Why is it that on a clock with roman numerals the number 4 is IIII but the true numeral is IV?

Answer 1

The following details came from Wikipedia... I don't profess to know the real answer but Wikipedia had the following to say,

"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."

Answer 2

I'm going to take a stab here and guess....

They used IIII for 4 to avoid confusion with V and VI under stressfull situations, maybe at sea when a clock is not held horizontaly for instance ? One fast glance and if you see a V it's gonna be somewhere between V and VI, not between IV V and VI... I know that all sounds a bit complicated, but it's the best I can manage.

Either that or it looks nicer when you have IIII at one sive and VIII the otherside for the sake of symetry and aesthetics ?

Answer 3

The people making it most likely didn't have their heads on straight. I have a clock right here on the living room wall, and it had the same thing, four IIII. Perhaps some clocks are just made that way, though. You're very attentive for noticing!

Answer 4

The Romans never put IV but IIII.. IV is a modern way of writing 4

Answer 5

I heard it was a clockmaker who was visited by a terribly noble person who said, Why is that IV? it should be IIII. Clockmaker said "err.. but your maj..." at which point one of his richness's handlers took off his shades and peered at the clockmaker. Clockmaker then said, Terribly sorry, your greatness, I made a foolish error and will correct it at once. Thence, it's always been IIII. But that could be BS.

Answer 6

Big Ben (The Great Clock) has iv

Answer 7

What a good question - I was about to write 'mine isn't' when I looked again and saw that it was! I'd never noticed before, and I've had the clock for years - doh!

Answer 8

I have never seen a clock as you describe. But I would think it is most likely a cheaper clock.

Answer 9

my clock has IV. i've never seen one with IIII. that's just silly.

Answer 10

SInce the numbers are upside down, it would be easy to confuse IV and VI.