Message text written by Frank King >.... my guess is that the ratio would not be much different for clock faces.<
Message text written by Patrick Powers > I have no data on this but because of the bias mentioned before (regarding the apparent better balance of a clock face when using IIII) I would suspect that the prevalance of IIII could be even greater. It would be nice to know.. < For what it's worth I agree with the web site Richard cited that iiij was the commonly written form and therefore it was natural to put it on a clock dial. As to why it continued after Roman numerals dropped out of widespread use, perhaps visual balance played one part and extreme conservatism another! I would say that virtually every English clock made between 1600 and 1900 used IIII and not IV (and most of those made after 1900, too - and there aren't many made before 1600!). There is an interesting (but tiny) group of exceptions: for a few years around 1680-90 a handful of top London clockmakers, primarily the Knibb brothers Joseph and John and their circle, sometimes used a system called "Roman striking" wherein the hours are struck on two bells, a high pitched one representing I and a low one for V. If we call them "ting" and "tong" then 3 would be "ting ting ting", 5 "tong", 6 "tong ting", 10 "tong tong" (two fives), 9 would be, subtractively, "ting tong tong", and 12 "tong tong ting ting". What about 4? By striking "ting tong" instead of "ting ting ting ting" two blows are saved. Most of these clocks either go for a long duration between windings - a month or three months instead of the usual eight days - or have complicated striking work, meaning that (especially in view of the spring technology of the day) saving power is important. So they strike "ting tong" at 4 and the dial reflects this by having IV not IIII. The association is so strong that on seeing a dial of this period with IV one would be very surprised not to find Roman striking - and these clocks are very rare (I would guess perhaps a hundred are known, if that) and also valuable. I think a few English C17 sundials have VIIII for 9 instead of IX though I have never seen a clock like this (surely this will bring a citation of a counter example from some knowledgeable list member?). I just assumed the maker who used VIIII was not too familiar with Roman numerals! Digressing slightly on Roman vs. Arabic, the vast majority of English clocks (and watches) used Roman numerals until late in the 19th century. There was a "blip" in the first quarter of the 19th century when Arabic numerals were in fashion for a few years for clocks but did not displace Roman numerals even at that time. Later in the 19th century the proportion of Arabic numbered dials started to grow and became significant on domestic clocks, though still very low on public ones (compare this with vertical dials which are often "public" to some extent). I feel that Arabic numerals were much more widely used for clock and watch dials on the Continent. In England my impression is that Arabic numerals do seem to be more common on sundials than on clocks. Perhaps another list member can add a Continental perspective? Regards Andrew James N 51 04 W 01 18 This correspondence is confidential and is solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it. If you are not the intended recipient please delete this correspondence from your system and notify the sender immediately. This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl -
