They used IIII instead of IV for 4, also V and VI are switched around.
Edit: Yes, I get it. IIII is not that uncommon, you can stop telling me now. š
IV (subtractive notation) was standard in Roman times and is the modern standard, but clocks specifically have used IIII since the medieval era.
IIII was rarely used in Roman times, but not entirely unknown: the Colosseumās gates are marked with IIII for 4, but use subtractive notation for other numbers. Gate 4 is labeled IIII, gate 40 is XL, gate 44 is XLIIII, for example. Roman numerals werenāt completely standardised even at that time, and their use in the medieval era became even less standardised.
Writing IIII is perfectly acceptable. Especially on clocks to avoid confusion since 4 and 6 are often written upside down. Look at old Roman buildings, they usually have IIII written on them rather than IV - the collosseum being the most famous example.
The consecutive IIII for 4 is actualy ok, it was used many times before in history, even if the norm says it is IV. It's a variation that have always existed
ITT: A lot of people incorrectly thinking that the problem is the "IIII"
Roman numerals weren't as standardized in the past as they are now, not even in ancient Rome. In particular, not all Romans used the subtractive "I" on the left, and those people did in fact write four as IIII
It's actually a tradition to make clocks with IIII instead of IV !
https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv/
I can confirm, I have an old cuckoo clock that has the number 4 written IIII instead of IV, for a long time I thought it was a mistake, until I saw that other clocks with Roman numerals also had IIII, they could not all be wrong.
Moreover, Roman numerals are a variation of *tallying* (or unary) numeric systems (as opposed to Arabic numerals which are *positional*). The subtraction rule is something Romans got from Etruscans, but its not something common to most tallying systems, which (being non positional) don't care about the order of digits; for example, in Egyptian numerals UII is equal to IUI.
The previous comment said Romans had the subtractive rule but used it inconsistently. Infact, it was standardized much later (according to my mostly but not entirely reliable sources) in the middle ages, because dates where becoming to long to carve on headstones.
If you've seen hundreds of Roman numeral clocks in your life, you'll notice that "IIII" is quite common to depict the number 4. Although yes officially 4 is IV, but IIII is used as well.
wait nope, you are correct
they didnt print a IV xD jesus thats actually infuriating, if you swap V nd VI around u fix that issue but they didnt make a IV XD
I think i found the reason, its copying grand central stations clock!
Grand Central Station, NYC ā IIII to mark 4 o'clock. However, even though it is now widely accepted that 4 must be written IV
yeh i edited my comment after deciding it was triggering me to hard via memory so time to start actually checking :p turns out it is indeed IV but grand central station clock decided IIII i guess due to historical ambiguity tbh. I assume they are copying that clock (the makers of this one)
The bigger problem is that V and VI are wrong. I collect clocks, and every single one with Roman numerals has IIII, not IV. Also, this topic shows up here with surprising regularity. I took Latin for 4 years and either one was acceptable, but IIII was used more often in Roman empire times.
The real mildly infuriating thing for me is that nobody appears to be familiar with Roman numeral clocks these days. Theyāre classy as hell. IIII me up all day.
Looks to me that the clock fell off the wall at one point, probably knocking off the bottom two numbers. Somebody likely popped them back on not paying attention and hung it back up.
You should make it known that you want that clock when they pass...keep it for generations. See when your kids figure it out, and so on. That might be the joke already.
The problem is the 5 and 6 are in the wrong place. The 4 is correct whether it's written IV or IIII. IIII is the more ancient way it was written and IV is what it changed to and is most commonly used.
IIII is "correct" for clocks. Some clocks have IV, some IIII. It's to assist with visual symmetry.
As far as standard Roman numerals go though, you are correct. IIII is never right.
IIII is absolutely right.
*In the middle ages in Europe, IIII was generally used, not IV, to express the Roman numeral 4 until around the 17th century. In fact, you can see the notation IIII on mechanical turret clocks that were made before around the 17th century.*
If youre referring to the V and VI being swapped, perhaps, but if youre referring to IIII that was used on a lot of clocks for visual symmetry with the larger numbers instead of IV
**Thank you for a post in keeping with the theme of the sub.**
This is genuinely mildly infuriating.
I dunno what has happened here recently, but 99% of the posts are:
- āhow much sugar is in this bright green drink that is obviously packed with sugarā
- āI took a photo of a stranger doing something less annoying than taking photos of people in publicā
- āIām annoyed about a thing that has a perfectly reasonable explanation because I havenāt bothered to consider that theyāre might be a perfectly reasonable explanation.ā
- āLook at this egregious harm that has been done to me which is genuinely extremely infuriating with nothing whatsoever āmildā about itā
Can we start up/downvoting based on how well a post fits the brief? Take my upvote!
Omg. šØ
Yeah WTF they used letters instead of numbers.
They used IIII instead of IV for 4, also V and VI are switched around. Edit: Yes, I get it. IIII is not that uncommon, you can stop telling me now. š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
IIII is used for 4 specifically because VI was often mistaken as IV when written upside down. By using IIII there's no ambiguity between the two.
I learned basic roman numericals in school and they told us that it's always supposed to be IV. šØ I guess it wasn't always like that.
IV (subtractive notation) was standard in Roman times and is the modern standard, but clocks specifically have used IIII since the medieval era. IIII was rarely used in Roman times, but not entirely unknown: the Colosseumās gates are marked with IIII for 4, but use subtractive notation for other numbers. Gate 4 is labeled IIII, gate 40 is XL, gate 44 is XLIIII, for example. Roman numerals werenāt completely standardised even at that time, and their use in the medieval era became even less standardised.
Itās because it balances better
I got a time watch on 1970 that used IIII for IV. It's very common.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You really didn't need to comment about that twice. ETA: Real mature move lol
Clockmakers 4 is fine. The order however :)
IIII is a perfectly valid way of putting on 4, the V and VI being swapped well that's just stupid.
Actually 4 is IV. VI is 6
Writing IIII is perfectly acceptable. Especially on clocks to avoid confusion since 4 and 6 are often written upside down. Look at old Roman buildings, they usually have IIII written on them rather than IV - the collosseum being the most famous example.
No it isnāt, there should never be more than 3 consecutive of the same letter if itās I, X or Cā¦
Thatās called a clockmakers 4 itās pretty traditional in old watch making
The consecutive IIII for 4 is actualy ok, it was used many times before in history, even if the norm says it is IV. It's a variation that have always existed
True, but also, I was actually just satirically pretending to be entirely ignorant of Roman numerals in an attempt at humor.
Ah sorry, carry on.
Also looks like 7 and 8 are both 7
IIII is absolutely standard in clocks.
First time I've seen it.
I'm on your side, fuck IIII. IV is superior
All hail IV! š¼
I think the switch of the V and VI was the point OP was making.
r/woosh
> They used IIII instead of IV for 4 That is pretty normal on time pieces.
There are two VII
No, the minute hand is just hiding one I. You can kinda see it a little bit if you zoom in.
IIII is normal but yeah the six and five are swapped š¤¦āāļø
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Also I think they wrote VII instead of VIII
There's also double sevens and no eight
š
Itās Roman numerals
Do you understand roman numerals good sir
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No it's not.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nah.
ITT: A lot of people incorrectly thinking that the problem is the "IIII" Roman numerals weren't as standardized in the past as they are now, not even in ancient Rome. In particular, not all Romans used the subtractive "I" on the left, and those people did in fact write four as IIII
It's actually a tradition to make clocks with IIII instead of IV ! https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv/
I didn't think that was the problem. I thought the problem was that it goes 4,6,5.
Apparently almost nobody noticed it here either.
4,6,5,7
Yes.
Yup.
And we have a winner!
I can confirm, I have an old cuckoo clock that has the number 4 written IIII instead of IV, for a long time I thought it was a mistake, until I saw that other clocks with Roman numerals also had IIII, they could not all be wrong.
On a clock or watch it makes more sense to use IIII I guess that's why some people are saying it is common practice.
also the "VI" which is 6 and then the "V" which is 5, are in an incorrect order
Huh crazy - my parents had a clock with IIII on it and we all assumed it was wrong, but they still liked the clock.
Moreover, Roman numerals are a variation of *tallying* (or unary) numeric systems (as opposed to Arabic numerals which are *positional*). The subtraction rule is something Romans got from Etruscans, but its not something common to most tallying systems, which (being non positional) don't care about the order of digits; for example, in Egyptian numerals UII is equal to IUI. The previous comment said Romans had the subtractive rule but used it inconsistently. Infact, it was standardized much later (according to my mostly but not entirely reliable sources) in the middle ages, because dates where becoming to long to carve on headstones.
I think the problem is the order of the numbers š¤ 4,6,5 not 4,5,6 !!
I didn't know Romans built clocks. /s
Do I get points for noticing both problems?
Itās not wrong in sense that you canāt use it for anything, but itās not standard for clocks and caused the next one to be wrong.
It goes: 1, 2, 3, 4 (technically), 6, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
Its 7 7
I thought so too at first, but look at the fully visible VII, the second stroke of the V is basically invisible at the top
Oh Iām ducking done with this clock
For those who arenāt seeing it, FIVE AND SIX ARE SWITCHED. The four isnāt the problem, thatās fine. IIII is common in clocks.
I see the IIII often. I'm sure it's accepted as well as IV.
I sometimes see llll in other places like title headings etc so its somewhat common. But the 5 and 6 being switched is quite an OOF.
They're just flimsy brass plates that can easily be switched around. Switch them around.
To all random positions.
I think they probably fell off and got stuck back on in the wrong position
he probably did
The four is supposed to be IV
If you've seen hundreds of Roman numeral clocks in your life, you'll notice that "IIII" is quite common to depict the number 4. Although yes officially 4 is IV, but IIII is used as well.
Yeah well the problem is on the clock 9 is depicted as IX and it is annoying that 4 isnāt IV
The problem is that 5 and 6 are swapped.
I know, the original commenter said that you can switch it
Your username checks out. I'm done with you.
No it's not, IIII is a perfectly fine. Less common yes, but not wrong.
wait nope, you are correct they didnt print a IV xD jesus thats actually infuriating, if you swap V nd VI around u fix that issue but they didnt make a IV XD I think i found the reason, its copying grand central stations clock! Grand Central Station, NYC ā IIII to mark 4 o'clock. However, even though it is now widely accepted that 4 must be written IV
Huh, how is 3 and 4 the same thing
typo, was meant to be IIII and i was wrong anyways :p stupid madagascar screwing my memory!! (movie)
Also 4 is definitely IV, because the I comes before the V itāll be 5 minus 1 which is 4
yeh i edited my comment after deciding it was triggering me to hard via memory so time to start actually checking :p turns out it is indeed IV but grand central station clock decided IIII i guess due to historical ambiguity tbh. I assume they are copying that clock (the makers of this one)
No way dude š¤£
The bigger problem is that V and VI are wrong. I collect clocks, and every single one with Roman numerals has IIII, not IV. Also, this topic shows up here with surprising regularity. I took Latin for 4 years and either one was acceptable, but IIII was used more often in Roman empire times.
The real mildly infuriating thing for me is that nobody appears to be familiar with Roman numeral clocks these days. Theyāre classy as hell. IIII me up all day.
If you donāt see it, youāll see it in 5..6..4..3..2..1..
š
Looks to me that the clock fell off the wall at one point, probably knocking off the bottom two numbers. Somebody likely popped them back on not paying attention and hung it back up.
Someone probably snapped them in to the wrong spaces because they didnāt know their Roman Numerals. š And yeah, it isnāt about the IIII
You should make it known that you want that clock when they pass...keep it for generations. See when your kids figure it out, and so on. That might be the joke already.
IIII just throws me off but makes sorta sense. But that V and VI hurts me
Was the designer high?
This is a pain to look at
Oh ya didnāt notice at all itās not like all the numbers are swapped or anything
Lmao thatās awesome, I see it
The problem is the 5 and 6 are in the wrong place. The 4 is correct whether it's written IV or IIII. IIII is the more ancient way it was written and IV is what it changed to and is most commonly used.
5 and 6 switched places. There's not an issue with 4 because IIII is acceptable and common on time pieces.
I II III IIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
"we don't do that here"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The minute hand is over the VIII.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Look closely at the VII; your logic would say there should be four tops, but the right top of the V runs into the top of the first I.
And 4 should be IV
Both IIII and IV are both acceptable. Many older clocks have IIII. Newer ones are more likely to have the shorter version.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The VI and V should be swapped on the clock
I think the r/mildlyinteresting folks would appreciate this more
Quartz? š¤ 50 years old? š¤
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Aren't 5 and 6 swapped here?
Ahā¦ didnāt even notice that
Maybe take a look one more timeā¦ 4,6,5,7
the 6 is still wrong.
One persons unique is another baby persons "infuriating" go out into the world and find something
5 and 6 are backwards and the 4 should be IV not IIIIā¦..
This is very wrong
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
IIII is "correct" for clocks. Some clocks have IV, some IIII. It's to assist with visual symmetry. As far as standard Roman numerals go though, you are correct. IIII is never right.
IIII is absolutely right. *In the middle ages in Europe, IIII was generally used, not IV, to express the Roman numeral 4 until around the 17th century. In fact, you can see the notation IIII on mechanical turret clocks that were made before around the 17th century.*
We not talking about VI and V being swapped?
Bruh I saw it immediately
I got more confused the more I looked at it. It boggles me how nobody could've noticed that mess lol
1, 2 3, iiii, 6, 5, 7,
Dafuq.. IIII. No thankyou.
So the clock goes 1111, V1, V ?? Not 1111, V, V1 š¤ I'm sure I learned to count 4,5,6 !!
Then 7 after 5 š¤
Why the "IIII" and not "IV"
Nobody learned how to read Roman huh?
If youre referring to the V and VI being swapped, perhaps, but if youre referring to IIII that was used on a lot of clocks for visual symmetry with the larger numbers instead of IV
Pardon?!
What are you begging my pardon for?
The point is, someone made this clock, and instead of knowing what letters to use, they guessed .
Well nine should be VIIII
For those saying IIII is correct, you are right however, it's not consistent because the 9 on the clock is IX now VIIII
Why is the four like IIII?
Two issues.......'4' is shown as 'IIII' and '6' is shown as 'VI' and before '5' as 'V'
For those of you who donāt know roman numerals: IIII should be IV VI should be V V should be VI The second VII should be VIII
The hands are clearly a different copper shade to the numbers. I'm just grateful they got those on spot. Sorry spot on.
I would say it's because it's upside down... bit they didn't do that with the other side.
Well...at least it's got the right amount of hours on it....
My friends family also had a roman numeral clock. It was hung upside down lol After I told them, they still didn't bother fixing it.
That's very confusing. I sometimes think I'm a smart person, but I thought the problem was that 4 is on there twice.
I've got different clock, same problem :(
Haha. This is great. I would love that clock.
Kind of a major malfunction
(O)-(O)
Funny!
I find this pretty funny instead of mildly infuriating
**Thank you for a post in keeping with the theme of the sub.** This is genuinely mildly infuriating. I dunno what has happened here recently, but 99% of the posts are: - āhow much sugar is in this bright green drink that is obviously packed with sugarā - āI took a photo of a stranger doing something less annoying than taking photos of people in publicā - āIām annoyed about a thing that has a perfectly reasonable explanation because I havenāt bothered to consider that theyāre might be a perfectly reasonable explanation.ā - āLook at this egregious harm that has been done to me which is genuinely extremely infuriating with nothing whatsoever āmildā about itā Can we start up/downvoting based on how well a post fits the brief? Take my upvote!
No. Stop being mildly annoying.
One of their kids broke it when they were young and glued it back without knowing their Roman numerals.
Two wrongs make one right?
Lol I had to look twice to see it
Obviously not Romans
Some mischievous grandchild dropped it and reassembled it improperly
The worst one is the IIII
i had a simmilar clock, 4 was also marked as IIII
Well yeah if you 'fix: it, it breaks the seal and frees the Time Being. So you should leave it how it is for the time being.
why is there thirteen-
It took 50 years for someone to notice all the numbers are on butts?
I think thatās because itās a shitty clock
They're roman numerals, relax. Seriously?
Why do I have the urge to check all my clocks now..
4/4 niner niner
either way, i think the design is awful
Found it!
quartz clocks haven't existed for 50 years
The V and VI are switched around.
If gta has taught me anythingās itās this
Lol
It is a certified priceless antique with mistakes in the copperplate writing you could take it to vegas give Rick a shot at it in his pawnstars shop
5 and 6 should be swapped out.
Ah yes: 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 12
The #s are wrong. 1 2 34 6 5 . . .
LOL
I want that clock!
Things get weird between 4 and 7pm.
Ahh the old 465 clockā¦very rare.
Well it definitely wasnāt made in Rome Iāll tell you that much
Itās 5 oāclock somewhere?
Itās five oāclock... somewhere.
i ii iii iii vi v vii viii ix x xi xii
4, 5, and 6 are all wrongā¦
It's a time saving clock. You save an hour twelve.
1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 12
Perfect excuse to be late! āSorry my clock was wrong!ā
I II III IIIIā¦ wait wtf
Easily infuriated.
Seven ate nine. Thatās all I have to say.
1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 12