Roman numeral watches

[Betty]

Riddle me this - the roman numeral for 4 is IV.

Why do most roman numeral watches have IIII for 4 instead of IV? (They aren't all like - but a surprisingly number are comparing the two.)

I know one of you must know the answer.

[Betty]

Oh I guess I should have looked a bit more first before asking. I'd never noticed it before though.

It's probably something to do with keeping a balanced look to the watch: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=433524526255

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hmm, I find it hard to accept that 'IV' is somehow less "perfectly symmetrical" with 'VIII' than the equally asymmetrical 'V' and 'VII' that they have no problem with. Doesn't mean it's not still the aesthetically better choice just not exactly for the reason given there (even putting aside their blatant abuse of the concept of "perfect symmetry").

[Betty]

Someone inferred it was similar to elevators and buildings not having a 13th floor (which of course a building that tall does - they just skip the 13 on the numbering).

I was curious as to what was up with IV.

[Betty]

from a wiki

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:
The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which IV would not (with the exception of square faced watches and clocks, where the opposite number is X).
With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty I's, four V's, and four X's, so clock makers need only a single mold with a V, five I's, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks: VIIIIIX. This is cast four times for each clock and the twelve required numerals are separated:
V IIII IX
VI II IIX
VII III X
VIII I IX
The IIX and one of the IX’s are rotated 180° to form XI and XII. The alternative with IV uses seventeen I's, five V's, and four X's, requiring the clock maker to have several different molds.
IIII was the preferred way for the ancient Romans to write four, since they to a large extent avoided subtraction. (However, nine is written IX on clocks, and the IV notation is ordinal rather than subtractive in origin.)
As noted above, it has been suggested that since IV is the first two letters of IVPITER (Jupiter), the main god of the Romans, it was not appropriate to use.
Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry.
IV is difficult to read upside down and on an angle, particularly at that location on the clock.
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.

The explanation about using one mold seems like a good one.

[JWBear]

The mold/casting explaination is the one I have always heard.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm more inclined to believe that it is for visually aesthetic reasons over minor manufacturing convenience (with the number of parts and tools required to make a high quality watch, is one more mold really going to break the bank?). I do think it looks more balanced to have IIII instead of IV there. I was just quibbling with that original link's overwrought claims of "perfect symmetry", when it's anything but perfectly symmetrical and contains a clear counterexample in the very next pair of numerals. They couldn't just say, "It looks a little more balanced this way."?

[innerSpaceman]

I suppose it would be a little more balanced to have the 6 be opposite the 9 on Arabic-numbered watches instead of the 3, but it would still be completely incorrect. Sheesh.

[Alex]

Someday the world will agree with me that the only good looking watch/clock face is one with no numbers on it at all. If you need a IIII to know it is four o'clock then you shouldn't be trusted with anything important anyway.

That's a face with perfect symmetry.

[Betty]

Had you ever noticed this discrepancy before? Not that I go around comparing watches but I've seen a few in my time and never noticed.

[Moonliner]

I have a digital watch with no numbers on it that I'd be willing to part with.

Cheap.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm not a fan of the roman numeral look to begin with, and I pretty much end up with numberless faces as well. So no, I had not noticed.

And, iSm, as the various explanations point out, there's a ton of historical precedent for using IIII instead of IV, it's hardly "incorrect".

[katiesue]

Had you ever noticed this discrepancy before? Not that I go around comparing watches but I've seen a few in my time and never noticed.

I have my Dad's pocket watch and it has the IIII - I had noticed it but didn't really think about it much.

[innerSpaceman]

And, iSm, as the various explanations point out, there's a ton of historical precedent for using IIII instead of IV, it's hardly "incorrect".
Really? I don't see anything above about IIII's use except as to clockery. Thee's no mention of it ever being used as a legitimate Roman numeral in other contexts, except one brief hint that the God Jupiter may have objected?

But I have to wonder why, if Louis XIV preferred IIII over IV, he wasn't really Louis XIIII? :)

[Alex]

The wikipedia page mentions that when the first clocks started using IIII instead of IV that this was the standard usage of the day.

This page (http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/roman/clockface.htm) sources contemporary manuscripts (to the first clocks) showing that IIII was used to represent IIII (so fourteen was also XIIII) and IX was used for nine.

So the answer is, as is so often the case:

Because that's how the person before them did it.

[Alex]

Here's an old example from a 1484 book (http://books.google.com/books?id=aZRKAAAAcAAJ&dq=IIII&pg=PR17#v=onepage&q=IIII&f=false) via Google Books.

The sixth item in the left column uses ii and iiii.
The seventeenth item in the left column uses xiiii and xxxiiii
etc.

And Cicero from 1473 (http://books.google.com/books?id=DFvGPgAACAAJ&dq=IIII&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8RAFT5TMM6jRiAL4qsjJDg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ), books I, II, III, and IIII

[Kevy Baby]

Someday the world will agree with me that the only good looking watch/clock face is one with no numbers on it at all. If you need a IIII to know it is four o'clock then you shouldn't be trusted with anything important anyway.

That's a face with perfect symmetry.Why I have always been a fan of the Movado (although they by no means have an exclusive on this).
http://www.movadoreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/movado-black.jpg

[Alex]

I wear Movado. Though I don't like black bands so I wouldn't wear that one.

I'd be happiest if they go rid of the dit at 12 o'clock, but they're about as ideal in face as it gets. Previously covered territory (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=110940&postcount=32).

[lashbear]

But I have to wonder why, if Louis XIV preferred IIII over IV, he wasn't really Louis XIIII? :)

Beat me to it !! :p

[Alex]

Beat me to it !! :p

Here's an image of a Louis XIV ecu. Notice how "Louis XIV" is spelled on the left side of the front face:

http://www.beastcoins.com/World/France/E0475.jpg

[lashbear]

Interestingly, Stoat is reading a book on the Merchants of Venice, and the Roman Numerals were great for accounting... because they can't be successfully altered in a ledger. You can't turn one into the other (just try turning an I into a V C D or X)

This would be a pisser for sculptors who got it wrong.....

[Alex]

On the other hand, Roman numerals suck for accounting because arithmetic is painful.