Roman numbers, Why ?

[Sporting Lisbon]

Hi everyone,

I would like to know why Rolex (and some other brands) use the number IIII instead of IV, as it is shown in this marvellous watch:





Thank you for your time.

[springbar]

It's customary in horology. I've heard it argued that the reason was IIII at 4:00 looks better-balanced against the VIII at 8:00. But I suspect now it's just tradition.

[rstein]

From Wikipedia:

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 E.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).

[Alcan]

This question goes back a long way (to sundials, actually). One of the more widely accepted theories is that clocks and watches originally used IIII rather than IV out of respect for the Roman God Jupiter, whose name in Latin begins IV. That, and having the dial "balanced".

Here are a few links about it:

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/49669

http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently...ock-dials.aspx

http://www.watchtalkforums.info/foru...nstead-iv.html

http://trusted-forwarder.org/elgin/help/roman_IIII.html

[Sporting Lisbon]

Thank you all!

Cheers

[sirjohnbrian]

The simplest answer is usually the best answer. I think it's just for symmetry since the first four numerals have all I's, the next four have V's, and the last 4 have X's.

[rmcarlton]

Very informative thread. Thanks.

[propedderkustom]

I learned something new today from this thread. I never noticed this on my own dial!

[Latrodectus]

Very interesting. Good readings. Thanks

[Puffy]

Cool. I guess the "balance" makes sense.. thanks for sharing..