Roman numerals - help wanted.

[Luke.]

Hi Chaps,

I'm practically numerically dyslexic.

Anyone know what 25.10.2010 is in Roman numerals?

Thinking of having them put on a wedding band.

Any help hugely appreciated.

[Bullett]

Luke. said:

Hi Chaps,

I'm practically numerically dyslexic.

Anyone know what 25.10.2010 is in Roman numerals?

Thinking of having them put on a wedding band.

Any help hugely appreciated.

xxv.x.mmx

I think

[Luke.]

Bullett said:

Luke. said:

Hi Chaps,

I'm practically numerically dyslexic.

Anyone know what 25.10.2010 is in Roman numerals?

Thinking of having them put on a wedding band.

Any help hugely appreciated.

xxv.x.mmx

I think

Thank you

[Negative Creep]

Bullett said:

Luke. said:

Hi Chaps,

I'm practically numerically dyslexic.

Anyone know what 25.10.2010 is in Roman numerals?

Thinking of having them put on a wedding band.

Any help hugely appreciated.

xxv.x.mmx

I think

Yep pretty sure that's right

[anonymous-user]

MMX is 2010

other dates - er... don't think they really did them like that. From wikipedia:

"the Romans counted backwards from three fixed points: the Nones, the Ides and the Kalends of the following month"

Edited by DangerousMike on Thursday 10th June 11:19

[DrTre]

http://www.guernsey.net/~sgibbs/roman.html

Dm is right I think

[alfa pint]

DangerousMike said:

MMX is 2010

other dates - er... don't think they really did them like that.

My Latin O level from 1987 says they did. i.e. 1,2,3, 1 before 5, 5, 5+1, 5+2, 5+3, 1 before 10, 10 etc.

[Luke.]

DrTre said:

http://www.guernsey.net/~sgibbs/roman.html

Dm is right I think

Hmmm... well found. Does it matter if they didnt really do them like that?

[Benjaminpalma]

Bullett said:

Luke. said:

Hi Chaps,

I'm practically numerically dyslexic.

Anyone know what 25.10.2010 is in Roman numerals?

Thinking of having them put on a wedding band.

Any help hugely appreciated.

xxv.x.mmx

I think

Correct.

[Bullett]

The dd.mm.yy is pretty recent format so they probably didn't write dates like that.

But you could also argue, we are not roman so why write the date in roman numerals?
You are not trying to forge Caesars ring so of you like that format, go for it.

[anonymous-user]

Luke. said:

DrTre said:

http://www.guernsey.net/~sgibbs/roman.html

Dm is right I think

Hmmm... well found. Does it matter if they didnt really do them like that?

if the ring is going to be worn a long time consider how many pedants will pick up on the fact that the date is just a modern date in roman numerals

[anonymous-user]

you need to count the years from the date of the founding of Rome to get the correct year (founded 735 BC apparently) or if you are a republican you could call the year after the name of the consul in power at the beginning of the year.

YEAR OF BROWN,

[Luke.]

DangerousMike said:

you need to count the years from the date of the founding of Rome to get the correct year (founded 735 BC apparently) or if you are a republican you could call the year after the name of the consul in power at the beginning of the year.

YEAR OF BROWN,

Ahh.. the romance of it all.

[Engineer1]

Don't worry about the pedants, as watches and clocks use Roman numerals, as do the TV companies as part of their copyright details. TV companies didn't exist, watches didn't. The date on rings seems to be a current trend, like the 3 band rings where a few years back.

[Justayellowbadge]

Engineer1 said:

Don't worry about the pedants, as watches and clocks use Roman numerals, as do the TV companies as part of their copyright details. TV companies didn't exist, watches didn't. The date on rings seems to be a current trend, like the 3 band rings where a few years back.

Watches and clocks use IIII instead of IV.

Anyone know why?

[Plotloss]

Justayellowbadge said:

Engineer1 said:

Don't worry about the pedants, as watches and clocks use Roman numerals, as do the TV companies as part of their copyright details. TV companies didn't exist, watches didn't. The date on rings seems to be a current trend, like the 3 band rings where a few years back.

Watches and clocks use IIII instead of IV.

Anyone know why?

Some do, Parliament Clocktower for instance doesn't.

[Nolar Dog]

Engineer1 said:

Don't worry about the pedants, as watches and clocks use Roman numerals, as do the TV companies as part of their copyright details. TV companies didn't exist, watches didn't. The date on rings seems to be a current trend, like the 3 band rings where a few years back.

Yep, we do a lot (I mean A LOT!) of dates in Roman numerals. We do them in "modern format" as above but often they work better as the following:

eg: 14.10.72 rather than 14.10.1972

Edited to add: Obviously in the case of 2010 that doesn't work better, it's not visually appealing.

Edited by Nolar Dog on Thursday 10th June 11:51

[Dogwatch]

Nolar Dog said:

Engineer1 said:

Don't worry about the pedants, as watches and clocks use Roman numerals, as do the TV companies as part of their copyright details. TV companies didn't exist, watches didn't. The date on rings seems to be a current trend, like the 3 band rings where a few years back.

Yep, we do a lot (I mean A LOT!) of dates in Roman numerals. We do them in "modern format" as above but often they work better as the following:

eg: 14.10.72 rather than 14.10.1972

Though XXV.X.X doesn't quite 'do it' for me as XIV.X.LXXII might

[anonymous-user]

spell yovr name with vs instead of vs too.

[Prak]

Have it engraved AFTER you're married ...

(we just had to postpone our wedding by six months)