Clock Blooper

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not really a blooper, there's a history to this: http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently-asked-questions-faq/faq-roman-iiii-vs-iv-on-clock-dials.aspx

David said...

actually, IV is only a common change. For centuries, IIII was the norm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#IIII_vs._IV

Gypsy James said...

It's not much of a blooper, IIII was as acceptable as IV in Roman numerals. Plenty of examples in old literature....I'd drop this one if I was you...

Top site though,

Happy Subscriber.

Anonymous said...

This is correct!

IIII i used because it visually balances VIII better than IV does.

Current Hits