Why, on a Roman Numeral clock face, is the number four represented with "IIII" instead of "IV"?

Answer 1

Both were acceptable ways of writing 4 in Roman numerals. IIII is the original way, but was replaced by IV over time since it was easier to write. Since the Romans didn't have clocks, I am assuming that your clock's maker simply preferred the look of 'IIII' over 'IV'.

Personally, I prefer my clock to simply have a '4'. The reason why clocks often have roman numerals is the same reason that we often use Latin phrases like 'etcetera (etc)' rather than 'and so on' or 'eg' rather than 'for example' - common use and personal preference.

Answer 2

I'm a consumer product designer, and have studied extensively on the designs of objects. When Roman numerals were first applied to face clocks for a sense of evoking traditional classicism during the Neoclassic Period in art and design, the "IIII" was used for the number "4" to visually bring balance to the aesthetical composition of the face of the clock in relationship to the mass of its counterpart, the number "8", being the Roman numeral "VIII", located directly on the opposite half side to the "IIII", and both mutually placed in the bottom sector of the clock's face. This brought an optical equilibrium to the clock's face design. Within the passage of time the "IIII" was eventually substituted with the alternative option for the number four, "IV", in the more modern design versions when asymmetry superseded symmetry in the new emergent design movements and styles that boldly moved away from the traditional symmetry of classicism.

Answer 3

The symbols are repeated to form larger numbers, and when different symbols are combined, the larger unit precedes the smaller. Thus VIII represents 8, CLXXX is 180, and MMDCCXXV is 2725.
"The Romans usually wrote IIII for 4 and XXXX for 40. The number 949 was DCCCCXXXXVIIII. To shorten the length of such numbers a "subtraction rule" was sometimes used in Roman times and was commonly used in medieval times. The "subtraction rule" allows the use of six compound symbols in which a smaller unit precedes the larger:

IV = 4 IX = 9 XL = 40 XC = 90 CD = 400 CM = 900




Using these symbols, 949 is written more compactly as CMXLIX. (Other "subtracted" symbols are not allowed. Thus 99 must written XCIX, not IC.) The use of subtracted symbols was never mandatory, so IIII and IV can be used interchangeably for 4."

Answer 4

I admit I don't know why, but I did notice IIII seems to be preferred in England, where in America it is usually IV.

Answer 5

I'm guessing but from a distance III and IIII can be easily mis-read.

IV is much easier.

Answer 6

Was the only way the clock maker could spell four?

Answer 7

It isn't always, not on mine anyway. That is the incorrect way of doing it. Is your clock a cheap asian version? They sometime miss things in translation.

Answer 8

its is acceptable both ways........
IV or IIII