15500 Empty dial?

[60sec]

Hi! I have read many times on this forum that some believe that the 15500 has an empty dial—that there is too much negative space making the face look like a dinner plate. I have to agree, that in pictures this seems to be an impression that is easy to get. But for some reason, on the wrist, it does not look this way at all. The dial stands up for itself and really shows itself off. The 15510 has some subtle changes, namely the longer hour markers, that take up some of the space, but loses the minute marker ring that adds visual interest. On the whole, I think the 15500 looks well proportioned ON the wrist. Any thoughts on this? Thanks!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[westoque]

I love my 15500 and I don’t think it looks empty at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seddyspaghetti]

Yeah i don’t find it that empty. I like the chapter ring thing since it makes it look more sporty.

[Benzsiam]

Among 15400, 15500 and 15510, I think 15500 looks the best.

[Vivalas]

Certainly doesn’t look like a dinner plate on the wrist. Problem is when a new version of a watch comes out, there’s always discussions over the changes and generally what they’ve improved. Makes it easy to say the previous model had imperfections. Doesn’t necessarily mean there were, or the new has improved.

The outgoing and incoming versions are both fantastic, just slightly different.

[HMHM]

The rest of the changes on the 15510 is fine but removing the AP signature at the top ruins everything.

[Watchflair]

Personally, I think it’s just too empty - throws the proportions off. I felt like there was something missing. I expected it to be a keeper for life… it didn’t last long.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Armis]

That grey dial really looked great on your wrist, Jim. But I can see your point about the “emptiness,” unfortunately.

[~JJ]

For me, it looks better without the lower text. However, I think the overall balance would work better if they removed 1-2mm. Also, I see a lot of people trying to pull this piece (RO) off with a sub-7” wrists and it doesn’t look very flattering, imho.

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by 60sec

...there is too much negative space making the face look like a dinner plate. I have to agree, that in pictures this seems to be an impression that is easy to get. But for some reason, on the wrist, it does not look this way at all. The dial stands up for itself and really shows itself off.

Close-up wrist-shots from 6" and a live look from a few feet away at the watch actually being worn are like entirely different events at the Olympics. The 15500 suffers a bit in the former, but excels at the latter.

[Potawatomi]

Originally Posted by Watchflair

Personally, I think it’s just too empty - throws the proportions off. I felt like there was something missing. I expected it to be a keeper for life… it didn’t last long.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The size isn't whats making you RO look bad.

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Potawatomi

The size isn't whats making you RO look bad.

[leisen]

Originally Posted by Benzsiam

Among 15400, 15500 and 15510, I think 15500 looks the best.

15510 much better for me.

[supernova]

Originally Posted by Watchflair

Personally, I think it’s just too empty - throws the proportions off. I felt like there was something missing. I expected it to be a keeper for life… it didn’t last long.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume it was never going to be a “keeper for life” if you wore it around with the plastic cover on! Might have enjoyed it more without it.

I for one appreciate the cleaner dial as AP opposed to Rolex and the paragraphs of text! You really get to enjoy the tapisserie dial and the level of detail in it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[crispyness87]

I’ve always found it peculiar that this critique (regarding dial emptiness) exists for the 15500st, but never for the 5711… *shrugs*

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by crispyness87

I’ve always found it peculiar that this critique (regarding dial emptiness) exists for the 15500st, but never for the 5711… *shrugs*

Interesting point.

[DVR]

Always hilarious scalpers trying to find a reason why they sold a watch with a huge profit.
How can one appreciate a watch that was covered in cheap plastic?

Just admit you couldn't resist the $$$$$.

[ts3]

Originally Posted by crispyness87

I’ve always found it peculiar that this critique (regarding dial emptiness) exists for the 15500st, but never for the 5711… *shrugs*

Simple. The dial of 5711 is a lot smaller than the dial of 15500. In fact, the dial of 5711 is hardly bigger than that of my little 34mm 3998P Calatrava. On top the 5711 wears a lot smaller overall than a 41mm Royal Oak.

[dchang81]

15202 has a better balanced dial in my opinion. Nevermind the history, it just looks better in my eyes.

[CactusTreeFiddy]

Originally Posted by Watchflair

Personally, I think it’s just too empty - throws the proportions off. I felt like there was something missing. I expected it to be a keeper for life… it didn’t last long.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by CactusTreeFiddy

Yeah those are awesome pics. Seemed like sarcasm at first.

[CactusTreeFiddy]

Originally Posted by EEpro

Yeah those are awesome pics. Seemed like sarcasm at first.

The reaction was for the plastic... It's like forever keeping your training wheels on

[Watchflair]

Originally Posted by CactusTreeFiddy

The reaction was for the plastic... It's like forever keeping your training wheels on

I kept the plastic on because I wasn’t in love with it from the second I put it on my wrist.

I wanted to give it a chance so I wore it a number of times. Trust me when I tell you the plastic protector had no factor in my keeping or not keeping the watch - it just didn’t do it for me.

Forever… yes that was my plan. I think every collection needs a Royal Oak. This just wasn’t the one for me.
I had a 15300 previously - the dimensions and atheistic were much more favorable for me. I sold that because it just wasn’t for me at the time - my taste as a collector wasn’t as developed as it it today.

It’s not like I’m the first or the last to say the 15500 has an empty dial…

I’ll have an AP in the collection as some point in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by dchang81

15202 has a better balanced dial in my opinion. Nevermind the history, it just looks better in my eyes.

From 6" away yes, from a couple of meters it just a more classic look vs the more sporty 15500/15510, which I prefer.

[Fenrira]

That the 15500 had such a short run compared to its two predecessors speaks volumes. AP also reverted to longer hour markers and removed the chapter ring for the 15510, which to my eyes has better proportions than the 15500.

[Colnick]

I suspect some critics will say the 15510 also has dinner plate look.
50th anniversary gave AP the chance to highlight how they are evolving their iconic watches. I still like my 15000 after 8 months of ownership.

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Fenrira

That the 15500 had such a short run compared to its two predecessors speaks volumes. AP also reverted to longer hour markers and removed the chapter ring for the 15510, which to my eyes has better proportions than the 15500.

They tweaked the dials of 34mm, 37mm and 41mm ROs and 38mm and 41mm ROCs. I don't think there's any particular message regarding the 15500.