ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

slorollin · 20 May 2016, 03:26 AM

Why on a lot of watch dials is the Roman numeral for 4 shown as IIII rather than IV? Is it so we idiots don't mistake it for 6 VI? Or a design element to somehow balance characters on the dial? I've seen this on Rolex and Breitling in particular. In the grand scheme of things this is real small potatoes, but it is enough to keep me from buying certain models that I would otherwise consider.

Memphis · 20 May 2016, 03:28 AM

doesn't anybody read rolex.com?????

http://www.rolex.com/watches/rolex-w...ing/dials.html

kilyung · 20 May 2016, 03:28 AM

Both forms are actually correct. For whatever reason the watch industry has chosen to use the IIII form.

kilyung · 20 May 2016, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Memphis

doesn't anybody read rolex.com?????

We're turning into an instant gratification society. So it's easier/faster to ask than research it.

slorollin · 20 May 2016, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kilyung

We're turning into an instant gratification society. So it's easier/faster to ask than research it.

Yes, sadly guilty as charged. You guys are the experts and answered that in about 2 minutes. Like water and electricity the path of least resistance is well.....the path of least resistance. Thanks for the quick response.

Swearengen · 20 May 2016, 04:02 AM

Isn't it to do with splitting the numbers into three equal groups:

1-4 based on "I" I - IIII
5-8 based on "V" V - VIII
9-12 based on "X" IX - XII

Not sure I explained that very well

Tri-Tip · 20 May 2016, 04:02 AM

Origins of the "Watchmaker's 4" probably had to with balancing the aesthetics of IIII with VIII as they would of a similar size as compared with "IV and VIII".

rootbeer7 · 20 May 2016, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swearengen

Isn't it to do with splitting the numbers into three equal groups:

1-4 based on "I" I - IIII
5-8 based on "V" V - VIII
9-12 based on "X" IX - XII

Not sure I explained that very well

I'll take that!!

Jocke · 20 May 2016, 04:43 AM

Isn't IIII a groupshot from biggest looser?

Kwechman · 20 May 2016, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slorollin

Yes, sadly guilty as charged. You guys are the experts and answered that in about 2 minutes. Like water and electricity the path of least resistance is well.....the path of least resistance. Thanks for the quick response.

Hey! when I need to research a watch, this is my first stop too.

AK797 · 20 May 2016, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tri-Tip

Origins of the "Watchmaker's 4" probably had to with balancing the aesthetics of IIII with VIII as they would of a similar size as compared with "IV and VIII".

Better balance.

20 May 2016, 03:26 AM	#1
slorollin "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Location: NC Watch: yer pints & quarts Posts: 372	Roman Numeral Question Why on a lot of watch dials is the Roman numeral for 4 shown as IIII rather than IV? Is it so we idiots don't mistake it for 6 VI? Or a design element to somehow balance characters on the dial? I've seen this on Rolex and Breitling in particular. In the grand scheme of things this is real small potatoes, but it is enough to keep me from buying certain models that I would otherwise consider. __________________ "The great Confucius said that he would rather be a profound political economist than chief of police." S. Clemens

20 May 2016, 04:02 AM	#6
Swearengen "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Gabriel Location: London, UK Posts: 1,859	Isn't it to do with splitting the numbers into three equal groups: 1-4 based on "I" I - IIII 5-8 based on "V" V - VIII 9-12 based on "X" IX - XII Not sure I explained that very well __________________ 1680 1675 16800 16570 16710 17000 16613 17013 Gone but not forgotten 16610LV 1016 16234

20 May 2016, 04:43 AM	#9
Jocke 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Jocke Location: Sweden Watch: A dozen of Rolex's Posts: 22,541	Isn't IIII a groupshot from biggest looser? __________________ This message is written in perfect swenglish. What is best a custom Rolex or a Rolex that is stuck in custom? Buy a professional camera and you´re a professional photographer, buy a flute and you own a flute.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

20 May 2016, 03:28 AM	#2
Memphis Banned Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Connecticut Watch: 116610LN Posts: 448	doesn't anybody read rolex.com????? http://www.rolex.com/watches/rolex-w...ing/dials.html

20 May 2016, 03:28 AM	#3
kilyung 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cave Watch: Sundial Posts: 33,940	Both forms are actually correct. For whatever reason the watch industry has chosen to use the IIII form.

20 May 2016, 04:02 AM	#7
Tri-Tip "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: CA, USA Watch: Out!!! Posts: 6,474	Origins of the "Watchmaker's 4" probably had to with balancing the aesthetics of IIII with VIII as they would of a similar size as compared with "IV and VIII".

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