Cult following for the 39mm Royal Oak

[jag32]

It seems there is a cult like following for the 39mm Royal Oak and the 15202 in particular but not the 15300. Why is the 15202 so much more work sought after than the 15300 when they are both 39mm and pretty much visually look the same? For me, the 15300 is more preferable because I don’t like watches without second hands. Also, besides just an appropriate fit/size, what are are your reasons for preferring the 39mm RO to the 41mm RO? Is it mostly out of historical importance of 39mm being THE original RO?

[V25V]

So does the market price of the 15202/15300 bother you as much as the 5164a?

[jag32]

Originally Posted by V25V

So does the market price of the 15202/15300 bother you as much as the 5164a?

No, it’s high but justifiable and still reasonable. 5164 is just silly...but this thread isn’t about. Market prices.

[rotan]

Originally Posted by jag32

It seems there is a cult like following for the 39mm Royal Oak and the 15202 in particular but not the 15300. Why is the 15202 so much more work sought after than the 15300 when they are both 39mm and pretty much visually look the same? For me, the 15300 is more preferable because I don’t like watches without second hands. Also, besides just an appropriate fit/size, what are are your reasons for preferring the 39mm RO to the 41mm RO? Is it mostly out of historical importance of 39mm being THE original RO?

Hi jag, I’m a 15202 owner so maybe I can relate better. First off is the case size of 39mm which suits small wrists like myself up to huge wrists. Then there’s the ultra thin case profile which makes it sit so comfortably on my wrist. AP has also made the bracelet thinner both in width and thickness so wearing the Jumbo is really a joy. The blue petit tapisserie dial is stunning to look at. It’s in a darker shade of blue as compared to say the 15500, but the combination of the smaller squares with the darker blue gives it a vintage look to it.

[jag32]

Originally Posted by rotan

Hi jag, I’m a 15202 owner so maybe I can relate better. First off is the case size of 39mm which suits small wrists like myself up to huge wrists. Then there’s the ultra thin case profile which makes it sit so comfortably on my wrist. AP has also made the bracelet thinner both in width and thickness so wearing the Jumbo is really a joy. The blue petit tapisserie dial is stunning to look at. It’s in a darker shade of blue as compared to say the 15500, but the combination of the smaller squares with the darker blue gives it a vintage look to it.

Thanks! How do you compare the 15202 to the 15300?

[arnage]

i see there was some discussion on the bracelet and case already (both "thinner" / finer on the 15202 than on the 15300)

The other important difference relates to the movement. 15202 has the historically correct (re: original 1972 RO Jumbo) JLC-developed / licensed to AP 2121 movement. Whereas the 15300 has the 3120 in-house developed AP movement, which is also a tad bit thicker.

I suppose the primary driver in cult-ish appreciation of the 15202 is its linkage back to the original; they're more or less dimensionally the same (bracelet is still a bit finer on the 5402 vs 15202 and 15202 40th anniv), and the movement is still the same.

[gsg]

We just very recently had this very same conversation. In the end, the 15202 was found clearly superior. Let's not repeat ourselves ;)

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...ighlight=15300

[V25V]

Originally Posted by gsg

We just very recently had this very same conversation. In the end, the 15202 was found clearly superior. Let's not repeat ourselves ;)

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...ighlight=15300

I'm not sure that was the consensus at all. I am in the camp which believes the 15300 is superior as I do not think I could live without a second hand and no quickset date would be a PITA. Those two and no screw down crown make it really hard for me to understand why the 202 would be preferred. Only reason I can see is the original design and rarity perspective from a collector/flipper standpoint.

I believe the reason why AP made the 15400 at 41mm was to not compete with the 15202 and separate it from the other RO's to drive its exclusivity. The 15300 blue, to me, is the perfect RO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jag32]

Originally Posted by V25V

I'm not sure that was the consensus at all. I am in the camp which believes the 15300 is superior as I do not think I could live without a second hand and no quickset date would be a PITA. Those two and no screw down crown make it really hard for me to understand why the 202 would be preferred. Only reason I can see is the original design and rarity perspective from a collector/flipper standpoint.

I believe the reason why AP made the 15400 at 41mm was to not compete with the 15202 and separate it from the other RO's to drive its exclusivity. The 15300 blue, to me, is the perfect RO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I agree completely. Can’t do without a seconds hand. What are blue 15300 going for these days?

[V25V]

Originally Posted by jag32

i agree completely. Can’t do without a seconds hand. What are blue 15300 going for these days?

~25k.

[jag32]

Originally Posted by V25V

~25k.

I suppose that’s reasonable. Just wish I could try on a 15300ST, I’ve never worn one but I have tried many 15400ST.

What is the lug to lug size of the 15300ST vs the. 15300OR?

[rossi46]

Originally Posted by V25V

~25k.

To think I sold my black dial for $15k a couple years back. The watch world is just nuts right now.

[othertbone]

Originally Posted by jag32

It seems there is a cult like following for the 39mm Royal Oak and the 15202 in particular but not the 15300. Why is the 15202 so much more work sought after than the 15300 when they are both 39mm and pretty much visually look the same? For me, the 15300 is more preferable because I don’t like watches without second hands. Also, besides just an appropriate fit/size, what are are your reasons for preferring the 39mm RO to the 41mm RO? Is it mostly out of historical importance of 39mm being THE original RO?

The 202 is the original and the ultra thin, thats why it is desired more

[whatching]

I am a 15300 owner (black). Been planning to let it go for quite a while but just can’t put myself to really do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jcarm981]

Coming from a previous owner of a mint 15300 (white) it is the one watch I miss the most and clearly not the easiest to replace. I actually loved the white dial and case proportions but yes clearly the 15202 is superior. Is it worth the extra premium? Maybe / maybe not.

[pepsiretail]

Originally Posted by jcarm981

Coming from a previous owner of a mint 15300 (white) it is the one watch I miss the most and clearly not the easiest to replace. I actually loved the white dial and case proportions but yes clearly the 15202 is superior. Is it worth the extra premium? Maybe / maybe not.

As someone who bought an immaculate white 15300st a couple years ago we are at opposite ends of ownership but share the same love for the watch.

I don't agree about the 15202 being clearly better. The second hand and screw down crown are definite advantages to the 15300. The slight increase in overall thickness is not inherently a minus, as the watch is more robust while still staying true to the original slim concept. Attempts to portray the 15300 as anything but slim and light are laughable.

To declare one better because the other isn't the same is a false comparison. It is rather a presupposition of existing superiority. The criteria of the buyer determines the nature and result of the comparison. Hence, some will choose one over the other. I had the opportunity to also get a 15202 at around the same time and am very happy with just the 15300.

All this misses the, what I took to be, purpose of the thread; recognizing the absolute greatness of the 39mm size and how happy those of us with them are.

[asingzon]

Originally Posted by pepsiretail

As someone who bought an immaculate white 15300st a couple years ago we are at opposite ends of ownership but share the same love for the watch.

I don't agree about the 15202 being clearly better. The second hand and screw down crown are definite advantages to the 15300. The slight increase in overall thickness is not inherently a minus, as the watch is more robust while still staying true to the original slim concept. Attempts to portray the 15300 as anything but slim and light are laughable.

To declare one better because the other isn't the same is a false comparison. It is rather a presupposition of existing superiority. The criteria of the buyer determines the nature and result of the comparison. Hence, some will choose one over the other. I had the opportunity to also get a 15202 at around the same time and am very happy with just the 15300.

All this misses the, what I took to be, purpose of the thread; recognizing the absolute greatness of the 39mm size and how happy those of us with them are.

I agree with the last point - my ownership of 39mm APs is driven by the size of my wrist (it’s the perfect size for me). I also get to share them with my wife!

I think both the 15300 (and derivatives of the bracelet and case like the 25860/26300) and 15202 (and derivatives like the 25820) are both great watches and would wear for different occasions. I would jump at the opportunity to buy either or both at at a reasonable price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jag32]

Originally Posted by pepsiretail

All this misses the, what I took to be, purpose of the thread; recognizing the absolute greatness of the 39mm size and how happy those of us with them are.

Correct...not comparing the 15300 and 15202 but rather discussing the lore of the 39mm RO in general.

[blacke90]

Appreciate the 39mm on both. Tried on 15202 and 15300 and prefer the lack of second hand on the jumbo, strange I know. I prefer the thinner case and thinner bracelet also. The 15300 is sportier due to thicker case and bracelet, while the jumbo, to me, appears more refined and dressier. Without knowing the history of RO/Genta and etc., I prefer the 15202 based on aesthetic and dressier appearance.

Years ago, the Jumbo lacks of second bothered me greatly. As of late, I don’t mind watches without a second hand - Looks great on the Jumbo as it’s a cleaner look

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by V25V

I'm not sure that was the consensus at all. I am in the camp which believes the 15300 is superior as I do not think I could live without a second hand and no quickset date would be a PITA. Those two and no screw down crown make it really hard for me to understand why the 202 would be preferred. Only reason I can see is the original design and rarity perspective from a collector/flipper standpoint.

I believe the reason why AP made the 15400 at 41mm was to not compete with the 15202 and separate it from the other RO's to drive its exclusivity. The 15300 blue, to me, is the perfect RO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

They made the 15400 41mm because the market demanded a larger watch. When I bought my first 15400 nobody gave two shits about the 15202. It was in the case collecting dust waiting for the .5%er WIS to buy it.

After owning many AP, just like yourself, I think I ultimately prefer the ROO.

I realize you won’t agree because they are oversized but for my money until there’s a cheaper ceramic RO give me the 44.

TL;DR the move to 41mm on the RO preceded the hype around SS sports watches and was driven by consumer demand for a larger RO.

[whatching]

Originally Posted by GB-man

After owning many AP, just like yourself, I think I ultimately prefer the ROO.

I feel the same and have the same sentiments sorry if off topic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AK797]

Originally Posted by whatching

I feel the same and have the same sentiments sorry if off topic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same for me, I like most AP ROOs and the Patek Nauts.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by GB-man

They made the 15400 41mm because the market demanded a larger watch. When I bought my first 15400 nobody gave two shits about the 15202. It was in the case collecting dust waiting for the .5%er WIS to buy it.

After owning many AP, just like yourself, I think I ultimately prefer the ROO.

I realize you won’t agree because they are oversized but for my money until there’s a cheaper ceramic RO give me the 44.

TL;DR the move to 41mm on the RO preceded the hype around SS sports watches and was driven by consumer demand for a larger RO.

Yeah, we know how I feel these days about oversized. But for some reason, the 42 ROO really seems to work well on my 7" wrist, at least for me. Why the FC Diver is the only one I have kept and the only one in my collection over 40mm. Plus, the carbon and ceramic is super cool and as a car guy, I really dig that. Zero chance I could ever do 44 as you mentioned but appreciate the materials used there.

I looked at the 202 when I got my 15400 years back and went with the 41 only because I wanted those items mentioned in my previous post which the 202 lacked. I was worried about the 41mm and ultimately sold it and got the 15300 before this crazy spike in the market, it always just seemed way too large. Odd since the ROO's at 42 seemed to fit better, I have always suspected it was the thinner bezel and more surface area on the dial which made the 15400 wear larger than it is. Where the bezel on the ROO is much thicker and wears smaller. This is all my .02 but makes sense to me!

[rotan]

And the 15202 has the AP logo at the 6 o clock making the dial more balanced in my opinion. I do not really like the automatic word on 15300 and 15400 but some might disagree. Here’s a photo of my Jumbo 🤗

[GeraldGentaFan]

Originally Posted by rotan

And the 15202 has the AP logo at the 6 o clock making the dial more balanced in my opinion. I do not really like the automatic word on 15300 and 15400 but some might disagree. Here’s a photo of my Jumbo

My 15202 has the logo at 12, but agree that it looks more balanced at 6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rotan]

Sorry didn’t attach the photo properly. Here it is.

[GeraldGentaFan]

Here 15202 with logo at 12 and 5402 with logo at 6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AK797]

I actually don't like any logo at the southern part of the dial, same reason I don't love the 5990, but it was Genta's wish on the original Jumbo so it is iconic.

[Bearxj86]

I actually like the 36mm 14790st. It is thinner than the 15202 and fits a wrist under 7 inches well.

The 15202 is a real PITA to wind and i wish it had a longer power reserve.

[GeraldGentaFan]

Originally Posted by bearxj86

I actually like the 36mm 14790st. It is thinner than the 15202 and fits a wrist under 7 inches well.

The 15202 is a real PITA to wind and i wish it had a longer power reserve.

Winding is still ok, but changing the date on the 15202 is really painful. Might be one of the reasons the Nautilus has become king of the luxury sport watches: still thin and delicate, but with a more modern movement.