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

Cheap.

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".

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

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? :)

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 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.

Here's an old example from a 1484 book 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, books I, II, III, and IIII

Why I have always been a fan of the Movado (although they by no means have an exclusive on this).

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.

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: