# Stowa Marine Original in black (Arabic dial or Roman dial) ?



## 2petros

Stowa The Marine Original in black.

The question is which one of the 2 dials (Arabic dial or Roman dial) ?










Arabic dial or Roman dial ?


----------



## dc_in_sf

well personally I am not a fan of the way the seconds dial "eats" portions of the VII and the V so would have to vote Arabic...


----------



## Maese

For black, I preffer roman:-!


----------



## mr.frida

i will someday get a black MO roman, but only because i got an airman on my wrist and have allready ordered an antea ks and so the roman dial will have a somehow different look. that´s why i would go for roman, cause i dont like to have my watches the same dial look at all. that is why roman, other ways i would prefer the arabic numbers ( i am a numbers man at all and the arabic are "uncut" as mentioned before and from the heart i would always go for arabic numbers, that´s why i prefer the seatime over prodiver too ).


----------



## LouS

Black:Roman
White:Arabic


----------



## woof37

Arabics for both dial colors. The roman numerals look very nice on the black, but romans have always struck me as somewhat pretentious-looking on a watch dial. Plus they add a tiny bit of thought required when glancing at your watch quickly to tell time. Just my opinion though.


----------



## interested_party

LouS said:


> Black:Roman
> White:Arabic


That does tend to be the opinion of many on this forum but I'm not sure why. I like the Arabic on a black dial so that's what I got.


----------



## brummyjon

woof37 said:


> The roman numerals look very nice on the black, but romans have always struck me as somewhat pretentious-looking on a watch dial.


If they look nice, isn't that what matters? IMO, if you half close your eyes and look at the roman on either white or black, there is much more space and elegance on the dial. Pretentiousness doesn't come into it.

Now, without the sub-seconds (ie on the auto) the arabic numerals look great, as the centre of the watch is already more sparse...

Again, just an opinion..... 

PS - I definitely don't recommend looking at watches or anything else through half-closed eyes as a matter of course.


----------



## usc1

I say arabic.


----------



## woof37

brummyjon said:


> If they look nice, isn't that what matters? IMO, if you half close your eyes and look at the roman on either white or black, there is much more space and elegance on the dial. Pretentiousness doesn't come into it.


Pretentiousness does come into it, in my opinion. But that's why I don't own a watch with roman numerals. Personal preference.


----------



## Nightflight

Arabic


----------



## Carl E

Roman


----------



## brainless

Greek,


Volker ;-)


----------



## langtoftlad

Never *ever* Roman characters on a watch <|


----------



## blytonn

Arabic always


----------



## Michelangelo

For the black version I would go with roman. The white version I like best with arabic numerals.


----------



## persco

blytonn said:


> Arabic always


+1. I don't like Roman numerals on a watch, either. Never have.

s.

---
scott


----------



## GMA

Another vote for Arabic. Greg


----------



## Eurosport

depends what other watches you have, if you already have a black faced one get white, you already have arabic then get roman

diversify :-!

can you tell i'm not a fan of people that have same watch style over and over again in their collections lol


----------



## roseskunk

Jeez, so many rules... "arabic always, roman never"...whatever. It's a watch for god sake. Personally I like Romans, especially on Ulysee Nardin. And I think it depends on what else you have. Got lots of watches with Arabics, get a Roman. And pretentious? Aren't all expensive mechanical watches sort of pretentious? So what. Get what you like.


----------



## brummyjon

roseskunk said:


> Jeez, so many rules... "arabic always, roman never"...whatever. It's a watch for god sake. Personally I like Romans, especially on Ulysee Nardin. And I think it depends on what else you have. Got lots of watches with Arabics, get a Roman. And pretentious? Aren't all expensive mechanical watches sort of pretentious? So what. Get what you like.


Blimey. A voice of reason. :-d


----------



## -=RC=-

That's easy....






Both! b-)


----------



## langtoftlad

roseskunk said:


> Jeez, so many rules... "arabic always, roman never"...whatever. It's a watch for god sake. Personally I like Romans, especially on Ulysee Nardin. And I think it depends on what else you have. Got lots of watches with Arabics, get a Roman. And pretentious? Aren't all expensive mechanical watches sort of pretentious? So what. Get what you like.





brummyjon said:


> Blimey. A voice of reason. :-d


No rules - buy what you like ;-)
But, nevertheless, it *is* a matter of taste - some have it, some don't :-d !
...and whilst you might go your individual independent way, the OP asked which - Roman or Arabic?
So for a number of reasons including perceived WISdom is that Roman figures are significantly less popular, as well as that Arabic numerals are more "correct" for this particular watch's heritage.
Yes, it's a watch, being discussed on a watch forum, by watch enthusiasts... 
...and no, I don't believe your assertion over pretentiousness. Firstly a "costly" mechanical watch is not "expensive" if it offers value for money, which equates to the time, design & effort put into making it. And secondly, I would suggest exactly the opposite... that it is cheap watches which pretend to be something they're not which deserve the label of "pretentious".

That is the voice of a reasoned argument Mr BrummyJon, not the Lauren Cooperesque outburst from Roseskunk.


----------



## roseskunk

langtoftlad said:


> That is the voice of a reasoned argument Mr BrummyJon, not the Lauren Cooperesque outburst from Roseskunk.


Are you disrespecting me?


----------



## woof37

roseskunk said:


> Are you disrespecting me?


:-d

I think roseskunk is quite bovvered...


----------



## pilotsnoopy

come on guys lets not let this thread de-generate...


----------



## langtoftlad

roseskunk said:


> Are you disrespecting me?


The computer says... No! :-d


----------



## woof37

pilotsnoopy said:


> come on guys lets not let this thread de-generate...


:-d


----------



## langtoftlad

woof37 said:


> :-d


He will be sadly missed...
RIP The Doctor


----------



## mr.frida

cmon guys, it its a matter of personal taste and maybe what u´ve allready got. so there are many reasons to chose this or that one. i guess we are all common:

i guess most of us we would take all of them, if money doesn´t matter and wear them all, only with slight preferences  i´d take them all each one of them 
some like roman, some don´t. no prob. for me, but for free i guess everyone here would be very happy. at least i would, even if i prefer arabic, after having an arabic girlfirend for 8 years


----------



## UJU

lous said:


> black:roman
> white:arabic


+1:-!


----------



## 2petros

Thank you for your constructive comments,

i will go for the easy legible arabic dial.

Its a matter of taste and "heritage" i guess.


----------



## cezlaw

I have a white dial with Roman. So yes....I prefere the Roman.


----------



## jerseywatchman

Arabic!


----------



## langtoftlad

2petros said:


> Thank you for your constructive comments,


What's not to love about that ?!?!?
Clear, Classic, Beautiful.
Good Choice. 
:-!


----------



## jimmycarrera

I've never been a fan of the incorrect 4 (IIII not IV).


----------



## MAXUS

Arabic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## woof37

jimmycarrera said:


> I've never been a fan of the incorrect 4 (IIII not IV).


Never noticed that until you mentioned it. What's the reasoning behind the change, I wonder...?


----------



## Cursor

jimmycarrera said:


> I've never been a fan of the incorrect 4 (IIII not IV).


I got a bee under my bonnet about this issue some months ago. After doing a bit of Googling this struck me as a more complex issue than "incorrect vs. correct." Here's a little background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#IIII_and_IV
http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently-asked-questions-faq/faq-roman-iiii-vs-iv-on-clock-dials.aspx
http://www.trusted-forwarder.org/elgin/help/roman_IIII.html

Archaic forms tend to be irregular, and it seems that the IIII vs IV issue is one of those. In English should we have regularized grammar for past tense--instead of go (present tense) and went (past tense of go) (BTW, thank you, Old English), should we regularize our verbs to "go-goed?" The IV vs IIII debate strikes me as similar, which is interesting because when I was learning Roman numerals in grammar school my teachers didn't teach me that part! According to those links, it seems that in the middle ages, the "dead language's" number system got a new regularization and IV became preferred.

Many historic watches use IIII instead of the modern, simplified, regularized IV. I think the argument for an asthetic balance between the VIII and the IIII coupled with the historic examples make the IIII a bit more appealing, but I can see either as correct.









Marie Antoinette's pocket watch above.

But it does appear that Big Ben uses IV:










My apologies for going on at length in a digression from the discussion--this topic is interesting for me.


----------



## jimmycarrera

Interesting, thanks Cursor.


----------



## Cursor

jimmycarrera said:


> Interesting, thanks Cursor.


Sure! But now that I look at the dial of this particular watch again, with the oversized 5/V, I wonder if the IV might not have a better asthetic vibe.


----------



## jdop

I also liked Dornblüth for the MO look with Arabic numbers (granted at 3 X the price), but was very happy to find Stowa, since I was looking for Roman numerals...which, I think, is not unheard of (unseen) when it comes to watch faces....


----------



## Ananda

This thread was an interesting read. I'm thinking I like romans better on the MO. For some reason, arabics all the way around the dial remind me of a child's watch used for learning time telling. Generally I prefer indices rather than numbers. Athough I do really like 3,6,9 dials as found on the Rolex Explorer.


----------



## uncleed

I have a Stowa MO roman/white face. I wear the watch basically for work...in a suit most of the time...get constant questions about the watch. But in the black face, i think i like the arabic.


----------



## Dismayed

There are very good reasons that Roman Numerals are no longer used. They are difficult to read, and advanced computation is pretty much impossible. Arabic numbers, on the other hand, are beautifully simple and elegant.


----------



## CM HUNTER

Older thread but still relevant I guess. 

The arabic numerals are very understated and casual in look and easier to read, the roman numerals are much more elegant and refined looking for dressier occasions and not as easy to read perhaps. Really all depends on what you need/want in your collection. 

I personally would go for the classy roman numerals every time... white dial or black.


----------

