what is wrong with this watch?

[Ren]

(04-28-2021 02:15 AM)toml_12953 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 01:39 AM)Dave Britten Wrote:  I think the explanation I've heard is that clocks will use IIII instead of the more correct IV because having both IV and VI printed upside-down near the bottom of the face can be a bit visually confusing. But then they go and keep both IX and XI, so who knows.

The use of IV is a relatively modern construct. Since clocks that use Roman numerals are trying to impart a feeling of age, they use the more correct (for the Middle Ages and earlier) IIII.

https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/...20century.

One legend(?) says that IIII was used because it was easier to cast the numerals from molten metal.
Basically, by using IIII for 4, the "smith" could use 1 mold with the letters XVIIIII 4 times to make all the numerals needed for the clock face.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!