Pub sign of the year

[ROBCamra]

Better get it marked as Open then.. What pub has it Reopened in December 2011

Yes, but it then closed again.

I reopened it on 07/09/2014 as part of our ongoing checking our database with Whatpub project.

[Pubsignman]

Pub sign of the Year 2015 has been awarded to the King William IV in Nottingham.

Unfortunately the Inn Sign Society's website only displays the winning signs in the member's area, but Aqualung has taken a good shot of the new sign which you can see here: http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/65204/

No pub sign photos on here for either of the runners up though:
Railway Crossings, Wingate
and
Uncle Toms Cabin, Wincanton

[Aqualung]

Pub sign of the Year 2015 has been awarded to the King William IV in Nottingham.

Unfortunately the Inn Sign Society's website only displays the winning signs in the member's area, but Aqualung has taken a good shot of the new sign which you can see here: http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/65204/

In view of this glorious award I've taken the liberty of setting it to display on the front page. I'm not sure why some sign pictures get suppressed and others don't and that's just my own ones! I've no strong feelings wither way which policy is correct. If anyone thinks it's worth it I'll add a title to it and re-upload it.

[sheffield hatter]

In view of this glorious award I've taken the liberty of setting it to display on the front page. I'm not sure why some sign pictures get suppressed and others don't and that's just my own ones! I've no strong feelings either way which policy is correct. If anyone thinks it's worth it I'll add a title to it and re-upload it.

I don't think there is an official policy.

In my view, the pub sign represents the pub and is valid for display on the summary page. On the other hand, stained glass windows, interior shots, pump clips, food, drunken punters, views of the garden, etc are not representations of the pub and should not appear on the summary page. (They are acceptable as photographs but should only appear on the photos page.)

[Mobyduck]

I don't think there is an official policy.

In my view, the pub sign represents the pub and is valid for display on the summary page. On the other hand, stained glass windows, interior shots, pump clips, food, drunken punters, views of the garden, etc are not representations of the pub and should not appear on the summary page. (They are acceptable as photographs but should only appear on the photos page.)

I am not for one minute saying they should appear on the summary page, but how are interior photos not a representation of a pub? They are after all where most people spend their time when visiting a pub. The Heart and soul and very being of the place,(a bit deep I know).

[Aqualung]

I don't think there is an official policy.

In my view, the pub sign represents the pub and is valid for display on the summary page. On the other hand, stained glass windows, interior shots, pump clips, food, drunken punters, views of the garden, etc are not representations of the pub and should not appear on the summary page. (They are acceptable as photographs but should only appear on the photos page.)

I agree totally but is a shot of a pub sign rather than a picture of the pub exterior a borderline case? I can't claim to have an answer and I must add that I am not suggesting refusing ANY photos.

[trainman]

Interior shots are MORE representative of the pub than the exterior. A photo of a row of pumpclips at the bar will tell me a lot more about whether I want to visit a pub than the building itself, although the latter can also inform a decision.

[sheffield hatter]

Interior shots are MORE representative of the pub than the exterior. A photo of a row of pumpclips at the bar will tell me a lot more about whether I want to visit a pub than the building itself, although the latter can also inform a decision.

When I used the word "represents" I meant as a picture standing in for the idea of the pub. I was thinking especially of the fact that the pub's name is usually seen on the front (and sometimes the side) wall of the pub, and also on the pub sign. Even without the name, a pub sign depicting, say, a white lion, is a clear pictorial representation of the idea of a pub called The White Lion.

An interior scene, or picture of a row of pump clips, while being pictorial attempts to represent what may be expected if a prospective drinker were to venture inside the White Lion, cannot immediately bring to mind the White Lion as a pub because the name of the pub is not usually apparent in an interior scene. That is, an interior picture could be anywhere.

(You see this all the time on pub company websites, where models in well-lit professional photographs are depicted enjoying themselves in a generic pub situation. This is meant to entice the unwary viewer to think, "oh, that looks like a nice pub", only to find on arrival that it's a dump.)

When a photo randomly appears on the main summary page of a pub on this site, I believe it should enable the viewer to be able to say, "that's the White Lion", or whatever. Then, as Trainman rightly says, we should be able to look at the other photos to see what the pub is like, which is where the photos of the row of pumpclips comes in. If that photo of the row of pumpclips is also allowed to randomly appear on the front page, it can't identify the pub in the way that the exterior shot or the pub sign do.

[oldboots]

I don't think there is an official policy.

In my view, the pub sign represents the pub and is valid for display on the summary page. On the other hand, stained glass windows, interior shots, pump clips, food, drunken punters, views of the garden, etc are not representations of the pub and should not appear on the summary page. (They are acceptable as photographs but should only appear on the photos page.)


An interior scene, or picture of a row of pump clips, while being pictorial attempts to represent what may be expected if a prospective drinker were to venture inside the White Lion, cannot immediately bring to mind the White Lion as a pub because the name of the pub is not usually apparent in an interior scene. That is, an interior picture could be anywhere.

Yep, that's pretty much my take on it too, the main pictures should clearly relate to the pub in question rather than the viewer asking "what's that meant to be, is it this pub or what?"

[Aqualung]

Spoons use internal shots on their website but as far as I can see the pub is always empty. Come to think of it that might be a good thing!