How Do We Stop Fake Patches?
Posted in Patch Collecting by John E. Pannell on February 7th, 2007 at 6:36 am I started drafting this over a week ago. Before I was able to finish it, Bob McCanless took away some of my fire on his blog. You may want to read his post before reading further.
Recently an acquaintance of mine wrote me with a fairly simple and specific question. I went off into a bit of rant, generalizing the question. In the process I generalized the question and went astray. I think he was a bit taken aback.
He had asked if putting an image of a certain patch on this website would make it posible for the patch to be faked. Unfortunately, given today’s computer technology, the short answer is “yes”. In fact I am fairly certain that patches have been faked with the the aid of images on this site. This belief was supported by the pressence of a fake with some basic flaws that could be blamed on the less than great quality of the image I have for the patch in question.
Inexpensively produced computer designed issues are prime candidates for a later faker of patches. This style of production is easily replicated. It is easy to make a counterfeit or fake. If you want to reduce the likelihood of someone later producing a good fake of your patches then consider using a domestic manufacturer who still produces patches on “swiss” looms.
Related to the counterfeit issues — those made at a later date by someone other than the original producer or for someone other than the issuing entity — are overruns and Chang-style fakes. Companies will usually produce more pieces than ordered, allowing for defects while still being able to fill their order. These are overruns. If you don’t want them going out the back door deal only with companies that do not .. Also be willing to buy the entire amount of their produciton run, including the overage, and not just what you initially ordered.
Some manufacturers, in order to produce patches more cheaply and meet production demands subcontract work. The subcontractors then produce extra patches which they release into the secondary market (ie. collectors). These are the Chang-type fakes. By nature they are usually indistinguishable from the patches that are issued by whoever placed the original order. The best way to avoid this, is to do business with manufacturers that produce all their own work, and do not subcontract work out to overseas companies.
Restricted patches, including those issued in low quantities or sold at unusually high prices, are prime items for the overrun dealer or counterfeiter. Pastor McCanless also discusses this in his blog entry.
Some lodges have taken the additional step of adding anti-counterfeit measures of various sorts. I can see these having mixed results.
The most common method is the security backing. This is cheap and easily implemented. However since this is normally done by the embroiderer or a subcontractor, chang-style fakes and overruns made either by the original company or subcontractor will also likely have this backing. From the standpoint of preventing the creation of additional undifferentiable patches, it is not a good idea to have the same company make the patches and be responsible for the anti-counterfeit measure.
Some lodges have added an additional embellishment to their issues. The most common method seems to be a sticker of some sort placed on the back of the patch. While this guarantees that patches orginating outside the lodge are identifiable as such, it also has problems. The sticker can fall off, but a dab of clear nail polish will prevent that. At least one lodge had the stickers placed underneath the plastic, but this has the same failing as security backings: the same company that produced the patches adds the security device. Manually adding some “device” can also be tedious and time consuming, especially if there is a large number of patches issued. Also, the adhesive from any sticker, or glues used to attach some other item will damage the patch over time.
One lodge issued a flap for their adviser’s wedding. It had an additional “item” attached to it, to mark the patch as authentic. That lodge was rather guarded about this detail and at their insistence the image on my site does not show that addition.
No one has attempted it yet, but I wonder if a special thread with microprinting on it could be added to patches, similar to the microprinted strip in US currency. While this could still be used in overruns and Chang-type fakes, it would not show in digital images so would not likely show up in counterfeit patch
There are various ways to make it harder for someone to save a good copy of an image found on this site. All also impede upon the ability of users to use the site as it’s intended. They range from the mildly irritating to the truly annoying. As I’ve already rambled quite a bit here, I’ll save this topic for another post…
Greetings!
Hadn’t even thought of the possibility of people faking patches from an image site… D’OHHH! That really DOES add insult to injury in YOUR case!
The fakers who personally order fakes - regardless of who does the actual manufacturing - for ‘fun & profit,’ are doubtless the sorts unscrupulous (and in the case of faking a blurry image, dumb) enough to use whatever image they can get. My article was aimed more at those who always seem flabbergasted, that someone would fake/overrun/undercut their precious “limited edition” patch, when they take almost NO precautions, to make sure such things DON’T happen in the frst place (i.e. - have it made by the low-bid Taiwanese embroiderer)! In 2002, we got caught by surprise in Kiskakon (and the fakes/overruns didn’t start popping up until almost 2 years later, anyway), but it’s NOW 2007, and NOBODY, has ANY excuses, for being UNprepared!
Does anybody even REMEMBER the day (and it WASN’T THAT LONG ago!!!), when Bate’s fakes had a ‘value’ all their own, BECAUSE they were ‘old curiosities’ in the hobby? I think I’d asked you once before if you could possibly determine this via your collection of images, but any idea what percentage of issues on your website NOW, portray fake issues? Especially when compared to say, 2000?
Bob McCanless
Pittsburgh
One way to minimize the effects, of course, would be to stop making contrived rarities. When you issue a patch, order enough so that everyone who wants to buy some can buy as many as they want.
Even for fundraisers, you can generally turn more profit by selling more items at a reasonable price than by selling a “limited” issue for an inflated “special donation”.
(And for lodge events–if you need to use the patch as a participation incentive above or beyond the event program–you’d do better to make the patch more attractive and desirable to wear than to make it “valuable” through contrived scarcity.)
Bob McCanless and I also found the irony in lodges using the cheapest manufacturer possible to make their “special” patches. Spend a little extra for those “special” items and get them made by a reputable manufacturer who doesn’t deal with Mr. Chang and his associates in Taiwan.
As for events… Our event patches generally sell out during the event. Once every few years we have leftover event patches, generally when we have an unattractive looking patch.
[...] Both John Pannell and Bob McCanless have both weighed in on the subject of fakes from two different points of view. Although neither of them are in favor of fakes. Take the time to read them, [...]