Roman dials

[poad]

Anyone knows why rolex roman dials display "wrong" 4? i.e. IIII instead of IV...

[dddrees]

Design and look would be my guess. It balances the look between the (7) VII and (4) IIII a little better.

[BASSETHOUNDS]

Rolex is Rolex ... and as more you try to understand them .. the less you do . I have that at home too

[Sejanus]

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.

[sakuraba]

I'd go with what Dan said, it cosmetically balances the dial.

[Brushpup]

Originally Posted by sakuraba

I'd go with what Dan said, it cosmetically balances the dial.

This is the common accepted theory.

[Balboa]

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

[egzbuen]

Balance more likely.

Plus, inverted or not, the "IIII" would always look like "4".

[erling]

For aesthetic reasons

[jdc]

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

[The GMT Master]

Interesting stuff, thanks guys

[rfknauss]

Originally Posted by jdc

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.

[rockyn]

I had a Gucci quartz about 20 years ago and it used IIII instead of IV

[Zed Homme]

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]

I hate citing Wikipedia, but this is what they have....

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]