Faux button copy on retroreflective signs

[Occidental Tourist]

While on a holiday trip on I-40 near Needles, I saw the following recently-erected retroreflective sign



It may be hard to tell from the picture, but those are faux, printed-on button copy dots in the "95" on the US shield.  There were at least two signs that did this for 95 North, while the signs for 95 south closer to Needles used regular, unmolested black font.

The button copy printing was similar to this historic shield example below, although the button copy on the 95 signs was a bit grayer:



Any idea how or why these new US 95 signs got out of a Caltrans sign shop?

[andy3175]

This appears to be I-40 east prior to the US 95 north interchange.

Here is the old sign: https://www.aaroads.com/california/images040/i-040_eb_exit_133_18.jpg from 02/20/05

And the new-ish sign (already nine years old): https://www.aaroads.com/california/images040/i-040_eb_exit_133_18a.jpg from 03/30/07 

If I had to guess, the new sign lacked the US 95 shield, so they borrowed the button copy one from the old sign. And the same issue exists for the two-mile advance sign for US 95 along I-40 east:

https://www.aaroads.com/california/images040/i-040_eb_exit_133_17a.jpg

https://www.aaroads.com/california/images040/i-040_eb_exit_133_17.jpg

[Occidental Tourist]

If I had to guess, the new sign lacked the US 95 shield, so they borrowed the button copy one from the old sign. And the same issue exists for the two-mile advance sign for US 95 along I-40 east:

We're it so.  Sadly, there's no greenout or borrowing.  It's a brand new sign with printed (not actual) faux button copy on the sheeting.

[Quillz]

Interesting choice. Would have to see the sign a bit closer up to really get a good look at it. But I guess some contractor liked the old sign enough to recreate it.

[andy3175]

If I had to guess, the new sign lacked the US 95 shield, so they borrowed the button copy one from the old sign. And the same issue exists for the two-mile advance sign for US 95 along I-40 east:

We're it so.  Sadly, there's no greenout or borrowing.  It's a brand new sign with printed (not actual) faux button copy on the sheeting.

Huh, I never examined the signs closely enough to arrive at that conclusion. Thanks for checking it out, and perhaps one of us should try to get a better close-up picture of the shield on those guide signs.

[myosh_tino]

Are you sure those are faux buttons?

Snippet taken from GMSW at https://goo.gl/maps/6HHmbHyxEWy

I was able to get Google Maps Street View to take a really close look at that sign from the side and it appears that those are real buttons, not painted circles within the route numerals like on the Historic US 99 sign.

[Occidental Tourist]

Are you sure those are faux buttons?

Snippet taken from GMSW at https://goo.gl/maps/6HHmbHyxEWy

I was able to get Google Maps Street View to take a really close look at that sign from the side and it appears that those are real buttons, not painted circles within the route numerals like on the Historic US 99 sign.

I was 99 percent sure, but based on your sleuthing, now I'm not.  I was clear at the time that it wasn't a greenout job, and if you look at the back of the sign, you can't see any bolts indicating that an old button copy shield was affixed to a new retroreflective sign because of, e.g., a signing error out of the plant.  That raises the question:  Did someone in District 8 go out of their way to affix buttons onto a new retroreflective sign?  Or was it possible they pulled an old shield off a button copy US 95 sign and included it when they were originally manufacturing the new retroreflective sign?  And if so, why would they do this as an original feature?  Particularly when the new retroreflective sign at the actual exit uses flat, non-buttoned copy?

BTW, here's the sign two miles from the eastbound exit.  It has the same shadowing (particularly along the top edge) suggesting those are physical buttons.

[kendancy66]

My guess is that the shield was removed from the old sign and placed on the new sign to cover up a mistake

[thenetwork]

Next question:  Is the border around the US-95 shield a raised border, or is that shield peeling at the edges?  If it is peeling, then would it be plausible that the shield was just a blank and only the button-copy numerals were affixed to the blank??

[Occidental Tourist]

My guess is that the shield was removed from the old sign and placed on the new sign to cover up a mistake

Except there's no bolts on the back indicative of an installation.  Maybe somebody from Caltrans on here can tell us if they have a way of doing greenout additions to signs that involve affixing new material to signs without bolting them on.

[myosh_tino]

My guess is that the shield was removed from the old sign and placed on the new sign to cover up a mistake

Except there's no bolts on the back indicative of an installation.  Maybe somebody from Caltrans on here can tell us if they have a way of doing greenout additions to signs that involve affixing new material to signs without bolting them on.

If I had to guess, green-out using reflective sheeting is done using adhesives rather than mechanical fasteners.  The buttons were probably glued on.

[Occidental Tourist]

Resurrecting this thread. I went past the US 95 exit advance sign on I-40 today. I got out and took pictures:





The sign has an old button copy shield screwed into the sign. The button copy was baked into the shield, so it was cribbed from one of the newer button copy signs. As you can see from the pictures, it is also covering up a shield that was originally printed on the sign. There is another advance sign about a mile further down the road that also had the same setup of button copy shield over a retroreflective sign.  Finally, the actual exit sign is all retroreflective–no button copy at all– except there's a retroreflective greenout shield over whatever was originally printed underneath. It's be interesting to know what the original shield on all three signs was. 

[jakeroot]

It's be interesting to know what the original shield on all three signs was.

It sure looks a lot like an interstate shield outline. Maybe it was an I-95 interstate shield? Obviously would have been a mistake.



WSDOT has posted several warning signs in the Seattle area that use yellow dots along black arrows. I don't know if this was done as an homage to button copy, or to improve the visibility of the arrow at night (since black isn't ordinarily reflective, IIRC). The few button copy arrows that existed until recently used a single line of buttons, rather than an outline of the arrow, so the pattern on the below sign would be accurate to WSDOT button copy-spec.

[NJRoadfan]

For a sign thats 4-5 years old its in horrible shape. Also Caltrans still hasn't figured out what exit tabs are.

[TheStranger]

For a sign thats 4-5 years old its in horrible shape. Also Caltrans still hasn't figured out what exit tabs are.

- Retroreflective signs are pretty prone to sun fading - especially in the desert.  But even outside of it, I've seen a few in the SF area that are about 10-15 years old but already starting to wear down.

- IIRC there are some external-tab signs in more rural areas now, though the majority of exit number signs in the state remain the internal-tab design.