Last day of the Twitter Psychic Experiment! Thanks to everyone who has joined in, and I am looking forward to the final trial today. In the meantime, here is the Friday puzzle….
Albert gets a job in a clock factory. On his first day he is asked to construct a clock. He puts together the following clock…..
However, Albert has inadvertently created a clock that is different to almost every other clock of this type in the world. Can you spot why his clock is so special?
As ever, please do not post your answer, but feel free to say if you think you have solved it and how long it took. Answer on Monday.
June 4, 2009 at 11:03 pm |
I think I’ve solved it. <1 minute.
June 4, 2009 at 11:04 pm |
Got it straight away. Strange thing with clocks and me being left handed – seem to be able to read them straight away even if they are odd. Once was asked the time as a trick question as it was a left-handed clock and didn’t even notice it was different.
June 4, 2009 at 11:04 pm |
Seen it before — good one!
June 4, 2009 at 11:04 pm |
Got it in about 10 seconds. Had previously wondered why this was the case on other clocks.
June 4, 2009 at 11:06 pm |
I think i’ve solved it too, it sort of jumped out at me. I’d say < 1 minute, more like 20 seconds. I'm not positive if it's right though.
June 4, 2009 at 11:06 pm |
very simple, took me 30 seconds!
June 4, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
I thin i got it, 20 seconds.
June 4, 2009 at 11:08 pm |
Got it right away because I learned this detail about clocks from Gene Weingarten at the Washington Post.
June 4, 2009 at 11:08 pm |
Nice! Solved it very quickly, but even so was a definite “ah ha!” moment.
June 4, 2009 at 11:09 pm |
i think i have it .. and i noticed it almost immediately !
June 4, 2009 at 11:10 pm |
Yep, got it. About 15 sec.
June 4, 2009 at 11:11 pm |
yep, got it in a few seconds (about 30) hope I’m right
June 4, 2009 at 11:11 pm |
Well, I see something wrong, though I’m not 100% sure it’s what other people are seeing, based on their comments. I think I noticed it so quickly (within a couple seconds) because of a bunch of supposedly tricky math questions I’ve seen, which all require you to know the same detail.
June 4, 2009 at 11:13 pm |
I think I’ve got it, and it took me a couple of minutes, but I doubt it could be as simple as i suspect.
June 4, 2009 at 11:13 pm |
I learned this interesting bit of trivia years ago. It’s a great example of how our brain behave in reaction to patterns. You ask someone to look at a normal clock (not like this one), then tell them to look away and ask them what…well…you’ll see when the answer is posted. They describe a clock like the one above because they don’t bother to look at the details – they just think “clock” and invent the rest in their heads. I’ve heard two plausible explanations for this weird anomaly, both of which I believe are on wikipedia.
June 4, 2009 at 11:14 pm |
Think I got it. Less than a minute
June 4, 2009 at 11:14 pm |
I see two different possibilities in under a minute.
June 4, 2009 at 11:17 pm |
got it, one second
June 4, 2009 at 11:19 pm |
Other than that this clock does not have a moose on it (which the clock I am comparing it with has), I don’t see anything odd about it. Call me stupid if you will.
June 4, 2009 at 11:22 pm |
I saw something almost immediately, but I’m not sure it’s something wrong … it just looks weird to me!
June 4, 2009 at 11:25 pm |
Had an answer after a few seconds. There’s a related phenomenon in face recognition (if the solution I’m thinking of is the right one).
June 4, 2009 at 11:26 pm |
This is interesting.
There’s one “obvious” thing, but it requires some relatively obscure knowledge about the history of clocks (as Mr Wiseman put it) “of this type”.
I’ll be interested to find out what the other one is that people are seeing.
June 4, 2009 at 11:28 pm |
I think I got it. In a couple of seconds, I already knew the issue.
June 4, 2009 at 11:28 pm |
I think I got it but I’m not sure if I’m right. Got it in a couple of secs if so.
June 4, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
got it within seconds – totally sure!
June 5, 2009 at 12:04 am |
I remember this from one of Richard’s books.
June 5, 2009 at 12:12 am |
After seeing all the comments referring to history, i hope the answer does not refer to that. That’s no longer the common practice since the 19th century.
June 5, 2009 at 12:13 am |
Well, almost, but not all…
June 5, 2009 at 12:15 am |
Got it right away, only because I’d read about clocks of this type before. I’d say this is much more a “trivia question” than a puzzle, though. I thought puzzles required some kind of ingenuity to solve.
June 5, 2009 at 12:45 am |
I think I know the answer, but am I correct in thinking that this is not so much a puzzle that you can solve, but a test of obscure general knowledge/trivia?
June 5, 2009 at 12:50 am |
I don’t understand why the numbers are sideways and upside down, and therefore harder to read, but other than that, I don’t see why the clock wouldn’t work properly.
June 5, 2009 at 1:18 am |
I think I got it… 5 secs.
June 5, 2009 at 1:43 am |
I think that I got it. Took a few minutes.
June 5, 2009 at 2:06 am |
Think I got it in ten secs
June 5, 2009 at 2:10 am |
less than 1 second
June 5, 2009 at 2:32 am |
Couldn’t answer it.
I did not discover this “fact” about clocks until I looked it up on the inter-toobs, so I cheated!
June 5, 2009 at 2:34 am |
I happen to have that type of clock face and found it out that way
June 5, 2009 at 2:41 am |
I got it, took just a few seconds.
June 5, 2009 at 2:44 am |
The bottom half of the clock’s #’s are upside down. The bottom of the numbers should all face toward the center.
June 5, 2009 at 2:49 am |
got it in the end, but had to resort to google …
June 5, 2009 at 3:11 am |
People, don’t post the answers please.
June 5, 2009 at 3:38 am |
hi there – took 1 second. Notice 2 different things – but second one may be result of main difference. Cheers.
June 5, 2009 at 3:39 am |
10 seconds
June 5, 2009 at 3:58 am |
j0eg0d is correct
June 5, 2009 at 4:00 am |
Sorry REX did not read your comment until it was too late.
June 5, 2009 at 4:36 am |
Hmm – I just looked to my clock with the “IV” and noticed the numerals were also upside down
– My newest and 3rd conclusion would probably be the correct answer, so it took me longer to solve this.
June 5, 2009 at 6:23 am |
I think i’ve got it, actually i’ve got 2 ideas about what it might be.
June 5, 2009 at 6:29 am |
< 10 seconds
June 5, 2009 at 7:10 am |
Straight away, but it’s an inconsistency that has always pleased me. Can’t RV today, but not sulking at my low score.
June 5, 2009 at 7:32 am |
Didn’t you mention this in your book quirkology?
and yes i knew it straight away, i grew up with a big clock and always noticed the ‘difference’.
June 5, 2009 at 7:37 am |
I got it (I think) quite quickly – less than about 15 seconds. It was one of those things that dragged up an obscure memory of something I’d read a number of years ago.
June 5, 2009 at 7:51 am |
Sorry, I don’t get it. And I wear a watch with exactly that face at this very moment. So it must be something else…
June 5, 2009 at 7:56 am |
I noticed it immediately, but thought it was so obvious that there must be something else I wasn’t seeing. Like Bluebottle, I wonder whether being left-handed influences the perception of this. Although I saw the difference, it didn’t strike me as particularly odd and my first inclination was to look at the time and wonder why it was different from all the other clocks and watches shown in illustrations. Look at clocks/watches in shop windows and they virtually all show the time as 13.50 (providing they are not running in real time, of course).
June 5, 2009 at 8:12 am |
I thought I found 2 reasons within a minute, but had to research a bit to check one of my thoughts were correct and it was.
June 5, 2009 at 8:25 am |
I think I have it but its a very simple answer I have.lol.
June 5, 2009 at 8:33 am |
Which part of ‘please do not post your answer’ did you have difficulty with?
June 5, 2009 at 8:35 am
Oops, that was in reply to someone who posted their answer, but their post has been removed now.
June 5, 2009 at 8:36 am |
I think I immediately saw what the idea was, as I have noticed this before on clocks.
June 5, 2009 at 8:41 am |
I couldn’t see the answer for looking but now I know the answer (courtesy of my husband) it is a very simple answer and I think I was looking for something more complicated!
June 5, 2009 at 8:49 am |
I couldn’t see the answer for looking but now I know the answer (courtesy of my husband) it is a very simple answer and I think I was looking for something more complicated!
June 5, 2009 at 8:58 am |
Almost immediately. (Then took some time to see if there was nothing else that I’d missed).
June 5, 2009 at 9:14 am |
About 0.1 second, that is if my answer is correct!
June 5, 2009 at 9:42 am |
Maybe you should start by stating that you should not post the answer instead of asking it after the question “Can you spot why his clock is so special?”
Again, I knew the anwser as soon as I saw the clock.
June 5, 2009 at 9:59 am |
Got it within 10 sec..
June 5, 2009 at 10:03 am |
Noticed instantly because I was told of this oddity many years ago, and ever since my brain has automatically evaluated every clock with Roman numerals that I see. In what must be many hundreds of clocks I’ve only ever seen one clock that has this inconsistency. Must have been an apprentice clock maker or maybe it was very old?
Here’s more clock trivia/psychology/illusion stuff. Next time you see watches/clocks in an expensive shop window, check the time on the watches. It’s almost always 21:50. Do a google search for “watches” and you’ll see what I mean. It’s because it looks symmetrical and supposedly because it looks like a smile.
June 5, 2009 at 10:04 am |
That should have read 22:10.
June 5, 2009 at 10:24 am |
More trivia than puzzle, and yes, I’d heard it before. Coming up with a reason why it makes more sense to build clocks the other way is a good one, though.
June 5, 2009 at 10:42 am |
Not a clue…could be anything to me.
June 5, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Less than a minute, but then I cheated a little by looking at my watch, which has roman numerals. That made me curious, so I Googled. How interesting!
June 5, 2009 at 11:21 am |
I had a look at my clock so I know now, is that cheating?
Roman numerals are Greek to me
June 5, 2009 at 12:10 pm |
got it… took about 2 minutes
June 5, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
This one took me close to a half hour. If I have the correct answer now, the reason it took so long is because I found several pictures that match the clock above exactly so I initially ruled that out as an answer.
June 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm |
I think I have solved it….
June 5, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
You can’t spot it with a look a the clock presented, without looking (or knowing from memory) at samples of all other clocks of this tiipe.
June 5, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
Pretty much immediately. I’ve discussed this ‘oddity’ before.
June 5, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
Think I got it
ab. 30 sec.
June 5, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
If i’m correct within 30 sec
June 5, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
Think I know the answer took a few seconds or so before it clicked. Less than 1 minute.
June 5, 2009 at 2:31 pm |
Got it in about 10 seconds.
June 5, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
got it straight away – but then I remember seeing it in one of your books! (must admit I didn’t get it the first time when I saw it in the book though)
June 5, 2009 at 2:40 pm |
Instantly. But I have a similar clock in my kitchen…
June 5, 2009 at 2:40 pm |
Randi wrote about this years ago, and it still wins bar bets.
June 5, 2009 at 2:42 pm |
Cheeky! Took me about a nanosecond
June 5, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
Solved it almost immediately, but I was aware of this particular aspect of clockfaces already.
June 5, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
one minute. i googled “clock roman” images
June 5, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
within a minute or so, but not 100% as big ben has the same face doesnt it?
June 5, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
Got it. Took me about 5 minutes (and wikipedia)
June 5, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
Classic old skool question. Knew the answer straight away and a great one to throw in at parties.
June 5, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
Got it. But had to check.
Here’s an interesting observation:in almost every watch advert, the time is 1.50pm or 10.10pm!
June 5, 2009 at 3:07 pm
That’s because it makes a smiley face!
June 5, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
got it in about 2 seconds
June 5, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
Got it immediately, but believe this is not as ubiqitous as it once was.
June 5, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
there are two clocks with Roman numerals that are the same as this one, one is the clock in the south transept of Norwich Cathedral, the other is commonly called Big Ben, at the Palace of Westminster in London.
June 5, 2009 at 3:02 pm |
Benjamin Button?
June 5, 2009 at 3:02 pm |
There’s actually two things different about it. I imagine the second one was an oversight on your part (or the part of the image maker).
June 5, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
It took me About 20 seconds to figure it out.
June 5, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
Fail puzzle is fail.
“However, Albert has inadvertently created a clock that is different to almost every other clock of this type in the world.”
The style of Roman numerals used on a clock face is dependent on the form of counting utilized for its chiming of the hours. The face presented in this puzzle is not different from “almost every other clock” of the type that uses Roman counting.
Effectively, we’re being shown a picture of a Beagle and asked what’s odd with it, and expected to come up with the answer “It doesn’t look like other chihuahuas.”
June 5, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
I knew about this before, so I immediately knew what the question would be before I read the text.
However, those who know (or have discovered) it and those who do not know (yet) about this traditional curiosity may be intrigued alike by trying to spot appearances of breaks of this tradition (whether due to ignorance or out of intention is unknown) in the corresponding scenes in the following two movies:
- “Back to the Future”
The alarm clock on the dashboard of the DeLorean giving the signal to start racing the car down the road towards the courthouse square vs. the infamous clocktower clock which is (to be) struck by lightning, and
- “Once Upon a Time in the West”
The pocket watch and train station clock at the beginning of the movie vs. the incompletely-painted clock at ground level at the side of a building in a brief street view shot shortly before the scene where a gunman is shot down who was hiding behind the face of yet another incomplete clock.
Fun, eh?
June 5, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
Ok, I just looked at TONS of images of Roman numeral clocks including the one at Westminster abbey and some are different in one way, but by no means is it a majority that are different from this one unless its a matter of this picture being incomplete in one respect. But seriously, compare this one side by side with the abbey clock… somebody tell me, does that clock have the same “error?”
June 5, 2009 at 6:26 pm
This is not the common type of clock. The “other” kind are more common. Have a look at the watches next time you walk past a jewelers
June 5, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
~ 60 seconds
June 5, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
I think I’ve got it based on the other comments here. If it is the solution I think it is, I knew about this but assumed this wasn’t the answer. I was expecting more of a puzzle.
June 5, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
I think I know… If I’m right, took me about a minute.
June 5, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
Yep, saw it straight away, like several of the others. It’s something that always bugged me about clocks as a child — it doesn’t follow the appropriate algorithm!
June 5, 2009 at 3:32 pm |
I’m either too stuoid or too impatient (this took me 10 secs)
June 5, 2009 at 3:35 pm |
Believe I solved it in <1 minute.
June 5, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
i think i have it.. lol just hit me..
June 5, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
I still can’t for the life of me understand why even when specifically asked…
“As ever, please do not post your answer, but feel free to say if you think you have solved it and how long it took.”
…why people put down what they think is the answer or so much detailed information about what they think, that it gives away the answer!! How hard is it to understand?
June 5, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
I thought I had it right away, googled to be sure, and almost second guessed myself because of Big Ben.
June 5, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Yes Big Ben is one of the few exceptions.
June 5, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
I got it straight away, but that’s ‘cos I read an article about it in the British Journal of Psychology, (I’d guess) in 1994 – I particularly remember the article because I used it as an open exam question.
June 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
Saw it immediately.
June 5, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
Got it. 30 seconds.
June 5, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
it took me a while but i think i got it.
June 5, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
Got it instantly. But then it was mentioned at Chris French’s SitP talk. I love this little bit of trivia. I’ve only ever seen 2 clocks that conform to Albert’s clock above.
June 5, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
noticed it after googling “roman watch” and comparing.
got disapointed with the answer.
June 5, 2009 at 8:24 pm |
Got it, one moment.
June 5, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
It took me few minutes, and when i got it i checked in google!
June 5, 2009 at 11:43 pm |
Google images of “roman watch”:
http://images.google.pt/images?q=roman%20watch
and compare. I see two problems with this clock.
Curiosity: If you want to see the current time including seconds in roman numerals in a peculiar disposition see this page using javascript:
http://www.codecouch.com/dan/snippets/romanClock2/
This one lets you set any time you want but doesn’t have roman numerals:
http://www.teachingtime.co.uk/clock/clockres.html
June 6, 2009 at 4:38 am |
Pretty sure I got it…about 15 sec.
June 6, 2009 at 9:51 am |
Yep, got it in a couple of seconds. A French king at the bottom of the anomaly, no?
June 6, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
I see two things possibly wrong, both of them occurring to me immediately. The one I believe Richard is looking for is something I noticed as a wee lad. I came up with my own reasoning as to why it is like it is. I’ll find out Monday whether or not I’ve been wrong for three decades.
June 6, 2009 at 7:29 pm |
I think this was a really easy puzzle. I solved it immediately.
June 7, 2009 at 12:09 am |
[...] It’s the Friday puzzle! Last day of the Twitter Psychic Experiment! Thanks to everyone who has joined in, and I am looking forward to the [...] [...]
June 7, 2009 at 2:19 am |
Saw it instantly. It’s a little factoid about them I’ll never fourget.
June 7, 2009 at 10:55 am |
In my opinion, referring to this as a “puzzle”, is a puzzle in itself.
The solution relies solely on special historical knowledge.
No amount of strict logic is useful if you are not aware of the genealogy of this specific oddity.
This is NOT a puzzle.
It is a knowledge/learning quiz.
June 7, 2009 at 9:53 pm |
it took 3 days, if i am right with the answer. I am so glad it didn’t take four!