Posted on 08-02-2008

bad_rolex.jpg

Hat tip to Mike the Mad Biologist for the spot. (Do follow that link, to read about Mike’s ideas for an FMT.)

Update: Yes, I know it’s actually correct. I’ve been told a few hundred times (well, five) in the comments already. You don’t need to add your voice to the echo chamber if that’s all you have to say.

Epic Fail! by I Wish I Knew, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England License.

21 Comments

  1. Rob on 08.02.2008 at 12:50 (Reply)

    IIII is actually a valid, if archaic, form of writing “4” in roman numerals. IV was traditionally avoided as it was the abreviation for Jupiter and the Roman hoi polloi weren’t great fans of subtraction.

    The Wikipedia page covers this in its own section (since it comes up a lot): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

    1. juggs on 21.08.2008 at 02:12 (Reply)

      If they’re not fans of subtraction than why don’t they use VIIII ? :p

      1. Leavol on 12.09.2008 at 11:01 (Reply)

        Probably didn’t stand for anything like he said “IV” did

  2. Will on 08.02.2008 at 13:41 (Reply)

    Oh.

    Well, I guess the title is still valid then. In an ironic sort of way.

  3. Will on 08.02.2008 at 13:42 (Reply)

    By the way, if you haven’t already, you should head over and put the same comment at Mike’s site.

    And, aren’t all Roman numerals, archaic? :)

  4. Byrn on 10.02.2008 at 17:46 (Reply)

    This is extra-archaic ;)

    I remember seeing this somehwere as an observation versus logical thought test. Most clocks using Roman numerals use IIII rather than IV, so you ask someone to look at a clock, hide the clock and ask them to draw it. When they put IV on (after having looking at the numbers, thinking “Roman numerals”, then just writing in 1-12) you go “well actually…”

    They may be mildly interested. They may, alternatively, attack you.

  5. kitteh on 06.06.2008 at 20:46 (Reply)

    epic fail to you ignorants.
    i’m looking at the genuine ROLEX on my own arm with roman numeal IIII on it. wtf?

  6. kitteh on 06.06.2008 at 20:47 (Reply)

    epic fail to you ignorants.
    i’m looking at the genuine ROLEX on my own arm with roman numeral IIII on it. wtf?

  7. MATUTAZY on 07.07.2008 at 23:05 (Reply)

    OMFGOMFGOMFG

  8. nobody on 17.07.2008 at 17:28 (Reply)

    -.-

  9. Watchcollector on 15.08.2008 at 19:21 (Reply)

    That’s normal on any Rolex and many other brands…you would know this if you were familiar with watches.

  10. Will on 15.08.2008 at 19:26 (Reply)

    Yeah - I was corrected months ago, and admitted my mistake. You would know this if you’d bothered to read the other comments before posting one. ;)

  11. kitteh on 15.08.2008 at 19:50 (Reply)

    you post something on the internet, and it opens you up to criticism.
    you’re so ignorant.. shoulda double checked your shit with the Rolex site before calling out an error like that.

  12. Will on 16.08.2008 at 03:24 (Reply)

    You’re not wrong Kitteh, but I’m not the only one here posting things on the internet; everyone who adds a comment is opening themselves up to exactly the same criticism.

    I know I made a fool of myself, and I ate my humble pie months ago. The fact that this post and its attendant comments are still on the net, and getting hundreds of hits a week, should tell you something about how interested I am in covering up my mistakes, or pretending I’m some sort of genius (I’ll give you a clue: not at all.)

    But if you’re going to call me ignorant for not checking my facts before reposting a “funny” picture, you really have to let me have a little (admittedly, puerile) fun with someone who doesn’t even read the whole page he’s commenting on before adding his two cents’ worth.

  13. kitteh on 16.08.2008 at 04:11 (Reply)

    seeing that you’ve sprained your sense of humor, i leave you wih this:

    1. i like to beat a dead horse - well because everytime someone else comments on this blog i get an email notification..:D

    2. i like to rub it in that i HAVE a Rolex….and it’s got the IIII

    3. i’ve read the whole page.. and all it does is reminds me of one of those irritating credit card advertisements.

    Rolex…………………………………….$20,000
    Blog…………………………………………$10
    Beating a dead horse on the internet……….Priceless

  14. kitteh on 16.08.2008 at 04:11 (Reply)

    oh and i LOVE the avatar!

  15. raptor148 on 15.09.2008 at 22:51 (Reply)

    The IIII is done purposely to counteract and mock symmetry with the VIII on the opposite side of the watch face…

    1. Will on 19.09.2008 at 12:35 (Reply)

      That actually makes a lot of sense. I think I just learned something about design. :)

  16. jn.,u[ljn,y[jhlyp[tdyhn on 15.10.2008 at 19:52 (Reply)

    ZOMFG YOU NERDS YOU NEED TO GET LAID

  17. kitteh on 15.10.2008 at 20:33 (Reply)

    i’m a happy rich nerd with my rolex.
    gonna go home and get laid now

    k thx bai

  18. CoyoteGris on 30.10.2008 at 15:09 (Reply)

    isnt a fail man, all the clockworkers use that numer to refer 4… its a long story, just investigate… cause that fail picture, its just your ingnorance

Leave a comment