Not sure what the problem is. If you're talking about the way four is written ("IIII" instead of "IV"), that is traditional for clocks with Roman numerals (for whatever reason).
Anonymous Said :
Yea, I'm missing it, too, looks normal to me, and the clock I have has a "IIII" for "IV" as well.
found Said :
A quick google search shows that you're both right.
It seems to be much more common than I thought.
Anonymous Said :
Clocks tend to have it that way because the IV would be upside down and would easily be confused with VI.
I love that Halifax is featured, love the site. Lots of clocks here are that way. Just a traditional style.
trogdor Said :
IV is shown IIII to retain continuity of the groupings. I, V, and X all appear in groups of 4. By keeping IV as IV would give you a group of 5 V's screwing up the continuity.
It's done this way for a more overall appeasing aesthetic and is very common in classic timepieces and high end watches.
So, is that what's "wrong" with the picture? But it's not really "wrong"?
Johnny Knuckles Said :
I was a know-it-all 14 year-old when I pointed out with pride that the IIII on an old clock was wrong. Dear old dad informed me that IIII was perfectly ok. 37 years later Anonymous tells me why.
Anonymous Said :
Sorry, Johnny...
If IV was inverted it would read ^I. (or AI, but without the bar in the A)
Not sure how anyone would confuse that with VI.
subee Said :
Maybe it is that such a big clock tower sits atop a tiny building? That was the only thought that came to my mind.
Terry Said :
The roman numeral "IIII" is such because it matches the symmetry of the 8 (VIII), if clock makers used IV (4) it wouldn't match the opposite characters (8) width... Early clocks did show the 4 as IV but are pretty rare and very old.
Shadz Said :
LOL That 4 (IIII) isn't wrong.A king made a lot of clocks like that.Go study DUMB
Shadz Said :
IV is shown IIII to retain continuity of the groupings. I, V, and X all appear in groups of 4. By keeping IV as IV would give you a group of 5 V's screwing up the continuity.
It's done this way for a more overall appeasing aesthetic and is very common in classic timepieces and high end watches.
[23123123xxxxxxxxx] IS THAT!
Jimmy Said :
It's funny everyone comes up with continuity of the groupings or being upside down. But nobody mentioned that IIII was the way in which Romans wrote number 4 most of their history. IV was only used for a short period, but has been adopted as the 'classical' roman writing because it's easier and follows a logic.
By the way, IX can be also written VIIII, XIV as XIIII, so I hope nobody will be alarmed when seeing it.
matt Said :
No one picked up on it... The real answer is that the back end of the minute hand isn't in the picture but there's a shadow for it.
Ron Said :
matt Said :
"No one picked up on it... The real answer is that the back end of the minute hand isn't in the picture but there's a shadow for it."
Are you talking about the crescent shape on the back of the minute hand? Because there definitely is a shadow of that...and in addition why would that be an error?
hmm Said :
matt, you are genius
Some Random Said :
Reason why it's considered as a mistake to have IIII instead of IV is because the I is a one (obviously), and to have it before the V would define the sum of 1 minus 5; then 5 was the next next number, then 5 plus 1. It had alot to do with what algebraic expressions look like today (XY + W would be X x Y + W)...
Justin Said :
Halifax!
Jen-A Said :
or the fact that there is a crescent shaped thing at all. it could easily be confused for the hour hand from far away, i think. ^^
Not sure what the problem is. If you're talking about the way four is written ("IIII" instead of "IV"), that is traditional for clocks with Roman numerals (for whatever reason).
Yea, I'm missing it, too, looks normal to me, and the clock I have has a "IIII" for "IV" as well.
A quick google search shows that you're both right.
It seems to be much more common than I thought.
Clocks tend to have it that way because the IV would be upside down and would easily be confused with VI.
I love that Halifax is featured, love the site. Lots of clocks here are that way. Just a traditional style.
IV is shown IIII to retain continuity of the groupings. I, V, and X all appear in groups of 4. By keeping IV as IV would give you a group of 5 V's screwing up the continuity.
It's done this way for a more overall appeasing aesthetic and is very common in classic timepieces and high end watches.
So, is that what's "wrong" with the picture? But it's not really "wrong"?
I was a know-it-all 14 year-old when I pointed out with pride that the IIII on an old clock was wrong. Dear old dad informed me that IIII was perfectly ok. 37 years later Anonymous tells me why.
Sorry, Johnny...
If IV was inverted it would read ^I. (or AI, but without the bar in the A)
Not sure how anyone would confuse that with VI.
Maybe it is that such a big clock tower sits atop a tiny building? That was the only thought that came to my mind.
The roman numeral "IIII" is such because it matches the symmetry of the 8 (VIII), if clock makers used IV (4) it wouldn't match the opposite characters (8) width... Early clocks did show the 4 as IV but are pretty rare and very old.
LOL That 4 (IIII) isn't wrong.A king made a lot of clocks like that.Go study DUMB
IV is shown IIII to retain continuity of the groupings. I, V, and X all appear in groups of 4. By keeping IV as IV would give you a group of 5 V's screwing up the continuity.
It's done this way for a more overall appeasing aesthetic and is very common in classic timepieces and high end watches.
[23123123xxxxxxxxx] IS THAT!
It's funny everyone comes up with continuity of the groupings or being upside down. But nobody mentioned that IIII was the way in which Romans wrote number 4 most of their history. IV was only used for a short period, but has been adopted as the 'classical' roman writing because it's easier and follows a logic.
By the way, IX can be also written VIIII, XIV as XIIII, so I hope nobody will be alarmed when seeing it.
No one picked up on it... The real answer is that the back end of the minute hand isn't in the picture but there's a shadow for it.
matt Said :
"No one picked up on it... The real answer is that the back end of the minute hand isn't in the picture but there's a shadow for it."
Are you talking about the crescent shape on the back of the minute hand? Because there definitely is a shadow of that...and in addition why would that be an error?
matt, you are genius
Reason why it's considered as a mistake to have IIII instead of IV is because the I is a one (obviously), and to have it before the V would define the sum of 1 minus 5; then 5 was the next next number, then 5 plus 1. It had alot to do with what algebraic expressions look like today (XY + W would be X x Y + W)...
Halifax!
or the fact that there is a crescent shaped thing at all. it could easily be confused for the hour hand from far away, i think. ^^