I learned something new today….
Well clearly I haven’t been paying attention. I was expecting a “IV” for Thursday on my day wheel today and was rather surprised to see “IIII”.
Apparently using the subtractive form of the Roman 4 generally is a more historically recent thing but the “IIII” and “IV” have both been found in ancient manuscripts.
The name of the Roman deity Jupiter was spelled “IVPPITER” and the story goes that using the start of Jupiter’s name on a dial, and upside down into the bargain, was perhaps disrespectful.
Additionally King Louis XIV of France supposedly ordered his clockmakers to use “IIII” as he preferred that form.
Watches and clocks with Romans on the dial usually follow this convention in the name of visual balance, I have also learned.
And yet, if you look carefully at the picture of the dial of Big Ben in London they chose to use the subtractive “IV”. How interesting.
I guess my current obsession really started less than 3 years ago with a £22 Casio world time purchase just for a bit of fun…. I was feeling nostalgic about a childhood watch, a simple Commodore LCD,...
What’s always bothered me about this, is that watches will use IIII for four, but then use the subtractive form of IX for 9. I dislike the inconsistency.
What’s always bothered me about this, is that watches will use IIII for four, but then use the subtractive form of IX for 9. I dislike the inconsistency.
Good point, Nate. It’s not consistent is it? However one of the snippets I read suggested this inconsistency is in the name of visual balance in that a “VIIII” additive “9” would overpower the “III” opposite and unbalance the look dramatically. I never even noticed the “IIII” on the numerous watch dials I must have seen on here rather than the “IV” prior to today 😂🍻
IIII is used to better balance the VIII opposite it on the dial. That is thE reasoning I have read and it makes sense.
IIII is used to better balance the VIII opposite it on the dial. That is thE reasoning I have read and it makes sense.
Yes, that seems to be the reasoning, Zep 👍
I wasn’t even thinking about dials initially, just my day wheel. That’s what led me down this intriguing path. Always something else to learn I guess 🍻
Good point, Nate. It’s not consistent is it? However one of the snippets I read suggested this inconsistency is in the name of visual balance in that a “VIIII” additive “9” would overpower the “III” opposite and unbalance the look dramatically. I never even noticed the “IIII” on the numerous watch dials I must have seen on here rather than the “IV” prior to today 😂🍻
Yeah, I get it reasoning. It still bugs me though. LOL
What’s always bothered me about this, is that watches will use IIII for four, but then use the subtractive form of IX for 9. I dislike the inconsistency.
Don't go to gate 44 of the Colosseum in Rome then. It's marked XLIIII.
Always great to learn something new. Thanks for the lesson! 💯
The pedant in me insists I point out that Big Ben does not have a dial as it is the bell inside the tower.
What you see is Elizabeth Tower.
The pedant in me insists I point out that Big Ben does not have a dial as it is the bell inside the tower.
What you see is Elizabeth Tower.
Indeed yes, Baz 👍Worth mentioning of course. I nearly referred to it as “The Westminster Clock”; then thought I’d use it’s more widely known and, ahem, incorrect moniker😁🍻
Always great to learn something new. Thanks for the lesson! 💯
No problem! Thank you mate🙏 And all because of my funky day wheel…. I’ve gone full nerd today 😂🤓🤝
For clockmakers back in the day, you would have to cast each of the numbers. If you used IIII, here's how many pieces you would need to cast for each mold:
Twenty Is, four Vs, four Xs.
If you used IX, you would need to cast:
Seventeen Is, five Vs, four Xs.
In addition to the visual symmetry, it makes sense.
Yeah, it’s quite interesting. Didn’t know about Jupiter though. The extent of my knowledge was the symmetry part and King Louis. Always fun to learn more
That is beyond cool!👍
Yeah “IIII” is called “the watchmaker’s 4”
There’s a load of history about it that I was reading up on a couple years ago.
For clockmakers back in the day, you would have to cast each of the numbers. If you used IIII, here's how many pieces you would need to cast for each mold:
Twenty Is, four Vs, four Xs.
If you used IX, you would need to cast:
Seventeen Is, five Vs, four Xs.
In addition to the visual symmetry, it makes sense.
Fair comment, Sam 👍Teddy Baldassarre’s site has an article that goes into the idea of economy, molds required etc. here: https://teddybaldassarre.com/en-gb/blogs/watches/roman-numeral-iv
Yeah, it’s quite interesting. Didn’t know about Jupiter though. The extent of my knowledge was the symmetry part and King Louis. Always fun to learn more
The Internet can be quite useful for these obscure bits of info I guess 🍻
That is beyond cool!👍
Appreciate your kind words, David 🍻
Yeah “IIII” is called “the watchmaker’s 4”
There’s a load of history about it that I was reading up on a couple years ago.
It’s mad how I’ve seen so many clocks and watches with Romans on and never really thought about it until now 🤔
I'm trying to convince Mrs Yonder that watch collecting is educational.. this should help.
Thanks Phil 😉
I'm trying to convince Mrs Yonder that watch collecting is educational.. this should help.
Thanks Phil 😉
History and everyfink 😉🍻
Appreciate your kind words, David 🍻
It just the right amount of 70's. Enough to let you know its age, but not enough to be gaudy. 👌
It just the right amount of 70's. Enough to let you know its age, but not enough to be gaudy. 👌
Not so much of this…
Maybe more of this…
'The decade that taste forgot', apparently. A phrase not coined by a watch-lover😠
'The decade that taste forgot', apparently. A phrase not coined by a watch-lover😠
I see so many gorgeous pieces on here from that era 🥰
I’m gonna have to get me some more vintage Seiko action soon, I can tell 🍻
OMG! My dad had a watch just like that, what model number is it so I can search the net and buy one?
OMG! My dad had a watch just like that, what model number is it so I can search the net and buy one?
Aww that’s nice 😊 It’s the 6119 calibre 5520 case code from 1975. Happy hunting mate
👍🍻
Thanks for share that information. I only knew about the balance being a reason.
Thanks for share that information. I only knew about the balance being a reason.
Cheers Kevin! 🍻You start digging around about something and all this interesting stuff pops up 😁
Thank you to everyone else that has contributed to this post too 👏
What’s always bothered me about this, is that watches will use IIII for four, but then use the subtractive form of IX for 9. I dislike the inconsistency.
You’ll be happy or unhappy to know that the Romans were inconsistent about this too
You’ll be happy or unhappy to know that the Romans were inconsistent about this too
Yes, I’ve since learned that. Silliness.