Lodge 560: 2006 Dixie Fellowship Neckerchief
Posted in 
I previously posted here the neckerchief made by a member of this lodge for the 2007 Dixie fellowship. There was also a privately made neckerchief for the 2006 Dixie fellowship. Thanks to David Cody and Jimmy Arthurs for filling me on on this.
There is a perpetual argument among some collectors over whether private issues should be listed in catalogues. Some feel that listing such material legitimizes it in some way and fuels the demand for these pieces. This argument seems to appear most frequently regarding private issues.
Another line of reasoning is that it has become impossible to keep up with all the new fakes coming out, so cataloguers should not try to do so. Not only will the attempt encourage the production of these pieces, the reasoning goes, it will also be incomplete.
I disagree with some of my friends on both lines of reasoning. I believe it is the job of those who document memorabilia to include such items as best as they are able so that collectors can be educated about what exists. Some private issues appear to be legitimate issues of a lodge (eg. lodge 104 ZS4-ZS6 and ZX1) but are not. Ignoring fakes and private issues will not make them go away, but will lead to collectors being uninformed and chasing unauthorized items. It should be left up to the individual collectors whether to seek out these items or not.
Blue Book data for this neckerchief is as follows:
| Issue | Bdr Color/Type | Bkgd | Name | fdl/BSA | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZN1? | RED | P | WHT | ssc; Dixie 2006, Cat in the Hat design | ||
| Eswau Huppeday 560 page on OAImages.com | ||||||
I tend to think of private issues in three categories, with different implications for cataloging.
(1) Patches that are privately issued without authorization, often by a member or members of an existing lodge, which appear to be from a specific lodge but which are relatively distinct in design and appearance from legitmate issues. The Occoneechee ZS4-ZS6 and ZX1 are clear instances of this type.
(2) Privately-created patches intended to resemble specific legitimate issues from current or past lodges. These are unambiguously describable as “fakes”; the classic “Bates Fakes” are a canonical example.
(3) Privately-created patches bearing the name, number, and/or totem of a long-defunct lodge from which there are no legitimate insignia. Cheap programmable embroidery machines have brought a flood of these on eBay.
In the first case, I think it useful to have a catalog listing so someone who encounters the patch can know that it is a private issue and not a new or previously unlisted item. However, these listings need not worry about minor variations in size, twill, or shades of color: as long as you can easily and accurately identify the patch, you don’t need to have all the potential variations cataloged.
In the second case, I think it is essential to catalog the fakes with–as far as possible–enough specific detail to distinguish the fake from the legitimate issue which it is intended to resemble. (In fact, it would be nice if the entry for the legitimate issue included an indication that fakes of that issue exist.)
The third case is the one in which I think cataloging of fake issues does more harm than good, by encouraging some buyers to chase after the fakes. I believe a better solution would be a simple list of “Lodges with no legitimate insignia issued”–if the lodge name and number appear on that list, then any item so marked can safely be considered a fake. That strikes me as the minimum level of cataloging necessary so a potential collector can identify the item as fake with 100% certainty.
This could actually be generalized a bit–based on some of the other cases where there are “fantasy” issues–by adding two notations to listings for defunct lodges: “no legitimate patches issued” (e.g. Tahawus 32), and “no legitimate flaps issued” (e.g. Hanigus 47). Again, this would provide a 100% accurate way to know that a patch is a fake without having to catalog the specifics of the item.
[...] In a comment on John Pannell’s blog, Dave Scocca said in a comment that fakes can be broken down into three basic categories. [...]