# Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Classic 39 mm vs. 41 mm : Which one fits best?



## Raimondo

Hello there,

I have a question to the community here. For a short overview of my question, *just read the bold written parts*.

I am looking forward to *my next watch purchase* which is going to be a *Classic Royal Oak* with the *blue dial*.
Anyway, I'm still struggling *between* the *15202.ST.OO.1240.ST01 with 39mm* which Audemars Piguet released in 2012 *and the 15400.ST.OO.1220.ST03 with 41mm* in size.

From a technical and historical point of view, I know my way around these two watches very well.
The 15202 is the Ultra Thin version that has the genuine JLC-based calibre of the original 5402 Royal Oak from 1972. It also has the dial with the "Petite Tapisserie" pattern that is close to the original version of the watch. As it is 39mm in size, it wears a little smaller and fits perfectly under a cuff shirt.
The 15400 on the other side is a little bigger with 41mm in size and looks slightly more rugged (which in fact it isn't). It's a little thicker than the 15202 with the slightly more rough looking "Grande Tapisserie" pattern on the dial and is powered by the AP-calibre 3120. As it is bigger and thicker, it does not fit as effortless as the 15202 under a cuff shirt.

The price tag on the 15400 is lower than on the 15202 which should not be the main issue for my decision.

To me, both are great watches, that are worth buying. Nevertheless *I'd typically lean towards the 15202* as to me it is of perfect elegance with the "Petite Tapisserie", fits perfectly under any cuff shirt with the ultra thin movement and is historically of greater relevance as it is closer to the original and includes the JLC-based movement. Apart from that, the 15400 is a great watch as well and I wouldn't have to struggle to buy this watch if it weren't for the 15202.

*The only issue I have are the proportions*. Even though I'm not a sucker for very modern oversized watches and prefer classical watch sizes instead, I'm undecided on this one. I have a *wrist of about 7.5 inches* and I'm not quite sure, if the *15400 may just be the better size* for me whereas the *15202 may just be a little too small?* I would *wear the watch for pretty much every occasion* from casual to business attire with a focus on "smart casual" settings (but I have more watches for all of these circumstances as well).

With that said, *I'd like to get a few opinions from you on which size fits better on my wrist*. Therefore I've attached some pics of the 39mm 15202 and the 41mm 15400 on my wrist. I need to say that the bracelet of the 15202 on the pics fits very tight on my wrist, which may distort the impression a little. If I'd purchase this watch, I'd probably need an additional link on the bracelet, so it would sit a little more loose on my wrist. To add an additional possibility of comparison, I've added a pic of my Rolex Daytona on my wrist as well.

So any suggestions and reasoning are welcome.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## drhr

Either can work but the larger one looks more balanced on your wrist to my eyes . . .


----------



## dbostedo

I'd go 41mm based on those pics.


----------



## tony20009

As goes the actual size of the watch itself, I see nothing that sways me one way or the other.

As goes the fit, I like the look of the fit of the larger one; however, just upping the bracelet sizing foe the smaller one would leave me with no better suggestion than that you flip a coin if choosing the least costly of the two doesn't do it for you.

All the best.


----------



## sheon

The 41 mm looks better on your wrist. The 15202 looks too small to me.

The 15202 has no quick-set date mechanism, so it's quite tedious advancing the date, especially if you need to do so by, say, 10 days. But it's slimness is superb. YMMV of course.

Sent from my LG-D505 using Tapatalk


----------



## IGotId

Both look good on your wrist, I'd recommend the 15202 (which I'm considering myself)


----------



## tigerpac

I usually prefer the 39mm case but either works for you.


----------



## seanwontreturn

Disliking the trend of everything going bigger, I still have to say that small watch on big wrist is way more inappropriate than the other way around.


----------



## devlred

Tried both, personal prefer the 15400, based on the photos and your wrist size i think the 15400 looks perfect on your wrist.


----------



## Bleedingblue

Honestly, the only thing I can tell different in the photos is the band is too tight on the 39 mm. I believe if the 39 mm watch band fit the same as the 41 mm and was in the same place on your wrist you couldn't tell the difference from more than a foot away. Good luck on your choice.


----------



## Will3020

41mm is the sweet spot. ;-)|>


----------



## Skinny Rogers

That's a tough one. The diff in size is negligible from a distance. Personally I'd go for the 41mm.


----------



## marcmc

The 41 has a slightly more contemporary look on your wrist. However, it's tough to overlook the thinness of the 39mm which would be great in work attire. However as an all around, the 41 is probably better.

Btw, superb this or that post with pics.


----------



## Wkumari

I had a similar issue, but was trying to decide between a Royal Oak in 36mm or 39mm. I opted for the 36 because the lugs / case design make it feel larger then it is. My 25594BA wears like a larger watch, similar to a Rolex 116613 (40mm)


----------



## wkohar

Without dress shirt/suit: definitely 15400. But with suit the 15202 looks just perfect, its not showing off but still an eyecatcher


----------



## wkohar

Btw 15202 bracelet looks a bit too tight


----------



## mlcor

Another vote for the 41mm. I don't wear huge watches, but my wrist is 7.25", and the 41mm fit me perfectly. Looks right and well-balanced in your pictures.


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands

Judging by those pictures I'd say the 15400 looks better in general. The 15202 looks slightly more elegant with the suit but the 15400 looks a better fit in all the other pics.


----------



## cjs5

DEFINITELY THE 41MM


----------



## Raimondo

Thanks for the opinions so far. Obviously, there's a clear tendency towards the bigger 15400 here.

The comments seem to back my own thoughts on this topic. The more formal the attire gets, the more the 15202 can shine. But as an allrounder and for more casual outfits, the 15400 seems to be more suitable for me.

I could definitely live with not getting the original 2121 ultra thin movement in the smaller sized 15202 here and just go for the 15400. But what's giving me more of a headache is, that only the 15202 has this even more beautiful „Petite Tapisserie" dial pattern and fits so perfectly under a cuff shirt because of its thin case.
On the other hand, I forgot, that only the newer 3120 movement in the 15400 has a quick set date setting feature as has been pointed out here, which absolutely is of some relevance to me.

@drhr: I agree, just from the looks, the 15400 gives a little more balanced impression on my wrist.

@dbostedo: Thanks for your opinion.

@tony20009: Thanks, it really is a close call between the two watches here.

@sheon: Thank you for reminding me of the missing quick set date setting function in the 2121 calibre of the 15202. I really should take that into consideration as well, as I want to wear my watches, but I don't put them on a winder and it may happen that they specific watches aren't in use for a couple of days from time to time.

@IGotId: Thanks for your vote for the 15202. Indeed, it is a special watch with historical roots.

@tigerpac: Thank you, too.

@seanwontreturn: I also think that a watch should fit the proportions of a wrist within certain boundaries.

@devired: Thank you.

@Bleedingblue: That's what I thought, too. From a certain distance, it's really hard to tell the difference between the watches. Nevertheless, I thought I'd better be safe than sorry about a purchase within this price range before making a decision.

@Will3020: Thanks for your clear vote towards the 15400.

@Skinny Rogers: Thank you, too.

@marcmc: I thought exactly the same. In a way, the 15400 is more versatile, but in work attire the ultra thin 15202 is just beautiful. Thank you for appreciating the initial post. I was hoping that I illustrated things well enough to make it possible to comment on it in a helpful manner.

@Wkumari: Congratulations on your beautiful Day-Date Royal Oak, take care of it. I think in your case, you made the right decision with the 36mm model.

@wkohar: Very well said. This seems to be the essence of my dilemma. The 15202 is absolutely perfect with a suit, but for casual wear the 15400 seems to be a better choice for me. I'm aware that the bracelet on the 15202 in the pics is too tight, so I'd need an additional link after purchasing this watch. Thanks for indicating that.

@micor: Thank you, too, for your opinion.

@2muchtimeonmyhands: That resembles my own impression. The more elegant it gets, the more appropriate the 15202 seems to be. But for All-Purpose occasions and casual wear, the 15400 seems to have the upper hand here.

@cjs5: Clear statement, thank you!


----------



## matthew P

You are lucky that they both look good AND appropriate on your wrist with your wrist size.
The 202 does indeed look a bit more dressy and appropriately sized for a dress watch.
The 400 with its extra hand/ text and size looks a little more casual which works with the slightly larger case but they both suit your wrist well.

I personally prefer the smaller date, the hour marker at 3, and the dial print and lay out so I voted for the 400.
Lucky for you you can't go wrong.


----------



## nh1

A most enjoyable thread. Thanks to all for the read.


----------



## Raimondo

@matthew P: This seems to be the common denominator here. The 15400 is the better fit concerning size, although the 15202 would be fine as well.
@nh1. You're welcome. 

I agree, that the 15400 is the more appropriate size for my wrist in general. Nevertheless, if the 15202 is fine as well, I could maybe still go for the 15202. Apart from proportion, it's still the more iconic version of the Royal Oak. I'll have to think that over a few more times.

Thanks to all for the valuable input.


----------



## Wkumari

> @Wkumari: Congratulations on your beautiful Day-Date Royal Oak, take care of it. I think in your case, you made the right decision with the 36mm model.


Thank you; it is still new enough (to me) that I'm taking every opportunity to show it off ;-)

W


----------



## maikeru

41mm looks better and you can save few grands too. I wish I had wrist size like yours


----------



## DonQuixote

Please get the 41mm... it's outstanding on your wrist and easier to read I'm sure.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

Those happen to be two watches I lust after, and I hope to be in a position to get either one in a few years. I have researched them extensively, and I go from time to time to a boutique to admire them and try them on in person. 15202s are hard to come by, and 15400s in blue are just about impossible to find. AP boutiques often don't have any on hand and when they do, it's full price, if not a premium one has to pay to get a blue dial. 

If I can offer a few thoughts based on the points you raise in your original post:

- I would not put a lot of weight on the "historical significance" argument. I, too, like the fact that the 15202 is close in spec to the original, but the new watches are simply re-issues of an older model. I don't think they have any more inherent "value" than other modern watches. The only Royal Oaks that have collectible value are the Series A 5402, so if this is important to you, that's the one to get. The fact that the 15202 houses the 2120 movement (derived from the famed JLC 920) is great, in my view, because that's a great movement with several clever features to make it extra-thin (the winding rotor supported by roller bearings around its circumference, the floating mainspring barrel, etc.). But unless you want to own one for the sake of owning one and being able to look at it, again I don't think the watch is in any way more collectible than the other modern APs.

- As regards the "petite tapisserie" dial of the 15202 and the "grande tapisserie" dial of the 15400, I personally prefer the grande tapisserie. You mention that it is "less smooth" in appearance but, in my view, this "texture" lends the dial an almost velvety and, to my eye, mesmerizing look that I prefer. There seems to be more detail to appreciate and dive into.

- As regards the size, the 2 mm make little difference overall, and having tried on 15400s with dress shirts on more than one occasion, I would have no qualms whatsoever wearing with business-formal attire. It is still, by any measure, a very thin watch and one sized somewhat conservatively.

- I prefer having a running seconds hand. It's just a quirk of mine. Also, while some will argue that the date window is oddly placed on the 15400, I like the way AP integrated the date window with the 3 o'clock marker. It looks balanced to me and I find it a clever design choice.

- You will have to stay on top of your maintenance with the 2120 even more so than the 3120, as there are a couple items in that movement that you will want to make sure get checked before they wear and get damaged. This has to do with the floating mainspring barrel arrangement, if I remember correctly. The 3120 is probably a bit sturdier and less delicate, appropriately so for an everyday watch I would think. That is probably true of the whole watches as well. Both are somewhat delicate because of their intricate finishes, but the 15202 is probably a bit more delicate overall still.

- As far as fit is concerned, looking at your pictures, I wouldn't worry about it. Both fit you great.

For those reasons, the 15400 would be the best choice for me. Now, the relative importance you will give to these factors (or other factors) will help you determine which one is right for you. When the time comes however, the blue 15400 will be the one for me.


----------



## Reinhard Immanuel

The 41mm fits you better


----------



## nakedtoes

i would go for the 15202st cause my is 7 inches.. from the pics the 15400ST suit u betters.. but the 15202ST is actually not that bad.


----------



## seek3r

Wkumari said:


> I had a similar issue, but was trying to decide between a Royal Oak in 36mm or 39mm. I opted for the 36 because the lugs / case design make it feel larger then it is. My 25594BA wears like a larger watch, similar to a Rolex 116613 (40mm)


@Wkumari, what size is your wrist in inches?


----------



## dbostedo

seek3r said:


> @Wkumari, what size is your wrist in inches?


FYI - that post was from 2016, and Wkumari hasn't been on the site since Oct. 2017... so you may not get a response.


----------



## seek3r

dbostedo said:


> FYI - that post was from 2016, and Wkumari hasn't been on the site since Oct. 2017... so you may not get a response.


Bummer!


----------



## RCooper993

I chose the 41mm and am very happy.


----------



## seek3r

Raimondo said:


> Hello there,
> 
> I have a question to the community here. For a short overview of my question, *just read the bold written parts*.
> 
> I am looking forward to *my next watch purchase* which is going to be a *Classic Royal Oak* with the *blue dial*.
> Anyway, I'm still struggling *between* the *15202.ST.OO.1240.ST01 with 39mm* which Audemars Piguet released in 2012 *and the 15400.ST.OO.1220.ST03 with 41mm* in size.
> 
> From a technical and historical point of view, I know my way around these two watches very well.
> The 15202 is the Ultra Thin version that has the genuine JLC-based calibre of the original 5402 Royal Oak from 1972. It also has the dial with the "Petite Tapisserie" pattern that is close to the original version of the watch. As it is 39mm in size, it wears a little smaller and fits perfectly under a cuff shirt.
> The 15400 on the other side is a little bigger with 41mm in size and looks slightly more rugged (which in fact it isn't). It's a little thicker than the 15202 with the slightly more rough looking "Grande Tapisserie" pattern on the dial and is powered by the AP-calibre 3120. As it is bigger and thicker, it does not fit as effortless as the 15202 under a cuff shirt.
> 
> The price tag on the 15400 is lower than on the 15202 which should not be the main issue for my decision.
> 
> To me, both are great watches, that are worth buying. Nevertheless *I'd typically lean towards the 15202* as to me it is of perfect elegance with the "Petite Tapisserie", fits perfectly under any cuff shirt with the ultra thin movement and is historically of greater relevance as it is closer to the original and includes the JLC-based movement. Apart from that, the 15400 is a great watch as well and I wouldn't have to struggle to buy this watch if it weren't for the 15202.
> 
> *The only issue I have are the proportions*. Even though I'm not a sucker for very modern oversized watches and prefer classical watch sizes instead, I'm undecided on this one. I have a *wrist of about 7.5 inches* and I'm not quite sure, if the *15400 may just be the better size* for me whereas the *15202 may just be a little too small?* I would *wear the watch for pretty much every occasion* from casual to business attire with a focus on "smart casual" settings (but I have more watches for all of these circumstances as well).
> 
> With that said, *I'd like to get a few opinions from you on which size fits better on my wrist*. Therefore I've attached some pics of the 39mm 15202 and the 41mm 15400 on my wrist. I need to say that the bracelet of the 15202 on the pics fits very tight on my wrist, which may distort the impression a little. If I'd purchase this watch, I'd probably need an additional link on the bracelet, so it would sit a little more loose on my wrist. To add an additional possibility of comparison, I've added a pic of my Rolex Daytona on my wrist as well.
> 
> So any suggestions and reasoning are welcome.
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> View attachment 7247730
> View attachment 7247746
> View attachment 7247754
> View attachment 7247762
> View attachment 7247770


hope he went with the 39mm, 41mm looks like an NBA stars watch...or rapper. You're wrists are large, but the 39mm on a better fitting bracelet will look better.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## Chronograph1987

Good Morning,

On my opinion the 41mm look better. 

Kind regards


----------



## Mr AT

This is a very tough question. It's like trying to choose between Blue Steel and Le Tigre.


----------



## EsMatt2012

41mm looks sharp


----------



## TedPhatana

This post is from 2016, my guess, without reading the whole thread, is that he made his decision a while ago. I had the 41MM white first and then sold it, along with a Daytona, for a jumbo.

I think the 15400’s movement is more robust than the ultra thin JLC movement.


----------

