Roman Dials

[lzz73]

Why is it on almost all watches (Rolex or otherwise) with Roman numerals on the dial, the numeral 4 is displayed 'IIII' instead of 'IV' as it would otherwise if you were writing/using Roman numerals, e.g. Super Bowl IV, not Super Bowl IIII.

[997.2]

Probably because it's upside down and kind of confusing

[Mr DateJust]

I think it's known as a watchmakers 4. My understanding is that it is to make the dial look more balanced.

[robrtx]

Originally Posted by Mr DateJust

I think it's known as a watchmakers 4. My understanding is that it is to make the dial look more balanced.

This and to avoid confusion with VI at a glance.

[Naz737]

Originally Posted by Mr DateJust

it's known as a watchmakers 4.

^that^

couldn't comment "why".

[123Blueface]

Funny, I was recently thinking of the very same thing as considered a DateJust and a DateJust II with this dial.
Me? I wrote it off to someone jumping off a bridge and everyone else following. That, or someone didn't pay attention in school when studying Roman numerals and was copied by a bunch of other equally school day dreamers.
There cannot conceivably be another more logical explanation than that.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by robrtx

This and to avoid confusion with VI at a glance.

[joe100]

Both IV and IIII are correct ways to denote 4 in Latin



This is the tombstone of a slave who served a master in the Legio IIII Scythica (4th Scythia Legion)

[ledas1]

Agreed.




cheers

[jhe888]

I've heard the "more balanced" explanation, but I don't see it, myself. Balanced as to what?

I can understand not wanting to confuse IV with VI, as one might be upside down. At least a little.

Maybe, as Tevye said, it is "Traditiooooooon!"

[joe100]

The inscription translates to 4 sisters. This is from 70-100 AD

[THC]

Who cares, it's a Rolex, lol

[Andad]

Originally Posted by 997.2

Probably because it's upside down and kind of confusing

Not all of them....

[jhe888]

Originally Posted by joe100

The inscription translates to 4 sisters. This is from 70-100 AD

That doesn't prove anything. Sign painters screw up English grammar all the time. ;)

[joe100]

Originally Posted by jhe888

That doesn't prove anything. Sign painters screw up English grammar all the time. ;)

Not sure if serious

[VICI]

Watchmaker's 4 --- i prefer it!

[jhe888]

Partly serious - errors are made, so one example doesn't prove anything.

But I also know that the Romans used both IIII and IV for 4.

So, I am mostly joking. One clue is the " ;) ". The winking symbol.

[Oyster99]

i like it as
I I+I I+II I+III
V V+I V+II V+III
IX X X+I X+II

somehow gives it some balance of 3x4
4x I
4X V
4X X

if it makes any sense :)

[Mr. K]

It looks cool.....