I noticed that Vanguard now has the new Aircrew Wings: regular size, miniature size, and embroidered, but no bullion for mess dress. There are no photos of the embroidered version yet. There are photos of the metal ones. I can't help but notice the difference between the star & wreath on the aircrew wings compared to those on all other wings. The star and wreath on the aircrew wings are considerably smaller. I guess the die is set now (literally), so this is how they'll be. For the sake of consistency, I wish they had the same size star and wreath as the rest of the wings.
(http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/q735/kpierson777/AircrewWings_zps34460bff.png) (http://s1356.photobucket.com/user/kpierson777/media/AircrewWings_zps34460bff.png.html)
I personally like the AC version over the "rest" of them.
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
Standards stifle creativity.
CAP should use Etsy.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 06, 2014, 01:32:12 PM
Standards stifle creativity.
CAP should use Etsy.
I mean, we basically do already.
<sarc>Forgive any ignorance on this, but what are the standards for this device? Did the CAPR 35-6 change, I missed it? </sarc>
Sigh.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
I totally agree. There doesn't seem to be very strong oversight for standardization of the badges. Similarly, the ground team badges lack consistency. There are different shaped wreaths for the metal and embroidered, both of which are different than the images in the uniform manual. I think the metal one is the only correct one, because it is the same shape as it ever was. All the others were mistakes that were allowed to happen. The EMT badges have the same differences.
(http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/q735/kpierson777/GTBadges_zps64fd7f70.png) (http://s1356.photobucket.com/user/kpierson777/media/GTBadges_zps64fd7f70.png.html)
The aerospace education badge and cadet programs badge have different colored stars to indicate the different ratings. The stars on the on the cadet programs badge match those on the leadership ribbon, which makes logical sense to me. In my opinion they got the stars wrong wrong on the aerospace education badges.
(http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/q735/kpierson777/AECPBadges_zpsc8ef0240.png) (http://s1356.photobucket.com/user/kpierson777/media/AECPBadges_zpsc8ef0240.png.html)
Why is it so hard to get these things standardized?
Quote from: Papabird on October 06, 2014, 04:50:12 PM
<sarc>Forgive any ignorance on this, but what are the standards for this device? Did the CAPR 35-6 change, I missed it? </sarc>
Sigh.
Before I answer, I have to know; does <sarc> mean sarcasm font?
Quote from: pierson777 on October 06, 2014, 05:10:04 PM
Quote from: Papabird on October 06, 2014, 04:50:12 PM
<sarc>Forgive any ignorance on this, but what are the standards for this device? Did the CAPR 35-6 change, I missed it? </sarc>
Sigh.
Before I answer, I have to know; does <sarc> mean sarcasm font?
Yes, it does. But in all seriousness, has anyone heard what the quals MAY be for this, since 35-6 hasn't changed since 2002?
Quote from: pierson777 on October 06, 2014, 05:08:24 PM
The aerospace education badge and cadet programs badge have different colored stars to indicate the different ratings. The stars on the on the cadet programs badge match those on the leadership ribbon, which makes logical sense to me. In my opinion they got the stars wrong wrong on the aerospace education badges.
(http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/q735/kpierson777/AECPBadges_zpsc8ef0240.png) (http://s1356.photobucket.com/user/kpierson777/media/AECPBadges_zpsc8ef0240.png.html)
Why is it so hard to get these things standardized?
Interestingly, the 1997 Uniform Manual was different than what is today:
Cadet Programs:
Basic: Blue Star
Senior: Bronze Star
Master: Gold Star
Aerospace:
Basic: Silver Star
Senior: Bronze Star
Master: Gold Star
It was not until 2005 when the Cadet Programs badge turned the "master" star to Silver. Why AE never made the switch is unknown to me. But it is probably because the basic badge is made with Silver so it might be confusing (and cost) to switch the Silver from Basic to Master. Why Cadet Programs decided to go to Silver is also unknown to me.
Quote from: Papabird on October 06, 2014, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: pierson777 on October 06, 2014, 05:10:04 PM
Quote from: Papabird on October 06, 2014, 04:50:12 PM
<sarc>Forgive any ignorance on this, but what are the standards for this device? Did the CAPR 35-6 change, I missed it? </sarc>
Sigh.
Before I answer, I have to know; does <sarc> mean sarcasm font?
Yes, it does. But in all seriousness, has anyone heard what the quals MAY be for this, since 35-6 hasn't changed since 2002?
Mike, Are you talking about the aircrew wings? I was in the first class to earn them at NESA this year, the requirements are anyone who is aircrew qualified, excluding observer and pilot. Those ratings include
Mission Scanner
Airborne Photographer
GIEEP Operator
High-bird Radio Operator
A couple others I cant think of at the moment
The question was brought up to Lt. Colonel John Desmarais, he said the those individuals in the 39-1 Committee, decided to release the manual without consulting with any other committees who are in charge of the various regulations and manuals.
Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on October 06, 2014, 06:40:43 PM
The question was brought up to Lt. Colonel John Desmarais, he said the those individuals in the 39-1 Committee, decided to release the manual without consulting with any other committees who are in charge of the various regulations and manuals.
I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say, that there was poor coordination. >:D
Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on October 06, 2014, 06:40:43 PM
The question was brought up to Lt. Colonel John Desmarais, he said the those individuals in the 39-1 Committee, decided to release the manual without consulting with any other committees who are in charge of the various regulations and manuals.
As one of "those individuals" at that time, I can say that is absolutely and wholly incorrect.
Further, so what? Now it's OPs' job to fix the regs.
So fix them, its been some 6 months.
Below is the criteria for the Aviation badge. See CAPM 39-1 CAP Uniform Manual 26 June 2014, page 139 to see the badge.
Once the following criteria has been met, a CAPF 2a must also be completed to make you eligible to wear the badge once all of the requirements as listed below are complete. The approval authority process requires the Aircrew Badge be submitted via CAPF 2a through the chain of command up to the Wing Commander for approval.
The Air crew badge is an aeronautical rating in three levels and may be earned by CAP Cadet and senior members who are qualified to perform specialized airborne tasks such as:
CAP Aircrew Rating
Mission Scanner (MS)
Aerial Digital Imaging System Operator (ADIS)
Airborne Photographer (AP)
ARCHER Operator (ARCHOPR)
ARCHER Trac Technician (ARCHTRK)
Geospatial Information Interoperability Exploitation Portable Operator (GIIEP)
Surrogate Unmanned Aerial System Green Flag Sensor Operator (GFSO)
Highbird Radio Operator (HRO)
CAP Senior Aircrew Rating: (basic badge with star)
1) Meet CAP aircrew rating requirements.
2) Have been an active flying CAP mission scanner for 3 years (this service need not be continuous).
3) Have a minimum of 100 hours certified flying time as CAP MS, ADIS, AP, ARCHOPR, ARCHTRK, GIIEP, GFSO or HRO.
4) Qualified as an ADIS, AP, ARCHOPR, ARCHTRK, GIIEP, GFSO or HRO
CAP Master Aircrew Rating: (basic badge with star and wreath)
1) Meet requirements for CAP senior aircrew rating.
2) Have been an active CAP mission scanner for 5 years (this service need not be continuous).
3) Have a minimum of 200 hours certified flying time as a CAP MS, ADIS, AP, ARCHOPR, ARCHTRK, GIIEP, GFSO or HRO.
4) Have a minimum of 20 sorties as a CAP ADIS, AP, ARCHOPR, ARCHTRK, GIIEP, GFSO or HRO on actual missions.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
So where do you place the blame... Scamguard or National HQ?
Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on October 06, 2014, 06:40:43 PM
Mike, Are you talking about the aircrew wings? I was in the first class to earn them at NESA this year, the requirements are anyone who is aircrew qualified, excluding observer and pilot. Those ratings include
Mission Scanner
Airborne Photographer
GIEEP Operator
High-bird Radio Operator
A couple others I cant think of at the moment
The question was brought up to Lt. Colonel John Desmarais, he said the those individuals in the 39-1 Committee, decided to release the manual without consulting with any other committees who are in charge of the various regulations and manuals.
Thanks Kirk, that is what I was wondering.
Quote from: GrimReaper on October 07, 2014, 11:52:35 AM
Below is the criteria for the Aviation badge. See CAPM 39-1 CAP Uniform Manual 26 June 2014, page 139 to see the badge.
Once the following criteria has been met, a CAPF 2a must also be completed to make you eligible to wear the badge once all of the requirements as listed below are complete. The approval authority process requires the Aircrew Badge be submitted via CAPF 2a through the chain of command up to the Wing Commander for approval.
Good luck with that. The approving authority in my wing said they will not approve any requests until this is properly listed in CAPR 35-6 and the Ops Quals module, and I cannot imagine that they're the only ones taking that stance.
Quote from: GrimReaper on October 07, 2014, 11:52:35 AM
Below is the criteria for the Aviation badge. See CAPM 39-1 CAP Uniform Manual 26 June 2014, page 139 to see the badge.
You have a regulatory source for that?
So how do they count "Hours" for AP?
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
So where do you place the blame... Scamguard or National HQ?
First of all, you're a Major with the U.S. Army Reserve and a CAP National Patron, so please keep your posts professional.
CAPM 39-1 clearly depicts an image of these Aircrew Wings and offers overall length for regular and miniature size badges. Vanguard could have used that as a guideline, however the image itself doesn't constitute a standard or specification.
The responsibility to issue specifications for CAP insignias and to provide adequate oversight resides in NHQ. As the sole contractor/vendor for these insignias, Vanguard also has a responsibility to seek clarification when needed and to have quality control measures in place to ensure specifications are met. But that doesn't relief NHQ from its overall quality assurance responsibility. It's a shared responsibility.
Here are the links from CAP HQ about the AC Wings
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/1036/0/filename/CAP+Air+Crew+Badge.pdf (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/1036/0/filename/CAP+Air+Crew+Badge.pdf)
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/1035/0/filename/Badges+39-1+%28Attachment+7%29.pdf (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/1035/0/filename/Badges+39-1+%28Attachment+7%29.pdf)
Quote from: GrimReaper on October 07, 2014, 02:36:57 PM
Here are the links from CAP HQ about the AC Wings
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/1036/0/filename/CAP+Air+Crew+Badge.pdf (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/1036/0/filename/CAP+Air+Crew+Badge.pdf)
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/1035/0/filename/Badges+39-1+%28Attachment+7%29.pdf (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/1035/0/filename/Badges+39-1+%28Attachment+7%29.pdf)
OK, those are neither regulatory, nor is there any reference to a CAPF2A for award.
This is where I got the info originally. Yes, I know this is not regulatory.
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2649/kw/aircrew%20wings (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2649/kw/aircrew%20wings)
Quote from: THRAWN on October 07, 2014, 01:56:11 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 07, 2014, 01:41:15 PM
So how do they count "Hours" for AP?
Keep a logbook.
So, keep a logbook of how many hours you are on a Sortie, AP or not? Keep a log of when you are on a AP Sortie? Do all of the hours combined, Eg. Spotter, Scanner, AP, High Bird etc
Quote from: JeffDG on October 07, 2014, 02:43:51 PM
OK, those are neither regulatory, nor is there any reference to a CAPF2A for award.
Nor are they included in with the other awards such as MO or GTM in OPS Quals.
Frankly, a Unit or Wing CC would be well within their authority not to award them or allow their wear
until this is fixed, and if it's to make a point to NHQ about simple things being made too difficult
because "A doesn't talk to B before changing things" then so be it.
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 07, 2014, 03:34:23 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on October 07, 2014, 01:56:11 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 07, 2014, 01:41:15 PM
So how do they count "Hours" for AP?
Keep a logbook.
So, keep a logbook of how many hours you are on a Sortie, AP or not? Keep a log of when you are on a AP Sortie? Do all of the hours combined, Eg. Spotter, Scanner, AP, High Bird etc
Looks to me like you'd make a notation in your logbook anytime you perform as any of the specialties listed in the AC definition (i.e. Scanner, AP, etc.). If you look at the criteria for the senior and master, it looks like you can combine the hours of any of the specialties.
This is beating the horse a bit more, but there really needs to be a reg written on this. The uni manual has been out for almost a year....
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
So where do you place the blame... Scamguard or National HQ?
National HQ for not presenting Scamguard with a template: "these is what they shall look like and do not deviate from it, not even one feather." Unless, of course, they
did, and Scamguard just chose to ignore it.
Scamguard for producing cheap crap that just looks bad and unprofessional and getting by with it because they know they're the only game in town.
So, I would say 50/50.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 07, 2014, 01:54:59 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
So where do you place the blame... Scamguard or National HQ?
First of all, you're a Major with the U.S. Army Reserve and a CAP National Patron, so please keep your posts professional.
CAPM 39-1 clearly depicts an image of these Aircrew Wings and offers overall length for regular and miniature size badges. Vanguard could have used that as a guideline, however the image itself doesn't constitute a standard or specification.
The responsibility to issue specifications for CAP insignias and to provide adequate oversight resides in NHQ. As the sole contractor/vendor for these insignias, Vanguard also has a responsibility to seek clarification when needed and to have quality control measures in place to ensure specifications are met. But that doesn't relief NHQ from its overall quality assurance responsibility. It's a shared responsibility.
So you blame both, got it.
Quote from: CyBorg on October 07, 2014, 05:12:55 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
So where do you place the blame... Scamguard or National HQ?
National HQ for not presenting Scamguard with a template: "these is what they shall look like and do not deviate from it, not even one feather." Unless, of course, they did, and Scamguard just chose to ignore it.
Scamguard for producing cheap crap that just looks bad and unprofessional and getting by with it because they know they're the only game in town.
So, I would say 50/50.
Cyborg, don't say Scamguard anymore... it's unprofessional and someone may get a offended by your honesty. ;)
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 07, 2014, 01:54:59 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
So where do you place the blame... Scamguard or National HQ?
First of all, you're a Major with the U.S. Army Reserve and a CAP National Patron, so please keep your posts professional.
CAPM 39-1 clearly depicts an image of these Aircrew Wings and offers overall length for regular and miniature size badges. Vanguard could have used that as a guideline, however the image itself doesn't constitute a standard or specification.
The responsibility to issue specifications for CAP insignias and to provide adequate oversight resides in NHQ. As the sole contractor/vendor for these insignias, Vanguard also has a responsibility to seek clarification when needed and to have quality control measures in place to ensure specifications are met. But that doesn't relief NHQ from its overall quality assurance responsibility. It's a shared responsibility.
So you blame both, got it.
I'm not blaming anyone, but merely stating that they're both responsible for getting this done right. That said, NHQ is ultimately responsible for ensuring standards and specifications are met.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on October 07, 2014, 05:12:55 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
So where do you place the blame... Scamguard or National HQ?
National HQ for not presenting Scamguard with a template: "these is what they shall look like and do not deviate from it, not even one feather." Unless, of course, they did, and Scamguard just chose to ignore it.
Scamguard for producing cheap crap that just looks bad and unprofessional and getting by with it because they know they're the only game in town.
So, I would say 50/50.
Cyborg, don't say Scamguard anymore... it's unprofessional and someone may get a offended by your honesty. ;)
I'm not offended; just calling out. You're a military officer and, as such, are held at higher standard.
Quote from: THRAWN on October 07, 2014, 04:30:00 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 07, 2014, 03:34:23 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on October 07, 2014, 01:56:11 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 07, 2014, 01:41:15 PM
So how do they count "Hours" for AP?
Keep a logbook.
So, keep a logbook of how many hours you are on a Sortie, AP or not? Keep a log of when you are on a AP Sortie? Do all of the hours combined, Eg. Spotter, Scanner, AP, High Bird etc
Looks to me like you'd make a notation in your logbook anytime you perform as any of the specialties listed in the AC definition (i.e. Scanner, AP, etc.). If you look at the criteria for the senior and master, it looks like you can combine the hours of any of the specialties.
This is beating the horse a bit more, but there really needs to be a reg written on this. The uni manual has been out for almost a year....
Thank you Thrawn, I dont have nearly enough hours for the Senior Rating or Master, it was just to clear things up. I actually dont have any Do Hickies on my Uniform. I am about to sew on my FMF Pin and that will be it for awhile.
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 07, 2014, 03:34:23 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on October 07, 2014, 01:56:11 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 07, 2014, 01:41:15 PM
So how do they count "Hours" for AP?
Keep a logbook.
So, keep a logbook of how many hours you are on a Sortie, AP or not? Keep a log of when you are on a AP Sortie? Do all of the hours combined, Eg. Spotter, Scanner, AP, High Bird etc
Keep a logbook of ALL flying you do in CAP. Trust me, at some point in the future you will be very glad you did.
Vanguard sells a nice scanner observer log book with places to log you observer hours and scanner hours
Quote from: lordmonar on October 08, 2014, 03:04:03 AM
Vanguard sells a nice scanner observer log book with places to log you observer hours and scanner hours
+1
I got one and it is better than a diary. Plus it helps me recall the various missions including the "dam" mission I was on. 8)
Yep...what they said....
Quote from: lordmonar on October 08, 2014, 03:04:03 AM
Vanguard sells a nice scanner observer log book with places to log you observer hours and scanner hours
http://myflightbook.com (http://myflightbook.com) is an incredibly flexible online logbook that would handle MO/MS stuff.
A just a spreadsheet in GDocs.
I've started them a bunch of times, I even have one that is supposed to track all of my CAP
activity from meetings to missions "just because", but in the end they are never current
because:
I don't care enough to keep them updated.
No one else does either.
It's one thing to want the basic badge, beyond that ((*yawn*)). I'll take a SAR ribbon
over the hours star all day.
I just got myself the GT logbook. Now to go backfill the 3 finds I had from 2008 and 2013. :)
Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on October 06, 2014, 06:40:43 PM
The question was brought up to Lt. Colonel John Desmarais
I bet Mr. Desmarais would like to know that as a paid, non-uniformed national director, he's outranked by wing commanders.... >:D
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 07, 2014, 06:55:03 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on October 07, 2014, 05:12:55 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
Regardless of size and preference, all CAP aeronautical wings need to be standardized.
So where do you place the blame... Scamguard or National HQ?
National HQ for not presenting Scamguard with a template: "these is what they shall look like and do not deviate from it, not even one feather." Unless, of course, they did, and Scamguard just chose to ignore it.
Scamguard for producing cheap crap that just looks bad and unprofessional and getting by with it because they know they're the only game in town.
So, I would say 50/50.
Cyborg, don't say Scamguard anymore... it's unprofessional and someone may get a offended by your honesty. ;)
I'm not offended; just calling out. You're a military officer and, as such, are held at higher standard.
Much the same as Vanguard needs to held to a higher standard? I'm just saying. ;)
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on October 10, 2014, 02:14:35 AM
Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on October 06, 2014, 06:40:43 PM
The question was brought up to Lt. Colonel John Desmarais
I bet Mr. Desmarais would like to know that as a paid, non-uniformed national director, he's outranked by wing commanders.... >:D
He's also a dues-paying volunteer member serving in the grade of Lt. Col.
Getting back on topic...
I got mine and they are pretty good quality to be honest.
So I wonder....I hold a senior rating as an observer, but the 101 reflects scanner as well. Do I purchase these wings for kicks even though you have to wear the highest of the two? Technically I'm an aircrew member, too.
No.
You don't HAVE to wear the higher of the two (three)...it is completely up to wearers choice of which ONE you are going to wear.
Quote from: flyboy1 on October 16, 2014, 01:31:39 AM
So I wonder....I hold a senior rating as an observer, but the 101 reflects scanner as well. Do I purchase these wings for kicks even though you have to wear the highest of the two? Technically I'm an aircrew member, too.
I'm going to admit before asking this that I know the basic answer - "Check the regs!" - but I wanted to chime in with this:
If you (like me) have a senior observer rating, doesn't that mean you also, by definition, have a senior Air Crew rating?
Food for thought ...
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on October 16, 2014, 10:02:46 AM
Quote from: flyboy1 on October 16, 2014, 01:31:39 AM
So I wonder....I hold a senior rating as an observer, but the 101 reflects scanner as well. Do I purchase these wings for kicks even though you have to wear the highest of the two? Technically I'm an aircrew member, too.
I'm going to admit before asking this that I know the basic answer - "Check the regs!" - but I wanted to chime in with this:
If you (like me) have a senior observer rating, doesn't that mean you also, by definition, have a senior Air Crew rating?
Food for thought ...
Jack
No.....observer wings....come from observer sorties. AC wings come for "scanner" sorties....so you have senior observer wings....that is 100 hours in the right seat.....but you may only have 10 hours in the back seat. So you qualify for the SR observer wings and just the AC wings.
Quote from: pierson777 on October 06, 2014, 05:08:24 PM
I totally agree. There doesn't seem to be very strong oversight for standardization of the badges. Similarly, the ground team badges lack consistency. There are different shaped wreaths for the metal and embroidered, both of which are different than the images in the uniform manual. I think the metal one is the only correct one, because it is the same shape as it ever was. All the others were mistakes that were allowed to happen. The EMT badges have the same differences.
(http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/q735/kpierson777/GTBadges_zps64fd7f70.png) (http://s1356.photobucket.com/user/kpierson777/media/GTBadges_zps64fd7f70.png.html)
I have to say that I think... key word THINK... the CAP manual graphic is what the GT badge should look like. It matches the AF's speciality badges in size and shape. The metal badge is close but clearly not the same, and the embroidered version is just horrible.
^^Quite logical indeed.
The embroidered one is quite awful.
(However, one must be careful with criticism of VG here on CT)
At least in terms of the historical precedence from the last two decades, the one on the left is the correct shape.
Going back to the BK2K catalog which features a subdued version of the GT badge and bright version of
the EMT badge, both feature the more circular shape, the same goes for the embroidered version of both.
The embroidered one is clearly incorrect with the laurels being open on the top and the GT being light blue.
The image on the right looks like it came from a set of badge images produced about 10 years ago by someone
in FLWG. Many were re-drawn "interpretations" with much better overall quality, but incorrect details and shapes.
Much like the dark blue heavily pixelated and "chromed" abomination of the Happ Arnold wings that wandered all
over CAP websites and presentations (and which is still in use today, despite being prohibited for CAP use several years
ago) these images have creeped into members image folders, and have been copy/pasted into all sorts of documents.
How is there >not< a simple specification for these insignia?
CAP purports 60,000 members, yet is seemingly incapable of finding anyone who can create the
style guides and insignia specification manuals necessary to fix these issues (I type this knowing full
well there are a number of members on this forum who could do it in a weekend).
Quote from: Eclipse on October 29, 2014, 02:14:46 PM
At least in terms of the historical precedence from the last two decades, the one on the left is the correct shape.
Going back to the BK2K catalog which features a subdued version of the GT badge and bright version of
the EMT badge, both feature the more circular shape, the same goes for the embroidered version of both.
The embroidered one is clearly incorrect with the laurels being open on the top and the GT being light blue.
The image on the right looks like it came from a set of badge images produced about 10 years ago by someone
in FLWG. Many were re-drawn "interpretations" with much better overall quality, but incorrect details and shapes.
Much like the dark blue heavily pixelated and "chromed" abomination of the Happ Arnold wings that wandered all
over CAP websites and presentations (and which is still in use today, despite being prohibited for CAP use several years
ago) these images have creeped into members image folders, and have been copy/pasted into all sorts of documents.
How is there >not< a simple specification for these insignia?
CAP purports 60,000 members, yet is seemingly incapable of finding anyone who can create the
style guides and insignia specification manuals necessary to fix these issues (I type this knowing full
well there are a number of members on this forum who could do it in a weekend).
When do you start?
Sometime after anyone cares what I think...
Quote from: Eclipse on October 29, 2014, 04:38:35 PM
Sometime after anyone cares what I think...
Interesting thing to note. I saw a Vanguard embroidered polo the other day with the Commander insignia. It looked identical to the metal insignia! So, if they can embroidered that on a polo in near perfect replication, why can't they make the sew on version that doesn't looks like a smeared copy of a photocopy!
To me, it proves that it is possible for Vanguard to do a decent job, they just don't care about the "cheap" BDU/BBDU sew on insignia. But pay $8.00 on a polo, they will do it right!
It's most likely different machines and possibly even contractors.
The insignia are done on a continuous strip in quantity and then cut apart, while the shirts have to be
done one at a time.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 29, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
It's most likely different machines and possibly even contractors.
The insignia are done on a continuous strip in quantity and then cut apart, while the shirts have to be
done one at a time.
Very true, but shouldn't they QC/QA to the same quality? The difference is night and day between the two.
Quote from: Papabird on October 29, 2014, 06:36:20 PM
Very true, but shouldn't they QC/QA to the same quality?
Yep, but that's been the argument all along. VG is good about replacing stuff that members say is sub-standard,
but it should never get mailed in the first place.