Lodge 188: 1994 “NCAC” Flap
Posted in 
David Cody and Jimmy Arthurs tipped me off to this patch from 188. It is the design of the 1994 NOAC flap from this lodge, where NOAC is misspelled “NCAC”. They believe it should be listed as an issue. I’m more skeptical.
They say that a large number of this lodge’s 1994 NOAC flaps were issued with NOAC misspelled “NCAC” and claim to have traded for several of these pieces. Others were corrected after the fact and show signs of being restitched. They say they informed the North Carolina Blue Book editor of this piece and he has declined to list it.
I’m not convinced and Lookinig at the image they sent, the first “C” appears to be an “O” with a threadbreak. I can understand why this has not been listed in Blue Book.
What do you all think? Threadbreak of an issued manufacturing error? Were these issued misspelled? Are the flaps with the correct spelling of “NOAC” all restitch jobs? Please comment.
It would seem that there are two parts to the solution… First, look at a sample of multiple “NCAC” versions; the existence of more than one or two of these would suggest that they were really produced rather than being convenient matching accidents.
Second, look at a sample of the “NOAC” versions. If all are corrected/restitched, then the manufacturer made the “NCAC” ones and fixed them for the “NOAC” ones; if some have a clear letter “O” without any signs of repair, then the manufacturer made them that way.
To really know for sure one would have to sit down with a number of copies of each “different” version and try to derive the truth.
There are a few possibilities for how there could be significant numbers of both issues… It depends in part on whether the original order involved only one loom run or multiple loom runs; if the latter the mistake might have been noted and the pattern adjusted between the runs.
If not, maybe the errors were made first, then the correct flaps were made in a second run, and–possibly to fill out a slightly undersized run–some errors were factory-converted to correct flaps. The other error flaps could have worked their way out into the world the way manufacturer’s surplus/error items often do.
Yeah, I suppose it is up to the editor.
I would label the NCAC as a “Q” issue since it was returned and rejected by the lodge.
Matt –
Normally listing this as a “Q” would make sense. However, from what I was told, the flap was not rejected as members of the lodge were reportedly trading them. In my mind, that would kill the idea of classifying it as a Q.
I’d really like to hear from some other folks who have this piece in their collection… especially if they are in this lodge.
I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt, I traded for multiples of each, at the NOAC, all of the what appear to be correct NOAC spellings are restitched over the incorrect NCAC, they were made at Southern Emblem, I would think that there would be a record of it, I would like to hear if anyone has a “cleanly” stitched NOAC, I don’t think they exist! Would love to hear again from someone from Itibapishe Iti Hollo on this!
I have to agree with David Cody. I also traded for the 2 different flaps at the 94 noac. I was told some of the incorrect 1 was shipped back and then some were repaired. It is easy to see the repair when you look at the back. The incorrect NCAC flaps were harder to trade for than the corrected 1. I know for a fact that far more than 1 or 2 were trader. I had 3 or 4 at 1 time and know others beside David that traded for the incorrect 1.