Caitlin Woodward

I have developed a recent obsession with analog clocks. Not just any analog clock, but one with roman numeral numbers.

Take a look at these two clocks. Notice anything unusual?

Try this one.

This all started when I was walking across campus with a friend, when he said to me, “Caitlin. Have you ever wondered why analog clocks with roman numerals have IIII for the number four instead of IV?” I was immediately dumbfounded. How could I have noticed that before? Immediately I began looking at all the clocks we passed by. Didn’t really find any roman numeral clocks, but then I remembered that Google Images existed. I looked it up, and sure enough, most of the roman numeral clocks used IIII.

But why? It made little sense to me. The nine was most still an IX on all of them. I started research. I found no definite answers, but there are several theories. The most common is that it is for the aesthetic value of the clock, since the IIII balances with the VIII on the other side. This makes sense, but I still was not convinced.

The one that seems most logical to me involves the casting process of actually making the numerals. Using IV makes the count of numerals 17 I’s, 3 V’s, and 2 X’s, where as using IIII, the count is changed to 20 I’s, 4 V’s, 4 X’s. The latter is obviously easier for casting numerals evenly.

Another theory that I just recently found was that, in Roman times, IV was an abbreviation for the Roman god Jupiter. The people decided that they did not want to clocks to read “1, 2, 3, Jupiter, 5…”

I still find the whole topic intriguing. Makes me want to buy an analog clock with IIII on it.