Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology
Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology. Comment policy: say what you want, but back it up with an email address. I don't like anonymous trolls.
Thanks!
These links do not indicate support of this blog's statements by these groups
« My Tepid Democratic Presidential Endorsement | Main | MRSA: Jumping from Pigs to Humans? »
Category: Fucking Morons • Mathematics
Posted on: February 4, 2008 5:14 PM, by Mike
Rolex has rolled out a new watch that costs over $20,000. But there's a small flaw with the design:
What? You didn't see it? Let me help:
IIII!
No.
IV.
Would you spend thousands of dollars to show the world that you're illiterate? This is what you would expect to see on a cheap knockoff bought on the street corner, not the original.
We need an FMT: a Fucking Moron Tax. It would be 100% of the value of the offending item, plus an additional 50% for making everyone else's brain hurt.
Find more posts in: 
Education & Careers
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
I'm sorry to spill beer on your rant, but that is long, long tradition on clock faces. There are a variety of web pages on that, such as this one:
http://members.aol.com/lolathrop/roman/iv.html
It's still pretty damned stupid to spend $20,000 on a watch. But if you're going to do that, why not spend it on one with a traditional face?
Posted by: Russell | February 4, 2008 5:29 PM
An ancient Roman would see nothing wrong with iiii on the Rolex... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#IIII_vs._IV
Posted by: Navin | February 4, 2008 5:32 PM
The use of IIII on watches is very common. (Search on Amazon for watches + roman, you'll see many examples.) There are many explanations as to why this is true, probably has something to do with not confusing IV with VI (though IX and XI are usually printed as proper, but as you see in the watch in your example, XI is frequently obliterated anyway). Not that I'm a supporter of Rolex, or stupidity, but they (Rolex, and maybe rich people?) are not at fault here. Whether there's a larger question as to the original adoption of that convention, I don't know.
Posted by: garine | February 4, 2008 5:34 PM
Just about every clock or watch that uses roman numerals uses IIII for 4. It's not a mistake.
Posted by: Colst | February 4, 2008 5:34 PM
When do Russell and I get our individual cuts of the FMT?
Posted by: Navin | February 4, 2008 5:35 PM
What was it that Lucy Van Pelt used to say? "I'm never so stupid as when I'm trying to be smart?"
Posted by: Michael Schmidt | February 4, 2008 5:46 PM
Isaac Asimov had a theory (also shown at the Wikipedia link) that IV was often avoided because it is the first two letters of Jupiter. In Roman times there was no distinction between I and J, or between U and V.
But I agree that the real stupidity is spending $20k on a watch. This is definitely a move for somebody with more dollars than sense.
Posted by: Eric Lund | February 4, 2008 5:49 PM
There are no universal rules for Roman numerals, and there never were. Rules vary from place to place and from time to time. Some people think there is a single rule set, but when they find contradictions they insist reality is wrong and their theory is right, a good prescription for misery.
One of the nice things about place notation is that the rules are pretty much generally understood and agreed, and the same principles hold for decimal, hexadecimal, octal, and binary.
Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | February 4, 2008 5:54 PM
But it also uses "I" for 11. I'm pretty sure that's not a tradition. Yes, I realize they needed the space for the day of the week, but I'm just sayin'
Posted by: Dave Munger | February 4, 2008 6:03 PM
There is still a mistake on the watch.
If you look to the left of Monday you'll see an I at the 11 o'clock position (corresponding with an I at the one o'clock position to the right of "Monday".
It should be an X for XI. Unless the designers were going to put IIIIIIIIIII :)
Posted by: Hadyn | February 4, 2008 6:07 PM
Stupid slow typing... "Snap" Dave.
Posted by: Hadyn | February 4, 2008 6:09 PM
The I in the 11 o'clock position, like the I in the 1 o'clock position, are probably ornamental brackets for the day name bar. The IIII balances the VIII visually across the watch face better than IV would. C'mon, folks, if you're going to have the balls to charge $20K for a watch, you're probably going to have a designer worry about these thing -- to salve your conscience, if nothing else. :-)
In fact, it is a nice-looking watch. I'd pay, oh, 20 bucks for it!
Posted by: Karen | February 4, 2008 6:28 PM
For your personal convenience, I believe they accept checks and all major credit cards. Pay now, and you'll avoid the additional Arrogant SOB Levy ...
Posted by: Scott Belyea | February 4, 2008 7:37 PM
Are you honestly that arrogant that you think a world leader in watchmaking, with probably dozens of designers, would overlook something that you could notice on a cursory glance?
I like you blog, but come one! It wouldn't kill you be a little modest, especially in areas that aren't biology.
Here are a bunch of alternative hypothesis.
1. It's unique, and sparks visual interest.
2. It's valid, although rare.
3. It balances the VIII much more nicely then an IV. (Its balance is actually quite beautiful)
4. Considering the numerals aren't upright, it helps the wearer avoid confusing the IV a nd VI.
5. The III is replaced by the date indicator, thus freeing the design of repetition. If the III WAS there, the face would look utterly cluttered with Is.
Posted by: Paul Markovich | February 4, 2008 10:27 PM
You're not stupid...you're just not a rich bastard with the money to blow on Rolex watches or Antiques Roadshow-worthy mantel clocks with posh Roman numerals.
Our 1960s vintage sunburst wall clock was soooo cheap that it had no numerals of any sort on its face. But then we lived in a cardboard box, and were thankful for it.
Posted by: Barn Owl | February 4, 2008 10:27 PM
Is arrogant of me to think that a world leader in watch making, with probably dozens of designers would overlook putting the numerals right-side up? They are oriented to be read from the center of the watch, and who the hell does that? This makes the V's upside down and puts the I's on the wrong side of the V's and X's at 6,7,8, and 9 o'clock.
If they can't get something as simple as the face right, how the hell can you trust them to get the parts hidden inside right?
And although little modesty in areas that aren't biological probably wouldn't kill me either, I don't see any reason to start now.
Posted by: Tex | February 5, 2008 12:51 AM
I once had someone explain to me why they owned a $50,000 watch. his rationalization was that if he were lost somewhere in the world, and had lost everything else, he could sell the watch for a way home.
my response was to ask him if he thought that anyone who would relieve him of everything else he had would leave him with the watch...
and as other people have noted, both forms of the 4 are valid, and the IIII form may predate. see here
Posted by: peter | February 5, 2008 3:07 AM
Is arrogant of me to think that a world leader in watch making, with probably dozens of designers would overlook putting the numerals right-side up?
Yes, because theat's not the way *you* read a watch, either. In fact the numbers are superfuous. Anyone who knows how to read a watch can read it without numbers (or even markings) at all.
It's the beauty of analog.
Posted by: Graculus | February 5, 2008 8:36 AM
the hell...I hate roman numerals!
Posted by: headsign | February 5, 2008 12:33 PM
Fun with Roman numerals: how do you write 1999? I liked "MIM", but I think it was normally "MCMXCIX".
Posted by: bad Jim | February 5, 2008 9:25 PM
You Rolex apologists are just like the creationists. Things make sense to you only if you ignore reality.
First, you defend their inability to follow Roman numeral convention (modern, if not ancient) and if there is any ambiguity, why use an outdated and worthless numerical system in the first place? Then, you justify their inability to even orient the numerals correctly by treating them as merely symbols. To paraphrase one of your favorite celebrities, "Symbols have meaning." Finally, it is clear that they charge waaay too fuckin' much for a timepiece that merely tells you how late you are for a meeting.
Emperor Rolex has no clothes, but with so many apologists like you, it is no wonder that an idiot like Mike Huckabee is doing well in the primaries tonight.
Posted by: Tex | February 6, 2008 1:09 AM
The watch shows a time of about 10 and a half minutes past 10 O'clock, nearly 1/10 of the way to 11:00. Is the little hand moved far enough past X? It should be about 36 degrees past the straight-to-X position.
Posted by: mark | February 6, 2008 2:08 PM
I see IIII on clocks with Roman numerals all the time. In fact, before I looked under the fold, I thought you were referring to the use of "I" for 11.
Posted by: Turcano | February 8, 2008 12:55 AM
"Finally, it is clear that they charge waaay too fuckin' much for a timepiece that merely tells you how late you are for a meeting."
Why are you so angry?
Posted by: Sean | July 4, 2008 4:35 PM
Also,
First, you defend their inability to follow Roman numeral convention (modern, if not ancient)
As pointed out in the FIRST comment on your post: Using "IIII" instead of "IV" is a standard watch and clockmaking convention, and has been for hundreds of years. Rolex did not make it up, they are following tradition.
For example, check the dial on this clock tower:
http://tinyurl.com/check-the-picture
On the plus side, your total ignorance regarding the history of watchmaking has been balanced perfectly with your loud, angry and aggressive style of writing. It's the perfect way to mask that you completely have your facts backwards.
Posted by: Sean | July 4, 2008 4:52 PM
shoulda double checked your facts with Rolex...
apparently your Swatch doesn't have roman numerals on it...
Posted by: Kitteh | August 15, 2008 2:58 PM
Rolex watch......$20K
Blog hosting.....$10
Beating a dead horse... priceless
Posted by: kitteh | August 15, 2008 5:53 PM
ummm.. if you know ur rolex then will know this!
http://www.hai2u.com
Posted by: timeman | September 19, 2008 2:40 AM
Are you sure you want that fucking moron tax now?
Posted by: Bob | November 4, 2008 2:50 PM