Stowa is not alone in this practice, Seiko is guilty of it too. Why do watch manufacturers use an incorrect symbol for the Roman Numeral 4? They are using IIII, which is incorrect. The symbol for 4 is IV.
I Should have assumed this topic was discussed earlier, forgive me for not searching the issue. I'm still not satisfied with an answer of "aesthetics". Oh well, I just won't buy a Roman Numeral watch then.
I completely agree! I think their reason may be for readability since IV and V look similar. Or maybe it upsets the balance of the dial. Either way, to me it still looks good. A lot of watch manufacturers do it, even Rolex.
Either way of writing it is fine, I believe. Even the ancient Romans didn't refrain from using IIII, in this instance for number 9 I think, but still - as per the photo below (a sundial from ancient Rome)
A forum community dedicated to watch owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about watch collections, displays, watch winders, accessories, classifieds, and more! We welcome all manufacturers including Casio G-Shock, OMEGA, Rolex, Breitling, Rolex and Tudor, Seiko, Grand Seiko and others.