Jump to content

A couple of unknowns for ID help


Patchcollector
 Share

Recommended Posts

Patchcollector

Hi all,


Here's are some new pickups,anyone know what these units are?


Thanks!

post-13386-0-78492100-1369279854.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The patch with the motto "Tempestatem et Pulverem" is a USAF patch belonging to the 3500th Pilot Training Squadron out of Reese AFB, Texas.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Signor

I would "guess" at the first one "possibly" being a SVNAF type , the aircraft in the lower right looks like an A-37 Dragonfly, could be a joint USAF/SVNAF training unit/base or joint operation, I assume you googled the "Fire Dragon" title ...................

 

Johnny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found mine fire dragon patch and have it ID'ed as USAF/VNAF Class 1975-02 from Sheppard AFB. The aircraft on the patch is a T-37.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found mine fire dragon patch and have it ID'ed as USAF/VNAF Class 1975-02 from Sheppard AFB. The aircraft on the patch is a T-37.

And the one pictured looks like a bad repro.

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

And the one pictured looks like a bad repro.

Randy

 

 

I don't see this as a repro,yet.When I receive it,and inspect it in hand I'll make a decision.As this is not a particularly valuable piece,I think it is less likely to be copied.

In the meantime,I would like to see some other examples posted,just typing "it's a repro",and leaving it at that is not sufficient,in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that a patch like this would not be likely to be copied however the patch looks computer stitched. That might be just a similar thread pattern, but if it is, then I would question it. Computer stitching wouldn't have arrived until the 1980's at the earliest. Again, when you get it, you might see things differently than what is photographed.

 

-Ski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

firefighter

I too have to agree that it's a repro. You're right that it's not a really valuable patch but I suspect somebody was or may try to pass it off as a special operations type unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't see this as a repro,yet.When I receive it,and inspect it in hand I'll make a decision.As this is not a particularly valuable piece,I think it is less likely to be copied.

In the meantime,I would like to see some other examples posted,just typing "it's a repro",and leaving it at that is not sufficient,in my opinion.

I put that it was a repro for other folks that might be interested. You had another like this up at one time, and despite my and other's assertions otherwise about it being a current SEA repro, you seemed to be determined to think otherwise. And that's fine, I won't try to change your (or anyone else's) mind. Just trying to point it out to others, so they don't waste their cash on junk. Ski already pointed out most of the issues, but here's another: It's Class 75-02, not Class 7S-02 like it is on this piece. If you're happy with it, that's fine. As I stated already, I am just trying to help out and keep folks from getting ripped off and keep bad patches from being accepted as pieces of history. Nothing more, nothing personal.

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

I put that it was a repro for other folks that might be interested. You had another like this up at one time, and despite my and other's assertions otherwise about it being a current SEA repro, you seemed to be determined to think otherwise. And that's fine, I won't try to change your (or anyone else's) mind. Just trying to point it out to others, so they don't waste their cash on junk. Ski already pointed out most of the issues, but here's another: It's Class 75-02, not Class 7S-02 like it is on this piece. If you're happy with it, that's fine. As I stated already, I am just trying to help out and keep folks from getting ripped off and keep bad patches from being accepted as pieces of history. Nothing more, nothing personal.

Randy

 

 

 

 

From your reply,it sounds as if I have offended you with my decision to wait to make a decision until I have received,and inspected it.Maybe I should just quiet down and get in line like the other "ducks"?Hahaa,I couldn't resist the duck joke after reading the last post! :lol:

First,Yes I do want to look it over,as the sellers' photos are not that good.Getting it in hand and eyeballing it up close will help me to make a decision.When the patch arrives,I will post some big,clear photos for everyone to see. ;)

Second,I asked to see other examples of this patch,which is not an unreasonable request,and if you have one it would be considerate of you to provide a photo for all of us to see,so that we may compare them.

Third,I'm not sure about the other patch that I disagreed with you about in the past,but if you would be more specific then perhaps I can reply to that point more accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not offended at all. As I stated, I'm not trying to change your mind, just trying to ensure no one else comes away thinking this is even close to the real thing. I don't have this patch in its authentic form to post, or I would. But, with 30 plus years of collecting USAF patches while serving in fighter units for 26 years, I do have a bit of experience to draw on. I'm not saying I know it all, anyone that does is a fool. But I know this: that patch is a current SEA repro for the reasons Ski already stated above. Go on eBay, and probably 30% of the USAF stuff is made currently in SEA. And people are buying them. Years from now, the water gets muddy and some things that are bad are suddenly good and sell for an original's price. People can put what they want into their collections, that's not my concern. Making sure the junk is ID'd as such is, to help others. Everyone sharing their knowledge here helps keep the hobby clean and fun. No new collector likes to find they spent their "patch allowance" on a repro. You can have a patch, or you can have a piece of history. Just my opinion!

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

You are entitled to your opinion,as is everyone on this forum.Instead of rushing to judgement using a grainy photo,and having nothing to offer to compare it to,I prefer to wait until I receive it so that I may investigate it further,up close,and in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Patchcollector

Here are the pics I took of my Fire Dragon patch.From what little info I was able to glean from the web,this program trained South Vietnamese pilots how to fly.What blows me away is that the school was still in operation in 1975! The patch is made of cotton twill.


Not sure if my photos shed any more light than the sellers on this patch,but here they are.

post-13386-0-99176600-1371923907.jpg

post-13386-0-72702800-1371923916.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it doesn't look any better the second time around. Again, made in Vietnam sometime in the last 10 years. You can wish it to be good all you want, but it is what it is. This post is really for all the other folks out there, so they know what to avoid. Not trying to start anything, but this patch, with it's known bad computer construction, mis-stitched date (7S.02 that should read 75-02) and terrible quality speaks for itself.

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most likely they were US made. Even if they did make them in SVN they wouldn't look like this. Lately eBay has been flooded with this stuff, it's hard to find anything original without rooting through the garbage.

 

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

I'm not seeing the computer construction that you describe, and I have more than a few patches in my collection that have typos that I know to be authentic.I only have one or two USAF school patches in my collection,I never really got into them,but when I saw this one it piqued my interest,as I am a big fan of the A-37.


Honestly,in my opinion all the USAF school patches look kind of funky,and are lacking the quality of the regular unit patches.


Like before,you are basing your judgement on your own personal observations without having an example to post to back up what you are describing.


Thanks for your opinion,but without another one to look at to compare this one to,I'm going to place it in my "undecided" box. :)


ZoomButt.gif



Link to comment
Share on other sites

vintageproductions

You can see the computer stitching on the reverse side, esp. on the Fire Dragon part of the patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

You can see the computer stitching on the reverse side, esp. on the Fire Dragon part of the patch.

 

 

You mean the white stitching?I've seen that on patches that I know were not computer made.I found some patches from my collection that I know were computer made,and I'm posting a few close up shots as examples.

post-13386-0-21890200-1372006003.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...