The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 25 July 2010, 08:11 PM   #1
poad
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 3
Roman dials

Anyone knows why rolex roman dials display "wrong" 4? i.e. IIII instead of IV...
poad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 July 2010, 08:32 PM   #2
dddrees
"TRF" Member
 
dddrees's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Real Name: Dan
Location: USA
Watch: This N That
Posts: 34,253
Design and look would be my guess. It balances the look between the (7) VII and (4) IIII a little better.
__________________
When it captures your imagination, that's when you know you have found your passion.

Loyal Foot Soldier of The Nylon Nation.

Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of
Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
dddrees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 July 2010, 08:35 PM   #3
BASSETHOUNDS
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: Tristan
Location: GIRONA , SPAIN
Watch: 116520/660/710/334
Posts: 7,147
Rolex is Rolex ... and as more you try to understand them .. the less you do . I have that at home too
BASSETHOUNDS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 July 2010, 11:56 PM   #4
Sejanus
"TRF" Member
 
Sejanus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Ken
Location: Toronto, Canada
Watch: 116200
Posts: 110
IIII to represent '4' was actually quite common for early Romans because of what IV was actually short form for. So Rolex actually went back into the history books for this one, and it is quite accurate.
Sejanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 12:53 AM   #5
sakuraba
"TRF" Member
 
sakuraba's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Jib
Location: SJ, California
Watch: sun dial
Posts: 8,189
I'd go with what Dan said, it cosmetically balances the dial.
__________________
F 14000 AirKing black
F 16710 GMT Pepsi
F 16570 Explorer II white
T 16600 SD
D 16610 LV

"fine quality is remembered long after the pain of spending money" -Steve Mulholland
sakuraba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 01:28 AM   #6
Brushpup
"TRF" Member
 
Brushpup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Real Name: Patrick
Location: Texas
Watch: what I'm wearing
Posts: 5,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by sakuraba View Post
I'd go with what Dan said, it cosmetically balances the dial.
This is the common accepted theory.
__________________
TRFs "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Patron-Founding Member


PClub # 10
74,592
The safest place for your watch is on your wrist.
Brushpup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 02:41 AM   #7
Balboa
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SoCal OC U.S.A.
Posts: 342
Some watch brands use IIII, some us IV. Some orient the markers so they read correctly from the outside of the circle, some from the inside.

Not really an issue of right or wrong, just style and design.

Mark
Balboa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 02:53 AM   #8
egzbuen
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manila
Posts: 1,177
Balance more likely.

Plus, inverted or not, the "IIII" would always look like "4".
__________________
18083 & 16750
16234 & 16233
16610 & 16800
3717-01 & 104 & 312
Nav B-Uhr
egzbuen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 04:00 AM   #9
erling
"TRF" Member
 
erling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Erling
Location: Iceland
Watch: Sub and TT DJ
Posts: 748
For aesthetic reasons
erling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 04:36 AM   #10
jdc
"TRF" Member
 
jdc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Martin
Location: UK
Posts: 7,023
Its been used for hundreds of years on clock faces before Rolex was around. Some attribute it to Louis XIV the sun king.
IIII was the old Roman sign for 4 using IV is more modern
jdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 07:33 AM   #11
The GMT Master
"TRF" Member
 
The GMT Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,150
Interesting stuff, thanks guys
The GMT Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 07:45 AM   #12
rfknauss
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
rfknauss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Richard
Location: Macungie, PA
Watch: 5513 Sub, LV Sub
Posts: 14,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc View Post
Its been used for hundreds of years on clock faces before Rolex was around. Some attribute it to Louis XIV the sun king.
IIII was the old Roman sign for 4 using IV is more modern
Martin, very interesting ...... thanks for sharing.
__________________


"Few things in life give man as great a pleasure as wearing a Rolex!"

TRF's "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Patron
rfknauss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 07:57 AM   #13
rockyn
"TRF" Member
 
rockyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Robyn
Location: nanaimo canada
Watch: GMT IIc
Posts: 479
I had a Gucci quartz about 20 years ago and it used IIII instead of IV
rockyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 08:01 AM   #14
Zed Homme
"TRF" Member
 
Zed Homme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: usa
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 6,962
Cartier, Zenith, and Jaquet Droz use the IIII, I think most watchmakers use it as well....

I couldnt tell you the reason though...
Zed Homme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 July 2010, 08:04 AM   #15
Zed Homme
"TRF" Member
 
Zed Homme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: usa
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 6,962
I hate citing Wikipedia, but this is what they have....

Quote:
IIII and IV

The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IX and IV. A third document in the same manuscript uses IX and a mix of IIII and IV. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.
An inscription on Admiralty Arch, London. The numeral translates to 1910.

Likewise, on some buildings it is possible to see MDCCCCX, for example, representing 1910 instead of MCMX – notably Admiralty Arch in London. The Leader Building in Cleveland, Ohio, at the corner of Superior Avenue and East 6th Street, is marked MDCCCCXII, representing 1912 instead of MCMXII. Another notable example is on Harvard Medical School's Gordon Hall, which reads MDCCCCIIII for 1904 instead of MCMIV. In Dubrovnik, Croatia, a commemorative inscription marking the 1000th anniversary of King Tomislav’s coronation (Croatia’s first King), appears as DCCCCXXV - MDCCCCXXV instead of CMXXV - MCMXXV (925 -1925).
[edit] Calendars and clocks
A typical clock face with Roman numerals
The Shepherd gate clock with Roman numbers up to XXIII (and 0), in Greenwich

Clock faces that are labeled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for four o'clock and IX for nine o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not the other. There are many suggested explanations for this, several of which may be true:

* Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.[6]

* Many clocks use IIII because that was the tradition established by the earliest surviving clock, the Wells Cathedral clock built between 1386 and 1392. It used IIII because that was the typical method used to denote 4 in contemporary manuscripts (as iiij or iiii). That clock had an asymmetrical 24-hour dial and used Arabic numerals for a minute dial and a moon dial, so theories depending on a symmetrical 12-hour clock face do not apply.[7]
Zed Homme is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

OCWatches

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.