Royal Oak "Jumbo" Extra Thin ?

[epc2]

It's great to hear that prices are coming down and you're closer to getting the watch you've been eyeing! The absence of a seconds hand is definitely something to consider, especially if you enjoy the motion and sweeping action. While it does contribute to the sleek, thin design of the Extra Thin, it can be an adjustment if you're used to having a seconds hand. Some find the minimalist look appealing and appreciate the elegance it brings, but it ultimately comes down to personal preference. If the aesthetics and thin profile outweigh the need for a seconds hand, it might still be the perfect watch for you.

[learningtofly]

I've had plenty of watches without a seconds hand and have always found it quite liberating!

[Steele]

No seconds hands

And I love them

[Octagon Guy]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

Technically, the date window has moved by a fraction of a tapisserie square, so it is a new dial, with otherwise identical design.

Really? I didn't notice that when I compare both physically side by side.

[IGY]

When I first started looking at Royal Oaks, they all looked the same to me. It took me a year and a half to buy one from an AP House and while the lack of instant gratification was frustrating, when so much else in life is available instantly, that period of reflection enabled me time to understand the nuances between the variations in the current catalogue and some of the greatest hits from the past catalogues.

Colin Chapman the original head designer for Lotus Cars came up with the philosophy for car design for "just add lightness". He was 100% correct.

In the same way there is something very special about the Jumbo. In a strange way the lack of a seconds hand is a "feature"! I suppose it is about reducing clutter and refining the watch down to its essence. It also makes the watch easier to reset if you are changing watches often, not using a watch winder and one of those obsessive types (like me) that likes to rescync seconds hands to an atomic clock. (I know it is pointless but I can't help it). Then there is the historical significance that this was the way that Genta designed it and that counts for something with most people.

Plus there are the three significant things about the Jumbo not linked to the seconds hand:

1) 39mm. For the median men's wrist this is not too small. Not too large. Goldilocks.

2) Thin. A really slick thickness to diameter ratio. Wears super close to the skin, glides under a cuff. Not too thin, like a wafer biscuit to seem flimsy like some of those Bulgari and similar super watches. Chef's kiss thin.

3) The fine texture you get from the petite tapisserie compared to the grand or jumbo tapisserie.

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Octagon Guy

Really? I didn't notice that when I compare both physically side by side.

I see, not everyone has as much idle time at their hands as I seem to do...
15202 left, 16202 right. The date window moved by a fraction of a square to the right.

[Octagon Guy]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

I see, not everyone has as much idle time at their hands as I seem to do...
15202 left, 16202 right. The date window moved by a fraction of a square to the right.

That's a real minor detail!

[Mbbgysam]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

I see, not everyone has as much idle time at their hands as I seem to do...
15202 left, 16202 right. The date window moved by a fraction of a square to the right.

Could be my eyes, but does the lume look wider on the 15202 hour markers?

[gretch6364]

Big improvement in the date positioning;-)

[gates]

so I just wore my 15202 to dinner tonight, fantastic piece but these have notoriously erratic movements - mine included, if you are a stickler for Patek like precision on a watch movement at this price... dont buy a 15202

[WatchTimes]

I am really leaning towards a 16202 IF gray prices ever come down a bit more (I just have a hard time paying almost 2X mentally but as I said I get it's supply and demand)
I keep looking at the Patek but I just never enjoy wearing watches on straps, I never have had a good fit. I really like the 5172 but I just know while I'll love the watch, I wont love wearing it so whats the point?
I have a vintage AP manual Ultra Thin Skeleton my dad bought in Paris in the 60s and I really think the 16202 would compliment it well (an elegant ultra thin AP dress watch and a ultra thin AP sports watch)

[Vivalas]

Out of curiosity how many jumbo’s do they make a year?

When I picked up my 16202 the other week I asked if it was around 2,000 and was told less. Quick search on the internet:

The fact that it is one of the most well-designed and powerful watch icons in the world, the Ref. 15202 ST gets even more desirable because of its limited numbers. In a recent interview with McKinsey & Company, AP’s chief, François-Henry Bennahmias, said, “We could sell 2,500, maybe 3,000 of our Royal Oak ‘Jumbo’ Extra-Thin models a year. But we only make 900. If we made 3,000 pieces tomorrow, no one would want it. That’s just how it works.”

^^^ FHB said that in January 2022.

I’m guessing that as AP have increased production to around 50,000 watches a year, they make more 16202’s than they did 15202’s?

[explorerdude]

There have also been a bunch of variations in how blue the dial is. The sunburst is stronger on later 15202s and 16202s, and the 16202 dial can even be black at some angles

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Vivalas

Out of curiosity how many jumbo’s do they make a year?

When I picked up my 16202 the other week I asked if it was around 2,000 and was told less. Quick search on the internet:

The fact that it is one of the most well-designed and powerful watch icons in the world, the Ref. 15202 ST gets even more desirable because of its limited numbers. In a recent interview with McKinsey & Company, AP’s chief, François-Henry Bennahmias, said, “We could sell 2,500, maybe 3,000 of our Royal Oak ‘Jumbo’ Extra-Thin models a year. But we only make 900. If we made 3,000 pieces tomorrow, no one would want it. That’s just how it works.”

^^^ FHB said that in January 2022.

I’m guessing that as AP have increased production to around 50,000 watches a year, they make more 16202’s than they did 15202’s?

There's a bunch of variations of this quote - in a different interview he mentioned 1500, IIRC. Maybe it was steel vs all 16202s..

[Vivalas]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

There's a bunch of variations of this quote - in a different interview he mentioned 1500, IIRC. Maybe it was steel vs all 16202s..

So we’re none the wiser then

I guess it will only ever be approximate as they just don’t release exact figures.

[squall1]

The SA I just met with in Zurich said 3000 across all Jimbo variants.

[Audevache]

Originally Posted by squall1

The SA I just met with in Zurich said 3000 across all Jimbo variants.

When I got mine, I heard from my SA that there are around 1000 16202ST being produced per year, so we are in the same ballpark.

In a nutshell, that would mean that less than 3000 16202ST have been produced since the launch of the new caliber in 2022.

[APhound]

I wonder if they would do what Patek did 5711/5811 and quit making it in stainless. They can sell just as many in white gold etc and make a lot more money. In fact I would have preferred mine to be white gold anyway, I never even requested a stainless one and was a little disappointed when it was offered to me (I know, I know!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vivalas]

Originally Posted by APhound

I never even requested a stainless one and was a little disappointed when it was offered to me (I know, I know!)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha ha you win the award for the best first world problem

[WatchTimes]

Originally Posted by APhound

I wonder if they would do what Patek did 5711/5811 and quit making it in stainless. They can sell just as many in white gold etc and make a lot more money. In fact I would have preferred mine to be white gold anyway, I never even requested a stainless one and was a little disappointed when it was offered to me (I know, I know!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wish I had that problem....
At MSRP I wouldn't think twice about buying it and wearing it!
It would be a keeper for me to pass down to my son with the AP Ultra Thin skeleton my father passed down to me which he bought in Paris in the 60s.

[nazarian]

Originally Posted by WatchTimes

I wish I had that problem....
At MSRP I wouldn't think twice about buying it and wearing it!
It would be a keeper for me to pass down to my son with the AP Ultra Thin skeleton my father passed down to me which he bought in Paris in the 60s.

Would love to see a pic of the vintage piece

[GW44]

Originally Posted by APhound

I wonder if they would do what Patek did 5711/5811 and quit making it in stainless. They can sell just as many in white gold etc and make a lot more money. In fact I would have preferred mine to be white gold anyway, I never even requested a stainless one and was a little disappointed when it was offered to me (I know, I know!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suggest you wash your mouth out sir

Joking aside I’d happily sell most of my collection and just have 4/5 Jumbo’s in different configurations if I could.

[APhound]

I think I’m just not really used to it yet still. It just seems a tad delicate compared to my 41s. I really really wanted the white gold grainy dial one (sorry I’m terrible with ref #s). I’m just a little cautious with it when I wear it and I don’t have that feeling with any of my other watches.
Of course it’s a no brainer at retail price. I’m used to bigger watches, usually wear an offshore, but the size is literally perfection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vivalas]

Originally Posted by APhound

I think I’m just not really used to it yet still. It just seems a tad delicate compared to my 41s. I really really wanted the white gold grainy dial one (sorry I’m terrible with ref #s). I’m just a little cautious with it when I wear it and I don’t have that feeling with any of my other watches.
Of course it’s a no brainer at retail price. I’m used to bigger watches, usually wear an offshore, but the size is literally perfection.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair that’s similar to me. I wanted the jumbo for a long time - aesthetically it’s the perfect watch. It’s pure class without a doubt and hard to find any fault. I tend to wear it though with delicacy in mind for some reason. Going out for a meal, work in an office etc.

With my 41mm I just wear it. Feels the perfect size for a watch. It takes a bit of time adjusting to a smaller watch when everything previously tends to start at 41mm. I’ve a Daytona and always felt that s tad small. I’d say it wears more 39mm than the 40mm it claims to be.

[GW44]

Originally Posted by APhound

I think I’m just not really used to it yet still. It just seems a tad delicate compared to my 41s. I really really wanted the white gold grainy dial one (sorry I’m terrible with ref #s). I’m just a little cautious with it when I wear it and I don’t have that feeling with any of my other watches.
Of course it’s a no brainer at retail price. I’m used to bigger watches, usually wear an offshore, but the size is literally perfection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This one buddy?

https://www.audemarspiguet.com/com/e...1240BC.02.html

Joking aside I concur about the delicacy of the Jumbo compared to larger references but on the wrist it’s just so right I delight in wearing it over my 40-43mm pieces.

[GW44]

Originally Posted by Vivalas

To be fair that’s similar to me. I wanted the jumbo for a long time - aesthetically it’s the perfect watch. It’s pure class without a doubt and hard to find any fault. I tend to wear it though with delicacy in mind for some reason. Going out for a meal, work in an office etc.

With my 41mm I just wear it. Feels the perfect size for a watch. It takes a bit of time adjusting to a smaller watch when everything previously tends to start at 41mm. I’ve a Daytona and always felt that s tad small. I’d say it wears more 39mm than the 40mm it claims to be.

I wore mine to Aldi earlier on…..living the delicate dream here Stephen

[Vivalas]

Originally Posted by GW44

I wore mine to Aldi earlier on…..living the delicate dream here Stephen

Aldi? Is that the shopping equivalent of people who like to fly economy? Asking for a friend

[SpeedyTuomas]

Originally Posted by APhound

I think I’m just not really used to it yet still. It just seems a tad delicate compared to my 41s. I really really wanted the white gold grainy dial one (sorry I’m terrible with ref #s). I’m just a little cautious with it when I wear it and I don’t have that feeling with any of my other watches.
Of course it’s a no brainer at retail price. I’m used to bigger watches, usually wear an offshore, but the size is literally perfection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if you like the Offshore, then the 16202 is not for you. Like complete opposites. A classic piece for classic (boring) guys.

[APhound]

Originally Posted by SpeedyTuomas

Well if you like the Offshore, then the 16202 is not for you. Like complete opposites. A classic piece for classic (boring) guys.

I don’t really agree with that. I think they compliment each other really well. I wouldn’t get rid of either.
I really hope I’m not coming across negative on the 16202. It’s an amazingly perfect watch it really is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[APhound]

Those are the two I would run off with but I’m not getting rid of any of them. Love them all almost equally- whichever one I’m wearing is my favorite.
I guess I was just really hoping for that white gold jumbo and was just surprised to get the stainless one. It was kind of a relief though bc like a week before I was asking about a rose gold tourb w the grey dial and he was like ya that’s like 230k or whatever and then he texted me saying good news! I’ll have a watch for you this afternoon and I was like uh oh I gotta find some money! Then he sent me the 16202 at like $36k and I was like ohhh ok that’s not so bad!
And again- it’s awesome and I’m very fortunate to have it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk