why is the roman numeral 4 wrong on clocks?

Question

instead of IV it's always IIIII. can anyone tell me why?

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0006IP5XS.01-A2F4CV2MYJ9OAU._AA280_SCLZZZZZZZ_V64737499_.jpg

plus i heard they do this to clocks and watches that aren't cheap. so to all you poor people, please don't answer this question.

kari,

XI & IX ???

Answer 1

It's IV, but I've heard rumors that some crazy-minded people see it as IIII.

Answer 2

Roman Numeral 4 On Clocks

Answer 3

Roman Numerals On A Clock

Answer 4

Because the number in the similar position on the other side of the dial is 8 which in roman numerals is VIII. VIII is a relatively "dense" figure in terms of the number of lines comprising the figure and the amount of space it occupies on the dial. IV, the proper notation for roman numeral 4 is, comparatively sparse and so dial designers thought the face would look "unbalanced" or "lop-sided". The IIII notation, by being more dense, better balances the density of VIII.

Having IIII for 4 on your watch/clock is not an indication of a "Folex", presumably an allusion to a knock-off. Nor is it an optical illusion where the actual IV is simply perceived as IIII. Those responders who really do have IV on their watches/clocks must be in possession of a very rare breed indeed. I have NEVER seen IV on a watch/clock and I have certainly looked at enough that if they were out there in any number at all, I would have seen at least one.

Answer 5

It's related to the railroad industry. When looking at a watch quickly, being that 5, 6, 7 are 'upside down' your chance of misreading IV and VI quickly at a glance are enormous. This mistake actually caused several train collisions and in response the pacific railroad made the tradition used for visual balance the standard to eliminate the problem. Ever since then those wanting to sell 'railroad approved accuracy watches' must have this clock face.

Answer 6

I've wondered that one myself when it came up on a New York Times Sunday crossword. IIII or IV? The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent "four", because IV represented the pagan god Jupiter. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become universally used only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for "nine", but IIII for "four". Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses both IIII and IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for "five", IIX for "eight" or VV for "ten" have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number "18" was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number "19" was undeviginti or “one from twenty”. The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system. Likewise, on some buildings it is possible to see MDCCCCX, for example, representing 1910 instead of MCMX - notably Admiralty Arch in London. Another notable example is on Harvard Medical School's Library which reads MDCCCCIIII for 1904. [edit] Calendars and clocks Clock faces that are labelled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for 4 o'clock and IX for 9 o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not in the other. There are several suggested explanations for this, several of which may be true: The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which IV would not. The number of symbols on the clock totals twenty 'I's, four 'V's, and four 'X's, so clock makers need only a single mold with five 'I's, a V, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for the clocks, cast four times for each clock: V IIII IX VI II IIX VII III X VIII I IX IIX and one of the IX's can be rearranged or inverted to form XI and XII. The alternative uses seventeen 'I's, five 'V's, and four 'X's, possibly requiring the clock maker to have several different molds. IIII was the preferred way for the ancient Romans to write 4, since they to a large extent avoided subtraction. It has been suggested that since IV is the first two letters of IVPITER, the main god of the Romans, it was not appropriate to use. The I symbol would be the only symbol in the first 4 hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next 4 hours, and the X symbol only in the last 4 hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry. IV is difficult to read upside down and on an angle, particularly at that location on the clock. Louis XIV, king of France, preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained. [citation needed]

Answer 7

It is because the clock makers do not want numeral 4 ( IV) to clash with numeral 6 (VI), as the watch is round a person may get confused and aesthetic also makes a mark in between.

Answer 8

The Roman numeral for four is IV. Maybe you bought a Folex.

Answer 9

I think you got the cheap clock/watch. Look up "Roman numerals" in your Funk & Wagnals.

Answer 10

Because having IV and then VI can confuse some people, especially if they have problems such as dyslexia. IIII can't be mistaken for any other number.