Is it IIII or IV? Unraveling the Historical Enigma of Roman Numerals on Clocks
You may have noticed the somewhat unusual use of Roman numerals on a watch face, where four o’clock is represented as "IIII" instead of "IV." Although it may appear incorrect or out of place, it is a common practice in the watch industry to depict "IIII" as "IV" for both tradition and aesthetic reasons. There is no one definitive explanation, but several theories and historical practices shed light on this convention:
1. Tradition: Some of the earliest clockmakers and watchmakers used "IIII" for the number 4 as a matter of tradition and continuity with the Roman numeral system. Roman numerals had been in use for many centuries before clocks and watches were developed, and "IIII" was a well-established way to represent 4.
2. Aesthetics: Many clock and watch designers believe that "IIII" provides better visual balance with the other Roman numerals on the clock face. The visual symmetry between "IIII" and "VIII" (8) on one side and "III" (3) and "IX" (9) on the other side of the clock face is often considered more appealing.
3. Superstition: In some accounts, it's suggested that clockmakers avoided using "IV" because it could be interpreted as an abbreviation for the Roman god Jupiter (in Latin, "Ivpiter" or "Iupiter"), which might have been considered bad luck or inappropriate in some cultural contexts.
4. Historical Variations: The use of "IIII" for 4 is not consistent across all clocks and watches with Roman numerals. In some instances, especially in high-end or antique timepieces, "IV" is used, and this practice has become more common in modern times.
It's important to note that the use of "IIII" is not a strict rule; rather, it's a convention. You'll find both "IIII" and "IV" in different clocks and watches, and the choice often depends on the manufacturer's design preferences or historical influences. Ultimately, the choice of whether to use "IIII" or "IV" on a clock face is a matter of aesthetics and tradition, and there's no single, universally accepted standard.
Image: Big Ben (Benjamin Lewis Vulliamy), London
Image top: Musée d’Orsay Clock (Victor Laloux), Paris
In addition to my thirst for learning, I have two captivating hobbies that allow me to express my diverse interests: collecting vinyl and watches. With a keen ear for music, I immerse myself in the ri...
I have always wondered about this. Thank you for the quick history lesson.
I remember the first time I saw this someone was trying to sell me a fake watch and it was one of the things I pointed out to prove it was a fake, and then later saw that it was actually common with watches, luckily he was trying to sell me a Teg. I’ve always wondered about that I appreciate the explanation.
I always thought it was just for symmetry; four numbers with just I, four numbers with V, and four numbers with X. 🤣
There are many examples of Roman inscriptions using a "IIII" to designate four. Inconsistent usage predates clocks. Dial symmetry is not a reason that it was used. That is more of a post hoc rationalization.
The numbers over the gates of the Colosseum in Rome uses additive notation for 4 (IIII) but subtractive notation for 40 (XL) so gate 44 is labeled XLIIII.
Even weirder, Roman calendars often showed that February had XXIIX days.
I was always told you could only have 1 smaller number in front of a larger number but clearly that doesn't hold up.