Talk:Clock face

Etymology
The OED says that the likely derivation is from Dutch Clock, or French Cloche, and therefore not from Irish. Pemboid (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Structure
I don't think this page reflects the true story of the early clock face. As with some of the other Wiki pages (eg clock), it needs expanding and de-simplifying (where things have been over-simplified!).

There's been a lot of debate about the development of the early mechanical (not water) clock. Was it entirely for ringing bells, or was it an attempt to produce a planetary display? Derek Price (1959) suggests that the first clocks were geared astrolabes, and the plain mechanical clock was just a 'degenerate' spin-off. Landes (1983) counters that simple machines such as clocks must have come first, because simple technology always precedes complex. North ("God's Clockmaker: Richard of Wallingford and the Invention of Time", 2005) argues that both are probably wrong: that bell-ringing clocks and geared planetarium-style displays developed together and influenced each other from 1250 to 1350: tower clocks were simpler and may have had minimal dials (except a dial for setting the time!), whereas more complex astronomical clocks would have looked more like astrolabes, but were perhaps not suitable for mounting in towers. Perhaps the big simple tower clocks had large bells and small dials, whereas the smaller more complex astronomical clocks had smaller bells and larger dials! Also, consider that the richer institutions (eg abbeys with land) would have been able to afford the latest and most complex technology, and the less affluent ones (smaller city councils?) would have perhaps gone for the more basic models.

In 1322, the clock at Norwich was rebuilt: the iron plate for the astronomical dial weighed 87 lbs, was transported from London. This was to be the clock face for the astronomical dial, and North suggests that it was 6 feet across.

In the 1330s, Richard of Wallingford was constructing the famous St Albans clock, which looked like a big powered astrolabe. This was a display clock, and the dial showed the star map, zodiac rings, and so on. Hands showed the position of the sun, the moon, and also indicated likely eclipses.

Cormullion 08:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How to read it?
This page is good, except that it doesn't explain the most basic thing: how to read an analogue clock or, in other words, how the hours, the minutes, and the seconds are encoded and their information presented! I have been admitted to the degree of MSc, I have a job as a computer programmer, and yet I don't know how to read an analogue clock because as a child and adult I have always been dealing with digital clocks. I only rarely have to use an analogue clock, but when I do I feel perplexed. Just now I had a real need to see the time, I only had access to an analogue clock, and I couldn't with certainty read the time. I could derive the approximate hour, but had a great difficulty with the minutes. So, I gave up, searched a bystander and asked the time. Then when I got net access I came here, assured that Wikipedia must, at the minimum, have an explanation of how the time is encoded in an analogue clock. Unfortunately, it doesn't. But it must. Shulla (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK -- Gave it a shot. I think the explanation could use more polish but I'm pooped and going to bed. Lexlex (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Position of noon
''The convention of the hands moving clockwise evolved in imitation of the sundial. In the Northern hemisphere, where the clock face originated, the shadow of the gnomon on a sundial moves clockwise during the day.[2] This was also why noon or 12 o'clock was conventionally located at the top of the dial.''

No.

Logically the postion of noon should be at the 6 o'clock position as per a sundial.

The original clocks with dials were 24 hour clocks and therefore showed noon at the botom not the top of the dial - just like a sundial. Only midnight would be at the top position.

At some point 12 hour clock faces were introduced which then 'stetched' the scale of half a day (i.e only 12 hours) round the full circle instead of only half the circle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.139.100 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

IV or IIII, IX or VIIII?
Clock faces that use Roman numerals tend to use "IIII" instead of "IV" for 4 (the Big Ben being a conspicious exception). On the other hand, they (almost?) always use "IX" instead of "VIIII". The reason for the latter choice is obvious if one counts strokes, or how much space each alternative uses: "IX" is half of "VIIII" on either count. The savings of "IV" over "IIII" are only 25%, so the "economic" pressure is much less. Besides, the clock face design must accomodate the "VIII" anyway, which is 25% wider than "IIII"; so using "IV" for "IIII" would not make the designer's task any easier, whereas using "IX" for "VIIII" would definitely help. But that still does not explain why many (most?) clocks use "IIII" instead of "IV". Presumably it is just tradition; but how universal is it? Just Britsh/American? What about Germany, Poland, Checkia, Italy, Hungary, Spain, Latin America, etc.? What about the countries with Cyrillic script? Was the fashion defined by the Swiss watchmakers? How many Roman clocks use "IV" - 1%? 20%?. Is there a book about this topic? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen a clock face using VIIII for 9 and it would be incorrect to do so, not just untraditional. If it did occur occasionally then it would almost certainly be just ignorance of the correct Latin notation. However, IIII for 4 is incorrect but traditional, for some reason. That is the question that needs researching. (BTW, Big Ben is a bell, not a clock, so it doesn't use either.) --Roly (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a citation, but I understand that the use of rather than  is to balance the face left to right.  Symmetrical always looks better to humans, therefore using  opposite  looks "nicer", important for an item which often has pride of place in living quarters.   is opposite  so is of similar width, using  would be unbalanced and frankly ugly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the often given explanation, but I'm not convinced. The same IIII notation is also used on 24 hour clocks where the symmetry argument doesn't apply. --Roly (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One would have to dig into French history to find the name of the king (Louis XIV?) who favoured IIII over IV. Peter Horn User talk 01:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Couple of reasons for using IIII I've seen mentioned:
 * - IIII is used for design/legibility reasons. IV and IV can be difficult to quickly tell apart when they're both upside down on a dial and so close together.
 * - A legend that writing IV was deemed offensive by Romans since it's also the initials of Jupiter's name. BlueSide-III (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

24 hour clock
The Mount Royal train station had a 24 hour face clock until the day that the station closed as a CNR station. It then disappeared. I recall seeing it before the station closure. Peter Horn User talk 01:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Missing term(s)
I agree with all who would like to find more detailed information, and I miss at least one (sort of) specific term(s): index (bar / mark / ...). How should I properly describe design details of a clock face I wish to see either between figures (wrong? rather: numerals?) or instead of them? If there are such terms, for me as a user one main purpose of an article like this is to help me avoid misunderstandings – without having to long-windedly explicate most simple things – by telling me appropriate words.

- 80.109.113.159 (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)