[Kosmo]

Usually 4 as a roman number it's IV, but I've seen on some watches as IIII. How is corect ? Are they both accepted?

[Andrew Dalby]

Kosmo, on Jan 4 2007, 08:43 AM, said:

Usually 4 as a roman number it's IV, but I've seen on some watches as IIII. How is corect ? Are they both accepted?

I think both are correct, but in writing and in print IV is a better choice and is used much more often. Do others agree?

On British coins, George the Fourth (who ruled 1820 to 1830) appeared as GEORGIUS IIII on his first coin issue; then, for the second issue, the inscription was changed to GEORGIUS IV.

[Aurelianus]

I'm not sure of the corectness of this, but i belive that IV was a later, Papal invention. But i may be completely wrong.

[votadini]

According to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia....s#IIII_or_IV.3F

'The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent "four", because IV represented the pagan god Jupiter. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become universally used only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for "nine", but IIII for "four". Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses both IIII and IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for "five", IIX for "eight" or VV for "ten" have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number "18" was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number "19" was undeviginti or “one from twenty”. The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.'

[Primus Pilus]

Both were used, but IIII is far more common at least on coinage. In fact, I can't rightly think of a Roman coin that uses IV rather than IIII. If someone knows of one, please do post to satisfy my own curiosity.

Anyway, Below is a Neronian era inscription from Chichester to illustrate the use of IV . It would seem logical to me that the introduction of IV and IX were simply space saving measures.

NERONI CLAVDIO DIVI CLAVD AVG F GERMANICI CAES NEPOTI TI CAES AVG PRONEPOTI DIV AVG ABN CAESARI AVG GERM TR P IV IMP V COS IV S C V M

"To Nero Claudius Caesar Augusus Germanicus, son of the Divine Claudius Augustus Germanicus, grandson of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, great-grandson of the Divine Augustus, great-great-grandson of Caesar, in the fourth year of his holding tribunicia potestas, hailed imperator five times, consul four times, under his care this offering deservedly (is made)."

From Roman-Britain.org

[Kosmo]

So, both are correct and have been used by romans. Thank you.
From the wiki quote seems that IX had also a different writen form. That will be VIIII ?

[Gaius Octavius]

I have three watches with the 4 notated 'IIII'. This notation is used so as not to confuse IV with VI. The Roman numbers 5 - 9 are upside down. Doesn't solve the problem of confusing 9 with 11 (IX and XI).
__________

Maybe a Eureka! VV = O?

[M. Porcius Cato]

If clock maker's were concerned with inversion, they would have certainly dealt with the IX (9) versus XI (11) problem, where inversion really does have meaningful consequences. The inversion of | \/ (4) is /\ | (which is meaningless).

Wikipedia offers an interesting explanation for the IIII versus IV that can account for the use of IIII and IX:
The number of symbols on the clock totals twenty 'I's, four 'V's, and four 'X's, so clock makers need only a single mold with five 'I's, a V, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for the clocks, cast four times for each clock:
V IIII IX
VI II IIX
VII III X
VIII I IX
IIX and one of the IX's can be rearranged or inverted to form XI and XII. The alternative uses seventeen 'I's, five 'V's, and four 'X's, possibly requiring the clock maker to have several different molds.

[Gaius Octavius]

M. Porcius Cato, on Jan 4 2007, 01:30 PM, said:

If clock maker's were concerned with inversion, they would have certainly dealt with the IX (9) versus XI (11) problem, where inversion really does have meaningful consequences. The inversion of | \/ (4) is /\ | (which is meaningless).

Wikipedia offers an interesting explanation for the IIII versus IV that can account for the use of IIII and IX:
The number of symbols on the clock totals twenty 'I's, four 'V's, and four 'X's, so clock makers need only a single mold with five 'I's, a V, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for the clocks, cast four times for each clock:
V IIII IX
VI II IIX
VII III X
VIII I IX
IIX and one of the IX's can be rearranged or inverted to form XI and XII. The alternative uses seventeen 'I's, five 'V's, and four 'X's, possibly requiring the clock maker to have several different molds.

The Roman numerals are oriented to the center of the watch, that is why you get the upside-down VI for 6. When considered in this way, The IX and XI problem disappears. It also leaves me with no explanation for the IIII. 8 on these watches is VIII and not IIX.
In my not so very humble opinion, the Wikipedia explanation is a crock.

This post has been edited by Gaius Octavius: 04 January 2007 - 07:17 PM