My wife is going to kill me........

CoinZip · January 22, 2013 9:06AM

I just ordered one of these for my office.....

Rampage · January 22, 2013 9:15AM

Ok.

Justacommeman · January 22, 2013 9:18AM

That is an error clock. The 4 is mucked up? Isn't it supposed to be IV? MJ

LindeDad · January 22, 2013 9:22AM

And she has good reason more than likely and may not have to much to do with the clock.

JRocco · January 22, 2013 9:22AM

<< That is an error clock. The 4 is mucked up? Isn't it supposed to be IV? MJ >>

Must be a Chinese counterfeit.

Another error - It's an off-center clock error.

edit - the darn pic changed

Broadstruck · January 22, 2013 9:24AM

<< 

<< That is an error clock. The 4 is mucked up? Isn't it supposed to be IV? MJ >>

Must be a Chinese counterfeit.

Another error - It's an off-center clock error. >>

That was just fixed via Photoshop

keyman64 · January 22, 2013 9:25AM

<< That is an error clock. The 4 is mucked up? Isn't it supposed to be IV? MJ >>

Sometimes yes and sometimes no...What is shown is not exactly what we learned in school but both are acceptable/used, especially on clocks...

From Wikipedia...
Clock faces that are labeled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for four o'clock and IX for nine o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not the other. There are many suggested explanations for this:
Many clocks use IIII because that was the tradition established by the earliest surviving clock, the Wells Cathedral clock built between 1386 and 1392. It used IIII because that was the typical method used to denote 4 in contemporary manuscripts (as iiij or iiii). That clock had an asymmetrical 24-hour dial and used Arabic numerals for a minute dial and a moon dial, so theories depending on a symmetrical 12-hour clock face do not apply.[20]
Perhaps IV was avoided because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. This suggestion has been attributed to Isaac Asimov.[21]
Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.[22]
Using standard numerals, two sets of figures would be similar and therefore confusable by children and others unused to reading clockfaces: IV and VI are similar, as are IX and XI. As the first pair are upside down on the face, an additional level of confusion would be introduced—a confusion avoided by using IIII to provide a clear distinction from VI.
The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which the two-character IV would not.
With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty Is, four Vs, and four Xs,[23] so clock makers need only a single mould with a V, five Is, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks: VIIIIIX. This is cast four times for each clock and the twelve required numerals are separated: V IIII IX
VI II IIX
VII III X
VIII I IX

The IIX and one of the IXs are rotated 180° to form XI and XII. The alternative with IV uses seventeen Is, five Vs, and four Xs, requiring the clock maker to have several different patterns. Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry.

Constantine · January 22, 2013 9:27AM

Wait, now the original picture of the clock is back now! Stop changing the dang pic! Lol

coinsarefun · January 22, 2013 9:27AM

AUandAG · January 22, 2013 9:28AM

I ordered one with a CC reverse on it several years ago. Went right into the trash.

Hope yours is much better.

bob

DeliaBug · January 22, 2013 9:28AM

IIII is correct on the clock.

Justacommeman · January 22, 2013 9:29AM

Greg, you spent to much time on that

I was just messing with the OP. Hoping he would re photoshop his spamage

MJ

Broadstruck · January 22, 2013 9:35AM

I just ordered one of these for my office.....

bsshog40 · January 22, 2013 9:38AM

I made this clock.

lordmarcovan · January 22, 2013 9:55AM

<< That is an error clock. The 4 is mucked up? Isn't it supposed to be IV? MJ >>

That's a grey area. Or a gray area. Both are acceptable. On clockfaces, anyway.

Classy clock, there!

PS- yours, too, bsshog40. Nice work.

Elcontador · January 22, 2013 9:56AM

Nah. I prefer the gator head we have in the kitchen. Got it as a gift from some friends in the Bayou. We named him 'Buford.'

WTCG · January 22, 2013 10:00AM

That's it?

I thought your wife was going to kill you because she caught you playing naked Twister with the babysitter or something.

ajaan · January 22, 2013 10:02AM

IIII for IV is acceptable. See this British coin:

epcjimi1 · January 22, 2013 10:42AM

I recall my Latin teacher in 1968 instructed the class that roman numerals derived from tally sticks. One, two, three, four, slash = five. Looking at Wiki, this appears to be true.

Also, my family has some old clocks with |||| = 4

From Wiki (and thanks for the post, interesting, the history of the marks)-

"History - Pre-Roman/Ancient Rome

Although Roman numerals are now written with letters of the Roman alphabet, they were originally independent symbols. The Etruscans, for example, used I, Λ, X, ⋔, 8, ⊕, for I, V, X, L, C, and M, of which only I and X happened to be letters in their alphabet. One false etymology has it that the V represented the angle between thumb and forefinger of an open hand ("5"), and that the X was made by placing two Vs on top of each other, one inverted. However, the Etrusco-Roman numerals actually appear to derive from notches on tally sticks, which continued to be used by Italian and Dalmatian shepherds into the 19th century.[8]

Thus, 'I' descends not from the letter 'I' but from a notch scored across the stick. Every fifth notch was double cut (i.e. ⋀, ⋁, ⋋, ⋌, etc.), and every tenth was cross cut (X), IIIIΛIIIIXIIIIΛIIIIXII..., much like European tally marks today. This produced a positional system: Eight on a counting stick was eight tallies, IIIIΛIII, or the eighth of a longer series of tallies; either way, it could be abbreviated ΛIII (or VIII), as the existence of a Λ implies four prior notches. By extension, eighteen was the eighth tally after the first ten, which could be abbreviated X, and so was XΛIII. Likewise, number four on the stick was the I-notch that could be felt just before the cut of the Λ (V), so it could be written as either IIII or IΛ (IV). Thus the system was neither additive nor subtractive in its conception, but ordinal. When the tallies were transferred to writing, the marks were easily identified with the existing Roman letters I, V and X. The tenth V or X along the stick received an extra stroke. Thus 50 was written variously as N, И, K, Ψ, ⋔, etc., but perhaps most often as a chicken-track shape like a superimposed V and I: ↆ. This had flattened to ⊥ (an inverted T) by the time of Augustus, and soon thereafter became identified with the graphically similar letter L. Likewise, 100 was variously Ж, ⋉, ⋈, H, or as any of the symbols for 50 above plus an extra stroke. The form Ж (that is, a superimposed X and I) came to predominate. It was written variously as >I< or ↃIC, was then abbreviated to Ↄ or C, with C variant finally winning out because, as a letter, it stood for centum, Latin for "hundred" . "

roman numerals

CaptHenway · January 22, 2013 11:02AM

How about a clock with Klingonese numbers?

mrearlygold · January 22, 2013 11:36AM

<< I just ordered one of these for my office.....

>>

Dang, no link to YOUR website to buy it.

Shamika · January 22, 2013 12:22PM

If you she doesn't support your hobby, she's not the right one. It stinks when you can't share the excitement.

mozin · January 22, 2013 2:07PM

Nice clock, but I could never live with the incorrect label for the 4, absolutely no way whatsoever, period! I would throw it into the trash immediately.

My wife is going to kill me........

Comments

Leave a Comment