St Paul's Cathedral Clock, why IIII?
St Paul's Cathedral Clock, why IIII?
Author
Discussion

XJSJohn

Original Poster:

16,152 posts

250 months

Monday 2nd August 2010
quotequote all
As above ... why does the clock on St Pauls have 4 as IIII as opposed to IV?

Question that someone asked me as "a Londoner", i know i used to know this as it rings a bell boom boom but for the life of me i cannot remember so ... over to the combined brain that is Pistonheads!!!!


grumbledoak

32,571 posts

264 months

Monday 2nd August 2010
quotequote all
It's quite common on watches. To do with the numbers being upside down and symmetry, IIRC.

ETA- and there is something to do with how many of which type of 'number' they needed to fabricate.

Edited by grumbledoak on Monday 2nd August 14:00

Famous Graham

26,553 posts

256 months

Monday 2nd August 2010
quotequote all
Pretty sure someone asked this recently - not St Paul's specifically, but in general. As I recall, it had something to do with one of the King Louis of France preferring IIII to IV and it became a viable alternative.

Podie

46,649 posts

306 months

sleep envy

62,260 posts

280 months

Monday 2nd August 2010
quotequote all
no one really knows

the casting is one answer, so is the king of france another and there's also the theory that the romans used IIII as four instead of IV in respect to the God called Jupiter

Pigeon

18,535 posts

277 months

Monday 2nd August 2010
quotequote all
Famous Graham said:
Pretty sure someone asked this recently - not St Paul's specifically, but in general. As I recall, it had something to do with one of the King Louis of France preferring IIII to IV and it became a viable alternative.
I remember at school the teacher going on about this trying to tell us it was really supposed to be IIII and that IV was something made up. I didn't like the explanation so what I wrote down in my exercise book was that it was supposed to be IV but some stupid king told everyone to use IIII instead. Even managed to get a couple of my friends to write that down as well. I was most pleased to discover many years later that the cack I'd made up to be an obstreperous arse was actually true.

Revs_Addiction

2,090 posts

262 months

Monday 2nd August 2010
quotequote all
I've spoken to a couple of watch manufacturers about this, and they both confirmed it was down to aesthetics.

The idea is that 'iiii' is more symmetrical than 'iv' to balance the dial with the 'viii' on the opposite side.


Edited by Revs_Addiction on Monday 2nd August 15:12

XJSJohn

Original Poster:

16,152 posts

250 months

Tuesday 3rd August 2010
quotequote all
thumbup cheers folks ... looks like a few options