posted 03-02-2006 10:30 PM            

After beta cloth patches began to be used, they would have had extra patches made and would replace the removed patch with one of the extras -- so Apollo suits you see in museums will have the patch, but it won't be the one that was flown.

posted 03-05-2006 07:43 PM               

The only thing Stan could tell me about the patch is that it, along with the accompanying Apollo IX patch, were given to him by McDivitt.

Jim McDivitt's showcase

posted 03-06-2006 02:11 PM            

Is it an idea to write down what we know so far about the original patches, size, colors etc., so that "we" can start working on the reproduction on the info that we have, and add the missing info as it comes available?

So who has an original Gemini patch? Make a good high resolution photo of it, write down the colors used in the patch, the exact size, etc.

Do we include the Molly Brown and Gemini 4 (that are not flown and original patches), a program patch? What Gemini 6 patch do we make GTA-6 or Gemini 6 or both?

And the Gemini 5 patch will it be with or without the silk cover over the 8 days words... or do we make two versions?

And what about a price? And can we buy only the set or also one or two patches?

posted 03-06-2006 05:47 PM               

Let's do the complete slate, along with the multiple versions:

NASA Meatball (Gemini-era)
Vintage Gemini Program
Gemini 3 - Molly Brown
Gemini 4 - McDivitt
Gemini 5 - covered version
Gemini 5 - 8 Days or Bust uncovered version
Gemini 6
Gemini 6 - GTA-6 version
Gemini 7 - without names
Gemini 7 - with names
Gemini 8
Gemini 9
Gemini 8 - with names
Gemini 10
Gemini 11 - Conrad and Gordon
Gemini 12

We could even do the back-up crew patches (where there known designs, like Gemini 11) and the Manned Orbiting Lab patch.

posted 03-07-2006 01:10 AM               

Earlier in this string someone mentioned how fully embroidered patches are best, but to keep this project true, 'less than' fully embroidered patches should be made if that's the way the originals were. After all, it was a simpler time in the '60s, even with patches.

posted 03-07-2006 04:00 AM               

I also agree that the patches should have the highest fidelity to the originals as possible. The key is going to be finding a company willing to take on the task, that can do the quality work we're all looking for.

posted 03-07-2006 11:57 AM            

Beyond that, there is the question of

-- Gemini 5: motto or no motto.

-- Gemini 6: GTA-6 or GEMINI 6

For Gemini 5, if we are *really* into verisimilitude, I suppose the most "authentic" reproduction would be to make the patch with the motto, and then sew a bit of cloth over the wagon to cover it up! I'm inclined to omit the motto, but would actually prefer to have the bit of cloth sewn on. But I'm sure that would be prohibitively expensive. Perhaps a "middle way" would be to offer the patch with the motto, and include a bit of cloth that the buyer could sew on, if desired. (I'm really not kidding -- did I mention I can be a bit pedantic?)

Regarding Gemini 6, the GTA-6 patch didn't fly; the GEMINI 6 patch did. Most repros (that were are complaining about, right?) are the GTA-6 version... and why is it we are planning on making our own "accurate" repros?

On the "crew names v. no crew names" question, all I can say is: were there names on the patches the crew wore during the flight?

Moving on, I see no problem whatever with making another set (or sets) of patches as a separate offering -- including the NASA meatball, the GTA-6, the crew names included, backup crew patches, the McDivitt museum patch, etc., etc. But if we start adding these to the original project, where do we draw the line?

posted 03-07-2006 01:07 PM               

For Gemini V, I would be in favor of having the slogan for the following reasons:

1. The slogan was what the crew intended to have displayed on the patch.
   
2. The slogan was on the flown patch (and thus represents a flown design), albeit under a sewn-on cloth cover.
   
3. Providing the slogan allows individuals to choose whether or not to sew on their own cloth cover or not.

posted 03-08-2006 07:17 PM               

It seems to me if the G4 design was on the fliteline and Mr. McDivitt has anything to do with this patch, then this is the closest we will ever get to a GT-4 patch.

As for GT-3 the Molly Brown is the "real one", although unflown.

Check out the "Life in Space" (1983) coffee table book. It has them all except G4. As a kid I found the souveneir versions too far off, and produced my own with felt tipped markers, laminated them and placed them on my wall ! I still have a few

posted 03-10-2006 09:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sfurtaw:
I visited Michigan's Own, Inc., Military & Space Museum yesterday.

---

posted 04-29-2006 12:24 AM               

1. Gemini 3 "Molly Brown"
2. Gemini 7 "Gemini Seven" version
3. Gemini 9 crew name tab version
4. Gemini 10
5. Gemini 11
6. Gemini 12

posted 10-20-2006 10:53 PM               

First, would there be the same enthusiasm for a project to exactly reproduce postal covers, Robbins medallions, or autographed items? To have as a goal making perfect copies as discussed here means that the unavoidable result would make them so "authentic" that they couldn't easily be differentiated from real patches. There's already been quite a bit of concern elsewhere in these forums about exacting reproductions of Apollo 12 flight documents, primarily because of the very real possibility they'll be misrepresented (presumably for big profit) as genuine, while forgers seem to be regarded here (and quite correctly) as despicable if not criminal.

Second, to quote from the NASA captions accompanying manned flight insignia:

"The NASA insignia design for the Apollo [or Gemini] flights is reserved for use by the astronauts and for other official use as the NASA Administrator may authorize. Public availability has been approved only in the form of illustrations by the various news media. When and if there is any change in this policy, which we do not anticipate, it will be publicly announced."

"This is the official Apollo (15, for example) emblem, property of the government of the United States. It has been authorized only for use by the astronauts. Its reproduction in any form other than in news, information or education media is not authorized without approval. Unauthorized use of the photograph is subject to the provisions of Title 18, US Code, Section 701."

To quote Section 701:

"Sec. 701. Official badges, identification cards, other insignia

Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both." (Badge in this context refers to a patch).

But there's also a third, albeit more debatable argument against this project: what does our hobby mean? What does it stand for? What kind of collectors just order up items they'd LIKE to have in their collections simply because (get this) there aren't enough authentic items to go around?

If having fake items in your collection really turns you on, then go for it. But this would really open up a Pandora's box very quickly, and surely create huge problems as the years go by for fellow collectors.

If you are determined in this very public forum to violate not only federal law but also the basic tenants of collecting, I can't stop you. But you'll do this hobby a grave and irreversible disservice if you don't at least have these patches CLEARLY MARKED to guard against historical confusion at least, and potentially criminal fraud at most, in the months and years to come. I'd strongly suggest having each patch clearly embroidered on the back with the words "2007 REPRODUCTION."

But more strongly, I'd urge you to continue to honor what makes collecting a fun, honest (and hopefully honorable)pursuit: trying to locate, obtain, value and preserve authentic space memorabilia for the sake of future collectors.

posted 10-21-2006 01:50 AM               

As I stated in my very first posting in this thread, I think a good reproduction is better that no patch at all. Certainly as the patches in question are so extremely rare, and it is unlikely we will see any on eBay any time soon. A lot of collectors seem to agree with me.

In my opinion an art lover is still an art lover if he/she chooses to display a good reproduction of a Picasso at home.

As far as I know. NASA patch designs are free of copyright. There is a long history of these designs being manufactured by several parties. To the best of my knowledge, these are not breaking the law.

posted 10-21-2006 06:57 AM               

Look at the reproduction of the Gemini 11 patch that was authorized and supported by Dick Gordon. He wasn't trying to defraud collectors, he was only trying to improve the accuracy of the patch art he and Pete Conrad proudly wore into space 40 years ago.

That's all we want to do.

posted 10-22-2006 10:55 PM               

The AB initiatve has several advantages over the alternatives but primarily it delivers a quality reproduction (to borrow from the title of this thread) that is also astronaut-endorsed.

In regards to John's comments, I think its helpful to clarify the difference between design and appearance. The way I understand this project (and its ensuing interest), collectors want Gemini patches that are more faithful to the original designs created and chosen by the astronauts. It is not an effort to create replicas of the actual flight patches themselves, but the designs they depicted.

As such, any effort today to create more accurate Gemini patches will have several very distinguishable differences, the least of which will be the wax coating on their backs. The patches will be created on modern machines that use much cleaner stitching than what was possible in the early 1960s. But if that isn't enough, I think everyone has agreed to the inclusion of a hallmark by which to easily identify these new patches as new reproductions.

In regard to legal restrictions, I believe the information John provided is out of date. There was a time when NASA tried to limit the reproduction of their mission insiginias as they felt that they were being misused. And while NASA still holds the rights to their insignias, they have permitted manufacturers to proceed with using the art in commercial products. Indeed, NASA itself (through their exchange stores) is a customer for these same products. That's not to say that NASA logos are open to all uses today, but they are not as limited as described in John's post.

posted 10-23-2006 12:24 PM               

To be honest, I was not overly thrilled by the AB Gemini XI 40th anniversary patch... differences in details on the astronaut figure and an umbilical in the wrong color. I don't necessarily think that's AB's mistake, it may have been poor research by whoever produced the artwork for this patch.

posted 10-23-2006 01:27 PM            

I also would like to have an set of reproduction patches as worn by the astronauts, not just patches that look like them. There are many photos out there that show the real patches on the suits so it would be not that hard to come to a good reproduction. To me it looks like AB is not willing to make these since it takes a long time for them to make up there mind.

posted 11-18-2006 11:41 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen Miller:
I would also be interested in a set of Project Mercury patches. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

---