Roman numerals are just wrong on a wrist watch

For me there's something about roman numerals on a wrist watch that just looks wrong. I've yet to see one where the numerals enhance the piece in any way. They're too busy to add elegance, they are clearly historically inappropriate. They probably should have stopped using them once we moved on from sundials although I don't mind them so much on a clock, because, I think, the larger dial allows sufficient space for the numerals to sit comfortably, besides, many of the clocks I have seen with roman numerals are older than wristwatches (Victorian carriage clocks, for example), but whenever I see them on a watch my reaction is to think that the designer is trying too hard to make the thing look classy, and failing.

I know this last point sounds very snobbish, and I apologise to those of you who like a watch with roman numerals. In matters of taste there is no right or wrong, and your liking of them is as valid as my snobbish dislike of them. I know that I'm a minimalist generally. I prefer index marks to numerals, and tend towards less complicated watches and away from those with multiple functions and sub-dials, so, perhaps this is just an extension of that aesthetic sensibility? I'd still back away from a no date, two hand watch with roman numerals, simple as that might be.

I'd happily be persuaded otherwise, so please feel free to post pictures of watches with roman numerals that you think look good.

Am I alone on this?

Hmm, pocket watches are perhaps a different category, although that one with both Roman and Arabic is crazy. I will edit my post to say "wrist watches".

Nope, doesn't do it for me. I like DJs, but far, far prefer it with indexes.

I generally prefer arabic numerals too but I think roman can be nicely balanced on even a moderately sized dial, these are 29mm and I don't have any objections to raise at all.

Hmmm...😉

There's one new cheap (because meca quartz) "homage" watch out there: Furlan Marri. They don't hide that their design comes from the 1940s Patek. Looks stunning and nice daily beater.
https://furlanmarri.com/
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andreafurlan/furlan-marri?ref=user_menu

While we’re here, to add an asterisk of oddity: on watches, it’s often an altered set of Romans, presenting the number four as “IIII” instead of “IV”

Ive seen it said this is so as to achieve balance in design, but that’s not made intuitive sense to me.

I notice that a lot of people posting counter-examples are watches with only partial Romans, say at every-other hour, or even down to just the 12 and 6 positions

I assume you especially dislike those with a full suite of Romans, and the fewer the better 😁

Older clocks, more likely to be 24hr or “double twelve” would’ve really pricked you:

The Shepard Gate clock (first to present GMT time to the public):




And, even though “Big Ben’s” external face is a 12hr dial (in Romans), the inner-workings include a 24hr indicator presented in “double-12” format (in Romans):

That Eterna is nicer than most, actually, but, still very busy.
And yes, @cvalue13, partial use of numerals, say on the quarter hour or evens, is more acceptable, but still, they grate on me. As someone said, Connie arrowheads may well be peak hour marker!