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.