YG DD President has Roman numeral IV and not IIII, fake?

[gen_tso]

I was looking at my dial today and I just noticed that my recently purchased YG DD president 18238 has a "IV" and not the normal "IIII" at the 4 position. Is this dial a fake, I have never seen a Rolex Dial with roman numerals to have "IV"?
It is a "L" dated around 1989-1990, what do you guess think. I pretty sure I will never buy vintage again too many uncertainties.

[1FINE99]

I just googled IIII OR IV on a Rolex and a post showed up from the vintage section here on that very subject. From that old tread ,around 2011, it looks like back then they were saying it would be fake .

[miamiclay]

I looked at this a bit, a search in VRF or TRF/Vintage for IIII finds a few mentions. (Humorously, both the IIII and the IV have been explained on the basis of “balance” or “symmetry.”)

I don’t know any certain answer, but certainly >95% of the 5-digit DD dials I’ve seen have IIII. If you don’t get a reliable answer here, it might be worth asking in Vintage forum.

[Rollied]

Holy crap I didn’t know there was a “IIII” in the Roman numerals lol!

[ronricks]

I don’t think it is fake. If you go over to HQ Milton’s website several of their 18238’s they sold have the same markings as your dial.

[gen_tso]

Originally Posted by ronricks

I don’t think it is fake. If you go over to HQ Milton’s website several of their 18238’s they sold have the same markings as your dial.

Funny that you mentioned this because I was checking HQ right after posting this. Makes me feel better but damn I spend a lot of money on this piece for it to have a sketchy dial.

[Nikrnic]

I believe its correct to have the IV on the outer marker of yours, of course not on the main dial face.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[HogwldFLTR]

My 16013 had 4Is. I'm not certain that means much given as little consistency as Rolex has had in the past. The dial shown appears to have droplet lumes of tritium; seems like a pretty good copy for an older fake.

[1William]

Such is the vintage market. If you want to know for sure then send it to Rolex but be ready for a possible fake dial and maybe other issues with the movement, case or bracelet. It could also be good and that would give you some piece of mind as well as service papers should you try to sell the watch. Good luck and let us know how it plays out.

[JSolution]

Bit offbeat but that has always annoyed me about the Rolex dials. It actually should be IV not IIII but never seen one with IV

[garyk]

There are a Rolex experts around who can help you get some peace of mind. Charlie or Michael Cleves at Cleves and Lonnemann Jewelers in Bellview Kentucky should be able to help. Charlie Cleves has written books on the subject etc. Good luck.

http://www.clevesandlonnemann.com/

[Likestheshiny]

Bit offbeat but that has always annoyed me about the Rolex dials. It actually should be IV not IIII but never seen one with IV

There are examples of IIII all over the place in historical architecture and documents. Even putting aside the "watchmaker's IIII," it's well-attested. It was a minority but perfectly acceptable usage.

[SN13]

My 180238 has IIII

[Onikage]

To go to such lengths and then get that wrong is unlikely. To me. Don't quote me on that though.

[gen_tso]

You guys are starting to get me paranoid, I will contact the seller first and see what he says.

[ltmgeller]

Take it to an AD that sells pre-owned watches. Ask them what they'd give you for it. If it's real you get an offer. If it's fake you'll have your answer. It could be real with an aftermarket dial too.

[HogwldFLTR]

Interesting...

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...n-numeral-iiii

[gen_tso]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Interesting...

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...n-numeral-iiii

Interesting read