Roman Numerals

[Rok73]

Nope, nothing will happen if you do that. Roman ciphers don't exist on the Apple Watch as of yet.

 

[gsmornot]

Ok. What if you touch or hold your finger on the number field? Anything pop up?

There is no number field exactly. As you rotate the crown you add and subtract information that is displayed. You don't force touch items on the watch customization screens. You have add/remove by turning the crown, swipe to the next screen and touch the complication area. If roman numerals were a real option people (I) would know it by now. I won't say I'm a 100% expert but I have been wearing and changing the faces since 4/24.

 

[pirateRACE]

Is this possibly related to the language setting?

 

[Rok73]

You mean if you set the language to ancient Latin the roman numbers will appear? I will give it a try.

 

[pirateRACE]

You mean if you set the language to ancient Latin the roman numbers will appear? I will give it a try.

HA! I'm grasping at straws here...

 

[kdarling]

They obviously don't know Roman Numerals then. I would be worried about wether it would keep accurate time if they can't even get the basics right.

As others have mentioned, the basics are different for watches.

For hundreds of years, clocks have used the Roman numeral representations shown in that photo.

Some of the suggested reasons why, include:

1. Many clocks use IIII because that was the tradition established by the earliest surviving clock, the Wells Cathedral clock built between 1386 and 1392. It used IIII because that was the typical method used to denote 4 in contemporary manuscripts (as iiij or iiii). That clock had an asymmetrical 24-hour dial and used Arabic numerals for a minute dial and a moon dial, so theories depending on a symmetrical 12-hour clock face do not apply.
2. Perhaps IV was avoided because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. This suggestion has been attributed to Isaac Asimov.
3. Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.
4. Using standard numerals, two sets of figures would be similar and therefore confusable by children and others unused to reading clockfaces: IV and VI are similar, as are IX and XI. As the first pair are upside down on the face, an additional level of confusion would be introduced - a confusion avoided by using IIII to provide a clear distinction from VI.
5. The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which the two-character IV would not.
6. With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty Is, four Vs, and four Xs, so clock makers need only a single mould with a V, five Is, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks: VIIIIIX. This is cast four times for each clock and the twelve required numerals are separated:
   • V IIII IX
   • VI II IIX
   • VII III X
   • VIII I I
7. The IIX and one of the IXs are rotated 180° to form XI and XII. The alternative with IV uses seventeen Is, five Vs, and four Xs, requiring the clock maker to have several different patterns.
8. Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry. - Source

Personally, I'd go with the pleasing symmetry in #5, just like the way that watch hands are usually depicted at 10:09 in analog watch ads, or the avoidance of confusion in #4, but #1 and #3 seem really strong contenders as well. Tradition and royal backing counts for a lot.

 

[Rok73]

As others have mentioned, the basics are different for watches.

For hundreds of years, clocks have used the Roman numeral representations shown in that photo.

Some of the suggested reasons why, include:

1. Many clocks use IIII because that was the tradition established by the earliest surviving clock, the Wells Cathedral clock built between 1386 and 1392. It used IIII because that was the typical method used to denote 4 in contemporary manuscripts (as iiij or iiii). That clock had an asymmetrical 24-hour dial and used Arabic numerals for a minute dial and a moon dial, so theories depending on a symmetrical 12-hour clock face do not apply.
2. Perhaps IV was avoided because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. This suggestion has been attributed to Isaac Asimov.
3. Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.
4. Using standard numerals, two sets of figures would be similar and therefore confusable by children and others unused to reading clockfaces: IV and VI are similar, as are IX and XI. As the first pair are upside down on the face, an additional level of confusion would be introduced—a confusion avoided by using IIII to provide a clear distinction from VI.
5. The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which the two-character IV would not.
6. With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty Is, four Vs, and four Xs, so clock makers need only a single mould with a V, five Is, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks: VIIIIIX. This is cast four times for each clock and the twelve required numerals are separated:
   • V IIII IX
   • VI II IIX
   • VII III X
   • VIII I I
7. The IIX and one of the IXs are rotated 180° to form XI and XII. The alternative with IV uses seventeen Is, five Vs, and four Xs, requiring the clock maker to have several different patterns.
8. Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry. - Source

Personally, I'd go with the pleasing symmetry, just like the way that watch hands are usually depicted at 10:09 in analog watch ads.

Excellent research on your side. Thumbs up.