What sort of numerals does Big Ben (Westminster - London) have?

[Haynes67]

Not for the horologists, but no doubt you are all going to tell me.

[omnom]

Is it not Roman numerals?

omnom

[lilsecret]

There are no numerals on Big Ben - it is a bell.

The well-known clock, where Parliament meets, has gothic style Roman numerals round its face and the 4 is depicted as iv

[ChuckFickens]

None as far as I know. (though it may have some engraved on it)

[Haynes67]

Well I did actually mean the clock face so thanks for your answers and you are right they are indeed roman numeral. So let us go one further and ask another question - what sets it apart from all the other clock & watch faces in country that appear as if they have roamn numerals?

[dothawkes31]

it has the 1V for 4 not 4 x 1, like lilsecret said above

[Haynes67]

Hello dothawkes, but what type of numerals would they be if the 4 was dipicted by
4 X 1's ?

[dothawkes31]

blind rudolph comes to mind

[puternut]

Many theories have been passed as to why including -

a) Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.

b) Many clocks use IIII because that was the tradition established by the earliest surviving clock, the Wells Cathedral clock built between 1386 and 1392.

c) With IIII, 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 mould with a V, five I's, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks.

Take your pick. No-ones really sure

[fredpuli47]

Three theories given above and none of them the horologist's obvious one! Putting four as IIII balances VIII on the opposite side both in size and number of thick lines (The V is always written with a very thin. ' / ' line and a thick '\ ' stroke which matches the thick lines of IIII ) Putting IV opposite VIII doesn't. So it's always been done for aesthetic reasons.
Can't speak for Louis XIV 's preferences but he only ruled France, which was never a pioneer in clocks or watches until the time of Breguet's watches, and the practice was already well established all over Europe by his day (including at Wells Cathedral )
Wells Cathedral has the oldest surviving clock of its type, not the first clock . It was not a trend setter.How could it be ? An obscure cathedral in an unimportant country with a clock, when there were clocks all over Europe already.
Clocks had painted, engraved, or cut out, not cast, numbers for the early part and most of their history. Cast numbers have always been rare in clocks.

[magicmerlin]

lilsecret/Dot - 4 in roman numerals is IV not 1V. All numbers are represented by LETTERS.

[fredpuli47]

As, magic,somebody should have told Royal Mail. When I had the Westminster postcode SW1 V the sorting office regularly sent my mail to SW4, a Clapham postcode, courtesy of some half-educated classicist unthinkingly reading 1 V as IV ! Mad.

[dzug]

<courtesy of some half-educated classicist unthinkingly reading 1 V as IV ! >

I thought they had machines to do that for them these days......

[dzug]

<but what type of numerals would they be if the 4 was depicted by 4 X I's ? >


Still Roman - just a different version

[R1Geezer]

you don't have to use the shorthand for roman numerals, it's traditional to do so but you don't have to they are still roman numerals:
IIII = IV
XXXX = XL
etc

[jno]

little-known Roman numerals include B=300, E=250, F=40 - used in medieval rather than actual Roman times, but used in Roman script none the less. So there are B seconds in V minutes.

[Haynes67]

Thanks for all of those answers none of whch are correct. Some are far too complex, too intricate or just myth. The simple answer is that the clock face of the parlimentary westminster clock (Big Ben) are indeed gothic roman numerals and in this respect it is unique. Whereas all the other clocks & watches that people believe have roman numerals, have in fact 'Arabic' numerals. The figure 4 being depicted as IIII (Arabic version) as opposed to IV (the roman version). As any true blooded horogist will tell you; or simple use a search engine for antique clock parts and look up chapter rings for clock faces.
Millions of people believe they wear watches with roman numerals. Ask them to remove their watch and place it out of view. Now ask them to tell you what kind of numerals are on it. They will nearly always answer roman. Then ask them to tell you the the figure for 4 in roman numerals and they will answer IV. Have a little bet with them, say a pint of beer, that their watch does not sport roman numerals. They alway take the bet. Then reveal that the watch has IIII for the figure 4 and you have yourself a free pint. Always a good talking point when socialising.

[fredpuli47]

No Haynes. You owe your friends several pints, if you've been telling them that IIII isn't Roman. Any ' full-bloodied' (!) classicist would tell you that IIII was the original, and a common , form in Roman times. It is found on Roman inscriptions. (IV is also found and was the version commonly encountered in classical texts). The story is that IIII remained popular instead of IV as IV is also the start of the principal god Jupiter's name. Jupiter is written IVPPITER in Latin inscriptions. It's only in modern times that IV has become the universal way of putting it. (except on clocks !)
In case you're wondering , U and V were originally written with the same sign,V, in Latin. No confusion was likely. V was a consonant pronounced as our consonant W and U as,well, the vowel, U.
For further information, go to wikipedia 'Roman Numerals ' and scroll down to the heading' IIII and IV '

[R1Geezer]

123456789 note not 0 are the Arabic numerals you pl0nker!

[R1Geezer]

http://en.wikipedia.o..._numerals#IIII_and_IV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals
and they do include 0