Roman Numerals need correction
28 Jan '18 02:021 editHas this already been brought up? If so, my apologies!
But 9 is not VIIII.
4 is not IIII.
But 9 is not VIIII.
4 is not IIII.
28 Jan '18 17:57Originally posted by @landisqueen170Yes 9 should 1X
Has this already been brought up? If so, my apologies!
But 9 is not VIIII.
4 is not IIII.
29 Jan '18 00:28Originally posted by @very-rustyWell, that is certainly better but not quite 😉
Yes 9 should 1X
4 should be 1V I believe if I remember my roman numerals.
-VR
29 Jan '18 03:05Originally posted by @landisqueen170Absolutely right, I stand corrected!
Well, that is certainly better but not quite 😉
I am pretty sure it's IX and IV.
04 Feb '18 21:48Originally posted by @russGood on you, Russ. Even clocks that use "IIII" for four o'clock use "IX" for nine o'clock.
The rosettes were not designed to be read as one number, but a collection of separate "awards".
Clearly this is being misread, and I agree that a V and 4 "I"s is awkward. A redesign will probably be incoming because I think this will be a recurring issue.
Back to Top