I have just as much liking, indeed respect, for Roman numerals as Aled Jones (Letters, December 30), but they are open to fraudulent alteration just as much as our everyday Arabic numerals.

If Mr Jones really uses Roman numerals on his cheques and income tax returns, it would be interesting to learn the responses from his bank and tax inspector.

It is unfortunate that Mr Jones is not as keen to avoid errors with words as he says he is with numbers, or, before rushing to write one of his many letters on every subject under the sun, he might have taken the time and trouble to read my letter properly, and not have misunderstood and misrepresented what I wrote.

I heartily approve of Roman numerals and support their use - provided it is in the right place and applied correctly. Clock faces are one of the right places.

What I regard as antiquated is the use of the ancient Roman IIII and VIIII instead of the neater mediaeval IV and IX, which have long been used in every context except clock faces.

Nearly all clock faces, continental as well as British, before the twentieth century have IIII and IX, which is inconsistent and therefore incorrect as a combination.

The only excuse (apart from tradition, and by now it is a well established one) is that VIIII is too long to look right on smaller clock faces, but when IX is used then there is no reason for using the equally clumsy IIII when IV would be smaller as well as consistent with IX.

Bernard Barr,

Hunter's Way,

Dringhouses, York.

Updated: 11:17 Wednesday, January 12, 2005