Sue Mey's fretwork clock SSW&C 28

[Meiglan]

hey Sue...that is gorgeous...and just crying out to be done in some of those alternative materials...It would be lovely cut in brass or copper on a tile....I just may try it....thanks Jayne

[Kerux]

I found a boo boo in the pattern as I was cutting it out. Roman Number 4 is IIII not IV.

[meydenhart]

Hi Kerux

As discussed here it is an 'artistic freedom' often used:
"Placing an "I" in front of the "V"; or placing any smaller value in front of any larger value, indicates subtraction. That is, the preceding smaller value is subtracted from the following larger value. So "IV" means 4. The value "IIII" is sometimes used for "4". "IIII" is used mostly on faces of clocks and for other special uses. The standard Roman Numeral for "4" is IV."

[Dragon]

I learned in scholl that 4 was IV and I've always seen it like that.
Diane

[miamw]

I don't think it was an important boo boo. Maybe in modern times it may be thought to be a boo boo, but here's some information from the Wikipedia:

"IIII or IV?
The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent "four", because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPITER, begins with IV. 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 IIII, 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."

[miamw]

[meydenhart]

For those who prefer the pattern with a "IV" instead of a "IIII", here is the revised pattern

[millwab]

Originally Posted by Kerux

I found a boo boo in the pattern as I was cutting it out. Roman Number 4 is IIII not IV.

This may be true when you're chiseling dates on a cornerstone, but the convention for clock dials is IIII. If you look at virtually ANY clock dial that uses Roman numerals, the number 4 is always represented as IIII. Sue got it right the first time!

[millwab]

BTW Sue, thanx for the inspiration. You've convinced me to give the design contest a try now.

[meydenhart]

Thanks Jayne, Bruce :-) That's good to hear!