Comments on: Roman Numeral FAIL

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 07 May 2011 18:03:30 +0000

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

By: POONTANG

POONTANG — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:12:25 +0000

@LOL-
You’re a douche bag loser

By: Nobilone

Nobilone — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:23:42 +0000

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.

By: ya boy

ya boy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:21:12 +0000

Well its not spelling there either dummy…whos the asshole now…

By: LOL

LOL — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:57:07 +0000

u all are dumbasses if u say four is 4 I’s
4 is IV
learn how to spell assholes !

By: Job Bos

Job Bos — Sat, 09 May 2009 12:28:28 +0000

Actually, That is done like that, because otherwise you can think it’s a VI (6)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:40:09 +0000

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.