I got a clock off the wall in another room that we don't frequent very much and put it on the wall so I can keep track of the time while I am working. Yes, there is a digital readout of the time on the computer monitor, but I prefer to look at a clock with a face and hands. I like the visual image of 10 minutes past 8, with the big hand on the 2, rather than reading "8:10" in numbers. That may not make any sense, but I can't articulate it any better than that.
The only problem is that the ticking of this replacement clock was really loud, and Richard found it annoying. The separation of my office from the bedroom is mostly symbolic in the form of a large shelf for the TV and some books.
So he bought a new clock. It was a lovely clock, and very quiet, only the face was sort of a brown color and the hands were sort of a brown color, and it was very difficult to read from a distance. The way our house is designed, one can come in the back door and see the clock on the wall at the other end of the house, where my office is. He suggested I take it back and pick one that I liked, so I did.
I found a nice big clock with an easy-to-read face and it was only $6.00 (£4.13).
After I got it home I noticed something was missing.
I asked N to look at the clock and tell me what was missing. He didn't notice. But I certainly did. What the heck happened to the "second hand?" Not that I use the second hand all that much, but still. It just doesn't seem right without it....
1 comment:
Not all clocks in the UK have a seconds hand - so I expect it was probably made withoutone. As you say there is really no need for one - in fact sometimes I find a quick glance gives me the wrong time as a look at the seconds hand by mistake. It is a good clear image though.
Post a Comment