What Makes a Patch An “Official” Issue?
Posted in Patch Collecting by John E. Pannell on February 20th, 2007 at 4:26 am Felis Cattus, is your taxonomic nomenclature,
an endothermic quadruped carnivorous by nature;
Your visual, olfactory and auditory senses
contribute to your hunting skills, and natural defenses…
– “Ode To Spot” by Data, Star Trek: The Next Generation
There are those of us who worry and debate over how patches should be classified. In most cases this is very easy: a 3″ round is an “R”; a chenille is a “C”. Sometimes it’s a bit harder: What makes a patch a “P” or “J”? Is a triangular patch on a neckerchief an “X” or “P”? Is a 5″ round patch an “R” or “J”? How do you classify the very odd-shaped “flaps” issued by some lodges, that will likely never be worn on uniforms?
Beyond all this is one subject that can inflame passions more than all the rest: What makes a patch an official issue?
Usually this, too, is an easy matter. If the lodge’s officers voted to authorize the patch then it’s official. A fake made by someone, either within or outside of the lodge, is not official (a “Z”). But sometimes this gets complicated. How do you classify patches issued under these circumstances:
-
The Scout Executive gives permission to make a flap, without it ever being considered by the lodge’s youth leadership;
-
A lodge chief has his mom sew borders on some neckerchiefs which he and his buddies silkscreen to wear to an upcoming NOAC;
-
A chapter adviser bankrolls an issue that’s sold to chapter members to wear to show pride in their chapter;
-
A lodge adviser, but not THE Lodge Adviser, makes up some patches which he gives to his lodge’s NOAC contingent;
-
A Dance or ceremony team has jacket patches made for their own use;
-
The lodge chiefs of a section agree to have versions of their patch sold at conclave, without approval of each lodge’s officers.
All of these have happened before. Which issues are official? Since I am not a Blue Book editor, I do not make the listings for these items. I’ll just point out a few of these difficult situations. I’m relying completely on information that has been told me and that may not always be correct. Please feel free to correct any errors or misconceptions.
I’ll start right off with something that is controversial.
This patch is still a bit of a sore issue in Coosa lodge and was briefly mentioned on Cloth Talk #23. It was produced and issued by the Nunne-Hi chapter of Coosa lodge without getting the approval of the lodge’s officers. Notes on my site say the lodge rejected this… presumably after it was produced?
If a chapter authorizes a patch for themselves, is it official? Remember, chapters are not allowed to have their own treasuries and all financial affairs are to be handled by the lodge. Can a chapter authorize a patch without the means to by it?
Is this an official issue? Blue Book lists it as the A1 for Nunne Hi chapter.
Ryan Meador recently posted on patch-l, looking for information on this patch pictured to the left. It looks like a JSP for the California Inland Empire Council (CIEC), but bears red arrow with the “WWW” as well as the totem of Cahuilla lodge. It turns out, this patch was produced by one of the Jamboree contingent leaders from this council and lodge. Approval of the SE was dependent upon the lodge name and number NOT being used, but they could use the lodge totem.
The Scout Executive, who is the Supreme Chief of the Fire for OA lodges, did consent. Does this constitute approval by the lodge? Is this official? I’ve listed it on the site as Cahuilla’s ZX1, pending the final decision of the California regional editor.
The story behind this patch is somewhat similar to the CIEC JSP above. The Scout Executive for Colonial Virginia Council authorized this patch along with a matching CSP. It was not authorized by the elected leadership of the lodge. Lodge brothers do not consider this an issue of their lodge.
Is the Scout Executives approval a sufficient condition for a patch to be considered official? Is the approval of the elected youth leaders a necessary condition? Blue Book lists this as the QS1 for Wahunsenakah lodge.
I am told this patch was produced by an adult member of the lodge, without prior approval. It is said he gave copies to the lodge’s NOAC delegation. Presumably additional patches were available as I was able to easily get one at the 2000 NOAC.
Blue Book lists this as the R7 for Tiwahe lodge.
Egwa Tawa Dee lodge was part of the Dixie section (SR-5) for a couple of years. During this time it produced a miniature flap and several segments intended to be worn on the lodge’s X3 as a pocket dangle.
This lodge was able to convince the other lodge chiefs in the section to authorize the production of similar miniature flaps for each lodge in the section. They were sold as a set. Blue Book lists these items as HS1 under each lodge in this section.
Here’s another recent example that confuses folks regularly and causes grief here in my area. They are commonly and mistakenly represented as issues of Occoneechee lodge.
However, these were produced by a collector within the lodge without any sort of authorization by the lodge. There are two additional flaps, showing an ambulance and a police, that go along with these items.
These are all private issues. They are listed in Blue Book as ZS4-ZS6 and ZX1.
The last example is a piece from Ty-Ohni lodge from Rochester, NY, sent to me by Robert Cunningham.
He reports that it was produced on the orders of a ceremony team adviser and given to team members. It was not authorized by Ty-Ohni lodge and should be considered a private issue.
Pending the final decision of the NY Blue Book editor, I have listed this on my site as ZA1 for Ty-Ohni lodge.
What do you all think? Can you come up with any other examples of similarly murky issues? What makes a patch an official issue?
P.S. The complete Ode to Spot can be read at Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki.
Related Posts:
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Welcome to life in Enda Lechauhannee Lodge #57!
Since Enda is the amalgamation, of the ORIGINAL Kuwewanik Lodge 57, PLUS, former lodges 130 (both of ‘em), 497, 67 (both of ‘em) & 242, there are still former LODGE Advisors floating about, making Enda “issues,” and generally fouling up known issues beyond all recognition. Our BB entries are both a shambles AND a joke, as is our LEC (When it comes to AUTHORIZED patches, they are slightly less clueless as to the REALITY of what happens, than Col. Klink & Sgt. Schultz…). On the bright side however, nobody actually COLLECTS Enda stuff, and there are only three collectors/traders in the entire Lodge.
Moreover, I suspect there are quite a FEW ‘amalgamated Lodges’ that operate about the same. When I was a DE down in WV years ago, we had a troop across the river in OH (part of our council, but used to be in Scioto Area Council back in the day), that changed councils, and changed districts, for three consecutive years (this ‘perturbed them slightly,’ you might say…). Shawnee 109 ceased operation as a Lodge, on 12/31/95, yet when I left in August, 2001, EVERY boy in that troop (”BOY,” I emphasize AGAIN!) who was IN the OA, was wearing a 109 s11 flap! Hmmmm… methinks I smell, a CHANG (and a private operator!). And Tri-State is one of the SMALLEST Councils in America!!!
Much to Bruce Dordick’s ire, I am tracking down - albeit s-l-o-w-l-y - as many of the fakes that have been made here since ‘98, as possible. It will throw Enda’s listings into a TIZZY when I’m done, and will invariably tick off the patch mafia here in town, but it needs to be done. I’ll make a blogpost about it eventually - I have a great still of Kevin Costner (a Delta Chi fraternity brother, actually!) from “The Untouchables” I’ll use to illustrate my lonely quest here in Pittsburgh - it’s about accurate most days…
Bob McCanless
Pittsburgh
Bob, sounds like you could write a book about what’s not been listed for your lodge! Don’t forget to send me all the images when you do!
That Nunne Hi patch is going to be covered in an upcoming ClothTalk in the relatively near future.
In Nentico Lodge #12, at least some of the chapter patches were privately funded and distributed as gifts by the chapter adviser. Since the patches were effectively donated to the chapter and were not sold, there was no need for the lodge’s financial involvement.
Another question–sort of like the 127 JSP you show above–is what happens when a patch released through an entirely authorized but non-OA process includes OA-related symbols or words? The classic example would be a district event patch (like the Nentico 12 Chesapeake Chapter eP1985).
The listing shouldn’t ignore it, since the patch itself has OA markings and should be cataloged.
It isn’t right to call it an “unauthorized” patch, in that the issuers were entirely authorized to issue the patch they did.
But it’s also not a “lodge-issued” patch, since the lodge leadership likely knew nothing about it when it was issued.
The most accurate designation would be something like “not an OA issue”–that is, that despite the markings it’s not really an “OA patch”. But there’s no real place in the catalog for that.
As far as Occoneechee Lodge 104 is concerned….a couple of years ago, the LEC adopted & implemented a policy for Chapter patches & other memorabilia pertaining to it’s Chapters. To make a long story short, it gives the Chapter’s guidelines for their issues and the designs must be approved by the lodge patch committee. The patch committee has the option of sending the design to the LEC for approval if it does not meet the specific criteria layed out by the approved policy. It also gives an appeals process if denied by the patch committee (guess that was the regulator portion in me coming out when I wrote it up). So this allows Chapters some freedom in not having to present their designs to the entire LEC and get things bogged down there for their patches. They are still official issues if they follow the policy. If they do not…well, my thoughts are they are not official issues…..and we’ve all seen that before.
Why is it that some folks are always trying to bend the rules or find loop-holes in the process…Why can’t we just follow the “rules” and everyone would be happy?
The situations are complex and “lodge approval” is often vague and hard to find agreement on. My rule is that for a patch to be a lodge issue, it has to have been ISSUED to lodge members. There are many instances of a patch being approved but never actually manufactured. There are others of a patch being approved, but it was not distributed properly as intended. Some matters are complicated. I’ll give two examples from Louisiana.
The 479 lodge dance team made up a print neckercheif design and it was authorized by the lodge and had to be earned by completing a perfect ceremony. However when the neckercheif was manufactured, an advisor took it upon himself to make up ten different color cloths, supposedly to be awarded at 5, 10, 20, 40 etc. ceremonies all the way up to the black cloth which was for 100 ceremonies. As if a youth could ever actually perform 100 ceremonies if a few short years! The high-number colors were made in small quantities, with only 4 blacks made.
Of course the youths never earned more than the first few colors which were the only ones actually issued. The higher-number colors all privately disappeared into the hands of insiders. So as Blue book editor for Louisiana I designated those colors that were actually issued as “N” while those colors that were never issued to dancers and all privately found their way to collectors as “YN” because I consider them to be private issues.
Same lodge, for the last NOAC. The lodge issued an official NOAC 2006 set. The lodge chief wanted to issue a special “lodge chief” flap to use as a “business card” for swapping with other lodge chiefs at NOAC. An advisor was asked and gave offhand permission on the concept without getting any consensus from the lodge committee to use the lodge totem/name or arranging for the lodge to order and distribute the flap properly.
So the lodge chief had the flaps made up privately, with his name on them as well as the lodge name/totem, paying for them himself, and distributing them solely to himself for trading purposes. They were traded to any comer at NOAC and for a premium in cloth. It caused some hard feelings because they were not distributed through the lodge or contingent, nobody in the lodge got a chance to buy one and the lodge made none of the substantial profits made on the purposefully rare flap.
I intend to list this piece as a “YS” private issue because it was never bought by or issued by the lodge. It has only been distributed privately.
I have another topic down these lines, what happens when a manufacture sends a patch, it is wrong and the lodge uses it anyway. I will use my good friends at 42 Wah Sha She to make my point. The lodge ZS1 was a mistake, it was to have a yellow border, and not the red it came with. No one remember it was this until they sold 15 patches. The lodge then sent the patches back to be rebordered. You can tell the reborder issues from the later ones because the yellow border is about 3-4 mm wider. This summer the lodge ordered their NOAC patches and the wrong ones came in, John has the error marked as an F4. The one wing is gray and the other blue and it was to be all blue. It was the manufactures mistake, they told the lodge to keep the patches and they would send new one but it would be Tuesday of NOAC before they could get them. So that the scouts would have patches to trade they used the error patches. Tuesday of NOAC when the patches came in lodge members could buy the new patch as well as the old one, and I am told the lodge sold out of both. So what do you do with manufactures mistakes that the lodges sell?
To me this is easy: If the lodge sold the manufacturer’s errors, they issued the patch and it should be listed as a regular issue. The patch wasn’t rejected as they kept and issued them.
I agree with John….Occoneechee has done the same thing on our S-52 & S-53 flaps. The placement of the “A” was incorrect…the Manufacturer re-made the flap and we sold the “mistake” flaps for a buck a piece….We don’t destroy much of anything if we can make a dollar. Bottom like the youth had fun with them and being sold for a dollar they had many to trade….We argued that it was a variety, but our BB editor disagreed. Oh well. Life goes on. It’s an issue.
Then I think that the key distinction between issue and private issue is not whether the patch was AUTHORIZED by some authority, but whether or not the patch was actually ISSUED by the lodge to its members.
[...] John Pannell has an interesting post on what makes a patch an official issue. There are those of us who worry and debate over how patches should be classified.  In most cases this is very easy: a 3″ round is an “Râ€; a chenille is a “Câ€.  Sometimes it’s a bit harder: What makes a patch a “P†or “Jâ€?    Is a triangular patch on a neckerchief an “X†or “Pâ€?  Is a 5″ round patch an “R†or “Jâ€? How do you classify the very odd-shaped “flaps†issued by some lodges, that will likely never be worn on uniforms? [...]
Hi Folks. As can be seen from previous postings, this has been a serious issue in my lodge (Ty-Ohni). From the early 1980’s until his recent resignation from the lodge, a good friend of mine named Don Meyering produced many “fun” personal flaps as prototypes. Some of the flaps were amazing and required a tremendous amount of time to create, even including a few larger size c1 type hand-made chenielles. Only one of his prototypes ever became a standard issue. A couple years ago he gave me scans of all of the prototype issues, so if anyone wnats a copy, let me know. In the 1990’s he produced a small number of felt flaps and patches for various events that he would give freely to anyone who participated in the event (such as the two OA summer camp flaps he produced, one in 1995 and another in 1998). In another instance, our Lodge Chief, Ryan (Zeke) McFarland was elected to Region Chief in 1994. His brother Kevin produced a large number of white felt flaps with red lettering in his honor. He also produced 10 or so varieties on different colors of felt. He recently gave me a complete set of the flaps and I will scan them soon. Kevin gave these away to folks at NOAC that year and at the Section Conclave that fall. In the past few years we have had a number of other unauthorized issues, such as a fall fellowship patch, the Ceremonies Team patch and a Unit Elections Team Flap. Also, one lodge member, John Reed, took it upon himself to produce a flap to commemorative his tenure with the lodge. He charged $10 each for the flaps. The most unusual unauthorized flap was produced as a bachelor party favor by friends of Lodge Adviser Dave Ritchie. Lodge members who attended the event were given one! Unauthorized issues have angered a few people in my lodge, but it is always interesting and sometimes frustrating when I come across a previously unknown one.
I have always used the rule of the duck. If it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck — then it is a duck. Somethings in the OA we get patches that meet the above but are geese instead.
I my lodge, Wauna La-Mon’Tay 442, we had chapters issue camporee patchesthat were giver to all but funded by the chapter/district. Since the chapters designed and approved these patches, they are officail.
Now what about the SE of a council approving a patch with the lodge LEC approval. Guess what folks — if he approves or disapproves — he is the ultimate power in the local lodge. He can shut down a lodge quicker than my internet connection. Just ask 400 and 363 in Idaho. The SE by National OA bylaws has the power to approve things for the lodge w/o LEC consent. Case in point — in 1993 Cascade AC merged with Columbia Pacific to form Cascade Pacific. 442 issued a flap for the Jamboree, the LEC of 259 rejected the Idea. The SE for the council told them that the flap was going to happen, so that the contigent would be equal. Was this the right decision — yes, do the old members of 259 recognize it as a lodge issue — no. The BB regional editor for Oregon/Washington sides with the lodge, the Arapahoe regional editor for Oregon/Washington sides with the SE. If you go by the Bylaws of the OA, you have only one choice — the SE is the correct choice.
I invite a debate on this subject.
Jeff
Jeff’s examples illustrate what I believe an issue should be. It is impossible for collectors today to know details like who authorized a patch and why and whether or not there were disagreements, much less collectors years down the road. But we do usually know if the patch was issued to the lodge or not.
In the 442 /259 example, it doesn’t matter if the SE authorized the patch without LEC agreement or not. If the 259 patch was issued to lodge members of 259, then it is an issue. If 259 was already merged and the patch was issued by a successor lodge, then it is an “H” historical issue. The only way it wouldn’t be an issue is if it was never issued at all or was not issued to members of lodge 259. That would make it a “Y” or possibly even a “Z”.