As I understand it, the regulation sleeve crease to be ironed into wedgewood shirts (long or short-sleeeved) is to be from the centre of the epaulette.
However: I notice that the design of the newest issue wedgewoods is such that from new, in natural/stitched wear, the epaulettes are forward, such that the sleeve crease is definitely to the rear.
This means that when you iron-out the ‘wrong’ crease, and add-in a correct from-the-centre-of-the-epaulette crease, the whole arm is slightly twisted in repose, and doesn’t want to sit flat when being ironed/folded for storage/hung on a hanger.
Has someone altered the universe such that sleeve creases on shirts are now meant to be retained as being from the rear of the epaulette (out of the packet style) thus presenting the epaulettes forward? I have noticed some regular RAF personnel now ironing their shirts this way… :?
Or has someone permitted the contractor to produce shirts that are all made exactly wrong?
I wouldnt say nobody cares this has happend befor with a change of shirt contract it only lasted a few months then the shirts were mad back to spec again.
You will prob find that the new supplier has just made a bit of a mess up and it will be sorted soon
As others have said, I’ve always ironed mine from where the seam sits so the sleeve is flat.
The shirt I had in cadets had the crease naturally laying from the centre of the epaulette. Now all the shirts I have, when the sleeve lies flat from the seam, the natural crease is from the rear of the epaulette.
As tango says, it was where the crease was when they came out the packet. People tried ironing a new crease from the centre, but mostly it hasn’t worked and looks a bit crap.
I’m always slightly ammused by the “crease as it comes out of the packet” argument.
If I ironed in all the creases that my shirts have straight out of the packet I’d look a right state; with creases in all sorts of places and going in all sorts of directions!
It’s folded in a packet having come off a mass production line - It’s not ready to wear from a bespoke tailor!
Where the creases happen to be when you take it out means ■■■■■■ all.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=7267]I’m always slightly ammused by the “crease as it comes out of the packet” argument.
If I ironed in all the creases that my shirts have straight out of the packet I’d look a right state; with creases in all sorts of places and going in all sorts of directions!
It’s folded in a packet having come off a mass production line - It’s not ready to wear from a bespoke tailor!
Where the creases happen to be when you take it out means ■■■■■■ all.[/quote]
Absolutely, but creases along the top of the sleeve need to be there, so might as well leave them there! The other creases from the packaging can be ironed out.
The creases from the packaging on the sleeve just happen to also be where the shirt would fold when the sleeve is placed flat with the seam (as has been previously discussed). They were for my shirts anyway.
I don’t think this is a massive issue to be getting our hair in a tangle over, gents.
Just for the avoidance of any confusion regarding the points I’m making here:
there is no doubt that the traditional position for the arm-crease in RAF shirts has always been from the centre of the epaulette
this was evident from the way the way the shirts were previously designed, and a centred crease has been clearly-stated as the required standard in all the appropriate dress regs
However
It does now appear that all new-issue shirts [i]are[/I] designed differently, and remaining so. Every new one I’ve seen so far now has the epaulettes sitting forward on the shoulders, throwing the rank-slide towards the front of the wearer, presumably to make the rank easier to see (which is logical).
The arms are stitched to the body in such a way that the only location for a proper vertical crease is to the rear of the epaulette, in conflict with the dress regs.
To say that the position of the crease doesn’t matter is rubbish, as it will be picked-up at every inspection in shirt-sleeves. And to say it’s trivial or doesn’t matter is not correct- it means there’s a constant practical conflict every time a new-pattern shirt is ironed, the damn crease will always now be off the vertical, if centred on the relocated epaulette when the wearer is standing to attention…and, for certain, the epaulettes themselves on new-pattern shirts are going to remain where they’ve been shifted to: forward on the wearer by half-a-rankslide.
[quote=“wilf_san” post=8225]To say that the position of the crease doesn’t matter is rubbish, as it will be picked-up at every inspection in shirt-sleeves. And to say it’s trivial or doesn’t matter is not correct- it means there’s a constant practical conflict every time a new-pattern shirt is ironed, the damn crease will always now be off the vertical, if centred on the relocated epaulette when the wearer is standing to attention…and, for certain, the epaulettes themselves on new-pattern shirts are going to remain where they’ve been shifted to: forward on the wearer by half-a-rankslide.
This needs sorting out. Will have a go.
wilf_san[/quote]
I don’t mean to insult you, wilf, but it doesn’t get picked up, because nobody cares. When you started this thread I remembered having pretty much the same conversation with the boss at the (ATC) squadron. I mentioned that nobody seemed to be making the effort to get their creases in the right place and he said “Nobody cares. ATF don’t care. I don’t care.” I can double check, but I’m pretty sure if I ask one of my friends who’s been through Halton recently, he’ll say they don’t care.
I think the creases should be central. It looks smarter and it’s what’s in the book. But, rightly or wrongly, it’s like the issue with flags being sewn onto CS95 in the wrong place, just too trivial for an Air Force that’s busy doing stuff to worry about.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=8231][quote=“wilf_san” post=8225]To say that the position of the crease doesn’t matter is rubbish, as it will be picked-up at every inspection in shirt-sleeves. And to say it’s trivial or doesn’t matter is not correct- it means there’s a constant practical conflict every time a new-pattern shirt is ironed, the damn crease will always now be off the vertical, if centred on the relocated epaulette when the wearer is standing to attention…and, for certain, the epaulettes themselves on new-pattern shirts are going to remain where they’ve been shifted to: forward on the wearer by half-a-rankslide.
This needs sorting out. Will have a go.
wilf_san[/quote]
I don’t mean to insult you, wilf, but it doesn’t get picked up, because nobody cares. When you started this thread I remembered having pretty much the same conversation with the boss at the (ATC)
squadron. I mentioned that nobody seemed to be making the effort to get their creases in the right place and he said “Nobody cares. ATF don’t care. I don’t care.” I can double check, but I’m pretty sure if I ask one of my friends who’s been through Halton recently, he’ll say they don’t care.
I think the creases should be central. It looks smarter and it’s what’s in the book. But, rightly or wrongly, it’s like the issue with flags being sewn onto CS95 in the wrong place, just too trivial for an Air Force that’s busy doing stuff to worry about.[/quote]
If Halton dont care they have let standards slip as this sort of thing dose matter in basic training if the RAF are going this way im glad I am out.
I dont like this I dont care attitude with uniform if you dont care donnt wear it
