"D. J." wrote in message
...
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

Hi DJ -

My vote's for the IIII as the better choice.... If you ever spot a
clock-face in a mirror - you won't mistake the reversed "IV" for "VI"....

Not that Shakers spent a lot of time in bars.....

Cheers -

Rob