| The Breitling Watch Source Forums https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/ |
|
| IIII vs IV https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3838 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | iang [ Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | IIII vs IV |
Very random question. I notice that Breitling and pretty much every other high-end watchmaker use IIII when depicting 4 in Roman numerals rather than IV as was taught at school. I would have thought that IV would have fitted slightly better on the face. Anyone know the history of this tradition? Ian |
|
| Author: | Sharkmouth [ Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The accepted reason is that "IV" was an abbreviation for "Jupiter" in Roman times so they decided to use "IIII" so that their clocks didn't have "1 2 3 GOD 5..." written on them. This is plausible but why only clocks? What about every other instance where 4 would be written? One notable exception to this tradition is Big Ben in London which uses IV. |
|
| Author: | Roffensian [ Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sharkmouth wrote: The accepted reason is that "IV" was an abbreviation for "Jupiter" in Roman times so they decided to use "IIII" so that their clocks didn't have "1 2 3 GOD 5..." written on them. This is plausible but why only clocks? What about every other instance where 4 would be written?
One notable exception to this tradition is Big Ben in London which uses IV. I've never heard that story - I always thought it was simply an aesthetic thing. That the IIII was considered to balance the dial better than IV. |
|
| Author: | Breitling Bloke [ Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm ashamed to admit that I had never noticed this anomally 
In my defence I would say that I have never considered a watch with Roman Numeral markers although I have to admit that some of the Chronomats look superb with them. Good stuff - very interesting. 
|
|
| Author: | Flynbyu [ Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Breitling Bloke wrote: I'm ashamed to admit that I had never noticed this anomally
In my defence I would say that I have never considered a watch with Roman Numeral markers although I have to admit that some of the Chronomats look superb with them. Good stuff - very interesting. +1 I never noticed this either. Thanks for the history lesson Sharkmouth!!! ~Brian |
|
| Author: | Tunnel Ling [ Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
interesting. I learn something every day. |
|
| Author: | aleister [ Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sharkmouth wrote: The accepted reason is that "IV" was an abbreviation for "Jupiter" in Roman times so they decided to use "IIII" so that their clocks didn't have "1 2 3 GOD 5..." written on them. This is plausible but why only clocks? What about every other instance where 4 would be written?
One notable exception to this tradition is Big Ben in London which uses IV. It's not only on clocks. Older coins for example (as I have a collection starting at medeival time going onwards) using IIII as a 4 in the year was quite common, even up into the 16th and 17th century. Then someone probably decided enough respect had been paid to the Romans. The watch industry is just a little late on arriving to the same conclusion I guess...  Or, they are still doing it due to history.
|
|
| Author: | Driver8 [ Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Everyday's a school day. Interesting information.
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|