topic Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV! in Jewelry

OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

iTalia — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:20:42 GMT

These watches are BEAUTIFUL!!! I'm having the hardest time deciding on a color. So far, I'm loving 3 of them. Silvertone with Raspberry or Blue Sapphire (but the Green dial with Silvertone is TDF too!)

Or the Goldtone with Mother of pearl dial.

Not really digging any of the Black ones right now. And I'm not sure about Goldtone with any of the color dials. Mother Of Pearl is BEST on Goldtone one. Looks most rich & most designer like. To me, Goldtone with colors look kind of inexpensive. But I've been known to change my mind Lol.

Anyone buying? Which one/s?

If not buying, which one is your favorite?

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

emma bunting — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:38:55 GMT

I am loving the gold with white mother of pearl face. I actually have a diamond and 18k gold watch that is very similar......but way smaller! I may have to get this..........

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

haddon9 — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:44:56 GMT

They are STUNNING!!! Love the silver/blue gold/green and all of the white. I decided on the black with white face. It looks like a winner and can't wait to get it!

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

NycVixen — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 06:25:52 GMT

@haddon9 wrote:
They are STUNNING!!! Love the silver/blue gold/green and all of the white. I decided on the black with white face. It looks like a winner and can't wait to get it!

I agree. My favorite is the gold/green!!!! They are stunning. I fell in love with this watch since I saw it in the Insider last month.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

motherinlaw — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:02:02 GMT

I purchased the silver/green watch last week and have it now. It is beautiful! Wanted the gold/green too but the silver won out.

Totally over the top gorgeous! All the colors are fabulous....it is hard to choose.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

author — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:47:41 GMT

From the preview I thought I wouldn't like these, but I do, and ordered the silver/raspberry one and hope I love it. Of course I had to rationalize this because I have many watches but none with a colored dial!

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

beckyb1012 — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:54:20 GMT

What happens to silvertone in the long run as opposed to sterling silver?

Pretty watch but her gold clad bracelet I bought after few months lost all traces of gold color so I worry about the word "tone."

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

Oneanddone — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:55:50 GMT

I tried to resist this but failed. I bought the silver with the blue face in the small.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

Alison — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 20:00:09 GMT

Doesn't anyone notice that the roman numeral is incorrect for 4...it is not IIII as on the watch, it is IV, that would bother me.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

Kittens1 — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 20:02:26 GMT

I said I was not going to buy anythng but christmas presents but the green/silver won me over. I cannot wait to get it. This is the first piece of JR jewelry that I have purchased.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

beckyb1012 — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 20:04:36 GMT

@Alison wrote:
Doesn't anyone notice that the roman numeral is incorrect for 4...it is not IIII as on the watch, it is IV, that would bother me.

Wow I missed that completely. You are good. I wonder why they did that and did not fix?

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

Lipstickdiva — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 20:14:11 GMT

The roman numeral isn't incorrect. It is often done this way on watches and clocks.

I guess I'm the odd one out. There isn't a thing about this watch that I like. I think it's gaudy.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

Pecky — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 20:52:11 GMT

@Lipstickdiva wrote:
The roman numeral isn't incorrect. It is often done this way on watches and clocks.

I guess I'm the odd one out. There isn't a thing about this watch that I like. I think it's gaudy.

No you're not the only one. I feel the same way. Very gaudy looking to me too.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

Q4u — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:45:03 GMT

There are several theories regarding why the four is either IV or llll on watches/clocks.

Both are accepted as correct and here's an interesting link as to why:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/24578/why-do-some-clocks-use-roman-numeral-iiii

Why Do Some Clocks Use Roman Numeral IIII?

Readers Georgia and Gecko are both curious about clocks. Georgia wrote in to ask, "Why is it that some analog clocks with Roman numerals have '4' as 'IV,' while others use 'IIII'?Has there always been a choice, or is it an overlooked error that's been replicated? This has been driving me crazy for a long time, but I can't figure it out myself."

Unfortunately, this is one of those questions where no one seems to have a definitive answer, and probably no one ever will. What we do have is a handful of competing theories, some with plenty of holes and others that might just be true. You'll just have to pick the one that sounds best to you and roll with it.

Once upon a time, when Roman numerals were used by the actual Roman Empire, the name of the Romans' supreme deity, Jupiter, was spelled as IVPPITER in Latin. Hesitant to put part of the god's name on a sundial or in accounting books, IIII became the preferred representation of four. Of course, IVPPITER wasn't being worshipped much by the time clocks and watches replaced sundials, but clockmakers may have stuck with IIII just for the sake of tradition.

In another blow to the Jupiter theory, subtractive notation "“ where IV, instead of IIII, represents four "“ didn't become the standard until well after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (and the numerals we use now are an even more modern set). It's likely, then, that IIII was used on sundials (and everywhere else) simply because that was the proper numeral to use at the time, and not for fear of divine retribution.

"¢ Once subtractive notation came onto the scene and a choice was available, to V or not to V became a question every clockmaker had to answer for themselves. Some adopted the newfangled IV because it was the new standard, but others hung on to the traditional IIII.

IIII might have stuck around because it's easily recognizable as four. IV involves a little math. Yes, it's just one simple subtraction operation, but keep in mind that when subtractive notation really caught on in the Middle Ages, the majority of people weren't literate or numerate. Subtraction was a lot to wrap the head around. On top of that, IV and VI might have been easily confused by the uneducated (likewise with IX and XI, which is why nine was sometimes represented by VIIII).

Using IIII may have also made work a little easier for certain clock makers. If you're making a clock where the numerals are cut from metal and affixed to the face, using IIII means you'll need twenty I's, four V's, and four X's. That's one mold with a V, five I's, and an X cast four times. With an IV, you'd need seventeen I's, five V's, and four X's, requiring several molds in different configurations.

King Louis XIV of France supposedly preferred IIII over IV, perhaps for the same vain reasons Jupiter wouldn't want two letters from his name on a sundial, and so ordered his clockmakers to use the former. Some later clockmakers followed the tradition, and others didn't. The problems here are that this story is told in connection with many other monarchs, and IIII was used also in areas where there was no king with an IV in his title to object to the subtractive notation.

One more reason to use IIII is that it creates more visual symmetry with the VIII opposite it on the clock face than IV does. Using IIII also means that only I is seen the first four hour markings on the, V is only seen in the next four markings, and X is seen only in the last four markings, creating radial symmetry. As we learned last year when pondering why display clocks are often set to 10:10, symmetry goes a long way in the clock world.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

Alison — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:04:04 GMT

I was taught in school that the roman numeral was IV for 4....so that is what I was going by.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

nomless — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:34:11 GMT

The symbols on the watch differ from those on the Big Ben clock face, so I wish they'd refer to it as something other than a Big Ben watch.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

judahsma — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:52:50 GMT

I don't own a single watch because I don't like watches, but this is stunning. I'm fighting the urge to buy one.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

nyorker — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 23:14:02 GMT

Judith said that Big Ben in London was her inspiration for the watch. If you google

Big Ben you will see that numeral 4 is "IIII" on Big Ben. So it is correct

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

blackhole99 — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 23:59:41 GMT

@Lipstickdiva wrote:
The roman numeral isn't incorrect. It is often done this way on watches and clocks.

I guess I'm the odd one out. There isn't a thing about this watch that I like. I think it's gaudy.

I so agree and the face is too big for my taste.

Re: OMG!! Judith Ripka TSV!

Q4u — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 01:48:44 GMT

I find the watch beautiful however there is SO much going on that I have to concentrate to actually tell the time. I like clear, classic faces (think Cartier.... LOL)... also the trend for watch styles seem to be getting somewhat smaller and I have enough large faced watches.....