Some do most don't.
Here's one story:
"There is a story that a famous clockmaker had constructed a clock for Louis XIV, king of France. The clockmaker had naturally used IV for four. When the clock was shown to the king, he remarked that IIII should have been used instead of IV. When it was explained to him that IV was correct, he still insisted, so that there was nothing to do but change the clock dial. This introduced the custom of using IIII for four. This is probably only a story, however, as IIII occurs long before the time of Louis XIV. And this same story is also told in connection with other monarchs. There is one reason why IIII is preferable to IV, and it may have caused the change. On the other side of the clock dial the VIII is the heaviest number, consisting of four heavy strokes and one light one, as it is usually made. It would destroy the symmetry to have the IV with only two heavy strokes on the other side. Thus IIII with four heavy strokes is much to be preferred. The change may therefore have been made for reasons of symmetry."
http://www.ubr.com/clocks/faq/iiii.html
Here you find more stories about IIII
2006-08-26 04:19:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Puppy Zwolle 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The clock on my wall has IIII. Which is not correct according to Roman Numeration. Maybe there are exceptions for symmetricity.
2006-08-26 15:36:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by charley128 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
All the clocks I've seen is IV. Ive never ever seen 1 which says IIII
2006-08-26 04:20:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Me me me 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I havent ever seen a clock with IIII, its always IV with those i've seen, sorry yo, i don't know what your looking at.
2006-08-26 04:19:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Echo Unit 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i've never seen a numeral clock with IIII, its always been IV
2006-08-26 04:14:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Terry Legendary 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Actually i've never seen that... Maybe it's just all the roman clocks you've seen?
2006-08-26 04:14:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by coolkittenwinx 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Talk about dumb.
Its IV not IIII
2006-08-26 04:16:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Juke Nibi! 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have a couple of clocks like that and I don't know why. It's certainly incorrect.
2006-08-26 04:18:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by cool_breeze_2444 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, I have seen that a few times. I suspect they do it either because they want it to be easier to read or just because they don't know what they're doing.
2006-08-26 04:15:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've seen that asked before (not here), and the best answer that the experts could give was, "it's always been done that way". it is odd tho.
2006-08-26 04:14:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by HoyaDoc 4
·
0⤊
0⤋