ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
21 November 2010, 12:55 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 81
|
Roman Numeral IIII?
Is this too pickey? I am kind of a detail person. Why it that the Roman Dial, very popular, has the incorrect "Roman Numeral" for 4? Imagine if they had to put in a 9 (IX). VIIII? IIIIIIIII? Is that the real reason for the DD2? They needed more room?
|
21 November 2010, 02:33 PM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Bill Hart
Location: Richmond, NY, UK
Watch: Rlx=3, Tdr=3, Om=3
Posts: 3,053
|
Almost all watches and clocks with Roman numeral dials use this method to display 4.....arrapently it makes the dial more symetrical....at least that's what I was told....
__________________
Bill "There's only three kinds of people in this world....those that can count....and those that can't" TRF's "JJ's" Bar & NightClub Patron |
21 November 2010, 02:35 PM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 19,706
|
A "kind" of a detail (SIC) person? For watch dials, but not for spelling, eh?
|
21 November 2010, 02:38 PM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rocky Mountains
Watch: Exp2, Exp1
Posts: 727
|
Just another reason that I will never buy a roman numeral watch..
|
21 November 2010, 03:37 PM | #5 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 152
|
I was told that they use IIII because going around the dial you will have:
4 consecutive roman numerals using only Is: { I, II, III, IIII } 4 consecutive roman numerals exclusively containing Vs: { V, VI, VII, VIII } 4 consecutive roman numerals exclusively containing Xs: { IX, X, XI, XII } And there's the symmetry! |
21 November 2010, 04:38 PM | #6 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Matthew
Location: Rolex&911Nation
Watch: GV
Posts: 547
|
Quote:
__________________
16710 116400GV 116710LN 116500LN 116610LV |
|
21 November 2010, 08:44 PM | #7 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Al
Location: Way Up North
Watch: your P's & Q's
Posts: 10,473
|
This question goes back a long way (to the age of sundials, actually). One of the more widely accepted theories is that clocks and watches originally used IIII rather than IV out of respect for the Roman God Jupiter, whose name in Latin begins IV. That, and having the dial "balanced".
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/49669 http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently...ock-dials.aspx http://trusted-forwarder.org/elgin/help/roman_IIII.html Btw, not all Roman dials use IIII:
__________________
Member #1,315 I don't want to get technical, but according to chemistry alcohol IS a solution! |
22 November 2010, 04:33 AM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 81
|
Huh? Since I am "kind of a detail person" I googled the phrase "kind of a detail person." There are over 6000 references. Throw in "kind of a detail guy" and you get a couple of thousand more. It is an idiom. What am I missing?
|
22 November 2010, 05:07 AM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Real Name: davinci
Location: suffolk, uk
Watch: Rolex & Breitling
Posts: 340
|
|
22 November 2010, 06:51 AM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Art
Location: San Francisco
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 2,266
|
I didn't quite follow that either. But we could mention "pickey."
__________________
Rolex SS Oyster Perpetual no date, TT Datejust Member #13992 HM Power to the Superlative Panda, officially certified! HMPanda eats, shoots and leaves. Rolexers do it with perpetual movements. |
22 November 2010, 07:04 AM | #11 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: Seiko #SRK050
Posts: 34,447
|
Here's what "The Straight Dope" has to say on the matter dating from 1986.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-instead-of-iv
__________________
JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner |
22 November 2010, 07:48 AM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 81
|
|
22 November 2010, 11:15 PM | #13 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Juan
Location: Ponce, PR
Watch: Your Butt
Posts: 1,464
|
I still love he roman dial!!!
|
23 November 2010, 03:55 AM | #14 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Real Name: Richard
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Watch: TT DJ
Posts: 4,456
|
Quote:
Just how long is that list..?
__________________
Today, I believe my jurisdiction ends here... Lug Hole Lover® |
|
21 May 2017, 05:23 AM | #15 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Real Name: Mel
Location: Texas
Watch: Rolex Daytona SS
Posts: 98
|
My wife just asked me about this on hers. Lol! Search and ye will find the answer.
|
21 May 2017, 05:44 AM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2,796
|
Better symmetry with the "IIII"
|
21 May 2017, 05:49 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Real Name: Andrew
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,227
|
I noticed this too and always wondered. Does look better with the IIII though now that I imagine it with a IV.
__________________
| 116234 DJ36 | 116610LN SubC | 116520 Daytona | BlackBay 58 Blue | |
21 May 2017, 06:49 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,053
|
It visually balances the VIII of the number 8 on the other side of the dial by providing some symmetry to the dial.
Besides, IIII is not incorrect as it's the earliest form of the roman number 4. Speaking of numerals. Why is it that the numbers we accept as being Arabic in the western world, actually bear little resemblance to the real Arabic numerals which are more beautiful? |
21 May 2017, 07:15 AM | #19 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 35,254
|
For as long as there have been watches (and before), this has been a convention.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.