Roman Numeral FAIL

Posted by admin on December 1, 2008 Leave a comment (10) Go to comments

Bad Roman Numerals on a Rolex

10 Comments.

Jeff December 13, 2008 at 3:44 am

Actually that is correct convention for clocks and watches. Next time you see one with Roman Numerals, have a look.
lol April 10, 2009 at 11:52 am

no it’s IV
UR A FAG April 27, 2009 at 11:08 am

that is right, all roman numeral clocks has 4 I’s
Anonymous April 30, 2009 at 9:40 am

I thought the same thing the first time i got a roman numeral watch, but if you look it up – it’s supposed to be IIII for roman numeral 4, instead of IV like it normally is.
Job Bos May 9, 2009 at 4:28 am

Actually, That is done like that, because otherwise you can think it’s a VI (6)
LOL September 6, 2009 at 11:57 am

u all are dumbasses if u say four is 4 I’s
4 is IV
learn how to spell assholes !
ya boy September 23, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Well its not spelling there either dummy…whos the asshole now…
Nobilone October 25, 2010 at 6:23 am

Both formats are correct and accepted: in latin documents you can find either IIII (older) or IV. Of course watchmakers would prefer the less common ‘IIII’ form to avoid the IV-V-VI sequence which is more confusing at a glance.
POONTANG February 1, 2011 at 2:12 pm

@LOL-
You’re a douche bag loser
Dave May 7, 2011 at 10:03 am

It’s done like this on clocks and watches so as to balance the two sides of the dial. Simple really