Why IIII and not IV?

[SubMarin18]

Any theories as to why Rolex uses Roman numeral IIII instead of IV on its Roman numeral dials? Elementary school taught me IV was representative of the number “4”. Just curious as it does not seem as though IV would be disruptive to the flow of the Roman numerals.

[Maxy]

It is not limited to 'Rolex' but almost all watch brands in roman numerals. It is called watchmaker's 4 and is to give the dial better symmetry in IIII as opposed to IV.

[mulgogy]

watchmakers 4.

[StuartG]

Visually, it balances with the VIII on the opposite side of the dial. An original Roman would be horrified.

[037]

It's a clockmaker's four, not a watchmaker's four. Clocks came first.

https://www.rolex.com/about-rolex-watches/dials.html

The use of IIII rather than IV is known as the clockmaker’s four, and no single, definitive reason for its use can be found. One thing is certain: it is far from being a recent convention. The notation IIII was used by the Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, and later the Etruscans, from whom the Romans adopted it.

[SubMarin18]

Originally Posted by Maxy

It is not limited to 'Rolex' but almost all watch brands in roman numerals. It is called watchmaker's 4 and is to give the dial better symmetry in IIII as opposed to IV.

Did not know that. It was one of those OCD things things for me.

[SubMarin18]

Originally Posted by Maxy

It is not limited to 'Rolex' but almost all watch brands in roman numerals. It is called watchmaker's 4 and is to give the dial better symmetry in IIII as opposed to IV.

Beautiful watches by the way.

[SubMarin18]

Originally Posted by 037

It's a clockmaker's four, not a watchmaker's four. Clocks came first.

https://www.rolex.com/about-rolex-watches/dials.html

This was very informative. Thank you for sharing.

[Albatross]

Learn something new everyday. I had no clue about this. Nice!

[RobearH]

Interesting...never noticed that before this thread. R

[samson66]

Very interesting! I never noticed that before and would have had no idea why

[HogwldFLTR]

From the Rolex site.

TEATIME IN ROMAN TIMES
Did you know?
Much of a watch’s character can be attributed to the host of details on the dial... colour, gems, hour markers, numerals – Arabic or Roman, all so familiar to us. But how many people are conscious of a special feature of the Roman numeral appliques on a Rolex dial?

The use of IIII rather than IV is known as the clockmaker’s four, and no single, definitive reason for its use can be found. One thing is certain: it is far from being a recent convention. The notation IIII was used by the Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, and later the Etruscans, from whom the Romans adopted it.

In fact, it was not until the late Middle Ages that IV came into use – and when the first mechanical clocks were made, between the 13th and early 14th century, IIII was still in common use. The fact that it remains so today is often thought to be due to the wonderful balance it brings to the dial. After all, should modernity ever be allowed to interfere with perfection?

[SubMarin18]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

From the Rolex site.

[Sailaway]

Everyday is a school day. Thanks for posting

[logo]

Never noticed this before, but now that I see it I would prefer the proper IV.

[Chadridv]

interesting!

[tie219]

Cool, never noticed that either

[SubMarin18]

Originally Posted by logo

Never noticed this before, but now that I see it I would prefer the proper IV.

That’s what I thought as well. But figured there must be an explanation as to why IIII is used. Doesn’t seem like IV would disrupt the symmetry.

[enginerd]

Originally Posted by Maxy

It is not limited to 'Rolex' but almost all watch brands in roman numerals. It is called watchmaker's 4 and is to give the dial better symmetry in IIII as opposed to IV.

Is that a watchmaker's eleven too?

[MCO1]

I learned something today!

[brandrea]

Good info here, thnaks all

[Latrodectus]

Originally Posted by enginerd

Is that a watchmaker's eleven too?

[chloebear]

Maybe IIII is just correct and we all learned IV incorrectly.

[Masteryacht]

Yep, clocks came first.

[Likestheshiny]

Yeah, if you look at actual examples of the Roman 4 from Roman times, you see IIII all over. I think the argument could be made that the clocks are right, and it's everyone else who are wrong.

[enjoythemusic]

That was one of the reasons I got a Patek 5035 years ago when they first went on sale.. It broke ranks from the norm. $13,500 for rg at the time if you're curious. It is normal for the date numbers to not always line up.

[delboylee]

Never noticed this! Had to go and look at my datejust to double check it!!

[904VT]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

From the Rolex site.

Awesome. Thanks

[figb]

Very interesting.

[ltmgeller]

Never realized before