AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: Mergingtraffic on December 21, 2009, 10:37:08 AM

Title: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 21, 2009, 10:37:08 AM
Quote from: wytout on December 21, 2009, 06:05:41 AMAnd Riverside, thank you for rubbing in our uggggggly square shields here in CT :D lol

I like the CT shields with the thick border...however, I wish CT would adopt the way W. Virginia does 3D routes with the rectangle shield.

NY I think resembles the US Route Shiled too closley and MA shields look wierd without the thick border.
Title: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: hbelkins on December 21, 2009, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on December 21, 2009, 10:37:08 AM

I like the CT shields with the thick border...however, I wish CT would adopt the way W. Virginia does 3D routes with the rectangle shield.


Not me. I hate the wide application for all routes, be they state, US or interstate. I much prefer the square or equivalent signage with smaller numbers vs. rectangular (24 x 30 or equivalent).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Finterestingsigns%2Fky%2FKY676.gif&hash=7fdcac8166c6beefd286beb62405575decadd267)

I MUCH prefer the right sign to the left.
Title: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Riverside Frwy on December 21, 2009, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2009, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on December 21, 2009, 10:37:08 AM

I like the CT shields with the thick border...however, I wish CT would adopt the way W. Virginia does 3D routes with the rectangle shield.


Not me. I hate the wide application for all routes, be they state, US or interstate. I much prefer the square or equivalent signage with smaller numbers vs. rectangular (24 x 30 or equivalent).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Finterestingsigns%2Fky%2FKY676.gif&hash=7fdcac8166c6beefd286beb62405575decadd267)

I MUCH prefer the right sign to the left.

I have to say I like the 3 digit shields better, especially California:

edit: threw in an example that works - linking to a .svg doesn't quite work in browsers yet
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19641561i1.jpg)



Title: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: wytout on December 21, 2009, 02:20:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2009, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on December 21, 2009, 10:37:08 AM

I like the CT shields with the thick border...however, I wish CT would adopt the way W. Virginia does 3D routes with the rectangle shield.



Not me. I hate the wide application for all routes, be they state, US or interstate. I much prefer the square or equivalent signage with smaller numbers vs. rectangular (24 x 30 or equivalent).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Finterestingsigns%2Fky%2FKY676.gif&hash=7fdcac8166c6beefd286beb62405575decadd267)

I MUCH prefer the right sign to the left.


I seriously hate Type B font. It's numbers lack the more graceful lines of Type C and especially the those of Type D.  The type D number set is IMHO the nicest, so I say make the sign however wide it need be to fit some nice type D digits on it! :)
Title: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 02:22:33 PM
some states work better with wide shields than others.  California's recent design isn't too bad, nor is its US route shape (though "101" really is a two-digit number, for the purposes of sizing!) 

however, the state of Alabaaaaaama is a disaster.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AL/AL19702171i1.jpg)

Title: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 02:23:56 PM
I don't much like B either.  A is a much better-looking font.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OK/OK19632661i1.jpg)

a slightly bolder A should have been the font to keep, instead of B, in 1968 when A was dropped.

(and this topic is about to be split in a minute...)
Title: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: wytout on December 21, 2009, 02:24:41 PM
I know the shape of the state I live in is shaped just right for three digit shields.  In fact I wonder if that's what they had in mind way back when when the state boundaries were set ;).  

You know that series A is a hell of a lot better looking than series B.  Is it just me or do the tails on the 6 and 9 seem to work hard at appearing to stick out excessively on Type B's number set?

just putting the new topic together...
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Riverside Frwy on December 21, 2009, 02:33:08 PM
I know US Route 3 digits using the California Style cut outs are sexy as hell, especially 395.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.395.com%2Flegacy%2F395_shield.gif&hash=4dea197d3a56ac89fc966a52a15a64907ce48fe0)
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: wytout on December 21, 2009, 02:38:35 PM
That IS good looking.  Seeing as those three digits are the sexiest in the set to start with!
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 02:39:09 PM
and if you're going to go wide, may as well go whole hog!

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19613951i1.jpg)

alas I do not have an example of a three-digit porcelain white shield in the wild. 

Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: wytout on December 21, 2009, 02:40:26 PM
It's not in the wild but it's still yummy!
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 02:44:20 PM
this is a "halfway wide" shield shape.  From 1958-1961, California had about five different widths for each marker style (interstate, US, state) on their green overhead guide signs, before switching to the federal standard shapes in 1961, which provided for only two widths.

this is width number 3 of 5.  Examples of widths 1 through 5 would be US-50, US-40, US-101, US-199, US-395.  US-6 did not get an especially narrow width (though the single-digit state route spade did have its own separate style).

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19581012i1.jpg)

as far as I know, they switched over to the federal standard shapes when they went with the white shields, so there are no white shields with that shape, or outline shields with the slightly more modern shape.
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Riverside Frwy on December 21, 2009, 03:05:03 PM
I could just stare at California 210 shield all day, but I depending the shape of the sield, I hate Interstate 3 digit markers.

For example interstate 210:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westcoastroads.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fimages201%2Fi-210_shield_at_san_dimas_park_and_ride.jpg&hash=8c7574e155f23e96f3665e0e3755f3eb829e31ac)
The numbers look too small, and the "forehead"(space above the numbers) is way too large.

Compare that to a California 210 shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westcoastroads.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fimages201%2Fca-210_wb_reassurance_shield_after_fruit_street_02.jpg&hash=74a36b7d6714b469571022b8602da924d00bd85f)
Again, absolutely beautiful and I could just stare at it all day until my eyes fall out and rot.
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 03:08:19 PM
the three-digit interstate shields are 30x25 in the standard, while keeping the 8" numbers - meaning there is an extra inch of gap that has to go ... somewhere.  It's why they look a bit silly, even with standard margins and crown height.

The 21x18 (rarely seen trailblazer, though still on the books in CA, despite being abolished by the 1970 federal standard) and 42x36 (freeway reassurance marker) shields are more proportional, as they use the originally intended spacing (18x18, 24x24, etc) of the 1958 spec.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19611051i1.jpg)

I do not know why they went with 30x25 instead of 28x24 in the 1961 specification.
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Ian on December 21, 2009, 04:28:20 PM
I agree with Jake and how it depends on which state is using the narrow/wide route markers. I LOVE the way NH does their route shields. I like the 2-digit shield for every route, including suffixed routes. In fact, when there is a suffix route, NHDOT will just have the letter suffix UNDER the shield (except for the 1 number digit routes). Here is an example:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewHampshireTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5417804186374305026
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:33:06 PM
I don't think there is a design for which I prefer the wider variety over the equivalent narrow possibility. 

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/us395.png)

looks good to me!
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Ian on December 21, 2009, 04:36:06 PM
I also forgot to mention that New Hampshire also loves to use 2-digit sheilds for its 3-digit interstates!

http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewHampshireTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5353907741958959282
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: wytout on December 21, 2009, 04:47:49 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:33:06 PM
I don't think there is a design for which I prefer the wider variety over the equivalent narrow possibility.  

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/us395.png)

looks good to me!

As long as anything higher than series B fits it... I'm game!  However, we know that by current MUTCD standards no 395 would fit in a 2 digit shield and be able to maintain the character height set forth.
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: jdb1234 on December 21, 2009, 04:49:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 02:22:33 PM
some states work better with wide shields than others.  California's recent design isn't too bad, nor is its US route shape (though "101" really is a two-digit number, for the purposes of sizing!) 

however, the state of Alabaaaaaama is a disaster.


If you think that is bad, take a look at this

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F101_0934.jpg&hash=7ffa5c7956595d3f6d97de9984b806969dfa8c5d)
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: wytout on December 21, 2009, 04:54:31 PM
take a look at what? It's such a SMALL sign... I can barely even SEE it! lol  :-D
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Riverside Frwy on December 21, 2009, 05:07:17 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:33:06 PM
I don't think there is a design for which I prefer the wider variety over the equivalent narrow possibility.  

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/us395.png)

looks good to me!

Not like'in it.As wytout said, 395 is a very sexy number, so it will look on almost(almost) anything.Putting in an ugly number like 266 is a different story.

Quote from: jdb1234 on December 21, 2009, 04:49:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 02:22:33 PM
some states work better with wide shields than others.  California's recent design isn't too bad, nor is its US route shape (though "101" really is a two-digit number, for the purposes of sizing!)  

however, the state of Alabaaaaaama is a disaster.


If you think that is bad, take a look at this

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F101_0934.jpg&hash=7ffa5c7956595d3f6d97de9984b806969dfa8c5d)

This what we call a quadruple fail. :pan:

It's too big(fail), the shield being the ugly shape of the state of Alabama is a fail in itself, and using a series B font when they don't have to should get double-fail bonus points. :spin:
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: realjd on December 21, 2009, 07:20:59 PM
I was always amused by the fact that Texas usually puts them backwards. They tend to put 3-digit interstates on a narrow sign while putting the 2-digit interstates on a wide sign.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=32.688527,-96.627073&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.688923,-96.627778&panoid=7M7nuCnURVGWNWVyq7dv7w&cbp=12,310.93,,0,-4.21
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: mightyace on December 21, 2009, 07:53:44 PM
Due to the width of the state outline at the bottom of the shield, all TN primary state highways are three digits wide.

There aren't many single digit examples as these numbers are mainly used for hidden multiplexes from US routes.  However, TN 7 does go out on its own north and west of Columbia.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2548%2F4206856049_596f5b8f60.jpg&hash=65724adfe89de5999a81d0f37e26d17fbcdb09b4)

TN 96
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2476%2F3615373628_19296df255.jpg&hash=4e832f5fa46b7d7b4f3adb320f3d7f72a47607f9)

and the iconic TN 840
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3361%2F3564674170_3b58cce1d1.jpg&hash=396995fc938a5358fc341d1440d8b4469ec6f89d)

The secondary routes (which use the old state route shape are different for 2d and 3d)

TN secondary 46
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3350%2F3663618354_092056827c.jpg&hash=dbb7e00172a4450d65713c320af853c04f63ec2c)

TN secondary 246
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3389%2F3268032840_3ffdb595f1_o.jpg&hash=c9ded91626f2d0428e171412bfe3bb516c08c6a1)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/

EDIT:
Added TN 7 image and rearrange SRs in 1 2 3 digit order.
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: J N Winkler on December 22, 2009, 01:02:17 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 21, 2009, 07:20:59 PM
I was always amused by the fact that Texas usually puts them backwards. They tend to put 3-digit interstates on a narrow sign while putting the 2-digit interstates on a wide sign.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=32.688527,-96.627073&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.688923,-96.627778&panoid=7M7nuCnURVGWNWVyq7dv7w&cbp=12,310.93,,0,-4.21

Used to--TxDOT snapped to the federal standard several years ago, and now uses three-digit shields for three-digit routes and two-digit shields for two-digit routes.  (IH 35E and IH 35W count as three-digit.)
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: realjd on December 22, 2009, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 22, 2009, 01:02:17 PM
Used to--TxDOT snapped to the federal standard several years ago, and now uses three-digit shields for three-digit routes and two-digit shields for two-digit routes.  (IH 35E and IH 35W count as three-digit.)

Do you have any clue why they did that to begin with?
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: cjk374 on December 22, 2009, 05:10:17 PM
Louisiana squeezes 4 digits on our shield.  The closest "3-digit shield" we have are used on the interstate off ramps and reassurance signs at the interstate interchanges. They put the UGH in UGLY!
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 22, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 22, 2009, 05:10:17 PM
Louisiana squeezes 4 digits on our shield. 

five, on occasion, and a hyphen!

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/LA/LA19740711i1.jpg)

I have seen five where none of the digits is a "1".
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: cjk374 on December 22, 2009, 05:45:06 PM
^^Do u have any pics of the interstate ramp state shields I was refering to? Anybody?
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 22, 2009, 06:11:19 PM
just this one on the shield gallery:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/LA/LA19909751i1.jpg)
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: cjk374 on December 23, 2009, 10:37:57 AM
^^My bad.  I was refering to reassurance signs you may see as soon as you turn off an exit ramp, or sometimes they will be under the control city directional sign toward the end of the exit ramps.
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: ctsignguy on December 23, 2009, 09:03:13 PM
The problem with the wide markers is that some State route shapes lend themselves better to wide sign than squares  (Tennessee, South Dakota).....where as a wide State looks....awful when it should be on a square (Louisiana, Ohio, Alabama)

Some other State route shapes look just as good wide as narrow....Pennsylvania's keystone

And of course, those horrid North Dakota 3 and 4-digit WIIIIIDE Indian heads...they look like SOMEONE was taking some serious liquid nutrition during lunch!
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: xonhulu on December 23, 2009, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on December 23, 2009, 09:03:13 PM
The problem with the wide markers is that some State route shapes lend themselves better to wide sign than squares  (Tennessee, South Dakota).....where as a wide State looks....awful when it should be on a square (Louisiana, Ohio, Alabama)

Some other State route shapes look just as good wide as narrow....Pennsylvania's keystone

And of course, those horrid North Dakota 3 and 4-digit WIIIIIDE Indian heads...they look like SOMEONE was taking some serious liquid nutrition during lunch!

I've often wondered what the 3-digit Washington state shield would look like...
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: ctsignguy on December 23, 2009, 10:07:32 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on December 23, 2009, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on December 23, 2009, 09:03:13 PM
The problem with the wide markers is that some State route shapes lend themselves better to wide sign than squares  (Tennessee, South Dakota).....where as a wide State looks....awful when it should be on a square (Louisiana, Ohio, Alabama)

Some other State route shapes look just as good wide as narrow....Pennsylvania's keystone

And of course, those horrid North Dakota 3 and 4-digit WIIIIIDE Indian heads...they look like SOMEONE was taking some serious liquid nutrition during lunch!

I've often wondered what the 3-digit Washington state shield would look like...

....like George needs to hit the Subway for one of Jared's low-cal specials?
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: myosh_tino on December 24, 2009, 02:00:50 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on December 23, 2009, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on December 23, 2009, 09:03:13 PM
The problem with the wide markers is that some State route shapes lend themselves better to wide sign than squares  (Tennessee, South Dakota).....where as a wide State looks....awful when it should be on a square (Louisiana, Ohio, Alabama)

Some other State route shapes look just as good wide as narrow....Pennsylvania's keystone

And of course, those horrid North Dakota 3 and 4-digit WIIIIIDE Indian heads...they look like SOMEONE was taking some serious liquid nutrition during lunch!

I've often wondered what the 3-digit Washington state shield would look like...
All of Washington's state shields are the same size.  The 3-digit shield uses the Series C font while 1 and 2 digit shields use Series D.

WA-500:
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/washington005/i-005_nb_exit_002_02.jpg)

WA-14:
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/washington005/i-005_nb_exit_001_02.jpg)
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Riverside Frwy on December 24, 2009, 02:17:04 AM
^

But that's understandable.Imagine how weird and stupid a wide-shape of George Washington's head would look. :eyebrow:
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 24, 2009, 02:56:11 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on December 24, 2009, 02:17:04 AM

But that's understandable.Imagine how weird and stupid a wide-shape of George Washington's head would look. :eyebrow:

probably no weirder than a three-digit North Dakota!  :ded:
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: xonhulu on December 24, 2009, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 24, 2009, 02:00:50 AM
All of Washington's state shields are the same size.  The 3-digit shield uses the Series C font while 1 and 2 digit shields use Series D.

But if Washington decided to make a wider shield instead, would they really elongate George's head?  They respectfully name a state after our first President, then honor him by making him look like E.T. on their highway shields?
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: papaT10932 on January 18, 2010, 08:39:33 PM
I always thought that 3 digit NY shields on BGS's look a lot like Flying Saucers!  :-D
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Duke87 on January 18, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
Quote from: papaT10932 on January 18, 2010, 08:39:33 PM
I always thought that 3 digit NY shields on BGS's look a lot like Flying Saucers!  :-D

Yeah, this is kinda weird looking:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg40.imageshack.us%2Fimg40%2F1985%2Fdscn0182p.jpg&hash=446409dcb00fa23d758579b292eef10c89664e29)

This is better:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg40.imageshack.us%2Fimg40%2F5585%2Fdscn0181r.jpg&hash=6fd7cf3c3cf7382bc05b430587f2c80343a3f661)
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: Avalanchez71 on November 04, 2020, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: mightyace on December 21, 2009, 07:53:44 PM
Due to the width of the state outline at the bottom of the shield, all TN primary state highways are three digits wide.

There aren't many single digit examples as these numbers are mainly used for hidden multiplexes from US routes.  However, TN 7 does go out on its own north and west of Columbia.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2548%2F4206856049_596f5b8f60.jpg&hash=65724adfe89de5999a81d0f37e26d17fbcdb09b4)

TN 96
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2476%2F3615373628_19296df255.jpg&hash=4e832f5fa46b7d7b4f3adb320f3d7f72a47607f9)

and the iconic TN 840
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3361%2F3564674170_3b58cce1d1.jpg&hash=396995fc938a5358fc341d1440d8b4469ec6f89d)

The secondary routes (which use the old state route shape are different for 2d and 3d)

TN secondary 46
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3350%2F3663618354_092056827c.jpg&hash=dbb7e00172a4450d65713c320af853c04f63ec2c)

TN secondary 246
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3389%2F3268032840_3ffdb595f1_o.jpg&hash=c9ded91626f2d0428e171412bfe3bb516c08c6a1)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/

EDIT:
Added TN 7 image and rearrange SRs in 1 2 3 digit order.

So TN 7 no longer runs along North James Campbell Bvld and thence to Sante Fe Pike.  It now runs along US 31/Bus US 412 to US 43/US 412 to the Sante Fe Pike exit then on it's own alignment.

SR 840 is now I-840.
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: renegade on November 04, 2020, 08:38:41 PM
^^ 11-year-old reply.  Holy necropost, Batman!   :clap:
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: ozarkman417 on November 04, 2020, 09:10:04 PM
Quote from: renegade on November 04, 2020, 08:38:41 PM
^^ 11-year-old reply.  Holy necropost, Batman!   :clap:
This is only the runner up for today! (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1366.msg2545482#msg2545482)
Title: Re: narrow vs. wide route markers
Post by: LilianaUwU on November 05, 2020, 12:19:20 AM
And I thought I was a good necromancer.   :pan:

On the topic, I usually prefer 2-digit shields, but I'm fine with 3-digit shields when they're well done.