Roman Numeral Clock

The number 4 on a Roman numeral clock is marked as IIII, when I always thought Roman numeral 4 is IV. What is the deal?

Clock faces are marked with classic Roman numerals show IIII for 4 o'clock and IX for nine hours, using the subtractive principle in one case and not in another. There are many explanations have been proposed for this purpose, several of them can be met:

* The shape of four characters IIII creates a visual symmetry with VIII on the other side, which IV would not.
* With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock I have twenty-four 'V, and four "X", so clock makers need only a single mold with a V, five "i" and "X" to make the right number of digits for the clocks: VIIIIIX. That's four times given for each clock and the twelve numbers needed are separated:
V o IIII IX
No. VI II IIX
o VII III X
No VIII I IX

The IIX and one of the IX are rotated 180 ° to form XI and XII. The alternative to IV uses seventeen I, five 'V, and four "X", the possible need to watch to have several different molds.

* IIII was the preferred means for the ancient Romans to write 4, since they largely avoid the subtraction.
* It has been suggested that since IV is the first two letters of IVPITER (Jupiter), the principal god of the Romans, it was not appropriate to use.
* The symbol I should be the only symbol in the first 4 hours of the clock, the symbol V is contained in four hours, and the symbol X in the last 4 hours. This would add to radial symmetry of the clock.
* IV is difficult to read upside down and on an angle, particularly at that location on the clock.
* Louis XIV, king of France, preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it remained. [Citation needed]

thats what happens when everything is made in China

The Victorians, who adopted the following on their clocks, they attempted to use the form over function, because at that time, the ideas are old style, it did not matter how you have used.