15202 and 15400 difference?

[brettpaul]

Can someone post a pic of the 2 side by side please...I've been looking at this piece for a while and, other than dial color, is there anything significant (e.g. improved movement, etc.).

AP novice so thanks in advance for the info!

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by brettpaul

Can someone post a pic of the 2 side by side please...I've been looking at this piece for a while and, other than dial color, is there anything significant (e.g. improved movement, etc.).

AP novice so thanks in advance for the info!

Off the top of my head.
Well aside of the obvious difference in size, the 15400 being 41mm and the 15202 being 39mm, and also substansially thinner.
The 15202 has the legendary 2121 movement.
The 15400 has the calibre 3120.
Lack of seconds hand on the 15202, and the shade of blue is different as you know.

The 15202 is truest to its origin, the 5402, and the first RO introduced in 1972.
IMO the 15202 is much more collectible, not to mention aesthetic.
It would be my choice.

I've missed a bunch of differences that other guys will definitely point out.

All the best!

Also. Hit me up if you're in Bahrain, let us have a WIS get-together! :D

[el1125]

Originally Posted by crazypilot

Off the top of my head.
Well aside of the obvious difference in size, the 15400 being 41mm and the 15202 being 39mm, and also substansially thinner.
The 15202 has the legendary 2121 movement.
The 15400 has the calibre 3120.
Lack of seconds hand on the 15202, and the shade of blue is different as you know.

The 15202 is truest to its origin, the 5402, and the first RO introduced in 1972.
IMO the 15202 is much more collectible, not to mention aesthetic.
It would be my choice.

I've missed a bunch of differences that other guys will definitely point out.

All the best!

Also. Hit me up if you're in Bahrain, let us have a WIS get-together! :D

Great summary 👍 think you nailed it!

[subtona]

You must try them on to appreciate it.

The 15202 is significantly slimmer and once you put it on, you immediately feel the reason it is an icon.

[brettpaul]

Originally Posted by crazypilot

Off the top of my head.
Well aside of the obvious difference in size, the 15400 being 41mm and the 15202 being 39mm, and also substansially thinner.
The 15202 has the legendary 2121 movement.
The 15400 has the calibre 3120.
Lack of seconds hand on the 15202, and the shade of blue is different as you know.

The 15202 is truest to its origin, the 5402, and the first RO introduced in 1972.
IMO the 15202 is much more collectible, not to mention aesthetic.
It would be my choice.

I've missed a bunch of differences that other guys will definitely point out.

All the best!

Also. Hit me up if you're in Bahrain, let us have a WIS get-together! :D

PM sent mate!

[jjnd08]

Originally Posted by crazypilot

Off the top of my head.
Well aside of the obvious difference in size, the 15400 being 41mm and the 15202 being 39mm, and also substansially thinner.
The 15202 has the legendary 2121 movement.
The 15400 has the calibre 3120.
Lack of seconds hand on the 15202, and the shade of blue is different as you know.

The 15202 is truest to its origin, the 5402, and the first RO introduced in 1972.
IMO the 15202 is much more collectible, not to mention aesthetic.
It would be my choice.

I've missed a bunch of differences that other guys will definitely point out.

All the best!

Also. Hit me up if you're in Bahrain, let us have a WIS get-together! :D

Great summary. I'll add on where I can.

Thickness is 8.1mm for the 202, and 9.8mm for the 400; 9.8mm is still VERY thin for a watch, especially one that is 41mm. I like it because it gives it a tad bit more wrist presence.

I also wouldn't call only one of the movements "legendary." The 3120 movement is no slouch.

You also have different dial colors available with the 400, so you can always switch your dial at a service if you desire (if you buy a black/silver dial, you cannot get the blue dial).

One thing to note is the bezel to dial ratio. It is very evident when you compare these two live. I like the larger dial and slimmer bezel on the 400; when I look at the 202, it just seems like too much bezel surrounding the smaller dial. I have no idea on the dimensions, but I noticed it visually.

Also, the bracelet is thinner on the 202. Some like it, some prefer the more substantial feel to the bracelet of the 400.

When I tried on the 202, it seemed that the end of the case where the bracelet starts was at a slightly different angle than on the 400. This different angle made the bracelet not hug my wrist as well as the 400 does.

You can't go wrong either way though; but you need to try on both if possible.

[brettpaul]

Thanks gents - have access to a 15400 in Riyadh so I'll try that first! Thanks for the quick and detailed replies!!

Just hope I don't buy it and flip it like I did my 5711 and 5167! Something keeps me in Rolex as I just don't feel the same emotion with anything else yet.

[Manofsteelpt]

Once you strap on an AP, it's lights out for lots of brands.

[yjfang]

Yep I learned this the harder way. Started with a black 15400 (because it was a lot cheaper) then after while, lost interest in it. Later, could not stop looking at the 15202 and eventually replaced the 15400. I've now owned the 15202 for a while and I still love it.

Originally Posted by subtona

You must try them on to appreciate it.

The 15202 is significantly slimmer and once you put it on, you immediately feel the reason it is an icon.

[thomaspp]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapince]

Originally Posted by brettpaul

Thanks gents - have access to a 15400 in Riyadh so I'll try that first! Thanks for the quick and detailed replies!!

Just hope I don't buy it and flip it like I did my 5711 and 5167! Something keeps me in Rolex as I just don't feel the same emotion with anything else yet.

You flipped both 5167 and 5711? You know in that case I'm not sure you'll keep either a 15202 or 15400, I mean both are ultra thin and light as are the 2 AP, so if you keep coming back to Rolex you must like big, thick and heavy watches, 3 things that these RO are NOT, maybe a ROO would be more appealing to you as having flipped the 2 PP you are buying AP RO which IMO are quite close to the 5711, maybe you can tell us what you didn't like in the PP's? I'm afraid you won't like the AP more than the PP, might be wrong but I suspect not… I had 4 Rolex and I couldn't wear them anymore after getting my 5712 as I couldn't bear the thickness and weight and the overall lack of comfort compared to the Patek, after having them on for 45 minutes I always took them off to wear the Patek, you should seriously think about it and try to understand, if you don't know, what you didn't like in the Pateks

[csi-n]

Note that the Tapisserie patterns are also different; one is slightly "denser" than the other.


Sam

[Abdullasaif]

Just some pictures I am receiving mine this month so I wouldn't want to speculate the differences yet until I get my hands on the 15202 in steel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Abdullasaif]

Originally Posted by brettpaul

Thanks gents - have access to a 15400 in Riyadh so I'll try that first! Thanks for the quick and detailed replies!!

Just hope I don't buy it and flip it like I did my 5711 and 5167! Something keeps me in Rolex as I just don't feel the same emotion with anything else yet.

I must be reading this wrong you flipped a 5711

[Sammk]

The rest all see, fine but I really don't get one thing. How is it more "collectible". Ive heard alot of other people say the same about the 15202. Not that AP is going to seize production of the 15202, it's probably gonna go till the end of time. Is it because it's more close to the original 1972 royal oak? Even if it is what makes it more "collectible"

Originally Posted by crazypilot

Off the top of my head.
Well aside of the obvious difference in size, the 15400 being 41mm and the 15202 being 39mm, and also substansially thinner.
The 15202 has the legendary 2121 movement.
The 15400 has the calibre 3120.
Lack of seconds hand on the 15202, and the shade of blue is different as you know.

The 15202 is truest to its origin, the 5402, and the first RO introduced in 1972.
IMO the 15202 is much more collectible, not to mention aesthetic.
It would be my choice.

I've missed a bunch of differences that other guys will definitely point out.

All the best!

Also. Hit me up if you're in Bahrain, let us have a WIS get-together! :D

[Sammk]

Are these both yours?

Originally Posted by thomaspp

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thomaspp]

Originally Posted by Sammk

Are these both yours?

They were, the 15400 is no longer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by Sammk

The rest all see, fine but I really don't get one thing. How is it more "collectible". Ive heard alot of other people say the same about the 15202. Not that AP is going to seize production of the 15202, it's probably gonna go till the end of time. Is it because it's more close to the original 1972 royal oak? Even if it is what makes it more "collectible"

I think that is exactly why. Because it is really close to the original 1972 launched RO.
That and the fact that it is much more limited in production.
It is far easier to get a 15400 than a 15202, and that has made the demand for it even higher, naturally.
I think purists love a watch that is closest to its origin, at least from the guys that I have spoken to, and that is why I think it is much more sought out for.

It is eventually going to stop production. Not today, or next year, but say in 20 years for example, and the 15202 will still be the 40 anniversary that was launched as a very similar entry to it's original.
In 50 years from today, the 40th anniversary will remain to have it's significance I think.

That's just how I think of it. I don't own it by the way, so I am not biased towards either!

[ap1]

Love this one

[SMD]

No way to know upfront for sure which watches will and will not be collectible. Lots of 15202's around, and they go for a discount BNIB. Buy the one you like the best and don't worry about what may be 20 years from now, because no one knows.

[brettpaul]

Originally Posted by Abdullasaif

Just some pictures I am receiving mine this month so I wouldn't want to speculate the differences yet until I get my hands on the 15202 in steel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for all the pics mate - very good looking pieces!!

[brettpaul]

Originally Posted by Abdullasaif

Just some pictures I am receiving mine this month so I wouldn't want to speculate the differences yet until I get my hands on the 15202 in steel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Abdullasaif

I must be reading this wrong you flipped a 5711

I know, it was very bad form, but I wore the watch for two months and it just felt delicate - I'll likely pick up a 5980 or 5990 as I like the weight. Still deciding whether or not to pick up the 5960 1/A so its just timing.

[Sammk]

Nice Thomas. May I ask why you let go of the 15400? Also what's your wrist size?

Originally Posted by thomaspp

They were, the 15400 is no longer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sammk]

You don't own one YET. My prediction is you wil very soon ...may I ask when was the 15202 launched?

Originally Posted by crazypilot

I think that is exactly why. Because it is really close to the original 1972 launched RO.
That and the fact that it is much more limited in production.
It is far easier to get a 15400 than a 15202, and that has made the demand for it even higher, naturally.
I think purists love a watch that is closest to its origin, at least from the guys that I have spoken to, and that is why I think it is much more sought out for.

It is eventually going to stop production. Not today, or next year, but say in 20 years for example, and the 15202 will still be the 40 anniversary that was launched as a very similar entry to it's original.
In 50 years from today, the 40th anniversary will remain to have it's significance I think.

That's just how I think of it. I don't own it by the way, so I am not biased towards either!

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by Sammk

You don't own one YET. My prediction is you wil very soon ...may I ask when was the 15202 launched?

Launched in 2012.
Believe me I would have owned this one a while ago if it just rested well on my small wrists.
I have tried it on so many times, and still find myself finding it in the flesh to try it on, just to convince myself that it doesn't look too large.

I also may buy it anyway just to see if the size grows on me.
I'll never know unless I try.

The 5711 is definitely keeping me happy though.
The only reason I steered towards it is because the AP was too large btw.
I do love it though.

[yjfang]

If I can only have 1 AP, it would be the 15202.

[Abdullasaif]

Originally Posted by brettpaul

I know, it was very bad form, but I wore the watch for two months and it just felt delicate - I'll likely pick up a 5980 or 5990 as I like the weight. Still deciding whether or not to pick up the 5960 1/A so its just timing.

The 1520 is as delicate especially the crown and when changing the date since there's no quick set function


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yjfang]

I don't bother changing the date on my 15202 or my other watches for that matter.

[TheMethod]

Originally Posted by Abdullasaif

The 1520 is as delicate especially the crown and when changing the date since there's no quick set function


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is the only thing I don't like about the 15202 but going back and forth from 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock isn't that bad.

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by yjfang

I don't bother changing the date on my 15202 or my other watches for that matter.

that's too funny