Roman Numerals: Three part question.

Now why in the world would they use IIII for 4 and yet still use IX for 9? That doesn’t jive.

Because IIIIIIIII wouldn’t fit on that clock at all.

Nermal: You’ve spooked me! Are you a mind reader?

This is question number three!

Question 2 would have been:

How is the number 4 depicted on 99% of Roman-numeralled clocks and watches? Lets skip that one now and go straight to my (and Soc’s) question.

I should warn you, I have asked many many shop assistants in jewellers. The dear chap who always mans the Breitling stand at airshows even rung the head office in Switzerland to ask.

There have been a few poor guesses, but nothing that is really satisfactory.
Nermal – do you know?

Several years ago a school asked a similar question and I was subsequently tasked with mocking up a picture as both sides debated the pros and cons of the received answers from readers.
The answer I haven’t seen here yet is the shepherds method: one, two, three, four bars and then a strike across to denote five, so that you just needed to count each batch of five to arrive at your total. Obviously you couldn’t do that on a clockface, but its as workable up to four as any other answer already given.
Mind reader? I wish! – Nermal

I’m not sure about the Louis XIV story. Had it been true, he would have been called Louis XIIII!

And we would have had Spitfire XIIII’s – not quite the same methinks!

Award yourself beers (even AustereFan) and send me the invoice.

From AustinVan to AustereFan in one thread. I can’t keep up!

That’s fantastic. At last I have an answer! Or at least a set of them.

I’m not sure about the Louis XIV story. Had it been true, he would have been called Louis XIIII!

The answer about balance explains why it may have occurred once, but does not explain why it has been copied so frequently. I would have expected the balance between IV and IIII to be 50:50, or at least less than 95%, if that was the case.

My favourite answer is:
“Most watch and clockmakers were just ordinary folks, but it would have taken a doctor or a registered nurse to give an “IV.” 😀

Award yourself beers (even AustereFan) and send me the invoice.

Cheers folk!

I have just looked down at my watch and realsied that it has IIII – have never noticed that before!!!!

If I had a penny for every person who has said that to me …

… I’d have 27 pence now.

I have just looked down at my watch and realsied that it has IIII – have never noticed that before!!!!

I’ve always understood that it’s to maintain the ‘balance’ of the face, which you don’t get with IV. That’s certainly what I’ve been told by various horologists.

That would explain a great deal! Unfortunately my hair is falling out without assistance!!

Are you sure about that? 😉

http://elginwatches.org/help/roman_IIII.html
http://www.ivtech.com/roman/faq.php#faq3
http://www.bhi.co.uk/hints/roman.htm

Janie

Does this help?

http://www.ubr.com/clocks/faq/iiii.html

Steve: If you track back through the history of my posts, invariably they are punctuated with AustinVan flinging insults mercilessly in my direction. Never once have I responded.

What he is unaware of is that I sneeked into his bathroom and replaced his shampoo with hair-removing cream!

That would explain a great deal! Unfortunately my hair is falling out without assistance!!

I’m trying to remember the answer to this. I’m sure I’ve read the reason somewhere but for the life of me can’t remember where. This needs to be investigated……

What he is unaware of is that I sneeked into his bathroom and replaced his shampoo with hair-removing cream!

The frightening thing is, I can imagine you doing that…! 😉

You’re a brave man Ian, a VERY brave man… especially seeing as you have your coordinates shown top right!

Steve: If you track back through the history of my posts, invariably they are punctuated with AustinVan flinging insults mercilessly in my direction. Never once have I responded.

What he is unaware of is that I sneeked into his bathroom and replaced his shampoo with hair-removing cream!

Nermal: You’ve spooked me! Are you a mind reader?

Now why in the world would they use IIII for 4 and yet still use IX for 9? That doesn’t jive.

This is question number three!

Question 2 would have been:

How is the number 4 depicted on 99% of Roman-numeralled clocks and watches? Lets skip that one now and go straight to my (and Soc’s) question.

I should warn you, I have asked many many shop assistants in jewellers. The dear chap who always mans the Breitling stand at airshows even rung the head office in Switzerland to ask.

There have been a few poor guesses, but nothing that is really satisfactory.
Nermal – do you know?

Where’s the second part of the question Janie?

I II III IV V VI VII VII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX

L

C

M

:p

You’re a brave man Ian, a VERY brave man… especially seeing as you have your coordinates shown top right!

Yes – but she’s a female. You can’t expect her to be able to fly AND navigate!!!!

You’re a brave man Ian, a VERY brave man… especially seeing as you have your coordinates shown top right!

Hmm. What are you up to young Janie…?

Young??!!! Shurely shome mishtake!!!

Now why in the world would they use IIII for 4 and yet still use IX for 9? That doesn’t jive.