This is an advertisement from a popular magazine, an ad for a watch.
Do you see anything wrong?
Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the product.
[
attachment=9422]
(04-28-2021 12:58 AM)Don Shepherd Wrote: [ -> ]This is an advertisement from a popular magazine, an ad for a watch.
Do you see anything wrong?
Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the product.
This is a joke, right Don? You photo-shopped it, right?
Please say that no company could produce and advertise something this wrong...
In fact, I think I've seen this ad in some aviation magazines I get, though I never looked closely enough to see the gaffe.
I'll scan thru the magazines to find it, and if the same, I'll call the seller to ask about it. Should be interesting to hear their reply.
Update - Yikes, the same watch is for sale on eBay and Amazon. Perhaps the 'error' is intentional for some historical reason?
(04-28-2021 01:06 AM)rprosperi Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2021 12:58 AM)Don Shepherd Wrote: [ -> ]This is an advertisement from a popular magazine, an ad for a watch.
Do you see anything wrong?
Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the product.
This is a joke, right Don? You photo-shopped it, right?
Please say that no company could produce and advertise something this wrong...
In fact, I think I've seen this ad in some aviation magazines I get, though I never looked closely enough to see the gaff.
I'll scan thru the magazines to find it, and if the same, I'll call the seller to ask about it. Should be interesting to hear their reply.
Update - Yikes, the same watch is for sale on eBay and Amazon. Perhaps the 'error' is intentional for some historical reason?
I don't even know how to photo-shop! It's all I can do to compress the original PDF file to something smaller that the forum will accept.
Don
(04-28-2021 12:58 AM)Don Shepherd Wrote: [ -> ]This is an advertisement from a popular magazine, an ad for a watch.
Do you see anything wrong?
Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the product.
I give up. What's wrong? There's a reflection between the number 50 and the 55 mark but that's not a flaw. There's IIII for 4 O'clock but that's common on clocks that use Roman numerals. There are missing ones dots between the 25 mark and the 35 mark but that's not critical. The hour hand should be slightly after the X (ten) mark but it's not that big a deal. So what's wrong?
(04-28-2021 01:24 AM)toml_12953 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2021 12:58 AM)Don Shepherd Wrote: [ -> ]This is an advertisement from a popular magazine, an ad for a watch.
Do you see anything wrong?
Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the product.
There's IIII for 4 O'clock but that's common on clocks that use Roman numerals. So what's wrong?
I guess I don't have any clocks in my house that use Roman numerals.
Don
I think the explanation I've heard is that clocks will use IIII instead of the more correct IV because having both IV and VI printed upside-down near the bottom of the face can be a bit visually confusing. But then they go and keep both IX and XI, so who knows.
I can't read everything, but the reference to "Swiss" watches??
cheers
Tony
(04-28-2021 01:42 AM)teenix Wrote: [ -> ]I can't read everything, but the reference to "Swiss" watches??
cheers
Tony
Thanks Tony. Actually, what was bothering me was using IIII instead of the correct IV, but apparently historically most clocks that use Roman numerals do it this way, so I learned something new today.
Don
(04-28-2021 01:55 AM)Don Shepherd Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2021 01:42 AM)teenix Wrote: [ -> ]I can't read everything, but the reference to "Swiss" watches??
cheers
Tony
Thanks Tony. Actually, what was bothering me was using IIII instead of the correct IV, but apparently historically most clocks that use Roman numerals do it this way, so I learned something new today.
Don
I never really thought about it but the clock beside me that has Roman numerals does indeed have IIII instead of IV.
Paul.
(04-28-2021 01:39 AM)Dave Britten Wrote: [ -> ]I think the explanation I've heard is that clocks will use IIII instead of the more correct IV because having both IV and VI printed upside-down near the bottom of the face can be a bit visually confusing. But then they go and keep both IX and XI, so who knows.
The use of IV is a relatively modern construct. Since clocks that use Roman numerals are trying to impart a feeling of age, they use the more correct (for the Middle Ages and earlier) IIII.
https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/...20century.
(04-28-2021 02:15 AM)toml_12953 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2021 01:39 AM)Dave Britten Wrote: [ -> ]I think the explanation I've heard is that clocks will use IIII instead of the more correct IV because having both IV and VI printed upside-down near the bottom of the face can be a bit visually confusing. But then they go and keep both IX and XI, so who knows.
The use of IV is a relatively modern construct. Since clocks that use Roman numerals are trying to impart a feeling of age, they use the more correct (for the Middle Ages and earlier) IIII.
https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/...20century.
Thanks Tom.
Heh heh!
I thought that the gaffe you were referring to was the hour hand's position, which is pointing directly at 10, which is clearly wrong for 10:10.
(04-28-2021 04:38 AM)Joe Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Heh heh! :D I thought that the gaffe you were referring to was the hour hand's position, which is pointing directly at 10, which is clearly wrong for 10:10.
Ditto. :)
The use of IIII has to do with symmetry: now there are 4 numbers with I's, 4 with V's and 4 with X's. So my memory tells me, I have read that somewhere sometime long ago.
Cheers, Werner
(04-28-2021 07:26 AM)Werner Wrote: [ -> ]The use of IIII has to do with symmetry: now there are 4 numbers with I's, 4 with V's and 4 with X's. So my memory tells me, I have read that somewhere sometime long ago.
Cheers, Werner
But there's no
III on that dial...
That's what's wrong with it!
Werner
The idea that "IIII" was used to prevent confusion between "IV" and "VI" is unconvincing, as one must believe the position of the number (at the 4 o'clock position, rather than at the 6 o'clock position) would do that, but I suppose following that logic argues that specific numbers would not then be needed at all...
I learned something new about something old today.
I agree Bob, I learned something new too.
I can't get too excited about Roman Numerals as I only notice them at Super Bowl time. But if you are going to use them (clock makers), use them correctly. When I taught math a few years ago, we never taught Roman Numerals.
The watch crystal itself seems to be offset within the case. Between 10 and two there are two distinct nested rings of dots, but the outer ring vanishes around the 9/3 midpoint and the inner ring shifts downward by the 6 o'clock position. Perspective?
The
Wikipedia article on Roman numerals gives a good overview on just how little standardization there is, or has indeed ever been, when it comes to the use of subtractive notation.
Even today there seem to be disagreements. Specifically, some people seem to believe that subtractive notation should only be used with the next lower power of 10, while others do not consider that to be a requirement. So, for example, in the closing titles of BBC TV shows, they show the year the program was made using Roman numerals, and as the 20th century drew to a close, I observed both MCMXCIX and MIM for 1999.