PRODUCT Choice


Flexible options make Stylos fingerposts a prime choice for regeneration project


Stylos fingerpost units from William Smith were chosen by Argyll Signs to guide tourists to various locations and places of interest in Campbeltown, Argyll & Bute. “We chose Stylos units for this regeneration


project because of the range of styles available, such as conical caps, and because they represented a good alternative to cast iron” explains Argyll Signs’ Gordon Bennie. “The Council is developing a consistency of signage throughout the town and we needed a very traditional style that would be in keeping with other street furniture.” “We also like the flexibility of the Stylos


system, which not only allows information to be changed easily, but gives us the ability to alter the direction of individual fingers when required.” The Stylos units were finished in black, without text, and supplied in kit form. “We applied our own text as we needed


to get the units in before a final decision could be made regarding the text. Having them supplied in kit form gave us total flexibility and they were very simple to assemble. The finished result looks brilliant.” James Lafferty of the Campbeltown Town


Centre Regeneration Project for Argyll & Bute Council says: “For some time it has been recognised that Campbeltown required a directional system and through the Campbeltown Town Centre Regeneration Project we obtained funding to make this possible. The posts have proven to be very popular with locals and visitors.” “We had not used William Smith before and the service we received was excellent. Even though this is a remote location,


Stylos fingerposts guide tourists to various locations and places of interest.


delivery was prompt and absolutely on time. The Stylos units were a little more expensive that other alternatives but the service made it well worth it,” concludes Mr. Bennie. For further information telephone William Smith on 01833 694707 or visit www.williamsmith.co.uk


36 Sign Update ISSUE 126 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116