On all the clocks that I have seen with Roman numerals (not sure about
watches), 4 has been represented by IIII rather than IV. I've never
understood why this was done so if someone could elucidate I would be
grateful.

Post a reply to this message

"Richard Morton" <rmm### [at] anywhereyoulike> wrote in message
news:3ae57bf0$1@news.povray.org...
> On all the clocks that I have seen with Roman numerals (not sure about
> watches), 4 has been represented by IIII rather than IV. I've never
> understood why this was done so if someone could elucidate I would be
> grateful.
>

IV grows and ends up obscuring the clock-face. IIII is better, although it
does tend to get picked on and teased by the numerals with good vision.

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:
> 
> It is coming along nicely.  I think the metal is maybe a tad too yellow and
> bright though, and I agree with Cristoph on reflection.
> 
> BTW Roman-numeral timepieces usually have IIII for four instead of IV.

Hi. I didn't notice that before. I made a quick search on internet and
even the pocket watches I saw used IIII for four. Maybe I'll change this
in my model.

Alberto

Post a reply to this message

Sorry, there is also a specular reflection with roughness set to .0001.
That's the reason for the white spot.

Alberto.

Post a reply to this message