# Let's talk Royal Oaks



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Hey all

seeking your collective wisdom on Royal Oaks. What are the main differences between the 15300 and the 15202? I know the 15300 is discontinued and the rotor on the 15202 seems more decorated; my question is more in the context of horological clout. I have had a 15202 on my wrist and it fit perfectly. Is the 15202 the more desirable piece? If a well priced 15300 were available would it be comparable to 15202?

Also, how well do Royal Oaks (all types) hold up to abuse? I bang my Omega AT into a doorknob at least once it week and it holds up admirably. It doesn't complain getting submerged in the bath when dealing with the kids. Even though the Royal Oak looks tough, I'm wondering if in fact it's a fragile piece.

Finally, I would also consider a VC Overseas. How would you compare the AP to the VC?

I know I am asking a lot and thank you in advance.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*

IIRC, the 15300 is the JLC-based movement that was originally used in the first Royal Oaks. I don't recall the ref number on the thin version of the RO. It may be that the 15400 is the thin one.

All the best.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*

The 15202 is the "Jumbo" and has hours, minutes, date (no seconds). Its the thin one.


----------



## Dancing Fire (Aug 16, 2011)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



tony20009 said:


> IIRC, *the 15300 is the JLC-based movement* that was originally used in the first Royal Oaks. I don't recall the ref number on the thin version of the RO. It may be that the 15400 is the thin one.
> 
> All the best.


Hmmm...I thought it is a in-house movement.


----------



## Moloch (Dec 29, 2013)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*

Current 15202 is called a Jumbo and is the most faithful iteration of the first ever Royal Oak. Some consider it, myself included, the only Royal Oak to own in current AP's lineup. It contains one of the greatest automatic movement ever which has been used by: PP, AP, and VC. JLC manufactured movement but has never been used on any JLC watch.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



Moloch said:


> Current 15202 is called a Jumbo and is the most faithful iteration of the first ever Royal Oak. Some consider it, myself included, the only Royal Oak to own in current AP's lineup. It contains one of the greatest automatic movement ever which has been used by: PP, AP, and VC. JLC manufactured movement but has never been used on any JLC watch.


So basically you are saying that if I am in it for "purity" the Jumbo is the way to go, regardless of any deal on a 15300


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*

15202 feels quite fragile for a sportwatch on the wrist.
It's definitely held in higher regard by watch enthusiasts though and the price reflects that.


----------



## incontrol (Sep 11, 2010)

The new 15202 has a redesigned bracelet that is much better and not as delicate as previous designs. The RO is a 50m water resistant watch so it can take some water. It is not fragile. It is the closest to the original. The new dial is also closer to the original than the 15300. The only detail of the 15300 that is the same as the 15202 is its diameter. The 15300 is a little thicker than the 15292 and has an in house movement. That said, if I found a great deal on a near mint 15300 I would be very tempted to buy it!


----------



## BusyTimmy (Jul 24, 2009)

15202 is the one to have, imo. I've personally considered it many times. I'd almost have this over the 5711.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



Dancing Fire said:


> Hmmm...I thought it is a in-house movement.


I suspected I had confused the various models...as well I would; they are all just Royal Oaks to me and to be truthful, I was too lazy at the time to check.

OP, here's an article that may help clear up things for you: Explaining The Two New Royal Oaks: The 15400 (41mm) And 15450 (37mm) W/ Live Pictures, Visual Aids, & Prices .

Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

All the best.

Edit:
FWIW, the RO's workings inside will endure the weekly ding on the door knob. The shiny, chrome polished bits will scratch and the brushed steel bits will be just fine unless you really gouge them with something sharp, in which case the mark will be quite obvious unless it luckily runs in line with the grain of the brushed steel. If you are considering a gold model, you should just forget about scratches and the like right now; it's going to happen if you are wearing a gold watch every day and soft as gold is, there's no point in fretting about it because you won't be able to stop it from happening unless you are committed to being super careful.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



hvgotcodes said:


> So basically you are saying that if I am in it for "purity" the Jumbo is the way to go, regardless of any deal on a 15300


I don't know what Moloch's view is on the matter, but mine is that if I were getting a good enough deal on the 15300, and as it's discontinued, it's likely I could, I'd surely buy it instead of the 15202. "Good enough" for me on the watch in question would need to be a savings greater than $2K or so, of course, everyone's threshold for what's "enough" will likely be different. If I don't have some significant preference physically between the two, I might well buy the less pricey one anyway, regardless of the savings. After all, more money in my pocket is more money in my pocket; I see little reason to give more over to AP or the seller when I'm indifferent otherwise.

I think if one is going to style oneself as a serious collector with some sort of long term collecting goals and themes, there can be reasons for choosing one model over the other, and based on the collecting goals/themes, which one to choose will be easily determinable by you, the collector. Seeing as you weren't sure which model to choose, I'm going to speculate that you either (1) aren't so much a serious collector as you are someone who just appreciates and enjoys wearing fine watches, (2) you are only just becoming a serious collector, which is something of an oddity as it's pretty hard to be "serious" when one is just learning the avocation, the "seriousness" being something that evolves.

I know much as I might want to think myself a serious collector, I'm not; I just like watches and I happen to have some money available to spend on a few nice ones now and then. FWIW, if you are seeking opinions of a community of serious collectors, be sure to post your query here: Welcome to the NAWCC! . I'm sure there are some serious folks here on WUS too, but most folks are more (IMO, based on what I read in most posts) just into wearing nice or interesting watches. It'd also be worth checking with the watch/jewelry specialists at Sotheby's and Christies; just send them an email with your inquiry.

All the best.


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*

15202 it's the famous Jumbo(movement 2120) the one that adheres the most to the original Royal Oak and therefore the one that is admired the most among the WIS. It's thin, 8mm and has no second hand (that might bather some)
15300 it's discontinued now, it preserves the same case size as the Jumbo, 39 mm but it's a little thicker 9.4mm; but because the different proportions it wears a little smaller than the Jumbo. It does have a second hand. 
15400 it's 41mm so it's the biggest one of these 3, has the same movement as the 15300 (3120) so how it wears it's the main difference.

i like the 15300 and 15202 the best, but in my eyes the differences are not big enough to justify to pay more for any of these just because is slightly thinner or because is more WIS approved than the other. I will personally go for the best deal of any of this 3.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



tony20009 said:


> I suspected I had confused the various models...as well I would; they are all just Royal Oaks to me and to be truthful, I was too lazy at the time to check.
> 
> OP, here's an article that may help clear up things for you: Explaining The Two New Royal Oaks: The 15400 (41mm) And 15450 (37mm) W/ Live Pictures, Visual Aids, & Prices .
> 
> ...


Tony20009 (ah my old zip code) thanks for these insights. I had seen that article as well as a few on fratello watches. I wanted to see what actual WIS, and people who have made similar decisions, opinions were. Im considering just the steel; appreciate your thoughts on the dings.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



tony20009 said:


> I don't know what Moloch's view is on the matter, but mine is that if I were getting a good enough deal on the 15300, and as it's discontinued, it's likely I could, I'd surely buy it instead of the 15202. "Good enough" for me on the watch in question would need to be a savings greater than $2K or so, of course, everyone's threshold for what's "enough" will likely be different. If I don't have some significant preference physically between the two, I might well buy the less pricey one anyway, regardless of the savings. After all, more money in my pocket is more money in my pocket; I see little reason to give more over to AP or the seller when I'm indifferent otherwise.
> 
> I think if one is going to style oneself as a serious collector with some sort of long term collecting goals and themes, there can be reasons for choosing one model over the other, and based on the collecting goals/themes, which one to choose will be easily determinable by you, the collector. Seeing as you weren't sure which model to choose, I'm going to speculate that you either (1) aren't so much a serious collector as you are someone who just appreciates and enjoys wearing fine watches, (2) you are only just becoming a serious collector, which is something of an oddity as it's pretty hard to be "serious" when one is just learning the avocation, the "seriousness" being something that evolves.
> 
> ...


Regarding the second paragraph, I am just starting on my journey and *aspire* to be a serious collector.  But you are dead on, and before I transform into serious collector, I am in your boat re my approach to these things.

Think of my questions this way: sometimes it makes sense to pay more for something that is higher quality or has other intangible value that makes the extra cost worth it. I am wondering if this is one of those cases. Of course, this calculus is somewhat subjective, so its on me to make the final decision. But the insights of those who have pondered the question before can definitely help.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



heuerolexomega said:


> 15202 it's the famous Jumbo(movement 2120) the one that adheres the most to the original Royal Oak and therefore the one that is admired the most among the WIS. It's thin, 8mm and has no second hand (that might bather some)
> 15300 it's discontinued now, it preserves the same case size as the Jumbo, 39 mm but it's a little thicker 9.4mm; but because the different proportions it wears a little smaller than the Jumbo. It does have a second hand.
> 15400 it's 41mm so it's the biggest one of these 3, has the same movement as the 15300 (3120) so how it wears it's the main difference.
> 
> i like the 15300 and 15202 the best, but in my eyes the differences are not big enough to justify to pay more for any of these just because is slightly thinner or because is more WIS approved than the other. I will personally go for the best deal of any of this 3.


Succinct and practical advice, thank you sir.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

incontrol said:


> The new 15202 has a redesigned bracelet that is much better and not as delicate as previous designs. The RO is a 50m water resistant watch so it can take some water. It is not fragile. It is the closest to the original. The new dial is also closer to the original than the 15300. The only detail of the 15300 that is the same as the 15202 is its diameter. The 15300 is a little thicker than the 15292 and has an in house movement. That said, if I found a great deal on a near mint 15300 I would be very tempted to buy it!


Interesting to read that about the bracelet. Were the older ones really that inferior?

Also, I heard that 50m of water resistance really meant that its safe for washing hands, not for submerging/swimming.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



Moloch said:


> Current 15202 is called a Jumbo and is the most faithful iteration of the first ever Royal Oak. Some consider it, myself included, the only Royal Oak to own in current AP's lineup. It contains one of the greatest automatic movement ever which has been used by: PP, AP, and VC. JLC manufactured movement but has never been used on any JLC watch.


Can you please elaborate on why the 15202 is the only one to own?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Fit, fit, fit so easy choice for me . . . owned the smaller (but thicker) 15450 thinking that the 37 mm diameter would be perfect for my 6.5 inch wrist. Surprised that the slightly larger (but thinner) 15202 wore more comfortably and looked fine on my wrist. The 15450 wasn't bad, but not quite as good compared to the 15202 as to fit so it's gone . . .


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands (May 4, 2014)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



tony20009 said:


> I know much as I might want to think myself a serious collector, I'm not; I just like watches and I happen to have some money available to spend on a few nice ones now and then. FWIW, if you are seeking opinions of a community of serious collectors, be sure to post your query here: Welcome to the NAWCC! . I'm sure there are some serious folks here on WUS too, but most folks are more (IMO, based on what I read in most posts) just into wearing nice or interesting watches. It'd also be worth checking with the watch/jewelry specialists at Sotheby's and Christies; just send them an email with your inquiry.
> 
> All the best.


Judging from the NAWCC's 'New Watch Bragging Only' thread, a serious collection consists almost entirely of pocket watches. Rather than 'wrist-shots' I was hoping for more 'waistcoat-shots'.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



hvgotcodes said:


> Regarding the second paragraph, I am just starting on my journey and *aspire* to be a serious collector.  But you are dead on, and before I transform into serious collector, I am in your boat re my approach to these things.
> 
> *Think of my questions this way: sometimes it makes sense to pay more for something that is higher quality or has other intangible value that makes the extra cost worth it. I am wondering if this is one of those cases.* * Of course, this calculus is somewhat subjective, so its on me to make the final decision. *But the insights of those who have pondered the question before can definitely help.


I can tell you and I see the matter the same way, so I know what I'm about to write is stating the obvious, but sometimes that's just what one -- it's been that way for me too -- needs to hear/read to move on to the phase of things. And, yes, a great bit of the issue is nothing but subjective and recognizing that, for me at least, pretty well forces me to build my own body of knowledge on the matter rather than soliciting others' opinions. That's always a bit of a conundrum when one wants to buy now, but doesn't now really have clear goals in mind. The upside is that there's often no real imperative forcing one, me at least, to rush to buy a fancy watch until I've come to my own understanding about it. (Obviously, with time, it takes less and less time to arrive at that understanding.)

For the specific watch(s) in question and the distinctions between the various versions, you will really need to define collecting goals for yourself to know the answer. Defining those goals and what's important for oneself is not easy to do, especially when just starting out because there are so many, many nuances to the whole hobby and history of watchmaking. IMO, really the only way to come to that sort of decision is to do a hell of a lot of reading. There are a number of books on the topic, and I believe there are several threads on WUS that address the matter. A good one to start with is this one as it's short: Pierre-Yves Donzé's _History of the Swiss Watch Industry_. Another is_ Technique and History of the Swiss Watch_ by Eugène Jaquet and Alfred Chapuis (also short). _Watchmaking_ by George Daniels is also a good one. -

There really isn't, IMO, a palpable quality difference among the versions of RO, at least not in the way of one version working better than another or being more reliable. Some folks will prefer the JLC derived movement for it's history and yet others will not prefer it because it is JLC derived. Others will prefer the think one for the slightly more technical aspect of crafting a thinner watch. Some folks will prefer the discontinued one just because it has been discontinued, be that due to its reduced availability or due to the lower pricing that generally will accompany recently discontinued models.

All the best.

We don't get to chose what is true. We only get to choose what we do about it.
-- Kami Garcia, _Beautiful Darkness

_


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



2muchtimeonmyhands said:


> Judging from the NAWCC's 'New Watch Bragging Only' thread, a serious collection consists almost entirely of pocket watches. Rather than 'wrist-shots' I was hoping for more 'waistcoat-shots'.


LOL....I only know a couple serious collectors; neither of them would ever brag about their watches, so much so that I tend to discover when they've gotten a new one because I see them wearing it. I'm the same way. Each of us sees the hobby as a personal conceit.

I know for myself, such pics are useless, other than when they depict a watch I've never seen before; at least the pic -- wrist or otherwise -- lets me know what it basically looks like. I say that, however, as someone who has never quite understood the point of wrist pics, other than that it may be more convenient to take a wrist pic than find one on the web. (Then again, I post from a PC/laptop rather than my phone. Perhaps phone-driven posts make the upload of a phone pic easier.) As for what a watch looks like on, on my wrist is the only wrist-based visual that matters to me.

All the best.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

drhr said:


> Fit, fit, fit so easy choice for me . . . owned the smaller (but thicker) 15450 thinking that the 37 mm diameter would be perfect for my 6.5 inch wrist. Surprised that the slightly larger (but thinner) 15202 wore more comfortably and looked fine on my wrist. The 15450 wasn't bad, but not quite as good compared to the 15202 as to fit so it's gone . . .


That is a great pic of the while dial RO. Stunning.

I have tried on the 15202 and it fit perfectly (opinion). My wrist is also ~6.5".


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



tony20009 said:


> I can tell you and I see the matter the same way, so I know what I'm about to write is stating the obvious, but sometimes that's just what one -- it's been that way for me too -- needs to hear/read to move on to the phase of things. And, yes, a great bit of the issue is nothing but subjective and recognizing that, for me at least, pretty well forces me to build my own body of knowledge on the matter rather than soliciting others' opinions. That's always a bit of a conundrum when one wants to buy now, but doesn't now really have clear goals in mind. The upside is that there's often no real imperative forcing one, me at least, to rush to buy a fancy watch until I've come to my own understanding about it. (Obviously, with time, it takes less and less time to arrive at that understanding.)
> 
> For the specific watch(s) in question and the distinctions between the various versions, you will really need to define collecting goals for yourself to know the answer. Defining those goals and what's important for oneself is not easy to do, especially when just starting out because there are so many, many nuances to the whole hobby and history of watchmaking. IMO, really the only way to come to that sort of decision is to do a hell of a lot of reading. There are a number of books on the topic, and I believe there are several threads on WUS that address the matter. A good one to start with is this one as it's short: Pierre-Yves Donzé's _History of the Swiss Watch Industry_. Another is_ Technique and History of the Swiss Watch_ by Eugène Jaquet and Alfred Chapuis (also short). _Watchmaking_ by George Daniels is also a good one. -
> 
> ...


How can knowledge help in this context? What do you mean by define goals? My goals are

1. Self reward, for achieving a measure of financial success.
2. I like watches. I want to own them. I like watching them run. I like that 99% of the time I'm the only one in the room who even notices watches, much less the nice ones. I like looking at the movements. I like the individual ticks I can see and hear if I listen closely enough. I admire the craftsmanship of good ones.
3. I tend to be a quality over quantity guy. I like pedigree and horological clout.
4. I know a modest amount about both how a mechanical watch works, and the Royal Oak in particular (saved the swiss mechanical watch industry, Genta, etc). I have decent but not awesome brand knowledge (my knowledge of some brand is lacking, Breguet, Blanpain, etc).

Really my question is on point 3, regarding horological clout. Why would the Jumbo have more than the 15300 or 15400? They are all Royal Oaks, right? Does 41mm vs 39mm, having a seconds hand, etc really make a difference, and if so why?


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



hvgotcodes said:


> How can knowledge help in this context? What do you mean by define goals? My goals are
> 
> 1. Self reward, for achieving a measure of financial success.
> 2. I like watches. I want to own them. I like watching them run. I like that 99% of the time I'm the only one in the room who even notices watches, much less the nice ones. I like looking at the movements. I like the individual ticks I can see and hear if I listen closely enough. I admire the craftsmanship of good ones.
> ...


From a collector's point of view:
- Low production numbers
- JLC legacy -- back before the "in house" craze, a great many great watches got the basis of their movements from JLC.
- JLC legacy -- AP owned JLC, but they sold it off, but 920 is a fantastic and versatile ebauche and AP didn't let this bit of JLC goodness go.
- Role in AP's other watches -- this movement is the basis for AP's lofty complicated watches.

The idea of goals/themes has to do with things like whether you are trying to collect watches that all have something in common. For example, one might seek to collect watches that all have a certain designer behind the visual or mechanical aspects of the watch. Maybe one wants to collect examples of a certain type of movement as implemented in a variety of watches. Maybe one has a yen for watches from a given country, or maybe something as simple as a common style. Those were the sorts of things I was referring to.

All the best.


----------



## Moloch (Dec 29, 2013)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



hvgotcodes said:


> Can you please elaborate on why the 15202 is the only one to own?


Movement and the design being so similar to the original Royal Oak. But like others have said, 15300's movement is no slouch and I have no problem recommending it. And the 15202 should hold value better than the 15300 for when you decide to trade up.


----------



## Omjlc (Dec 19, 2011)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*

The 15200 and 15300 are beautiful watches and both have their pros and cons (many of which are listed above). One advantage for the 15300 which I find very handy is the significantly greater power reserve (60 or so hours).

Either way, there is no bad choice. Good luck finding one though. AP keeps production of the 15202 low and at a time, they could only be had at boutiques (this may have changed though as I heard ADs were now getting stock). A good 15300 (blue dial) is very hard to come by on the secondary market.


----------



## jnelson3097 (Mar 28, 2010)

I've tried on both the 15300 and the 15400. It was a few months apart but I didn't notice a huge difference in the 2. The blue dial is stunning though and I'm having a very difficult time not picking up the preowned blue dial 15300 that my AD has in stock right now.

Here are pics of when I tried them on previous visits.

15300


15400


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

I always thought that the Jumbo would be the one I'd get if I found my finances sufficiently lubricated for the reasons stated here by everyone else. Recently, though, I think my preference has shifted. 
The 15300, while a little thicker, is by no means a thick watch and I find that I've slightly gone off the idea of not having a seconds hand. I understand that simplicity is elegant but it just feels like it's missing a sign of life or something. 

You asked in the OP about durability and, while I'm sure that the watch is perfectly capable of taking a knock or two, it has to be said that it does not bear the results gracefully. I can't think of another watch that can so easily look ruined by a few scratches. So much of the Royal Oaks charm is about the stunning, crisp finish and even if it was once considered a nominal sports watch, it's not a watch that I'd want to do anything other than baby.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



tony20009 said:


> From a collector's point of view:
> - Low production numbers
> - JLC legacy -- back before the "in house" craze, a great many great watches got the basis of their movements from JLC.
> - JLC legacy -- AP owned JLC, but they sold it off, but 920 is a fantastic and versatile ebauche and AP didn't let this bit of JLC goodness go.
> ...


Ah, no I don't have a unified theme in mind. My selection process is basically to identify some options I like, then look for pedigree among those options. For example, also in the running here are the Moon Watch, Rolex Explorer 1, and JLC MUT Moon. I like the Explorer 1, but in its current form it has absolutely no horological significance (so I understand) so I would probably go for the Omega, since it is more fitting than the others given that I am never in a suit (although I still might consider an Explorer 1 at some point if I could get a ridiculous deal).

Thank you for enumerating some interesting points about the 15202. Seems like the movement is superior, at least from the historical perspective.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

GaryF said:


> I always thought that the Jumbo would be the one I'd get if I found my finances sufficiently lubricated for the reasons stated here by everyone else. Recently, though, I think my preference has shifted.
> The 15300, while a little thicker, is by no means a thick watch and I find that I've slightly gone off the idea of not having a seconds hand. I understand that simplicity is elegant but it just feels like it's missing a sign of life or something.
> 
> You asked in the OP about durability and, while I'm sure that the watch is perfectly capable of taking a knock or two, it has to be said that it does not bear the results gracefully. I can't think of another watch that can so easily look ruined by a few scratches. So much of the Royal Oaks charm is about the stunning, crisp finish and even if it was once considered a nominal sports watch, it's not a watch that I'd want to do anything other than baby.


Yeah the lack of seconds is the only thing running against it (other than the higher cost) in my calculations.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Just went to the local AD. They used to have a jumbo, but don't anymore. The 15400 is definitely too big for my wrist. Dang. One thing I noticed is that the bracelet is quite wide near the lugs. For the 39mm versions, does the bracelet just shrink proportionally?


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

In terms of how collectible it is, only the original A-Series Royal Oak is a "true" collectible. The 15202 is a faithful REPLICA of the original, in that it maintains the looks and proportions of the original, as well as the acclaimed ultra-thin movement (2120) based on the infamous JLC 920 caliber, which was crated by JLC at the joint request and with joint input from each of the so-called "trinity" houses (i.e., Patek, Vacheron and AP). The presence of this caliber under the hood is the main reason why hardcore WIS will be more attracted to the 15202. If you anticipate buying the watch to keep on display in a box and wear only occasionally in "controlled" conditions and to show to other WIS, the 15202 would be the one to have. If you like slimmer watches, it may also be the best choice.

If you buy the watch to wear it frequently, any of the newer models will be preferable in my opinion. The 3120 movement in the 15300 and newer 15400 should be a bit less delicate than an ultra-thin movement, it has a longer power reserve, and the watch has a seconds hand. The 15300 and 15400 are a bit thicker (and are thus sportier) than the 15202. They are significantly cheaper, and much more readily available. 

In terms of the current 15400 vs the discontinued 15300, I'd pick the 15400, because I like the dial so much better. It is more balanced with a marker at 12 o'clock and the AP logo below (which is more like the original design), compared to the AP logo posing as the 12 o'clock marker on the 15300. I also think that having a smaller marker at 3 o'clock balances the dial better on the 15400 vs no such marker on the 15300, as does the coordinated-color datewheel on the newer model.

Many balk at the size of the newer 15400, but having tried both the Jumbo, 15300 and 15400 side-by-side, the difference is not that noticeable. A 15400 with blue dial will definitely be my first "high-end" watch.

My only concern is how this watch withstands frequent use. I am not sure it scratches that much more easily than other watches, but as GaryF mentioned earlier, I am a bit concerned that scratches might well look worse on this watch than on most others, simply because the contrast between the superlative finishes on the watch is one of its most important features, especially its perfect linear brushed finish on top surfaces, which will definitely show scratch marks more readily than other types of finish. This might mean such a watch is to be relegated to a watch worn infrequently in controlled conditions only, which to me is a shame, given the investment required; it's just the sort of watch I'd want to wear and look at all the time...

Good luck in your decision making. I don't think there are any wrong choices to be made here. It's more a matter of knowing what you are looking for and seeking the model that will tick the right boxes for you, while making sure you are comfortable with the shortcomings and caveats applicable to each model.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

HRC-E.B. said:


> In terms of how collectible it is, only the original A-Series Royal Oak is a "true" collectible. The 15202 is a faithful REPLICA of the original, in that it maintains the looks and proportions of the original, as well as the acclaimed ultra-thin movement (2120) based on the infamous JLC 920 caliber, which was crated by JLC at the joint request and with joint input from each of the so-called "trinity" houses (i.e., Patek, Vacheron and AP). The presence of this caliber under the hood is the main reason why hardcore WIS will be more attracted to the 15202. If you anticipate buying the watch to keep on display in a box and wear only occasionally in "controlled" conditions and to show to other WIS, the 15202 would be the one to have. If you like slimmer watches, it may also be the best choice.


This aspect, plus the size, are really what attracts me to this watch.



> If you buy the watch to wear it frequently, any of the newer models will be preferable in my opinion. The 3120 movement in the 15300 and newer 15400 should be a bit less delicate than an ultra-thin movement, it has a longer power reserve, and the watch has a seconds hand. The 15300 and 15400 are a bit thicker (and are thus sportier) than the 15202. They are significantly cheaper, and much more readily available.
> 
> In terms of the current 15400 vs the discontinued 15300, I'd pick the 15400, because I like the dial so much better. It is more balanced with a marker at 12 o'clock and the AP logo below (which is more like the original design), compared to the AP logo posing as the 12 o'clock marker on the 15300. I also think that having a smaller marker at 3 o'clock balances the dial better on the 15400 vs no such marker on the 15300, as does the coordinated-color datewheel on the newer model.


Very interesting. I just tried on the 15400 and it wears extremely large on my wrist. It felt too big. I intended to try on the Jumbo, but they didn't have one; when I tried it on before it felt perfect.



> Many balk at the size of the newer 15400, but having tried both the Jumbo, 15300 and 15400 side-by-side, the difference is not that noticeable. A 15400 with blue dial will definitely be my first "high-end" watch.


Unfortunately, there are no 15300s in my area I can try on, this is the type of thing I would want to see for myself.



> My only concern is how this watch withstands frequent use. I am not sure it scratches that much more easily than other watches, but as GaryF mentioned earlier, I am a bit concerned that scratches might well look worse on this watch than on most others, simply because the contrast between the superlative finishes on the watch is one of its most important features, especially its perfect linear brushed finish on top surfaces, which will definitely show scratch marks more readily than other types of finish. This might mean such a watch is to be relegated to a watch worn infrequently in controlled conditions only, which to me is a shame, given the investment required; it's just the sort of watch I'd want to wear and look at all the time...
> 
> Good luck in your decision making. I don't think there are any wrong choices to be made here. It's more a matter of knowing what you are looking for and seeking the model that will tick the right boxes for you, while making sure you are comfortable with the shortcomings and caveats applicable to each model.


If I actually pull the trigger, I anticipate wearing it often. Ill try to take good care of it.


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

An interesting read, regarding the newer 3120 movement that powers both the 15300 and 15400, as well as serving as a base movement (with chrono module added) for the current generation Royal Oak Offshore line.

ThePuristS.com - Audemars Piguet 3120


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

HRC-E.B. said:


> An interesting read, regarding the newer 3120 movement that powers both the 15300 and 15400, as well as serving as a base movement (with chrono module added) for the current generation Royal Oak Offshore line.
> 
> ThePuristS.com - Audemars Piguet 3120


Ah, thank you very much sir. Very interesting indeed.


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: Let's talk Royal Oaks - potential problems*

I fell in love w/ a 15300 that the guy next to me had on during a recent transatlantic flight. For the whole flight I could not take my eyes off it. So I did some research (as I started seriously contemplating going after one).

Now I *believe* we cannot link to other forums so I will just describe what I read at a popular _french_ forum.

Over there people were talking about the 15300/15400 (no mention of 15202 - guess very few people have it) and how many problems they were having (with new ones) etc etc. I was tempted to discount these posts as _noise_ (assuming that the happy campers will not post - so one only gets to read the unlucky ones. Actually some - few - people chimed in + said theirs had no problems. Neither did the guy in the flight btw - he had his for 6 years).

There were, however, 2 stories that stuck w/ me:


Somebody bought a new RO from an AD in Paris (I believe this last May! - not 100% sure though). It had a problem on the dial, he took it back and the AD gave him a totally new RO (ie they did not fix the old one). This new one had a problem w/ timekeeping - which manifested itself almost immediately. So the buyer eventually spoke to the head of AP service in Switzerland, who told him 



[*=1]I will bring you a new (third) RO with my own hands in 2 weeks when I will be visiting Paris 
[*=1]This (third) RO is already here w/ me (ie in Switzerland, w/ the head of service) and I will have it tested for the following 2 weeks, before I bring it to you, to make sure.... 

When the poster was eventually asked re how his 3rd RO was working out (he was posting these stories real time, over a number of days), he responded that he did not know as he SOLD it as soon as he got it.
​

Somebody else (a regular poster, much more) wrote: from the 6 new ROs in my circles, 3 had to be sent back w/ problems (ie 50%). 

The 50% part scared me _a_lot_


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

*Re: Let's talk Royal Oaks - potential problems*



harryst said:


> I fell in love w/ a 15300 that the guy next to me had on during a recent transatlantic flight. For the whole flight I could not take my eyes off it. So I did some research (as I started seriously contemplating going after one).
> 
> Now I *believe* we cannot link to other forums so I will just describe what I read at a popular _french_ forum.
> 
> ...


Mmm interesting story.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Let's talk Royal Oaks - potential problems*



harryst said:


> I fell in love w/ a 15300 that the guy next to me had on during a recent transatlantic flight. For the whole flight I could not take my eyes off it. So I did some research (as I started seriously contemplating going after one).
> 
> Now I *believe* we cannot link to other forums so I will just describe what I read at a popular _french_ forum.
> 
> ...


That is quite disturbing. I have read a few threads on these forums about problems as well. That said, Ive seen a ton of threads about people happy with their Royal Oaks.


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

*Re: Let's talk Royal Oaks - potential problems*

I think we have to be careful about forum ramblings. It's nothing more than hearsay, and people will often times convey stories as if they were their own... Most of the information is very hard to verify, unless you get to know and trust the people you are interacting with.

One would hope that with a company as established in the high end as Audemars Piguet, should any problem surface, it will be resolved to the entire satisfaction of the customer, and beyond. I would certainly require nothing less.


----------



## eamonn345 (Sep 29, 2013)

I have the 15400 (blue dial) and on many occasions I have thought of trading up to the 15202.

Still I haven't made my mind up!










See the differences below.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Those picks are great. Wish I could see it next to a 15300....If I may ask, how big is your wrist?



eamonn345 said:


> I have the 15400 (blue dial) and on many occasions I have thought of trading up to the 15202.
> 
> Still I haven't made my mind up!
> 
> ...


----------



## eamonn345 (Sep 29, 2013)

6.75 roughly




























Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

The 15400 is a bit bolder, with thicker hour markers. Definitely sportier and more modern. The 15202 is more subdued and understated which, although true to the original, I find a bit of a contradiction, since this is definitely a sporty watch design at the core.

That being said, those seeking a more refined and delicate design will surely appreciate the 15202, while those who are seeking something more modern will prefer the 15400.

Personally, I also find the "Grande Tapisserie" dial texture of the 15400 more appealing and more intricate to look at, simply mesmerizing, than the simpler, "Petite Tapisserie" motif used on the 15202 dial. Pure personal preference there.

I can also appreciate how someone who's into "vintage" things will appreciate the 15202 more. I realize I like classic things, with modern twists and benefits. For my personal use, I'd take the modern Blancpain Fifty Fathoms over a vintage one. The 15400 over a 15202, and am using a modern reinterpretation of the Speedmaster instead of the "original" 3570 for that very reason.

Things may change if and when I look for (and can afford) genuine collectibles that are not so much for use as to simply collect and display.

It's good that there is an alternative for every type of enthusiast/collector.


----------



## OoyalRak (Apr 17, 2014)

When I went to get my 15400 they also had a Jumbo. The jumbo fit me better but I wanted to go for the 15400. I preferred how it looked and felt. Plus, I like watching the second hand.

I have a problem with my date wheel stocking. It does it once or twice a week now. I love the watch too much to really part with it for a month. 

I thought when I purchased this it was hoping to be my one and only timepiece. I haven't worn a watch for nearly ten years and always told my self a Royal Oak would be on my wrist. Now.... I want another!

Both are amazing pieces. Much nicer to look at a sweeping second hand than a fixed image.... I mean unless the jumbo does some amazing movement every minute that I don't know about....

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

HRC-E.B. said:


> The 15400 is a bit bolder, with thicker hour markers. Definitely sportier and more modern. The 15202 is more subdued and understated which, although true to the original, I find a bit of a contradiction, since this is definitely a sporty watch design at the core.
> 
> That being said, those seeking a more refined and delicate design will surely appreciate the 15202, while those who are seeking something more modern will prefer the 15400.
> 
> ...


Very succinct, and ending with a very objective answer . . .


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

HRC-E.B. said:


> The 15400 is a bit bolder, with thicker hour markers. Definitely sportier and more modern. The 15202 is more subdued and understated which, although true to the original, I find a bit of a contradiction, since this is definitely a sporty watch design at the core.
> 
> That being said, those seeking a more refined and delicate design will surely appreciate the 15202, while those who are seeking something more modern will prefer the 15400.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I appreciate your opinions here.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

OoyalRak said:


> When I went to get my 15400 they also had a Jumbo. The jumbo fit me better but I wanted to go for the 15400. I preferred how it looked and felt. Plus, I like watching the second hand.
> 
> I have a problem with my date wheel stocking. It does it once or twice a week now. I love the watch too much to really part with it for a month.
> 
> ...


Yeah I really like a sweeping seconds as well. Tough choices. I am trying these all on next weekend. Hopefully things will become clear.


----------



## JaredSteadman (Oct 2, 2013)

Can I pick your brains... What's this?









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dsmcastro (Nov 26, 2013)

JaredSteadman said:


> Can I pick your brains... What's this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's one of many Hublot Big Bang models there are.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

I like all 3 variations for different reasons. In terms of sporty, 15400 leads the pack. 15300 is a compromise between the classic and the modern 15400 and the 15202 is the collectors choice.

My perfect APRO would be a 40mm with the 15202 movement, large modern tapisserie blue dial with the 15400 blue and the 15300 bracelet and a seconds hand ( I do realize its impossible ). 

For size comparison sake here is the 15400 with the SubC.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

lmcgbaj said:


> I like all 3 variations for different reasons. In terms of sporty, 15400 leads the pack. 15300 is a compromise between the classic and the modern 15400 and the 15202 is the collectors choice.
> 
> My perfect APRO would be a 40mm with the 15202 movement, large modern tapisserie blue dial with the 15400 blue and the 15300 bracelet and a seconds hand ( I do realize its impossible ).
> 
> For size comparison sake here is the 15400 with the SubC.


Ah, it's good to dream! What you describe sounds great.

Actually, its a very real fear that I would get either a 15400 or 15202, then next year have a smaller 15400 or a 15202 mod with a sweeping seconds be released.

But I suppose that risk always exists.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

hvgotcodes said:


> Actually, its a very real fear that I would get either a 15400 or 15202, then next year have a smaller 15400 or a 15202 mod with a sweeping seconds be released.
> 
> But I suppose that risk always exists.


I don't believe AP will mess with the 15202 anytime soon.

I also don't see them bringing back the 15300. Both 15400 and 15202 sell very well.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

lmcgbaj said:


> I don't believe AP will mess with the 15202 anytime soon.
> 
> I also don't see them bringing back the 15300. Both 15400 and 15202 sell very well.


That may be, but even if they created a "Royal Oak Ultra Thin" (let's call it), it wouldn't stop sales. Where else are they going to go with the RO?


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

hvgotcodes said:


> That may be, but even if they created a "Royal Oak Ultra Thin" (let's call it), it wouldn't stop sales. Where else are they going to go with the RO?


15202 is that classic ultra thin. Any thinner on a bracelet would look and feel wrong IMO. I think that those models are here to stay. Much like PP 5711, 15202 is a classic in that sense.

15400 is a much more modern interpretation of the classic RO with a more robust movement, quick-set date and a seconds hand. Maybe more dial colours?


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

lmcgbaj said:


> 15202 is that classic ultra thin. Any thinner on a bracelet would look and feel wrong IMO. I think that those models are here to stay. Much like PP 5711, 15202 is a classic in that sense.
> 
> 15400 is a much more modern interpretation of the classic RO with a more robust movement, quick-set date and a seconds hand. Maybe more dial colours?


Oh I agree. All Im saying is they could keep the 15202, keep the 15400, and simply add some other model that is like the 15202 but with a seconds hand. That's really what I would like.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Ok, so over the last week I visited the AD and tried on a 15400 and a 15202. Attached a pic.










If the 15400 is not too big, its on the border. Weird, because its smaller than my Omega AT, but it just wears big. The 15202 is perfect size.

The ONLY thing holding me back on the 202 is lack of seconds hand. If the 15400 were 39mm, I could jump on that too. This AD did have a 15300 but got rid of it, so I couldn't try it on, but Im not sure I like the dial as much as the one on the 400/202.

Has anyone ever felt this way re lack of seconds hand, then took the plunge and been ok with it? Or, alternatively, felt this way, took the plunge and couldn't get over it. When I put on the 202, it is the perfect size. It feels perfect. Again, I know how much I enjoy the sweep on my AT, and my only fear here is looking at the 202 and not seeing that, and resenting it.

For a 20k watch, I really want to be sure. On the other hand, I could probably sell it back to the AD if I don't take it and take a relatively small bath (still thousands of $$ though).

I also tried on a VC Overseas 3 hander; not too impressed compared to the Royal Oak. Also tried on some rolexes that I liked.

Maybe the play is to get a more modest rolex, and wait for AP to release a smaller RO with a seconds hand.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

15202 looks perfect on you.


----------



## Quotron (Dec 6, 2013)

hvgotcodes said:


> The ONLY thing holding me back on the 202 is lack of seconds hand. If the 15400 were 39mm, I could jump on that too. This AD did have a 15300 but got rid of it, so I couldn't try it on, but Im not sure I like the dial as much as the one on the 400/202.
> 
> Has anyone ever felt this way re lack of seconds hand, then took the plunge and been ok with it? Or, alternatively, felt this way, took the plunge and couldn't get over it. When I put on the 202, it is the perfect size. It feels perfect. Again, I know how much I enjoy the sweep on my AT, and my only fear here is looking at the 202 and not seeing that, and resenting it.


Well, one way of thinking about it is that the 2 hander is more faithful to the original, as that's how Genta designed the original Royal Oak (as well as the original Nautilus). However, it is to be *your* watch and it is *a lot* of money, so you shouldn't get anything you're not 100% enamored with.



> Maybe the play is to get a more modest rolex, and wait for AP to release a smaller RO with a seconds hand.


Did you try out a ref.15450 at 37mm? It has a seconds hand



lmcgbaj said:


> 15202 looks perfect on you.


Agreed, a much better fit.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Quotron said:


> Well, one way of thinking about it is that the 2 hander is more faithful to the original, as that's how Genta designed the original Royal Oak (as well as the original Nautilus). However, it is to be *your* watch and it is *a lot* of money, so you shouldn't get anything you're not 100% enamored with.


Yup, that is also something to consider. I want this to be my first serious watch, one worthy of true WIS. If it was good enough for Genta, I guess it should be good enough for the rest of us....Still, I like seeing the darn things do something.



> Did you try out a ref.15450 at 37mm? It has a seconds hand
> 
> Agreed, a much better fit.


Hmm, the 15450 is an interesting idea. I believe it has a see through case back eh? I guess it would be back to an AD to try it on....Does it come with a blue dial?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

hvgotcodes said:


> Yup, that is also something to consider. I want this to be my first serious watch, one worthy of true WIS. If it was good enough for Genta, I guess it should be good enough for the rest of us....Still, I like seeing the darn things do something.
> 
> Hmm, the 15450 is an interesting idea. I believe it has a *see through case back eh?* I guess it would be back to an AD to try it on....*Does it come with a blue dial*?


Yes, no . . .


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

drhr said:


> Yes, no . . .


I remember seeing your pics earlier in this thread. For some reason i thought this watch was a 15400. These are excellent pictures.

Owning both, do you have any special insights? Which do you wear more? Which is more fragile (or same)?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

hvgotcodes said:


> I remember seeing your pics earlier in this thread. For some reason i thought this watch was a 15400. These are excellent pictures.
> 
> Owning both, do you have any special insights? Which do you wear more? Which is more fragile (or same)?


Being small wristed at 6.5 inches, I had originally thought the 450 would fit better. When I acquired the 15202 I was surprised that I preferred it fit wise over the 450 so moved the 450 out. I think it has something, if not a lot to do with the fact that, while the Jumbo is larger, it is also thinner. I've never considered/found either watch to be fragile, certainly not for daily wear . . .


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

drhr said:


> Being small wristed at 6.5 inches, I had originally thought the 450 would fit better. When I acquired the 15202 I was surprised that I preferred it fit wise over the 450 so moved the 450 out. I think it has something, if not a lot to do with the fact that, while the Jumbo is larger, it is also thinner. I've never considered/found either watch to be fragile, certainly not for daily wear . . .


So you don't miss the 15450 for any reason?

Im trying to decide if i like the white dial better than the blue on the two models...(In addition to resolving the seconds hand issue)


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

hvgotcodes said:


> So you don't miss the 15450 for any reason?
> 
> Im trying to decide if i like the white dial better than the blue on the two models...(In addition to resolving the seconds hand issue)


The white dial is killer and that's the only thing that I miss. On the other hand, would I switch out my blue dial Jumbo for the white? No. The color, dial and size of the 15202 is perfect for/to me . . .


----------



## Quotron (Dec 6, 2013)

drhr said:


> Being small wristed at 6.5 inches, I had originally thought the 450 would fit better. When I acquired the 15202 I was surprised that I preferred it fit wise over the 450 so moved the 450 out. I think it has something, if not a lot to do with the fact that, while the Jumbo is larger, it is also thinner. I've never considered/found either watch to be fragile, certainly not for daily wear . . .


Did you find the additional 1.7mm that noticeable?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Quotron said:


> Did you find the additional 1.7mm that noticeable?


Yeah, I did. It was very noticeable to me, the 450 just felt chunky in comparison. Had I not buckled a 15202 on, the 450 would have been fine, if you know what I mean . . .


----------



## Omjlc (Dec 19, 2011)

When I tried on the 15450, the bracelet felt incredible tight and I would have had to bought an extra link to make it work (I don't have a large wrist). The 15202 and 15300 were far more comfortable and when I found a 15300, I had to take a link out.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

So I tried on the 15450 (gold, they didn't have steel).

I quite like the size (and the seconds hand), but the height feels a bit off. I see how drhr thinks the Jumbo is a better fit.










Also tried on this just for ****s and giggles


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 14, 2013)

hvgotcodes said:


> Also tried on this just for ****s and giggles


That's the creme de la creme watch for me.


----------



## Quotron (Dec 6, 2013)

drhr said:


> Yeah, I did. It was very noticeable to me, the 450 just felt chunky in comparison. Had I not buckled a 15202 on, the 450 would have been fine, if you know what I mean . . .


Understandable. Even though they're both thin compared to most watches, the '450 is 20% thicker than the Jumbo



hvgotcodes said:


> So I tried on the 15450 (gold, they didn't have steel).
> 
> I quite like the size (and the seconds hand), but the height feels a bit off. I see how drhr thinks the Jumbo is a better fit.
> 
> ...


Fit on the ref.15450 looks good. Are you thinking of going down the Nautlius road now?


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Quotron said:


> Understandable. Even though they're both thin compared to most watches, the '450 is 20% thicker than the Jumbo
> 
> Fit on the ref.15450 looks good. Are you thinking of going down the Nautlius road now?


Hmm. First off can't get one new till 2015 I was told. The 3 hander, which is the one I would consider, is only a few k more than the Jumbo, but the Jumbo is at the limit of my comfort zone. I would have to get a really good deal on a used one to even consider it. On watch recon they are all offered basically at retail, so the answer is no (probably ).

It is weird how the extra 1-2mm on the 15450 feels so big compared to the Jumbo.


----------



## Quotron (Dec 6, 2013)

hvgotcodes said:


> Hmm. First off can't get one new till 2015 I was told. The 3 hander, which is the one I would consider, is only a few k more than the Jumbo, but the Jumbo is at the limit of my comfort zone. I would have to get a really good deal on a used one to even consider it. On watch recon they are all offered basically at retail, so the answer is no (probably ).
> 
> It is weird how the extra 1-2mm on the 15450 feels so big compared to the Jumbo.


It's hard to get any sort of deal on a Nautilus, since PP is so strict with their steel references those things hold their value really well. It's not uncommon to see >10yr old references going for more than MSRP.

Very tough to go wrong with the Jumbo though, it has such a wonderful masculine elegance to it...


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

All

I really appreciate the conversation that occurred in this thread. 

I have made a decision. Unfortunately it will take roughly a month for me to finish this thing, but when I do unboxing pictures will be posted.

Thank you all again for everything that was shared.


----------



## Omjlc (Dec 19, 2011)

hvgotcodes said:


> All
> 
> I really appreciate the conversation that occurred in this thread.
> 
> ...


Look forward to the pics.

My guess the 15202.


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands (May 4, 2014)

hvgotcodes said:


> All
> 
> I really appreciate the conversation that occurred in this thread.
> 
> ...


Looking forward to the pics when you get it.

On a side note as we seem to be talking ROs, I don't see too many people on here with the rose gold on a leather strap. To the OP, what was your impression of it compared to the steel pieces? Anybody who has tried them care to chime in?
I realise that the bracelet is iconic but it seems (from pics and videos anyway) to be a nice balance of some gold but not 'full pimp' all gold bracelet


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

2muchtimeonmyhands said:


> Looking forward to the pics when you get it.
> 
> On a side note as we seem to be talking ROs, I don't see too many people on here with the rose gold on a leather strap. To the OP, what was your impression of it compared to the steel pieces? Anybody who has tried them care to chime in?
> I realise that the bracelet is iconic but it seems (from pics and videos anyway) to be a nice balance of some gold but not 'full pimp' all gold bracelet


I was not considering a gold model so none of my attention was really given over to thinking about those. Even when I held one in my hand my mind was thinking about it like it was steel. Apologies.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

found a way to move things up!!! 

Question: Can I overwind this thing or will it stop when I reach the limit? I was winding it and it never got any resistance so, I stopped out of fear....

This thing is so thin! Its like having a nice bracelet that happens to have a watch attached to it. And the movement is simply beautiful!!

Absolutely elated about having this on my wrist.


----------



## Omjlc (Dec 19, 2011)

Awesome buy. Truly beautiful piece. 

And no, you can't over wind the automatic movement.


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

Stunning !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Omjlc said:


> Awesome buy. Truly beautiful piece.
> 
> And no, you can't over wind the automatic movement.


Should it stop winding after a point?

Also, how should I go about cleaning it? With the Omega, I just run it under (very) hot water and let it air dry (no streaks). I'm afraid to even get this thing wet, even though it says 50m water resistance.

I gotta relax. Sorry for the newb questions; this is my first extraordinary watch so Im a bit worked up at the moment .


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

hvgotcodes said:


> Absolutely elated about having this on my wrist.


Looks good!!!

Please let us know about its accuracy - esp since there are very few data points about this particular movement


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

harryst said:


> Looks good!!!
> 
> Please let us know about its accuracy - esp since there are very few data points about this particular movement


Im kind of curious about how to even do that. I know I set it to my cable box's time, but since I can't stop the movement, I don't know exactly how far off it was to start. I guess the best I can do is see if there is some drift over time. Like after 1 wk its off 2 minutes or whatever....


----------



## Omjlc (Dec 19, 2011)

hvgotcodes said:


> Should it stop winding after a point?
> 
> Also, how should I go about cleaning it? With the Omega, I just run it under (very) hot water and let it air dry (no streaks). I'm afraid to even get this thing wet, even though it says 50m water resistance.
> 
> I gotta relax. Sorry for the newb questions; this is my first extraordinary watch so Im a bit worked up at the moment .


It won't stop winding. I clean it with a toothbrush and some soapy water. Rinse it under a running tap.

Hard to measure the accuracy with no seconds hand. I wouldn't worry about it.

Wear it well.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

You made the right choice ;-) . . . congrats on a beautiful, iconic watch!!


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Omjlc said:


> It won't stop winding. I clean it with a toothbrush and some soapy water. Rinse it under a running tap.
> 
> Hard to measure the accuracy with no seconds hand. I wouldn't worry about it.
> 
> Wear it well.


So just to be clear unlike my Omega, my Swiss Army (ETA), and my old mechanical watch I have from my grandfather, which all will stop winding when fully charged, this one won't?

Ok, your toothbrush method seems rougher than my "run it under (very) hot water" method, so Ill just do that...


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

drhr said:


> You made the right choice ;-) . . . congrats on a beautiful, iconic watch!!


Mahalo good sir!

Yeah I think I did. This watch is just awesome. Simple, elegant, sporty, and oozes class with every reflection of sunlight.

And the bracelet....oh man, the bracelet is something else entirely....

Anyway [snaps out of it], thanx again....


----------



## JCZ5 (Nov 30, 2013)

Looks like I joined this thread just in time to see the magnificent unveil. 

Looks fantastic and seems like a perfect fit on your wrist. Really liked the previous posts in how you made your decision. 

Please let us know your thoughts in a week after the honeymoon phase. Been looking into this as a new addition at some point.


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

hvgotcodes said:


> Im kind of curious about how to even do that. I know I set it to my cable box's time, but since I can't stop the movement, I don't know exactly how far off it was to start. I guess the best I can do is see if there is some drift over time. Like after 1 wk its off 2 minutes or whatever....


As follows:

Stare at you watch while the minute hand approaches a certain minute (eg in first wrist pic of yours it is at 5:43). At the moment you feel the hand is right-on, look at a reference value (say at time.is) and jot down the difference 
Wait for one week (or more) and do the same (not at necessarily the same time). 

Let's say the 2 measurements are 8 days apart. Divide the difference by the # of days.

I have noticed I can get a "feel" for when the minute hand is right-on-the minute marker within 5 secs or less (I have a watch w/o a seconds hand, too). So assuming an 8 day interval, we have a potential reading error of 0.625 s/d - not that bad (and it can go further down if one spreads out the measurements)

Now if you are very scientific, you will vary the position-at-rest every <x> days so you can update us on the state-of-affairs re crown-up/crown-down/....


----------



## incontrol (Sep 11, 2010)

Huge congrats on your choice of a truly iconic watch! It has been on my list for some time. Enjoy the heck out of it.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

incontrol said:


> Huge congrats on your choice of a truly iconic watch! It has been on my list for some time. Enjoy the heck out of it.


Thank you. In the honey moon phase, and I love it. Truly a work of art.

Wish it didn't feel so fragile though. Super worried about scratching the bracelet, but I think that's pretty unavoidable. Should I sink to the level of putting some sort of pad on my desk (half joking, half not)?


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

harryst said:


> As follows:
> 
> Stare at you watch while the minute hand approaches a certain minute (eg in first wrist pic of yours it is at 5:43). At the moment you feel the hand is right-on, look at a reference value (say at time.is) and jot down the difference
> Wait for one week (or more) and do the same (not at necessarily the same time).
> ...


Yeah its actually pretty amazing. It sill appears to be lined up exactly with the cable box. I'll try to remember to start officially doing this monday morning at work.


----------



## incontrol (Sep 11, 2010)

Don't worry about the bracelet or the bezel! Enjoy the watch and when it is time for service AP will make it like brand new again. I know it is easy for me to say, but I have marks on my PP Nautilus Bezel and I know they will make it like new as well. Just enjoy it to the max!


----------



## Quotron (Dec 6, 2013)

Jumbo looks like a great fit on your wrist, a really beautiful watch.

If you can bear to take it off your wrist it would be great to get some movement shots!


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

Omg hvgotcodes, that's so beautiful! The thinness makes it extremely elegant and classy.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Quotron said:


> Jumbo looks like a great fit on your wrist, a really beautiful watch.
> 
> If you can bear to take it off your wrist it would be great to get some movement shots!


Ask and ye shall receive.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Crunchy said:


> Omg hvgotcodes, that's so beautiful! The thinness makes it extremely elegant and classy.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Quotron (Dec 6, 2013)

hvgotcodes said:


> Ask and ye shall receive.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

so i have a question

you said that the 15450 doesn't fit the wrist as well as the 15202.
can you expound on that a little?

Because the 15450 is smaller and since the lug-to-lug width is shorter, I thought it would fit better on a smaller wrist than the 15202.
Or does the 15202 fit better because the bracelet is different? Do the bracelets hug around your wrist well?


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

shnjb said:


> so i have a question
> 
> you said that the 15450 doesn't fit the wrist as well as the 15202.
> can you expound on that a little?
> ...


its more about the thinness of the actual case on the 15202. The 15450 feels bulkier on the wrist because of the added height, and the smaller case of that piece compounds that feeling. To be clear the local AD did not have a 15450 in SS, so I couldn't really compare apples to apples; I could only have the case on the wrist, but there was no bracelet to close. And keep in mind that I only have this opinion because i tried on a 15202, so I knew what perfect felt like. In the absence of the 15202 I would have opted for the 15450 (or a used 15300).

If the 15450 was 39mm I might feel differently. Or in other words AP should bring back the 15300. 

i have to add that the bracelet of 15202 is simply perfect. You barely notice it. When you rotate your wrist the sunlight reflects off each link successively. It really is beautiful.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

hvgotcodes said:


> *its more about the thinness of the actual case on the 15202*. The 15450 feels bulkier on the wrist because of the added height, and the smaller case of that piece compounds that feeling. To be clear the local AD did not have a 15450 in SS, so I couldn't really compare apples to apples; I could only have the case on the wrist, but there was no bracelet to close. And keep in mind that I only have this opinion because i tried on a 15202, so I knew what perfect felt like. In the absence of the 15202 I would have opted for the 15450 (or a used 15300).
> 
> If the 15450 was 39mm I might feel differently. Or in other words AP should bring back the 15300.
> 
> i have to add that the bracelet of 15202 is simply perfect. You barely notice it. When you rotate your wrist the sunlight reflects off each link successively. It really is beautiful.


Agree. A large, thin watch can wear smaller than a small, thick one. Not in every instance of course but def the case (no pun) here . . .


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

Late to the party. Beautiful watch and definitely a classic. Looks great on you.


----------



## jforozco (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*

Guys,
Its been a while! But I am back. Now with my bday coming up I am in the hunt for pre-owned AP 15300 (I am open to all dials, white, black or blue). I think I am set on it being no older than a G series (maybe and F). Well, if you find an A series then I may just go for it!  (jk, don't think they even made a 15300 in 1972-75 or did they?).

anyways, let me know guys, I have 15 days.

thanks!


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



jforozco said:


> Guys,
> Its been a while! But I am back. Now with my bday coming up I am in the hunt for pre-owned AP 15300 (I am open to all dials, white, black or blue). I think I am set on it being no older than a G series (maybe and F). Well, if you find an A series then I may just go for it!  (jk, don't think they even made a 15300 in 1972-75 or did they?).
> 
> anyways, let me know guys, I have 15 days.
> ...


Hey IG buddy,

15 days is not much. I shopped for my 15300 for 3 months. I ended up trading it but that is another story. 

15300 is a great watch and definitely popular. Given that you have a 5726, I would probably choose the 15202 (if you do like it).

I am not sure myself, but if I had another Genta with a thick case/bracelet (your 5726), I would lean towards the thinner 15202 probably. That is only if you like 15202, since it can be a bit quirky.

I am sure your weight all your options already so I won't bother your with more choices.

15300 prices went up since beginning of the year because they are discontinued. For a MINT H or G 15300 you will pay more than a new 15400.

I do not recommend getting lower than G unless you get a crazy deal that would allow for a complete service.

Chrono24 has the greatest selections but the prices are quite high. If you add 5-6k to the price of a used MINT 15300 you can get a new 15202.

Cheers.


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

*Re: Let's tai Royal Oaks*



jforozco said:


> Guys,
> Its been a while! But I am back. Now with my bday coming up I am in the hunt for pre-owned AP 15300 (I am open to all dials, white, black or blue). I think I am set on it being no older than a G series (maybe and F). Well, if you find an A series then I may just go for it!  (jk, don't think they even made a 15300 in 1972-75 or did they?).
> 
> anyways, let me know guys, I have 15 days.
> ...


Your timing is off, I just sold my 15300 H series! 
I would of gladly sell it to you, oh well I am sure you will find something else. Maybe a rubber aquanaut.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

harryst said:


> As follows:
> 
> Stare at you watch while the minute hand approaches a certain minute (eg in first wrist pic of yours it is at 5:43). At the moment you feel the hand is right-on, look at a reference value (say at time.is) and jot down the difference
> Wait for one week (or more) and do the same (not at necessarily the same time).
> ...


I haven't been very scientific about it, but in the last 3 days its +30 seconds. The minute hand was as close to the marker as I could make it on the sync, and now the minute hand is almost exactly between the two markers for the current min and current +1, using time.is as the source of truth.

It rests face up when I don't wear it, I synced it on Monday, and I wore it Monday and today (not tuesday). By contrast, my Omega is still exactly in sync (to the second, kind of unbelievable).


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

Thanks!!! (we should create a database where all users will be entering their measurements)



hvgotcodes said:


> I haven't been very scientific about it, but in the last 3 days its +30 seconds


You have to check it after 10 days to *spread out* the measurement error (ie your eye); 3 days is too little.

After 10 days you can also change the rest-position (to, say, face down) (there are 6 rest positions in total. They will differ, most probably, wrt accuracy).



> By contrast, my Omega is still exactly in sync (to the second, kind of unbelievable).


It is not unbelievable at all. Search the forums a bit...


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

Very late to this thread.

I prefer the 15300 to the 15202 as I like my watches to have a second hand.

I've never tried on the 15400 so I'm not sure if the extra 2mm would look better on me or not? I find 39mm plenty big enough for this robust looking watch for now.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

Now that I've had the watch for a few weeks, I'm happy with my choice. I never had a chance to even see a 15300, so I can't say seeing one would not have changed my mind, but the 15202 is the epitome of sleek and elegant in a sports watch, and Im not sure how adding height to support a seconds hand can do anything but detract from those qualities, which in my mind is one of the two main selling points of the 15202 (the other being the horological significance of the movement and the watch itself).

In my experience, the extra 2mm of the 15400 wears very large.



GETS said:


> Very late to this thread.
> 
> I prefer the 15300 to the 15202 as I like my watches to have a second hand.
> 
> I've never tried on the 15400 so I'm not sure if the extra 2mm would look better on me or not? I find 39mm plenty big enough for this robust looking watch for now.


----------

