Fabulous is BrushScript. With an alternate F, though… Maybe from another font?
I’m pretty sure about abolous being BrushScript.
(Does this count as a full ID, Yves?)

Correct your are Marc, in fact the script isn’t even close when you consider the original sign typography, not to mention the text on the BACK of the sign :D

http://www.thewelcometolvsign.com/

PS: I am SO getting one of these :D

Addendum: 10 to 20 percent stretched…

The Brush Script ID is valid, Bert — good job.

I thought Las Vegas might be Ulissa Bold but — although the
earmarks match — the face is quite different and not even a
near match. Bugger …

Nevada could very well be Frutiger 95 Ultra Black, and apart
from the ‘C’ Welcome looks similar to plain ol’ Helvetica.

It might help with the Idenification if you could tell the type experts about when the sign was created. Type and eras go together

1959 — Designed by Betty Willis

Well just to be thematically appropriate, you could use House Industries {newurl\newurl{http://houseind.com/house.php?kit=VEGAS-FO&sub=view%2CLas,http://housein…} Vegas Fabulous} for Fabulous…

Yves, I don’t think Frutiger and/or Helvetica match… Considering the dating Frutiger is out of the question, of course. My guess is, one should look into transfer lettering of the time.

BTW: The stretching remark I made doesn’t make sense in this respect, either. Probably the “original” BrushScript is a bit wider than the one that’s digitally available — or the illustration has been stretched a bit.

Bert, I don’t think this is a photo of the sign — looks like a digital recreation. So the dates of the fonts needn’t match, since whoever digitized it may have used what was at hand, rather than what was historically accurate.