evansuk2000 Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 Any help would be great, and also was it an ok deal for £13? Quote
Rob Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 1881. Spink books these at £20 in fine and bullion value is about a fiver, so anywhere in between is ok . You haven't paid over the odds. Quote
DaveG38 Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 1881. Spink books these at £20 in fine and bullion value is about a fiver, so anywhere in between is ok . You haven't paid over the odds.Of course it is - the old eyesights failing fast!! Quote
scott Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 yea its got clear details, when you get to that point it costs a bit more so I do think £13 is a nice. Quote
Peckris Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 It grades at Fair/Fine so I'd say £13 was probably about right.Quick Guide to Roman numerals:19th Century dates all start MDCCC (M 1000 + D 500 + CCC 300)X = 10, so MDCCCX = 1810, MDCCCXX = 1820, MDCCCXXX = 1830L = 50, so MDCCCXL = 1840, MDCCCL = 1850, MDCCCLX = 1860, MDCCCLXX = 1870, MDCCCLXXX = 1880I II III = 1 2 3, so MDCCCLXXXI = 1881 (etc)IV V VI VII VIII = 4 5 6 7 8, so MDCCCLXXXIV = 1884 (etc)IX = 9, so MDCCCLXXXIX = 1889 (though there were no Gothic coins by then, so you won't see that one! But it gives an idea of how unwieldy Roman numerals could get)It's also worth mentioning that Romans didn't use the 'subtraction rule' (where V is 5 but 1 less is IV and 1 more is VI; same with IX X XI, XL L LX, XC C CX, etc), so their numbers would have been very long!) Quote
declanwmagee Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 It's also worth mentioning that Romans didn't use the 'subtraction rule' Didn't they? That's interesting. So 9 would be VIIII then ? Quote
Paulus Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 It's also worth mentioning that Romans didn't use the 'subtraction rule' Didn't they? That's interesting. So 9 would be VIIII then ?I didn't know that either, when did it come in, anyone know? William IV is IIII on his coins .... Quote
Nick Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 It's also worth mentioning that Romans didn't use the 'subtraction rule' Didn't they? That's interesting. So 9 would be VIIII then ?I didn't know that either, when did it come in, anyone know? William IV is IIII on his coins ....According to Wikipedia: "Subtractive notation was rarely used in Ancient Rome but became popular in the 13th century." Quote
Peckris Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 It's also worth mentioning that Romans didn't use the 'subtraction rule' Didn't they? That's interesting. So 9 would be VIIII then ?I didn't know that either, when did it come in, anyone know? William IV is IIII on his coins ....According to Wikipedia: "Subtractive notation was rarely used in Ancient Rome but became popular in the 13th century."Yes, the Middle Ages was the period I had down. Though IIII was certainly IV when clocks became popular from the 17thC - so why clock makers preferred IIII is anyone's guess. Quote
Nick Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 It's also worth mentioning that Romans didn't use the 'subtraction rule' Didn't they? That's interesting. So 9 would be VIIII then ?I didn't know that either, when did it come in, anyone know? William IV is IIII on his coins ....According to Wikipedia: "Subtractive notation was rarely used in Ancient Rome but became popular in the 13th century."Yes, the Middle Ages was the period I had down. Though IIII was certainly IV when clocks became popular from the 17thC - so why clock makers preferred IIII is anyone's guess.There are a number of suggestions here as to why clockmakers may have preferred IIII. Quote
Peckris Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 It's also worth mentioning that Romans didn't use the 'subtraction rule' Didn't they? That's interesting. So 9 would be VIIII then ?I didn't know that either, when did it come in, anyone know? William IV is IIII on his coins ....According to Wikipedia: "Subtractive notation was rarely used in Ancient Rome but became popular in the 13th century."Yes, the Middle Ages was the period I had down. Though IIII was certainly IV when clocks became popular from the 17thC - so why clock makers preferred IIII is anyone's guess.There are a number of suggestions here as to why clockmakers may have preferred IIII.Interesting article -- I rather like the 'single mould' theory myself, giving the symbol I for use all through, the symbol V only in the second third, and the symbol X only in the last third. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.