Jumbo 15202 vs 15400

[Dcmk]

Seems like the 15400 is gaining popularity amongst the community here from the postings we are seeing of new ownership of this piece and proclamations of love for it.

The 15202 Jumbo on the other hand seems to be hiding in the background? Anyone getting or already got this beauty?

I was comparing the two at the AP boutique and was encouraged to go for the Jumbo as its more classy and importantly more original if you may pit it that way to the first origins of the royal oak and the 39mm size is the best size for the oak. I wear big watches like panerai but when wearing the oak the 39mm seems perfect size for the oak while the 15400 seems a bit out of proportion like being large for fashion purposes only.

What are your thoughts ?

[rolepam312]

I respectfully disagree that the 15400 is out of proportion. I too own a Panerai but prefer watches that are more reasonable in size.. I was deciding between a 15300 and 15400, I chose the latter for the very reason that it looked more proportional and modern. I suppose we should be glad that AP gives us choices, obviously one can't go wrong with either choice.

[subtona]

I really am a fan of the 202, it has the most amazing balanced dial... The 400 is more robust but it cant hold a candle in the looks dept imho

[singe89]

I'm a pretty big guy (6'2" and muscular 230lbs) and much prefer the larger size of the 15400. Just like I prefer the 41mm DJII vs the original 36mm DJ. In fact I doubt I would own a RO if it was less than 41mm. I actually really like the RO with skeletonized movements or annual calendars but the 39mm size is too small for me. I also prefer the hands on the 15400 vs the sausage hands of the jumbo.

[Dcmk]

Originally Posted by subtona

I really am a fan of the 202, it has the most amazing balanced dial... The 400 is more robust but it cant hold a candle in the looks dept imho

Absolutely agree

[VICI]

Both gorgeous pieces.

For a larger wrist, the 15400 is perfectly balanced.

[kilyung]

It doesn't get much better than the 202!


Ok, maybe the RG 202!

[Kevin's (incontrol) pic]

[benlee]

Maybe I am not enough of an AP purist but to me, the difference are rather academic. So it depends if the slimmer design and the slightly nicer blue dial of the 15202 is worth the huge premium over the 15400.

[Acro-Pilot]

The 2121 movement in the new 15202 is the same movement they used in the original making it more historically correct...along with the 39mm size. To some, this is an incidental. To me, it makes all the difference.

[Dcmk]

Originally Posted by benlee

Maybe I am not enough of an AP purist but to me, the difference are rather academic. So it depends if the slimmer design and the slightly nicer blue dial of the 15202 is worth the huge premium over the 15400.

The premium is worth it when you are getting THE Royal Oak ! I was deliberating over this and knew that I would not be satisfied with the 15400 although I do like big watches but if I was not prepared to appreciate and accept the RO in its true form and size I best not get it. The 15400 is very nice as well but it's just in a different league from the jumbo. It's like a modern day RO modified to suit fashion trends. I prefer the heritage classic style of the original.

[Submarino]

Originally Posted by Dcmk

The premium is worth it when you are getting THE Royal Oak ! I was deliberating over this and knew that I would not be satisfied with the 15400 although I do like big watches but if I was not prepared to appreciate and accept the RO in its true form and size I best not get it. The 15400 is very nice as well but it's just in a different league from the jumbo. It's like a modern day RO modified to suit fashion trends. I prefer the heritage classic style of the original.

Gentleman, not trying to stir the pot here but there's only one Royal Oak that can be THE Royal Oak and that is the 5402.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by Submarino

Gentleman, not trying to stir the pot here but there's only one Royal Oak that can be THE Royal Oak and that is the 5402.

How true but the 15202 is more the spiritual successor to the 5402. Particularly when mint 5402s are very very hard to come by.

[dpkong]

Originally Posted by Dcmk

The premium is worth it when you are getting THE Royal Oak ! I was deliberating over this and knew that I would not be satisfied with the 15400 although I do like big watches but if I was not prepared to appreciate and accept the RO in its true form and size I best not get it. The 15400 is very nice as well but it's just in a different league from the jumbo. It's like a modern day RO modified to suit fashion trends. I prefer the heritage classic style of the original.

Do consider the 15300 instead. I have looked between the 3 models and if I had to have one, it will be the 15300.

[mdtddd2007]

no contest...btw the two I choose the 202! this is also on my wish list!

[drhr]

Subjectively personal for sure, but size was my primary concern and the 202 was as large as I could handle. 'Course all the history, original movement stuff, etc didn't hinder my choice . . .

[subtona]

Originally Posted by kilyung

It doesn't get much better than the 202!


Ok, maybe the RG 202!

[Kevin's (incontrol) pic]

Originally Posted by drhr

Subjectively personal for sure, but size was my primary concern and the 202 was as large as I could handle. 'Course all the history, original movement stuff, etc didn't hinder my choice . . .

202
No second hand is beautiful

[Submarino]

I now own a 5402, a 15300 and a 15400. While I've always been a purist when it comes to Royal Oaks -which by the way I started collecting in 1998- I feel each of them has their pros and cons. The 15300 and 15400 have the advantage of a quick-set calendar, a more robust case and a screw-down crown. On the other side, the 5402 is the original Gerald Genta design and while the 15202 is very close to it, the display case back is something that breaks with the original monoblock case design of the original Jumbo 5402 that I personally, have always loved.

Something I love about the 15400 is the dial with the double baton at 12 o'clock and how the batons reflect light more than on other dials because of their shape but also due to the flatter and over polished flange that reflects light more than the curved shaped ones on the 15300, 15202 or 5402.

At the end of the day, each Royal Oak has its own unique personality and specific occasions for each to be worn.

[montres1]

it would be cool if they make version with markers of 26511 instead of stick markers
ref. 26511

img credit hodinkee

something like this reference but with markers of 26511

img credit RPR

[Cru Jones]

i feel that if i wanted just two hands, i would want to go all-in and go for the 5402. but, i like seeing things move on the dial, though, so 15400 for me. in blue.

i perfect blend of sport & class that has a clear connection to genta while having its own modern flair. love it.

[Chulo]

Totally different animals. The 202 is slim and extremely elegant. It does not have a quick set date, which is why mine usually is off. The 2121 movement is one of the nicer ones out there. The 15400 is more robust, has a better band, quick set date, and a screw down crown. Almost like a water cooled versus air cooled 911 debate.

[texex91]

Originally Posted by Chulo

Totally different animals. The 202 is slim and extremely elegant. It does not have a quick set date, which is why mine usually is off. The 2121 movement is one of the nicer ones out there. The 15400 is more robust, has a better band, quick set date, and a screw down crown. Almost like a water cooled versus air cooled 911 debate.

Well Ben we know who wins that 911 debate

202 is more a dress up watch, great history, very thin, goes great with suit.

15400 great all around watch, dress up OR down, great with shorts or suit. Love the flexibility of 15400. I also like the size over 202.

[Chulo]

Originally Posted by texex91

Well Ben we know who wins that 911 debate

Both

[HKRolexFans]

It won't go wrong either for 202 or 400 but personally I prefer 202 because it resembles the original RO and the premium over 400 definitely worths every penny. Cheers.

[michaelryuen]

At the end of day, I will only pay to whatever that sang to me.
I've got a small wrist so only a 37mm 15450ST fitted best on me. I do adore other models in terms of their aesthetics and related histories but when its on my wrist it look like a clock ..

[AK797]

As Im discovering rapidly Im a modernist and the old hobnail dial of the 202, tho classic, seems just a but dated to me, esp with the new 400s incredibly vibrant, iridescent silver/white tapisserie dial.

[craniotes]

A supremely one-sided contest in my book (15202 all the way, though in my case, the previous version with the shallower rehaut, slimmer bracelet/case, AP deployant and more ornate rotor), but hey, different strokes for different folks, right?

Regards,
Adam

[jojosnr]

both r interpretations of the original. so choose anyone that you like. not that one is more original than the other, just diff movement, face and size..

[craniotes]

Originally Posted by jojosnr

both r interpretations of the original. so choose anyone that you like. not that one is more original than the other, just diff movement, face and size..

The movement, face (dial) and size (diameter/thickness) are exactly what makes one more original than the other; what they don't do is make one better or one worse.

Just sayin'.

Regards,
Adam

[jojosnr]

a tribute or interpretation is just what is it. it is not the original. how can something be more original when it is not. and when it is not, it is just another similar watch. the weather is good today so pls excuse me.

Originally Posted by craniotes

The movement, face (dial) and size (diameter/thickness) are exactly what makes one more original than the other; what they don't do is make one better or one worse.

Just sayin'.

Regards,
Adam

[incontrol]

The biggest reason I do not own a RO yet is because I can not decide between the 15300 and the new 202. I feel I could regret it if my choice is not the 15202 however!


Sent from Kevin's Tapatalk!