After I pose these observations, I’m sure there will be many answers and theories.
1- Every watch I have seen on massdrop that uses Roman numerals has IIII at the 4 o’clock position. Unless someone has changed history, the Roman numeral for “4” is IV. There is no such numeral as IIII.
2- On this and many other watches, not all, have the numerals upside down from the V (5 o’clock) thru the VIII (8 o’clock). On Arabic numbered watches the 4 o’clock through the 8 o’clock position are correctly orientated. Also noted is the fact that the correct Roman numeral is used for 9 o’clock ( IX) not VIIII.
Any thought, theories or general harrumphing?
Crooow1) I believe it is called the "watchmaker's four" and (if I'm not mistaken) is purportedly utilized in due course of creating a more balanced left-right symmetry upon the dial (i.e. IIII looks more balanced across from VIII than IV does) so as to make it more aesthetically pleasing/easier to read with the eye.
2) I'm am uncertain of the reasoning/significance behind this…
CrooowThere are stories about alignment and some stories related to some king's preference of the numeral 4. This is common with many watches. Even the famous Cartiers, Pateks, Audemars will have the IIII.
CrooowTo be fair, watchmakers have had plenty of time to fix this and by all accounts should have. I am often reminded of the ways in which tradition flies in the face of good judgement.
Not all are equal, and some are just dumb.
If we're all being honest (Devil's advocates are invited to keep quiet), the aesthetic of IIII is not objectively better than IV. In fact, I'm happy to be quite subjective in saying that IIII looks crap. And not just because it's wrong. That aside, what sort of buffoonery leads one to believe that IV is easily confused with VI? You may as well argue that counting is too hard because too many numbers end in 'teen'. Look at a watch more than a couple of times and you'll know where VI is. Seriously, who reads the numerals?
Lastly, Roman numerals are bourgie and should only be paired with tweed jackets. There's subjective for you.