Such great comments on this post. Thanks to all for taking the time to read and respond!

For all your praise of various signs though Mike, the clarity and density are the most important. kola has great signs, but his first batch were unreadable, looked like advertisements to the untrained eye, the second batch enlarged the “kola.”, but too late perhaps? If signs are scattered too thinly, or worn down, another demerit. Lukes and Rosen deserve credit, because their signs postively glare, and fix the candidates name in your brain. Rosen had hundreds upon hundreds of locations on the west side last election, and that is the purpose of these things, to market the name, to make it seem inevitable

one last point while on my sign kick here, no mention of the giant signs. here, Joe is again clearly the winner. the guy has giant signs at key locations, shrewsbury street, tatnuck square, cambridge and canterbury. Of all campaigns in recent history though, Glodis emerges the sign king. Guy had gargantuan, professional signs everywhere in Worcester county. readable and clear, omnipresent.

Love the Eddy comment — I’ve always taken those signs to be a little bit self-effacing…like, vote for me, unless you just want to cross my name off the list altogether…