Guidelines for creating patches

[Private Investigator]

I had a Unit patch project in 2007. I was told as long as it did not have any copyrighted images, you can put in anything on it. Letterhead with short explaination and page 2 was the image of the purposed patch. Done deal. As of today, no Wing, as far as I know, has anything in writing regarding Unit patches.

"Anything" as in an official process?

My wing has a 39-1 supp (currently a 404 for some reason) with the approved insignia and a Pamphlet on the approval process.

Google CAP Squadron patches and you get everything except "Hello Kitty", which is reserved only for 'overseas squadrons'. 

[Eclipse]

Why?

The Unit CC believes a high percentage of female Veterans have breast cancer so they want to add "pink" to the Unit patch. How would like make sense? Or the new CC wants to change the patch because the previous CC changed the patch and the new CC wants to have the same patch when he was a Cadet.

Because he's the commander, and if he feels the existing insignia is inappropriate / outdated / whatever, it should
be his call to make the case to the Wing CC that a new one is warranted, and that authority should stay at the wing level,
not be usurped by a directive of the Historians.

Yes, there are legitimate issues of cost and "not invented here" syndrome - address those as exceptions.  Just because something
is "olde" doesn't make it "good", and one of the biggest issues we have with insignia is that many of them are the product
of hand-drawings by people with little artistic talent or knowledge of the guidelines.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is whether updated art and corresponding use of that insignia constitutes
a "new" image.   Again, a >lot< of the existing insignia are degraded multi-generational images of hand-drawings,
where the elements have become so distorted as to be unrecognizable.  Does merely fixing those elements so
everything is "tight and right" require new approvals?

[Private Investigator]

Why?

The Unit CC believes a high percentage of female Veterans have breast cancer so they want to add "pink" to the Unit patch. How would like make sense? Or the new CC wants to change the patch because the previous CC changed the patch and the new CC wants to have the same patch when he was a Cadet.

Because he's the commander, and if he feels the existing insignia is inappropriate / outdated / whatever, it should
be his call to make the case to the Wing CC that a new one is warranted, and that authority should stay at the wing level,
not be usurped by a directive of the Historians.

Yes, there are legitimate issues of cost and "not invented here" syndrome - address those as exceptions.  Just because something
is "olde" doesn't make it "good", and one of the biggest issues we have with insignia is that many of them are the product
of hand-drawings by people with little artistic talent or knowledge of the guidelines.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is whether updated art and corresponding use of that insignia constitutes
a "new" image.   Again, a >lot< of the existing insignia are degraded multi-generational images of hand-drawings,
where the elements have become so distorted as to be unrecognizable.  Does merely fixing those elements so
everything is "tight and right" require new approvals?

If all Commanders were as good as you and I were, no issue. But I like and go by the "rule of five". That fifth commander is always a goofball.

Some people have really great concepts for a 'professional' appearing patch. Others I think just want to be, 'the guy that did our patch'. Kind of along the line of the new pitbull on the block marking his turf.    

[Eclipse]

I don't disagree, which is why the decision should be left to the respective wing commander - the verbiage, as written,
even though I can see the wiggle room intended, will be used to deny new requests by people who simply don't want to
be bothered.

And saying major charter changes don't justify a new insignia are simply incorrect.

Also, while we're discussing the draft...

"emblem" and "insignia" are not interchangeable in this context.

[a2capt]

I dunno, I see this whole thing as someone trying to invent procedure to justify their existence, by producing bureaucratic hoops and hurdles, and ultimately a backlog. A product of Not Invented Here.

Approval of things should rest at the command level. Not beside it.

[arajca]

While guidelines are good for this type of thing, the draft looks like someone played copy/paste with the Air Force reg on organizational emblems. They should be STARTING point with several changes to account for the uniqueness of CAP as compared to AF units. Commander's changing emblems and patches willy-nilly or at their whim is not a good idea, neither is changing it due to a new commander. However, a major change, say from a composite sqdn to a senior sqdn would be worthy of a new patch especially if the old one says "Upper Snow Field Comp. Sqdn" and is a decidedly cadet focus symbol. At a minimum, the unit name would need to be changed and the old patches replaced. Consider that the CAP unit naming conventions recommend using location in the unit name (ref. CAPR 20-3, Section 5, para a. 1)) whereas Air Force naming conventions prohibit using locale specific identifiers. A unit moves from one town to another could easily justify a name change, if the town name is in the unit name. Again, requiring a new patch for the new name at a minimum.

Also, if a unit in a town closes and a new unit is rechartered several years (or more) later, do they have to use the old unit's emblem?

[AlphaSigOU]

My pet peeve for the design of unit patches is placing mottos, squadron names etc. within the body of the shield. That's what the scroll on the emblem's for, people!

[a2capt]

Is that in writing someplace? "Do not put any text inside here?"

[Tim Day]

Our unit used the AF heraldry instruction as a guideline in lieu of an actual CAP instruction. We didn't view the AF instruction as binding on us, but reasoned that it was as good a guide as any since we're, you know, their auxiliary.

We proposed a design that reflected an original unit design (previous to our then-current noncompliant insignia) but was updated with CAP/AF colors and a compliant size and shape.

We moved all the text to the scrolls and translated the motto to English per the AF instruction. Keeping to the limits on character size was impossible with a long squadron name (Prince William Composite Squadron), at least as far as we could tell.

Approval was obtained via memo routed through Group to Wing, with an email response from Wing Commander. The memo included our official explanation of the meaning of the insignia, which again was an update to our previous explanation.

PM or email me if you'd like a copy of the memo.

[Private Investigator]

Also, if a unit in a town closes and a new unit is rechartered several years (or more) later, do they have to use the old unit's emblem?

No.

OTOH, some Units are in "denial" mode. 

[Private Investigator]

My pet peeve for the design of unit patches is placing mottos, squadron names etc. within the body of the shield. That's what the scroll on the emblem's for, people!

Chuck, BTW, The TXWG, Group 3 patch is really impressive. Job well done sir.   :clap:

[Mustang]

In reference to the last paragraph - a unit CC should have the right and authority to change the unit insignia any time he wants to.

Strong non-concur. The unit commander is the temporary custodian of his/her unit, not the owner.  Which is why all changes now require wing commander approval. And really, I would prefer another level of approval from a national heraldry management office.