I have never seen that. Actually, the clocks in our house have roman numerals, they say IV. However, I know it happens, I found this - "There is a story that a famous clockmaker had constructed a clock for Louis XIV, king of France. The clockmaker had naturally used IV for four. When the clock was shown to the king, he remarked that IIII should have been used instead of IV. When it was explained to him that IV was correct, he still insisted, so that there was nothing to do but change the clock dial. This introduced the custom of using IIII for four. This is probably only a story, however, as IIII occurs long before the time of Louis XIV. And this same story is also told in connection with other monarchs. There is one reason why IIII is preferable to IV, and it may have caused the change. On the other side of the clock dial the VIII is the heaviest number, consisting of four heavy strokes and one light one, as it is usually made. It would destroy the symmetry to have the IV with only two heavy strokes on the other side. Thus IIII with four heavy strokes is much to be preferred. The change may therefore have been made for reasons of symmetry." There are many similar stories of the reason for this on this site: http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently-asked-questions-faq/faq-roman-iiii-vs-iv-on-clock-dials.aspx

I've never seen one like that, all the ones I've seen are correct. Maybe you're looking at a Chinese or Tiwanese clock, they tend to get details wrong in mass production. I've got a San Fransiso 49's jacket to prove it.

I believe it's to avoid confusion between IV and VI, for 6. (Some watches do number with IV, and trust you to figure it out.)

Roman numerals can be written in an either style. Either of IIII or IV is considered acceptable by some, although the shorter version is generally considered the proper one. Clearly those individuals who designed the watch or clocks that you have seen preferred the alternative style. I must accept that some might feel IIII to be more clearly readable as the number 4. I do recall seeing clocks with IV on the clock face. Interestingly the one in my living room uses IIII for the number 4, yet it uses IX to denote 9. http://projecteuler.net/index.php?section=faq&ref=roman_numerals

Austinious I have a small collection of watches mostly Swiss made. Even Japanese watch makers use the Roman numberal system and IIII is the 4 of choice. Jady, you are right on when you say that it is done for symmetry reasons. If one were to divide the watchface vertically, exactly 13 Roman characters would appear on each side (left & right). If "IV" were used, it would throw off the symmetry. Swiss watch makers discovered this centuries ago and it remains the standard to date. Thanks Jady. I guess I was throwing a rhetorical question out there to see how many folks were aware of this odd and little known quirk. You win!

from wikipedia: The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses IIII, IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system. An inscription on Admiralty Arch, London. The numeral translates to 1910. Likewise, on some buildings it is possible to see MDCCCCX, for example, representing 1910 instead of MCMX – notably Admiralty Arch in London. The Leader Building in Cleveland, Ohio, at the corner of Superior Avenue and E.6th Street, is marked MDCCCCXII, representing 1912 instead of MCMXII. Another notable example is on Harvard Medical School's Gordon Hall, which reads MDCCCCIIII for 1904 instead of MCMIV. In Dubrovnik, Croatia, a commemorative inscription marking the 1000th anniversary of King Tomislav’s coronation (Croatia’s first King), appears as DCCCCXXV - MDCCCCXXV (925 -1925). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals There seems to be no hard and fast rule about the subtraction method - with many variations throughout history - th watch is just one.. but having said that, any watches and clocks I have seen have always had iv! See also: http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/roman/howtheywork.htm