[Kevin C.] > These are all rather elaborate explanations . . . couldn't just be that > "IIII" was used instead of "IV" simply because it is so easy to confuse "IV" > with "VI"? [snip]
In light of the List's recent discussions of number orientation on a dial (and, I suspect, some of the same considerations apply to clock and watch dials), this simple explanation makes *very* good sense to me. I can easily see a potential problem of confusing "IV" with "VI" (and vice versa) when reading them at differing angles. Tim
