On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:53:11 -0500, "D. J."
wrote:

This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.
Thinking it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a
couple of photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are
also IIII for (4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the
Romans changed it in the past 200 years.

Don


Although some subset of the Shakers produced attractive instances of
simplified forms, which have become hallmarks of the style commonly
associated with their sect, they did not show a particularly keen
sense of history, as is evidenced in your clock face question, nor did
they have a gift for the extension of history into the future, as is
evidenced by their distaste for procreation.

Quite frankly, they put me in mind of the current day inhabitants of
the red areas of the map, excepting the creativity.



Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)