Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 7 conversations about:
BF_Hammer
717
Jan 26, 2018
bookmark_border
I have read that old yarn about using IIII for Roman numeral 4 as a way of balancing the display too many times. It does not balance the 5 and 7, or 11 and 1. I personally just believe it was local custom during the period and region of early clock making to make a Roman 4 with "IIII" and it stuck as masters taught apprentices.
Jan 26, 2018
Vincent.H
1698
Jan 26, 2018
bookmark_border
BF_HammerIt's tough to know what the actual "correct" answer is to the watchmaker's four, there is a lack of verified information about this aspect of watch design. Ultimately there are some explanations that will make more sense to people; I always thought the idea behind ease of manufacture and dividing the dial into three sections seemed plausible.
For reference, these two theories are as follow: with using IIII instead of IV, a watchmaker could have a template containing one X, one V, and five I's, then cast that template four times to have all the numerals needed for a dial. Using a V instead would muddy those numbers and make it more difficult to make dial numerals en masse.
The section explanation states that using IIII instead of IV nicely proportions the dial numerals into three groups for aesthetic purposes: 1-4 use all I's 5-8 include a V 9-12 include an X
For all we know, it could be a tradition started from simply not knowing the correct numeral for four; until a verified source of information from the time comes out, we most likely will be in the dark. For an industry so steeped in tradition, it's now just an interesting part of history that we can use to amuse ourselves by wondering "why"?
Jan 26, 2018
Elkwrestler
7
Jan 29, 2018
bookmark_border
Vincent.HI think your post about tradition is probably right. In the tradition of written Latin, numerals weren't really formalized. The IV that we think of as "correct" was interchangeable with IIII, especially in medieval Latin. Scribes trained in Latin more often used IIII than IV for much of the 1000-year period between the decline of Roman rule and the "renaissance" of Latin composition in the 14th-16th c. Europe associated with Petrarch, et al. (and they were interchangeable in Classical latin, as well). Latin was a living, everyday language, and like many living languages, the rules were written later. I don't know the exact date when IV became preferred, but I'd guess it happened in the 20th c.
Source: I majored in Latin in college and am working on a PhD now in English. I look at medieval and early modern scribal manuscripts most days.
Jan 29, 2018
Vincent.H
1698
Jan 29, 2018
bookmark_border
ElkwrestlerThanks for your informed input!
Jan 29, 2018
Zabrolak
14
Feb 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Vincent.HAFAIK the tradition comes from actual process of making metal parts for big clocks: I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII so: 4xX, 4xV, 20xI a cast for VIIXIII -> used four times. That means using one mold, and no part wasted.
Feb 5, 2018
View Full Discussion
Related Posts
Trending Posts in More Community Picks