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.
"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.
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