Tell me why I am wrong. Part IV (unless you are Cartier and count on your fingers)
I post a controversial watch opinion merely for entertainment purposes and you tell me why I am wrong. Change my mind!
59 comments
Sort by
Greg
Restitutor Orbis. Aristocrat of beauty. Autocrat of time. (Trying to perfect trolling over at theescapementroom.com)
Charleston, SC
Member since
Last active: 1 hr ago
I'm sure that Marcus Aurelius would have wanted Roman numerals.
Since your watch is for flexing only, any variations of the numerals are OK. It’s all about the look. If the roman numerals looks cool, they are fine. Or maybe I’m wrong. What is popular on IG?
I generally don’t like Roman numerals. Maybe i could deal with XII and VI only, but part of why I don’t like most Cartier watches is b/c of the Roman numerals. Very distracting and clutter the dial.
I'm sure that Marcus Aurelius would have wanted Roman numerals.
Roman emperors, the successful ones anyway, were generals before statesmen. Marcus Aurelius would have worn a Marathon. It is hard to read X's and V's on horseback.
I prefer Arabic it’s more legible for me, Roman numerals kinda clash with each other sometimes prime example the Cartiers are not that legible I’m my opinion. I even find it weird like Nomos which combines both lol
look at 7 and 8 markers kinda mesh together and spacing is tight
Nothing to really add.
I just wanted to compliment your use of the word "wan".
Since your watch is for flexing only, any variations of the numerals are OK. It’s all about the look. If the roman numerals looks cool, they are fine. Or maybe I’m wrong. What is popular on IG?
Do you even own a watch with Roman numerals, Mr. Mid-Century Classy Watch?
It's all Bvlgari in Ibiza on IG.
It's less fun if you all agree with me.
I prefer Arabic it’s more legible for me, Roman numerals kinda clash with each other sometimes prime example the Cartiers are not that legible I’m my opinion. I even find it weird like Nomos which combines both lol
look at 7 and 8 markers kinda mesh together and spacing is tight
Oh forfend, Cartier is classic. They have been making the same watch since 1918.
Oh forfend, Cartier is classic. They have been making the same watch since 1918.
First, I have to look up the meaning of “forefend” lol and yes according to my youtube research Mr. Santos-Dumont an aviator and a trend setter (fashionista)wanted a legible watch while he flies and Roman numerals come to mind in the design Because it’s “Classy!” 😁
Do you even own a watch with Roman numerals, Mr. Mid-Century Classy Watch?
It's all Bvlgari in Ibiza on IG.
Had to look in the watchbox but no, you are right I don’t. But I wouldn’t say no to a Cartier Santos or Tank. And I am entitled to an opinion none the less. Or maybe I’m wrong. I now lost my confidence.
When we are into the subject of roman dials. This watch was installed in the boardroom of Ivar Krugers Tändstickspalatset (The Match Palace). Very fancy place. Could you spot a flaw?
When we are into the subject of roman dials. This watch was installed in the boardroom of Ivar Krugers Tändstickspalatset (The Match Palace). Very fancy place. Could you spot a flaw?
No VI only IV lol hey they say no one will notice hahaha
No VI only IV lol hey they say no one will notice hahaha
Exactly, the artist couldn’t care less apparently.
When we are into the subject of roman dials. This watch was installed in the boardroom of Ivar Krugers Tändstickspalatset (The Match Palace). Very fancy place. Could you spot a flaw?
The four at six. Ok, Krueger is a really interesting dude. Cornering the match business: genius.
Yes, but we are in a world where everyone has a phone that tells more accurate time than their watch. Many of us enthusiasts seem to like auto/mechanical watches (and are willing to pay huge sums) despite the fact they are objectively worse at their so-called ”primary” purpose than quartz watches. So the answer is people wear watches (mostly) for aesthetics, and people can pick what they like. And there is no point in arguing about taste - if we all liked the same thing there would only be one watch we would all wear and #wruw would be the most boring thread ever.
Why not just go for a mixture of both - I‘ve got a California dial watch coming from a Kickstarter microbrand and cant wait for it!
Au contraire mon frere taste is the only thing worth arguing about. The stakes are so low. I have spent roughly a third of my life arguing about music without ever being wrong.
A slight confession, I am coming around to California dials. I have previously expressed my distain but I am now seeing their merits. The cluttering VIII and the non-historical IIII have always bothered me. A California dial solves this. It must have been its intent. The use of indices only at 3, 6, 9, and 12 simplifies and make the dial very readable. The use of Roman numerals is a playful nod to the past.
I say non-historical IIII, but that is incorrect. The Romans were inconsistent when writing 4. The gates on the exterior of the Coliseum use "IIII". Elsewhere, "IV" is used. The Cartier lore is that "IIII" was used to make the dial more symmetrical to balance the VIII.
I have never seen the watch in that picture. It looks like a storm drain grate covering a movement. I am sure that the designer's mother likes it.
And I thought you were a classy guy.
This is I think functional Roman numerals because it’s a Seiko 😂 which I’m eyeing for sometime now…
Yours is a good faith reply in the true spirit of Watch Crunch. The secret sauce of these posts is that they are transgressive of this very spirit. So, wrong, wrong, wrong, my sartorially resplendent friend, and this is why:
Your "just an aesthetic" point is well founded if your personal style is this:
(This is Diocletian's Palace if we are going to be name dropping emperors.)
Roman numerals are meant to invoke wealth and privilege, nothing more. It is more than just a choice. For most of the time keeping era owning a clock in one's home was seen as the ultimate flex:
These were treasured heirlooms. They were placed in positions of honor in rooms where children were forbidden to play. They were intergenerational wealth. This is how an empire flexes:
Also, I don't think that numeral choice is like gold or a strap. A strap can be changed. I wouldn't advise trying to swap numerals. There is no tool for that. Gold has been associated with wealth and status since forever. No one is pulling stainless steel artifacts our of high status burial sites. Gold is malleable and never oxidizes. It is perfect for jewelry and that is one function of every watch, except G-Shocks, which have no purpose (I kid).
And lastly, Patek Phillippe seems to agree with me. All of their new models introduced this year sport Arabic numerals or none at all.
We’re all grown up enough to know the point of these discussions! It’s important to express opinions in an eloquent and structured manner. You’re right - it what a forum like Watch Crunch should be for.
The use of Roman numerals on a timepiece may have been a ‘class’ differentiator originally when society on the whole may have had less (or had access to) education. I think it’s less so now. I would agree that it was an ‘empire flex’ (on top of having a time telling technology in the first place). Maybe having the numerals implies ‘historical’ value as opposed to ’class’ / societal standing / wealth.
Also why do say ‘Roman numerals’ affect legibility? Do all numerals? Does it not depend on the size and layout of the numerals?
I think Patek are aiming at a younger audience with their choice of typeface (and producing more pieces in steel than they ever have).
So, your humble brag is that you don't need a wrist to wear a watch. Noted.
Cheeky boy 👦
And I thought you were a classy guy.
No one would describe the guy that bought this watch as classy:
This watch is an affront to everything green. I can't wait to get it back.
We’re all grown up enough to know the point of these discussions! It’s important to express opinions in an eloquent and structured manner. You’re right - it what a forum like Watch Crunch should be for.
The use of Roman numerals on a timepiece may have been a ‘class’ differentiator originally when society on the whole may have had less (or had access to) education. I think it’s less so now. I would agree that it was an ‘empire flex’ (on top of having a time telling technology in the first place). Maybe having the numerals implies ‘historical’ value as opposed to ’class’ / societal standing / wealth.
Also why do say ‘Roman numerals’ affect legibility? Do all numerals? Does it not depend on the size and layout of the numerals?
I think Patek are aiming at a younger audience with their choice of typeface (and producing more pieces in steel than they ever have).
I am a contrarian by nature (like @Gasworks ) and a curmudgeon (like many). I also like playing devil's advocate. These posts are for my entertainment as I drink my morning coffee and the rest of the family sleeps.
I do believe that Roman numerals are meant to signal class. Let me pick on Stauer:
This is a 1938 somethingorother. I have owned cars older than Stauer. They were not around in 1938. This is a homage to God knows what. The use of Roman numerals is meant to give this watch a pedigree, class. Cartier has earned it. Stauer is merely borrowing it. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. We just have to see it for what it is. Remember when these were supposed to invoke the roadsters of the past:
(I apologize for having to post this picture.) Nodding to a borrowed past can lead to disastrous results.
Going back the Stauer. The numerals fill the dial (as Roman numerals often do). The hands never land on indices. You can tell time because the analog display is imprinted in your brain. The numerals don't aid your eyes. Even in a watch with better design, a Roman numeral VIII is not precise.
Cali dial only.
"What you talkin' about, Willis?!" Very rarely do I get to bathe in the elixer of self-aggrandizement when I'm not wearing a watch that sports Roman numerals.
History, blah, blah, blah, got that. It's not like its a duality: Timex Easy Reader or the varied world of high horology.
(Pictured: a frightening dystopian nightmare of Timex Easy Readers.)
The primary function of a watch is to tell time. Roman numerals work against that. They are, in the modern world, a class signifier. I need to tell the time today, not in 1850. Heck, in 1850 my education would have included Greek and more than the smattering of Latin that I received. Roman numerals would have been more easily understood, as you say.
The dividing line seems to be World War Two. The Dirty Dozen and Bauhaus were the next thing. Cartier gets a pass, Roman numerals were too integral to their brand.
To me, they don't work against that, I'm more about whether I like the overall design of a particular watch or not. I can feel the same about watches with Roman, Arabic, dot, index hour markers... I don't time Japanese bullet trains, so I suppose I have the comfort of not caring at all.
History, blah, blah, blah, got that. It's not like its a duality: Timex Easy Reader or the varied world of high horology.
(Pictured: a frightening dystopian nightmare of Timex Easy Readers.)
The primary function of a watch is to tell time. Roman numerals work against that. They are, in the modern world, a class signifier. I need to tell the time today, not in 1850. Heck, in 1850 my education would have included Greek and more than the smattering of Latin that I received. Roman numerals would have been more easily understood, as you say.
The dividing line seems to be World War Two. The Dirty Dozen and Bauhaus were the next thing. Cartier gets a pass, Roman numerals were too integral to their brand.
Poppycock!
Anybody with an IQ higher than their power reserve can read the time from Roman numerals and in doing so feel good about themselves!
History, blah, blah, blah, got that. It's not like its a duality: Timex Easy Reader or the varied world of high horology.
(Pictured: a frightening dystopian nightmare of Timex Easy Readers.)
The primary function of a watch is to tell time. Roman numerals work against that. They are, in the modern world, a class signifier. I need to tell the time today, not in 1850. Heck, in 1850 my education would have included Greek and more than the smattering of Latin that I received. Roman numerals would have been more easily understood, as you say.
The dividing line seems to be World War Two. The Dirty Dozen and Bauhaus were the next thing. Cartier gets a pass, Roman numerals were too integral to their brand.
(dammit @roberto beat me to the pvnch whilst I typed this vp!)
To steal the debate point of @deeperblue I mvst say that Roman nvmeral dials, even when indices are oversized and overstyled (ahem, Cartier) are more intvitive to me than any, ANY dial where there is variation in the style of the indices. As the "even Arabics only" shown in qvoted post, the cardinal Arabics only a la Explorer, or, in increasing inanity, the vp/down 12 and 6 only or (IMHO absolvte stoopidest) XII only "this end vp" dial. Of covrse there are some dials featvring nvmeral characters from mystery langvages that are vndecipherable to me, so the more familiar Roman trvmps those for me.
The narrow Roman nvmerals on the watch on my wrist impede nothing vnless one is still learning to tell time. The beauty on Romans is in the radial pattern, where all bases point to center (IV is vpside down). It looks fine vnlike with Arabics of any rotated style where the immediate legibility registers the inversion or flip to a point of distraction.
Currently English is the defavlt "vniversal" langvage, but I'm not svre that will persist throvgh my lifetime. I am not world traveler enough to discvss nvmerical comprehension in the third world but I'd love to believe there are areas where Arabics would be Greek and Roman nvmerals would be vnderstood.
BTW, the one time I liked a German watch:
Roman date 4 lyfe!
Your not wrong.
Slightly off-topic, but what's your hot take on the standard practice of using IIII instead of IV?
I can't tell you how many people I've come across that have claimed a watch is fake because of the IIII 🤣
Slightly off-topic, but what's your hot take on the standard practice of using IIII instead of IV?
I can't tell you how many people I've come across that have claimed a watch is fake because of the IIII 🤣
Roman numerals probably trace their history to Neolithic tally marks that may be 30,000 years old. Tally marks use the "IIII" in most notations.
Romans used "IV" inconsistently. Some inscriptions used both variants interchangeably. The old tally mark of "IIII" was in common use throughout the Roman period.
There is a theory that the superstitious Romans would not write "IV" because to do so would be to invoke Jupiter, whose name began with "Iv". There is no ancient writing to support this theory and attempts to trace it lead back to Isaac Asimov. Who knows where he heard it. He does not say. I think that is a modern rationalization. Some Roman buildings contain notations like "LIIII" (54). That would not be invoking Jupiter.
Roman numeral on clock faces are as old as clocks themselves. You can find many mantle clocks and larger public clocks (Big Ben) that use "IV". Just as many use "IIII".
When dial size was more of an issue with pocket watches the "IIII" became the dominant form. You will look at many pocket watches before finding the use of "IV". I think that it became a convention to use "IIII" on smaller dials.
I read somewhere that Cartier said that the "IIII" was used to balance the symmetry of the dial. I think that it is more likely that they were just using the design language of the previous 100 years of clock making. Symmetry is impossible with Roman numerals. "VIII" is harder to work in to a design than "IV" would be. Cartier, and their imitators, are just following an old convention. A reanimated Roman would have a hard time understanding what the fuss was all about.
Not exactly a hot take. I prefer "IV". Actually, I prefer not using Roman numeral on watches, but I am rowing against the tide on that.