Why do watches with roman numerals have a "4" with "IIII" insted of "IV" which is the correct way?

Answer 1

Early on, IIII was correct. In later times, this gave way to IV. IV is simpler, and became preferred. Although IV is currently considered by many to be more correct, this is not true. Both are correct. One is a more recent development, and therefore is typically the prefered, and simpler, method. However, who can seriously state that IIII is incorrect? When confronted by such people, laugh at them. I recommend using IV for the very reasons that it was developed, but not because it is somehow "correct".

Answer 2

I heard that is the only way to tell a fake Rolex from a real one (you know, I'm so concerned because I have so many haha)
cheap, foreign fakes usually make this mistake.
But also, if it is an old watch company, some of the genuine articles have the four marks instead of the IV, because back then, when many people didn't read or write so well, that was common.

Answer 3

IV is correct, IIII is incorrect. It sounds like someone designed a watch with some artistic, albeit wrong, license.

Answer 4

I've never seen a watch like that. And you can write it either way as they are both correct.

Answer 5

Either representation is correct, and it is simply up to the watchmaker to decide what he thinks looks better.

Answer 6

You might either have a knockoff or an antique.
Go check it out with an authorized dealer.
:]
Good Luck!