It actually doesn't cost that much to have a cotton clone of the polo whipped up.
Still, to keep the peace, the other option could have been to fly exclusively in flight suit, if your idea came to fruition.
Why would you want to fly in a Service uniform? ???
Because they did in WWI? ???
As did the RAF/Commonwealth in WWII...
(http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607990382177158127&pid=15.1)
(My compliments on this very well-modelled Flying Officer, Battle of Britain era)
...until they got their own blue battledress (patterned after the British Army's, and from whence our own "Ike" jackets came), shown by this Canadian Flight Sergeant:
(http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/book_images/high/v3_c5_s01_ss02_01.jpg)
And that was over 70 years ago, again why today? ???
The same reason 'tactically cool' guys/gals wear Oakleys and others wear sunglasses hecho en China and bought for $5 at Walmart.
The photo is of the Andrews Composite Squadron commander (NatCap Wing). For several years he has been making a presentation on the Tuskegee Airman during Black History month to the squadrons in our wing. His father was one of the Tuskegee Airman and he speaks about their experiences during WW II. During the presentation, he wears a WW II CAP uniform and talks about the insignia and how it relates to current Air Force insignia.
Tom
He certainly does it well. Spit 'an polish and not a thread out of place.
Question: What is the single ribbon he is wearing?
Quote from: tcs on April 07, 2014, 07:16:24 PM
The photo is of the Andrews Composite Squadron commander (NatCap Wing). For several years he has been making a presentation on the Tuskegee Airman during Black History month to the squadrons in our wing. His father was one of the Tuskegee Airman and he speaks about their experiences during WW II. During the presentation, he wears a WW II CAP uniform and talks about the insignia and how it relates to current Air Force insignia.
Tom
Tom, thank you for sh :clap:aring and welcome aboard the CAP Talk
Quote from: tcs on April 07, 2014, 07:16:24 PM
The photo is of the Andrews Composite Squadron commander (NatCap Wing). For several years he has been making a presentation on the Tuskegee Airman during Black History month to the squadrons in our wing. His father was one of the Tuskegee Airman and he speaks about their experiences during WW II. During the presentation, he wears a WW II CAP uniform and talks about the insignia and how it relates to current Air Force insignia.
Tom
If he ever ventures to Michigan, there's a little composite squadron in the southwest corner that would host him in a heart-beat! :D
We've had a few visits by a couple Tuskegee Airmen locally over the years. Always a great experience.
Quote from: a2capt on April 07, 2014, 09:29:14 PM
We've had a few visits by a couple Tuskegee Airmen locally over the years. Always a great experience.
I would like to meet one of them, but unfortunately that's rapidly becoming unattainable. :(
One of them, Major Charles E. Hall, was from my wife's hometown. There is a street named after him.
Quote from: CyBorg on April 07, 2014, 07:22:15 PM
Question: What is the single ribbon he is wearing?
Can't quite tell in that picture due to the resolution being too low, but it almost looks like a NDSM.
Quote from: Panache on April 08, 2014, 04:06:57 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on April 07, 2014, 07:22:15 PM
Question: What is the single ribbon he is wearing?
Can't quite tell in that picture due to the resolution being too low, but it almost looks like a NDSM.
When did that uniform go away? The NDSM dates from 1953 onward.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 08, 2014, 04:25:53 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 08, 2014, 04:06:57 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on April 07, 2014, 07:22:15 PM
Question: What is the single ribbon he is wearing?
Can't quite tell in that picture due to the resolution being too low, but it almost looks like a NDSM.
When did that uniform go away? The NDSM dates from 1953 onward.
Looking at it from a color perspective, I almost think it could be a Missing Aircraft Ribbon, which has a burgundy hue to it similar to the look of the ribbon in question. However, according to
Civil Air Patrol Uniform Insignia Since 1941 (2009), that ribbon was created in 1954 (after the NDSM, incidentally). According to the same work, the US Army uniform was authorized until 1956.
It is a red service ribbon. You can see it better with this picture:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=240124886148747&set=pb.240101826151053.-2207520000.1396934148.&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=240124886148747&set=pb.240101826151053.-2207520000.1396934148.&type=3&theater)
Might be the WWII Victory Medal.
Assuming he is keeping in the Tuskegee Airman Mode.
Quote from: LSThiker on April 08, 2014, 05:21:25 AM
It is a red service ribbon. You can see it better with this picture:
No, I don't think it's a Red Service Ribbon. The RSR has white out edges, with a red center area. The ribbon here appears to have an outer red edge, going in with yellow/amber, and a blue center area.
I don't think it's the WWII Victory Medal either.
Maybe an Army Service Ribbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Service_Ribbon)? Seems to match the color pattern, but the ASR was established in 1981.... hmmmm....
Quote from: LSThiker on April 08, 2014, 05:21:25 AM
It is a red service ribbon. You can see it better with this picture:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=240124886148747&set=pb.240101826151053.-2207520000.1396934148.&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=240124886148747&set=pb.240101826151053.-2207520000.1396934148.&type=3&theater)
Still to blurry to determine. Remember, RS from then is not the same as RS today.
Now: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Redsvc.gif)
Then: (http://collectiblestfn.com/images/e/3213552492424040_0.jpg)
I did not take that into account. You may very well be right.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 08, 2014, 06:42:29 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on April 08, 2014, 05:21:25 AM
It is a red service ribbon. You can see it better with this picture:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=240124886148747&set=pb.240101826151053.-2207520000.1396934148.&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=240124886148747&set=pb.240101826151053.-2207520000.1396934148.&type=3&theater)
Still to blurry to determine. Remember, RS from then is not the same as RS today.
Now: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Redsvc.gif)
Then: (http://collectiblestfn.com/images/e/3213552492424040_0.jpg)
The RSR has had at least 3 versions: the 1944 version, with central prop in circle; the 1950's version with prop in the center and the current one, essentially the second version without prop.
Award criteria was different for different versions at different times.
For example, the WWII version was the second highest of three (Green, Red, Blue, with Blue highest) and was awarded based on HOURS of service.
The one with prop was the lowest of three (Red, White, Blue), was based on YEARS of service and was originally not available to cadets. It may have had a higher earning threshold than 2 years, I can't remember. A "Silver" service ribbon seems to be floating in my head, added to this version set, but I can't recall the criteria.
With both of the first two versions, only one was worn at a time, the highest. I think it was 1971 or so when the service ribbons were consolidated to one ribbon, Red, with clasps and numbers. Cadets became eligible then. The criteria remained the same when the prop was dropped from this and other ribbons, giving us the current version.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on April 08, 2014, 09:34:04 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on April 08, 2014, 06:42:29 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on April 08, 2014, 05:21:25 AM
It is a red service ribbon. You can see it better with this picture:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=240124886148747&set=pb.240101826151053.-2207520000.1396934148.&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=240124886148747&set=pb.240101826151053.-2207520000.1396934148.&type=3&theater)
Still to blurry to determine. Remember, RS from then is not the same as RS today.
Now: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Redsvc.gif)
Then: (http://collectiblestfn.com/images/e/3213552492424040_0.jpg)
The RSR has had at least 3 versions: the 1944 version, with central prop in circle; the 1950's version with prop in the center and the current one, essentially the second version without prop.
Award criteria was different for different versions at different times.
For example, the WWII version was the second highest of three (Green, Red, Blue, with Blue highest) and was awarded based on HOURS of service.
The one with prop was the lowest of three (Red, White, Blue), was based on YEARS of service and was originally not available to cadets. It may have had a higher earning threshold than 2 years, I can't remember. A "Silver" service ribbon seems to be floating in my head, added to this version set, but I can't recall the criteria.
With both of the first two versions, only one was worn at a time, the highest. I think it was 1971 or so when the service ribbons were consolidated to one ribbon, Red, with clasps and numbers. Cadets became eligible then. The criteria remained the same when the prop was dropped from this and other ribbons, giving us the current version.
Quote from: SarDragon
Still to blurry to determine. Remember, RS from then is not the same as RS today.
Yes I know the difference. Perhaps on your screen it is blurry. However on my mine I can clearly see the red outsides, white center, and blue disc. I cannot see the red prop but I assume it is there. It is a red service from that time period.
It is not a WW2 victory medal as the color scheme does not match.
Quote from: LSThiker on April 08, 2014, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: SarDragon
Still to blurry to determine. Remember, RS from then is not the same as RS today.
Yes I know the difference. Perhaps on your screen it is blurry. However on my mine I can clearly see the red outsides, white center, and blue disc. I cannot see the red prop but I assume it is there. It is a red service from that time period.
It is not a WW2 victory medal as the color scheme does not match.
Also, wearing the WWII Victory Medal as a sole ribbon would make for a very odd presentation.
wearing the WWII Victory Medal implies that you also have at least one of the three Theater medals (ETO, Asia-Pacific, or American Theater).
It is the 1944 Red Service Ribbon awarded to those who have performed a total of 500 hours of volunteer service in the CAP.
Quote from: MSG Mac on April 09, 2014, 12:13:17 AM
wearing the WWII Victory Medal implies that you also have at least one of the three Theater medals (ETO, Asia-Pacific, or American Theater).
Nope.
The American Theater needed a year's service to earn......but the Victory Medal only need one day.
So someone who gets sent to OTS say in early 45, never gets sent over seas and gets out out before his one year mark would get the Victory Medal and nothing else.
It is certainly not the current Army Service Ribbon. You can tell it's not just by glancing at it, looks nothing like the "pride" ribbon.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 09, 2014, 04:08:44 AM
Quote from: MSG Mac on April 09, 2014, 12:13:17 AM
wearing the WWII Victory Medal implies that you also have at least one of the three Theater medals (ETO, Asia-Pacific, or American Theater).
Nope.
The American Theater needed a year's service to earn......but the Victory Medal only need one day.
So someone who gets sent to OTS say in early 45, never gets sent over seas and gets out out before his one year mark would get the Victory Medal and nothing else.
My grandfather rates one 'cause the eligible dates were through DEC 1946. IIRC he didn't enter the Navy until 1946. He has the American Campaign, and European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign ribbons, but I'm not sure about those.