Do Fakes and Overruns Help the Hobby?!
Posted in Patch Collecting by John E. Pannell on August 12th, 2007 at 11:22 pm David Scocca went out on a limb on patch-l with an interesting perspective on the flood of fakes, overruns, and backdoor distribution of patches that currently infects our hobby. His is an interesting take on this issue that I had not really thought about it before. It’s not a position I’m prepared to say I completely agree with. He has allowed me to quote him here.
I think modern artificial rarities are wrong and a bad thing for lodges and councils to do. To the extent that “fakes” or “overruns” discourage production of highly restricted patches and/or make them available to people who weren’t lucky enough to have access to item when it was first released, I think the manufacturers who let them out the back door are actually doing a service.
Please read that paragraph carefully before you run off to string up either of us. He was very careful to qualify under what condition such things might be a good service. David continues:
There is no legitimate reason, for example, for a Section Conclave to have a special version of the patch which is only available to members of the Council of Chiefs. Or–as has been done at the last two NOACs–for a national OA event to have a special version of the patch given one-per-person to the planning committee and one contingent leader from each lodge.
I might qualify this a bit more. We all know and understand the enormous job of a contingent leader for NOAC. It is a great responsibility, awash with a never ending pile of irksome and weighty paperwork to attend to. It’s not a job I aspire to. I don’t think folks would begrudge them receiving some sort of official special “thank-you”. An issue of propriety arises, though, when those who make the decsisions on who to thank with special items include themselves. It’s not too dissimilar from a political leader granting several worthy folks… and himself… an award for special services.
Finally he concludes:
In those cases, a manufacturer who would flood the market with duplicates of those restricted issues would clearly be performing a great service.
Remember, if a patch of known authenticity cannot be distinguished from one that came from an outside source, either both are fake or both are real. In this case the service is the manufacturer making this items available to the general collectorate who would otherwise not be able to acquire them.
This is a controversial matter that I’m sure most collectors have strong feelings about. What do you all think?
It seems to me that the only “service” that is being performed is to the manufacturer’s bottom line. This does not mean that I condone the contrived rarities market. Quite the contrary. You already know that were I the one calling the shots there would be some very dramatic changes in the requirements of lodge-level OA items, and clearly my draconian actions need to be taken to the higher level, or perhaps levels.
There is also an apparent “I-must-have-everything-my-lodge-issued” mentality that really needs to be…addressed (I refrain from using a more permanent word.) However, the BSA is playing into this because they see a market for this shi..stuff and far be it from BSA to slaughter the cash cow. They would much rather milk it dry, and the well clearly is far from empty. Just wait until 2009, when all the lunacy surrounding the centennial gets completely ramped up. But fear not: 2015 will be just around the corner.
I agree that the notion of undistributed factory over-runs being sold at a price far below the prevailing market rate may be a way to keep the depicted lodge or council honest, but in a way that is contrary to what Scouting is purported to represent. Having a lodge fear that the factory produced 150 patches for their requested order of 100 may cause a change in behavior, but only in a way that could also be considered blackmail.
However, I disagree with the example of the NOAC “contingent leader” patches. In the interest of full disclosure, I was a contingent leader in 2006, and I have one of those patches. I have it mounted glass right now, along with one of each of the other patches from my contingent, and to me it is priceless. Not because of any supposed rarity, but because it was a part of a major task that I advised, that seemed to be pretty successful. If I did not have that patch, I would have used a regular NOAC patch, and I would not have been disappointed if the NOAC folks did not have this emblem.
What I disagree with has more to do with distribution. Not every lodge was represented at that meeting. I would guess that at least 30% did not show, and those in the 30% would not have received this patch (if what we had been told was correct, that they would be distributed only at the meeting on the 1st night). What happened to that 30% of the patches? It is unlikely that there would be an over-run at the factory level, as we all know, National Supply would never do anything like that.
Call it the Golden Rule of Thread: He who has the Gold (mylar border) makes the rules. And it happens at the Section, Lodge, and Council level, even at the chapter level, where the leadership feels the need to congratulate themselves for a job well-filled. This is done either by creating a special version for themselves, or allow themselves a special priviledge to their share of a contrived rarity.Personally, those that do this should leave Scouting, and go where that sort of behavior is considered acceptable. Someplace like Congress.
Well… one could argue that a “Contingent Leader” recognition makes sense. But when the NOAC planning committee–who are the ones who make the decision–make it a “contingent leader AND planning committee” item, then there’s some self-dealing going on.
Any restriction in which the group that implements the restriction also benefits from it is inherently suspicious.
Several years ago, around the time the first Chang lists were being distributed, a good friend of mine was giving me his opinion on these types of things. He is known for being a collector of old material, and had a general disdain of new issues, but he raised a valid point.
He came up with a strong argument against the sale of merchandise — memorabilia really isn’t the best word anymore, IMO — by parties other than the issuing body (lodge, council, etc…). Since then this topic has been brought up many times in various places but his argument is very rarely made.
Anyone care to take a stab at it?
I see the issue here as being one of artificial/contrived rarity vs. real rarity/scarcity and the pervasive mentality amongst us that we need to collect EVERYTHING.
By artificially creating a supply issue we drive up demand and then the councils, lodges, etc. can raise prices on them and collectors or recipients of certain high demand patches can cash in (good or bad).
When people do this in a self serving way they begin to abondon (perhaps unknowingly) the values they espouse (and it’s not for me to level blame or criticism because we’re all hypocrites or self serving in some part of our lives). The overseas folks are the great equalizer in all this. They level the playing field in an economic sense by eliminating the rarity from the equation of all of this. If a patch is truly released for honest or commemorative reasons, then those who were present will hold it in esteem regardless of it’s actual rarity. To everyone else, it’ll be a piece of cloth to be bartered.
It makes me have a lot more respect for my old lodge, Langundowi, in the sense that their lodge flap hasn’t really changed in 20 years. Other than a fundraiser flap that was reasonably priced, and a few NOAC flaps, they don’t really have much out there to cheapen the flap. I used to dislike their policy and restriction on flaps, I repsect the wisdom of it more and more each day as I get older.
I have to admit that my lodge, Wauna La-Mon’Tay 442, is guilty of producing contrived rarities. Even Skyloo 442 and Cole Snass did this. I hate it. My feeling is that everyone in the lodge should have the opportunity to acquire the patch. This is usually the case but sometimes a self serving lodge officer gets his way and gets the lodge COC to approve a special patch that he will end up with a majority to trade or sale.
While I do not believe that a company should let over runs out the back door, I do believe that a company should make those available to the lodge to do with as they wish. If the lodge turns them down, then whatever happens to the overrun is the lodge’s fault. I know that whenever I place an order that I also ask for all the overruns.
As for National Policy on patch issues, maybe that should be directed to a member of the National OA Committee. I know that two known patch collectors sit on that board. I know that one of them donates one or two of the short run issues to the local sections within his area.
Counter arguements are welcome.
I believe everyone would benefit by remembering the purpose of patches. In general, the purpose of a patch in Scouting is to recognize achievement or participation. This goes for merit badges, distric camporee patches, a Life Scout badge, an interpreter strip, or an Order of the Arrow flap.
I agree that lodge level restrictions should not leave out any members of that lodge. That is, the “LEC only” flap should be discouraged. There are a limited number of seats on that committee, and it is impossible for all members to serve in that capacity.
However, I must disagree with Dave in another respect. Consider the hypothetical: A lodge issues a flap that is awarded for each 8-hours of service performed at the local camp leading up to a Conclave the lodge will host. Many people work hard at that camp to prepare for conclave. The flaps are issued, and those hard workers are recognized for their participation. One month later, the supplier dumps a lot of ‘overruns’ into the collecting market. Now, anybody in the world can purchase them. What does that do to the meaning behind the original patches? The patch one person received that says “Thank you for your 8 hours of service” stitched on it loses some quantity of its “value” - economical and sentimental - when every Arrowman in the state has one in their collection by the time Conclave comes around.
Again, I believe the purpose of distributing patches is to recognize achievement and participation. The manufacturer is doing a service for himself, and the collectors who did not achieve/participate. I can think of no other party that benefits. Neither are a party the Scouting program is designed to benefit.
This has certainly been an interesting discussion, and one many have benefited from I believe. I’ll continue to be looking for more responses and opinions on the topic.
[...] What review of blogs would be complete without mentioning John Pannell and his OAImages Blog. With his new contributors, there has been a flurry of posting of late. The hot topic though is Fakes, Fakes, and more Fakes. [...]
I began collecting in 1963. I’ve been involved off and on ever since.I offer the following thoughts. If a lodge, council or camp placed an order, sold the items then they are(were) legit, proper order, proper transaction. If an individual or outside group without autherization does it it is a fake. Rollex makes the watch its real, Hank the Hawker makes it it is fake. Over runs and back door sales do no one any good, other than the bottom line $$$, like noted by previous authors. Once these items pass through several hands who knows what is good or not. Kittan Lodge has only had a flap for several months and already there is a fake coming out of France. As far as special issues for leaders and committees it is only as big a problem as we want to make it. Before entering the room, it would be good for us all to check our morality rating. We are only care takers of the history we hold in our hands. To put a money standard on this is to create fools gold. What we hold is a link to our past, a pride in what has been created. We all buy, sell, and trade to insure that these pieces of history will be here for future generations and not lost to sands time. That the stories around the camp fire are retold again and again. Show it, share it and enjoy it but don’t let our lives be judged by it $$.
Gavin,
The problem is when it is not a ‘fake’ but an overrun or at least from the identical pattern and threads. Once it hits the public, there is no way to tell it from a ‘real’ one obtained directly from the lodge.
Effectively once they are in circulation (and passed through 2-3 hands) they are as real as any other patch. It is not a question of a designer knockoff with lesser quality it is the same patch.
Now I agree with your main point, that the Scout program and maintaining the history are more important than the monetary value of the cloth or the cloth itself.
Bill,
Point well taken. I guess we need to collect what we like and not worry about the shades of gray. You’re also right about what happens once it has passed several hands. Only the originator knows for sure. We need to take it on trust and in our association trust means a lot, or at least it should. By sticking with the old items it is not such a point of contention.
gwwoodworth
[...] What review of blogs would be complete without mentioning John Pannell and his OAImages Blog. With his new contributors, there has been a flurry of posting of late. The hot topic though is Fakes, Fakes, and more Fakes. [...]