Having a little of OCD problems I stumbled on a problem with wall clocks that use roman numbers instead of numbers. Here is what clocks should look like. Most clocks that are art design are correct but most physically clocks have the problem.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gCM75VJbPw0/TA2kHeExuVI/AAAAAAAAAVg/W2hSKUyHL6A/s1600/roman-numeral-wall-clock.jpg[/img]
But why is that most clocks are wrong?
[img_thumb]https://rozannegold.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/roman-numeral-clock-face.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img]http://www.dhresource.com/albu_339757619_00-1.0x0/stereo-fashion-roman-numeral-wall-clock-vintage.jpg[/img]
If you haven't noticed the numeral 4 is wrong, as IIII doesn't exist. But this problem have been there for a long time and some clockmakers claim that balance is more right with IIII because "You find you have four X's, four V's, and 20 I's, or four identical sets of XVIIIII. Accordingly, if a metal worker in the early days of clockmaking had to make the numerals, it was easier and less wasteful of material to make four slugs for each clock face, each slug containing one X, one V, and five I's."
(Source - [url]http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/438/why-do-clocks-with-roman-numerals-use-iiii-instead-of-iv[/url])
But a huge contradiction arises then. Because the huge clock known as Big Ben in London doesn't have this problem. Why would this huge clock not have the problem with IIII instead of IV? As a Wikipedia states: [B]"Such variation and inconsistency continued through the medieval period and into modern times, even becoming conventional. Clock faces that use Roman numerals normally show IIII for four o’clock but IX for nine o’clock, a practice that goes back to very early clocks such as the Wells Cathedral clock. This is far from being an unvarying convention; the clock in Elizabeth Tower on the Palace of Westminster in London (aka "Big Ben"), for example, uses IV."[/B]
[img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01439/big-ben-ian-jones_1439119c.jpg[/img]
But why is this still not fixed on most clocks that are sold today? As IIII doesn't exist in the Roman numerals at all and there is no reason for not doing so anymore? Also the critic of having IIII as a more artistic answer is mostly bogus as it's making the XI look out of place. If people made clocks with VIIII and then X people would probably realize and consider it a mistake while the IIII problem is so old most people ignore it (but still acknowledge it as a mistake).
This is probably a pointless post but I can't be the only person that wonders about this question. Why don't they change the design instead of making the old mistake?
Yeah, this irks me a little as well. I haven't seen any physical clocks with the IIII thing going on, but I've seen it on the internet. On watches in particular. The Roman numeral clocks in my house are correctly given IV.
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;45701889]Yeah, this irks me a little as well. I haven't seen any physical clocks with the IIII thing going on, but I've seen it on the internet. On watches in particular. The Roman numeral clocks in my house are correctly given IV.[/QUOTE]
I've haven't seen any clocks with IV though, only IIII. No idea why this is a thing but it seems that region wise we should have the same clocks as we both live fairly close to each other.
I never even knew people were stupid enough to make IIII on real clocks
Found some articles and debate about the same issue:
[url]http://mentalfloss.com/article/24578/why-do-some-clocks-use-roman-numeral-iiii[/url]
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1j105x/why_is_the_roman_numeral_for_4_always_written/[/url]
[QUOTE]"¢ Once upon a time, when Roman numerals were used by the actual Roman Empire, the name of the Romans' supreme deity, Jupiter, was spelled as IVPPITER in Latin. Hesitant to put part of the god's name on a sundial or in accounting books, IIII became the preferred representation of four. Of course, IVPPITER wasn't being worshipped much by the time clocks and watches replaced sundials, but clockmakers may have stuck with IIII just for the sake of tradition.[/QUOTE]
[editline]16th August 2014[/editline]
Since the fall of the Roman empire it has been just more or less matter of preference.
IIII is the proper Roman numeral, but IV is more common in modern usage.
[QUOTE=Raneman;45702183]IIII is the proper Roman numeral, but IV is more common in modern usage.[/QUOTE]
[B]"Roman inscriptions, especially in official contexts, seem to show a preference for additive forms such as IIII and VIIII instead of (or even as well as) subtractive forms such as IV and IX. Both methods appear in documents from the Roman era, even within the same document. "Double subtractives" also occur, such as XIIX or even IIXX instead of XVIII. Sometimes V and L are not used, with instances such as IIIIII and XXXXXX rather than VI or LX." [/B]says Wikipedia so IIII was used, but so was IV. But why IIII and not VIIII then?
[editline]15th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=oskutin;45702137]Found some articles and debate about the same issue:
[url]http://mentalfloss.com/article/24578/why-do-some-clocks-use-roman-numeral-iiii[/url]
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1j105x/why_is_the_roman_numeral_for_4_always_written/[/url]
[editline]16th August 2014[/editline]
Since the fall of the Roman empire it has been just more or less matter of preference.[/QUOTE]
Still I've never seen the VIIII instead of IX. And all movies that have Roman numerals when the are made have MXM... instead of MXXXXXXXXX...
Roman numerals are a nonsensical and useless numbering system so you may as well make clocks with wingdings, to be honest.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45702446]Roman numerals are a nonsensical and useless numbering system so you may as well make clocks with wingdings, to be honest.[/QUOTE]
It looks more presentable and aesthetic, but it's stupid I agree with you there. We briefly had like 5 classes dedicated to learning Roman numerals and we just learned to count up to 12 anyway because most people never use it in the first place.
[t]http://jesusfuck.me/di/RWCR/IMG_20140815_171752.jpg[/t]
My clock now irritates me. Thanks OP. :v:
[QUOTE=Torjuz;45702312][B]"Roman inscriptions, especially in official contexts, seem to show a preference for additive forms such as IIII and VIIII instead of (or even as well as) subtractive forms such as IV and IX. Both methods appear in documents from the Roman era, even within the same document. "Double subtractives" also occur, such as XIIX or even IIXX instead of XVIII. Sometimes V and L are not used, with instances such as IIIIII and XXXXXX rather than VI or LX." [/B]says Wikipedia so IIII was used, but so was IV. But why IIII and not VIIII then?
[/QUOTE]
You explain the inconsistency yourself.
[B]Both methods appear in documents from the Roman era, even within the same document[/B]
Both methods are valid and interchangeable, and by incident of tradition, clockmakers did it this way.
[QUOTE=Torjuz;45702555]It looks more presentable and aesthetic, but it's stupid I agree with you there. We briefly had like 5 classes dedicated to learning Roman numerals and we just learned to count up to 12 anyway because most people never use it in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Now try doing math with roman numerals.
It's a wonder they were able to construct buildings that didn't all fall over.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45704690]Now try doing math with roman numerals.
It's a wonder they were able to construct buildings that didn't all fall over.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty easy though with Roman numerals.
[img]http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/arch/roman/carree03.jpg[/img]
I + I + I + I + I + I = II II II / 6 pillars. That has to be the way they used the numerals. Or maybe the Roman numerals were just to fuck with us later on? :v:
Both are horrible IMO. Those with IV feel out of balance and my OCD almost kills me, those with IIII are just wrong.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;45706325]Both are horrible IMO. Those with IV feel out of balance and my OCD almost kills me, those with IIII are just wrong.[/QUOTE]
IV is fine.
IV V VI
IX X XI
best
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45704690]Now try doing math with roman numerals.
It's a wonder they were able to construct buildings that didn't all fall over.[/QUOTE]
It's not that difficult with practice. Only as hard as doing math with modern numbers.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45707511]It's not that difficult with practice. Only as hard as doing math with modern numbers.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but not having zeros is dumb as fuck.
[QUOTE=matt000024;45711171]Yeah, but not having zeros is dumb as fuck.[/QUOTE]
Modern Roman Numerals have the number zero represented by the symble/letter "N", standing for [I]nulla[/I], Latin for "none".
Now I have to check my grandparent's clock next time I visit because I never thought about it until now.
could possibly be so that it looks more vertically symmetric across from VIII or maybe IV isn't as clear as IIII, or even that upside down it could be confused with VI
The answer is actually quite simple: production efficiency.
A clock face is made up of the following:
I, II, III, IIII
V, VI, VII, VIII
IX, X, XI, XII
Now, when clock makers were making the numbers, they wanted to be able to do so in a manner that was as efficient as possible. Consequently, they quickly figured out that by substituting VI with IIII they could produce (and then cut up) the numbers in a way that only the following would need to be made: 4 x XII and 4 x VIII. Why is this? I will break it down below:
The first XII produced = XII
The second XII produced = XI and I
The third XII produced = X and II
The fourth XII produced = IX (just an XI flipped around) and I (spare)
The first VIII produced = VIII
The second VIII produced = VII and I (spare)
The third VIII produced = VI and II (spare)
The fourth VIII produced = V and III
The spare II and spare Is = II + I + I = IIII
Alternatively, creating an IV instead would result in wasted time and material.
IV is three lines though surely it's more cost efficient to make those
[QUOTE=Kondor;45725200]IV is three lines though surely it's more cost efficient to make those[/QUOTE]
No, considering that the numeral 'I' isn't just a line. Also the way that the numbers would have been produced means it's not as straightforward as that.
I'd say, we can ditch that production efficiency thing.
Most of clocks have painted/printed or carved numerals for centuries.
Cast ones were most likely only used at large tower clocks, where production efficiency doesn't mean much as it's unique production with unique characteristics.
And in the modern times if the clock's numerals are different pieces of metal, they're proably punched from sheet metal. And modern punching machines are so fast and reprogramable that only thing in the production efficiency that matters is how many things you can fit into single sheet metal to avoid waste material. Plus the clock factory could buy their numerals from factory dedicated for making various metal letters, numerals and symbols (You propably have seen bag of metal numbers in some hardware/home store).
Only some single clock workshops during medieval times could have preferred IIII for the proction efficiency.
Hightech punching machine:
[video=youtube;mgRn0Gvacww]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgRn0Gvacww[/video]
Since Roman times this has been just more or less issue of personal preference, as both ways work.
Some just felt uncomfortable to use IV, because of IVPITER, and some others preferred additive forms, because they were easyer and so on and some others replaced IIII with IV as it seems from the logic that it should be like that.
As transfer of knowledge was really slow during medieval and Roman times, and there weren't proper standardization, pretty much every town, village, church, monastery, workshop, etc... had their own view on the Roman numerals. Plus to that, when the Arabic numerals replaced them, this issue becam much more insignificant.
I'd say that we can't find single thing what says why it should be like this or that.
I remember hearing a theory about this which basically boiled down into that the two biggest clock makers around in ye olden times were the French and the British.
The French were proponents of IIII model, while the British doing what comes natural said 'fuck the French' and went with the IV arrangement.
Roman numerals don't have set rules, you can find Roman columns with inscriptions that would be thought of today as wrong.
[editline]18th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45704690]Now try doing math with roman numerals.
It's a wonder they were able to construct buildings that didn't all fall over.[/QUOTE]
I had to make a roman numeral calculator that did addition and subtraction of roman numerals last semester for my C# class. Was annoying as fuck
who cares
[QUOTE=.Cheezy.;45754495]who cares[/QUOTE]
The people in this thread, clearly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
