What's wrong with this picture?
Caution: Do NOT buy this wall clock!!! It's just plain wrong. While over-sized wall clocks make a great impact, and I LOVE to use them for Home Staging, there are some on the market that are just not right. Here's another faulty clock:
Do YOU know what's wrong?
This one is correct.
What's the difference?
This has bothered me for quite a while, but rather than just open my mouth and rant about it, I decided to do the adult thing and check it out. I wanted to be sure I was right before I ranted. Perhaps I really am an old fuddy-duddy who missed the news that the old Roman numeral IV is now IIII. But why would they change it? Seldom used, except on decorative wall clocks and in movie credits, Roman numerals are just not trending on Twitter - until, perhaps, today. (#Romannumerals!)
So, I checked it out on the internet. There's actually a website for Roman Numerals: www.roman-numerals.org! (Believe me, when They say there's a website for everything, They're right!)
I'm right. IIII is wrong; IV is still correct.
The website is also very useful for converting the gibberish that many larger Roman numerals look like to intelligible digits.
Happy MMXII to you all - let's make it a great year!!!
EDIT/ALERT: Thanks to the tenacious Debbie Gartner (her second comment, below), there are several reasons why IIII is appropriate for a clock! I stand corrected, and am relieved to be rid of this rant!!! The following is from Wikipedia:
IIII on clocks
Clock faces that are labeled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for four o'clock and IX for nine o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not the other. There are many suggested explanations for this:
- Many clocks use IIII because that was the tradition established by the earliest surviving clock, the Wells Cathedral clock built between 1386 and 1392. It used IIII because that was the typical method used to denote 4 in contemporary manuscripts (as iiij or iiii). That clock had an asymmetrical 24-hour dial and used Arabic numerals for a minute dial and a moon dial, so theories depending on a symmetrical 12-hour clock face do not apply.[22]
- Perhaps IV was avoided because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. This suggestion has been attributed to Isaac Asimov.[23]
- Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.[24]
- Using standard numerals, two sets of figures would be similar and therefore confusable by children and others unused to reading clockfaces: IV and VI are similar, as are IX and XI. As the first pair are upside down on the face, an additional level of confusion would be introduced—a confusion avoided by using IIII to provide a clear distinction from VI.
- The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which the two-character IV would not.
- With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty Is, four Vs, and four Xs,[25] so clock makers need only a single mold with a V, five Is, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks: VIIIIIX. This is cast four times for each clock and the twelve required numerals are separated:
- V IIII IX
- VI II IIX
- VII III X
- VIII I IX
- Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry.
Comments(24)