The new uniform.

[Bob White]

It seems evident from uniforming that many of us have witnessed in some troops that even today's fabric cannot stay tucked in.

 

I would hope that people would realize that making such a determination before the uniform has actually been worn is extremely premature. So far all we have seen is a few photos. Some people have been waiting years to criticize whatever the next scout uniform was going to be. You would think thay could wait just a few more months until they at least saw one in person, or God forbid actually wore it a few times, before they started to criticize it.

[Gold Winger]

"It seems evident from uniforming that many of us have witnessed in some troops that even today's fabric cannot stay tucked in. "

 

Very true Bob. That is most due to three things. The pants don't fit properly. They've outgrown their shirts so they are too short. Those danged square cut tails are useless.

 

 

[Bob White]

Gee, I was was sure that the scouts simply didn't tuck their shirts in. I think you lay far too much of the blame on inanimate fabric and not enough responsibility on the person wearing the clothing. Why else could so many scouts in one troop keep their shirts tucked in while some scouts in another cannot.

 

This hardly seems to be a matter of friction or lack of. We had a scouter in our District whose shirt tails kept escaping his trousers. It appears it was also capable of evading a washing mashing and an iron. I really can't believe this is a problem with the uniform but with its owner.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[emb021]

"New and different is usually cool to the young and not so cool to the older."

 

Key word is 'usually'. Don't assume it automatically is. Keep in mind the kids that want to wear that old-fashioned garrison cap...

 

When the then new Oscar DeLorenta uniform came out in 1980, few scouts I knew ran out and got it. I know I didn't until I had to for the 81 Jamboree.

 

There seems to be some adults who are chomping at the bit to get it. Am sure there are some scouts who are the same way. And there are others who really don't care, for whatever reason.

 

Since I'm involved in Venturing & Sea Scouting, I only care about this new uniform to the extent that it affects the programs I'm in (as well as a from a historical basis).

 

[Gold Winger]

True, the owner/wearer is part of the problem.

 

However, I have two shortsleeved shirts, one with square tails and one with regualar tails (I wish I could find more like that one). The former works it way out and the latter stays tucked in through everything short of volleyball games.

 

The operator is part of the problem but design has an impact as well.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

There is also the possibility that the youth do not adequately tuck in their uniform shirt and allow it to blouse over the top of their pants, perhaps tucking it in as one should woudl alleviate the shirt pulling out.

 

Way back at the 2001 Jamboree one of the singing groups the kids loved were the Parachuters, members of the Golden Knights I think who also sang They thought those guys looked cool. I said wow, they all wear the same uniform, they wear thier shirts tucked in and boots shined, does that mean you guys will do the same? I think they did, for 2 hours, the spirit was willing but the flesh weak

[scoutmomma]

Where does the veteran unit bar go? There doesn't appear to be any room between the Council patch and the new pocket on the new shirt.

 

(edited to remove a mistake)(This message has been edited by scoutmomma)

[schooley117]

The Veteran unit bar might be relocated to under the American flag and push down the patrol emblem.

[hot_foot_eagle]

I'm a starch-and-crease, spit-shine kinda guy and can say with some authority that the present scout uniform does not stay tucked in well at all - with or without operator error. It's in the design and fabric.

 

 

[schooley117]

I've noticed that the current uniform stays tucked in pretty well with military creases.

[Bob White]

I am tickled by people who wanted a more "outdoorsish" uniform that is light weight AND durable but they still want to hang as many do dads on it as they can.

 

I think it would be wrong to assume that all the adornments of the past uniform will be retained on this new design. It would appear from what we have seen so far that this will be a lower key, more subtle uniform look. It is very possible that the adornments of the past will either be changed in size and appearance or perhaps dropped completely in favor of this more untilitarian design.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Ditro]

Since this is going to be an outdoor uniform, does anybody think their units are going to wear it outdoors? Are you going to require a uniform change or just let the old one fade out over time?

 

Based on my troop's non-enthusiastic response to it ("oh great, does this mean I have to buy a new uniform?"), I'm guessing my troop is going to let people buy it as they need it.

 

Ditro

[Gold Winger]

"I am tickled by people who wanted a more "outdoorsish" uniform that is light weight AND durable but they still want to hang as many do dads on it as they can. "

 

The 1960s uniform was an outdoors uniform and was still very do-dadable. A few patches don't make the uniform less outdoorsy.

 

However, if you want to reduce do-dads . . . first get rid of the "trained" patch. I know that I'm trained, my CC knows that I'm trained. Why does it matter if anyone else knows?

 

Get rid of the silly QU patch. Once again, I know, what does it matter if anyone else knows.

 

Position patches? Go back to the old ones that were just the symbol or position on plain fabric. Same for rank patches.

 

 

[Bob White]

There are far more do-dads for the Scout uniform today then there were 40+ years ago. Is the BSA to only get rid of the ones YOU don't like?

[Gold Winger]

Sounds good to me. To make things simple, we could go back to the 1960s do-dads. OA flap, knots, position patch, rank, and temporary patch.