HOME | DD

Published: 2013-10-26 16:25:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 1939; Favourites: 131; Downloads: 25
Redirect to original
Description
Wouldn’t want to waste a thingRelated content
Comments: 19
flamingmarsupial [2014-12-24 05:08:11 +0000 UTC]
This has to be one of the most beautiful watches I've yet seen. It looks Victorian, with a golden brown finish that could be a factory-applied patina or the effects of generations of age and use. Could've been carried by Teddy Roosevelt or Winston Churchill, and hold the stories of several lifetimes behind its vintage face.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lemonsAndsparrows In reply to flamingmarsupial [2014-12-25 16:59:54 +0000 UTC]
You have a wonderful way of sayings thing! It really adds life to photo’s like these
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
914four [2014-02-04 14:53:40 +0000 UTC]
Ever notice that the "IV" is actually printed as "IIII"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lemonsAndsparrows In reply to 914four [2014-02-04 20:25:08 +0000 UTC]
Lol, I’ve honestly never noticed that xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
914four In reply to lemonsAndsparrows [2014-02-04 21:37:30 +0000 UTC]
Most people don't, and they assume that the watch is all Roman numerals, but I've found that most watches use the IIII symbol, with the exception of some of the cheap Chinese-made watches. I have an old American Waltham railroad watch from the 1890ies and it has the IIII, I suspect it has something to do with ease of reading. We should learn at least one new thing every day, there is your thing for today
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lemonsAndsparrows In reply to 914four [2014-02-05 18:26:14 +0000 UTC]
True! After your comment I immediately checked my other watches, turns out most of them have IIII instead of IV even the antique ones. I also think that people got IV confused with VI and maybe that’s why the IIII was introduced?
But thank you for pointing it out for me!
I love learning little trivia like that^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
914four In reply to lemonsAndsparrows [2014-02-06 00:00:10 +0000 UTC]
So I did a little research, and the best answer I could come up with was that the Romans never used IV but rather IIII, IV being a modern invention. Apparently clockmakers have been using IIII since the sixteenth century! Glad to help
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lemonsAndsparrows In reply to 914four [2014-02-06 20:38:07 +0000 UTC]
No way, I would never have guessed that!
What a wonderful little fact ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
914four In reply to lemonsAndsparrows [2014-02-09 11:57:36 +0000 UTC]
Here is another, interesting tidbit. The big clock in the Louvre uses a "IIII", but Big Ben uses a "IV."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lemonsAndsparrows In reply to 914four [2014-02-09 20:31:13 +0000 UTC]
Lol, and the Prague astronomical clock uses IV again!
I will never be able to look at a clock again without noticing this!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
914four In reply to lemonsAndsparrows [2014-02-09 20:57:03 +0000 UTC]
I'd never noticed that! What these two clocks have in common is that they were both heavily damaged by bombs (London) or artillery (Prague) during the Second World War, one can't help but wonder if that might have something to do with the numbers?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lemonsAndsparrows In reply to 914four [2014-02-17 12:44:43 +0000 UTC]
That’s an interesting point of view!
I was thinking it might had something to with French colonisation, since it was the French king Louis XIV that wanted to use IIII instead of IV? But the Prague astronomical clock is a little too old for that theory to work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
lemonsAndsparrows In reply to Finnyanne [2013-10-27 18:21:27 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0