Most helpful positive review
131 of 133 people found the following review helpful
Fantastic value for the price (Also correcting others for the IV vs the IIII on this watch)
on September 10, 2013
Having owned this watch, I can say it is not top-quality under close scrutiny, but it is certainly a wonderful looking piece. It does not feel too cheap on the outside, and it looks great - the open face on both sides is a nice touch. The front cover is actually a magnifying glass. Not a game-changer, I'm sure. But it is nifty. The inner face-cover is made of plastic, as others have noted and complained about- but this has gone unnoticed by me, as I tend to use my inner face for actually telling time rather than rubbing around (though I do tend to do that on the outside!). For those of you that do not realize, this watch is perhaps just over an inch and a half in diameter - smaller than you might think. But in reality it is comparable to wrist watches in face size. I do not know how long the wind on the watch lasts, but I keep it wound tight and check every four or so hours (except when I sleep, of course). There has been no loss of time on my part, though judging by other reviews the watch you get might drift by a minute or so every few days. Nevertheless, my friends are impressed, and I do not regret this buy a single bit.
Time for a history lesson, as many reviewers here are complaining that the watch face reads "IIII" for 4 instead of "IV", which is normally considered off and incorrect...EXCEPT FOR WATCHES, which is okay to do!
In fact, many clock-faces use "IIII" Instead of "IV", as it used to be the standard in most areas throughout history that has lasted until today. If anything, IV used to be the way to identify the cheap knock-off watches.
There are many different theories for what started this, but the two most popular are
(1) The symmetry and pattern in face layout: If you notice, many of the watch faces have a nearly balanced weight in the numbers used. It is generally accepted that IV offsets the balance a bit too much in most cases, and would need an uneven 'compression' of the numbers. Plus, if you notice, 1-4 contains only I's, 5-8 are the only numbers to contain V, and 9-12 are the only numbers to include X. It is a pattern split into thirds. (The I's can be found in the rest of the numbers, but 1-4 focuses on the exclusivity of it)
(2) In Old Rome, where they used Sundials (The great-great granddaddy of timepieces), IV was the abbreviation for Jupiter, King of Gods and Thunder. So, if they were to use IV the clocks would have read 1-2-3-GOD-5. It is assumed that they are the ones who started this trend by changing IV on time-keepers to IIII in respect to their God.
Perhaps Rome started the tradition, and the symmetry and pattern were the reason to continue it? It isn't too clear. I apologize for the long read, but I see too many people who look at beautiful watches and disregard them because of this tradition understandably thinking that it is a sign of being cheap, when it is in fact the opposite - it shows an attention to beauty, tradition, and detail.