15202+15400 @ NY boutique today

[tonupbklyn]

so after having been SO convinced of the 15400 blue dial, i've been twisted around by being introduced to the 15202.

the rep at the boutique contacted me to let know that a 202 had just come in (reserved for another buyer), and that i should see both side-by-side to make final judgment.

and so, here's what i observed (and most of this is obviously my subjective POV):

- the blue on the 202 is definitely (far more) matte than the 400...the difference is immediately noticeable. i've previously described the 400's dial to 'sparkle' in different angles of light; the 202 really doesn't sparkle at all, it's very muted (or understated).

- the weight and feel of the 202 is considerable less heft than the 400. this point is obvious in terms of size and amount of material of the case/bracelet. however, once worn, the feel is night and day. the 400 you 'feel' it on you...and (good or bad) it's very 'noticeable' (aka bling). whilst the 202 is not noticeable at all (feels like my Explorer 1 or my JLC reversos...barely there feel).
having said that, i'm certain the 202 is heavier than my Exp 1 and reversos...but having worn the 400 literally 30seconds before, the 202 feels too light. i'm sure that had i not worn the 400 at all, the 202 would actually feel like it had more presence on the wrist.

- many have described the 202 to feel 'fragile' - and whilst i'm sure it's robust enough, i do understand the sentiment. again, i think the label of 'understated' in both physical presence and feel is more appropriate here.
the bracelet is significantly different presence and feel. like i said, overall the 202 feels unnoticed on the wrist.

- the size of the 400 is what i'm used to (having come from ROO, JLC EWC, PAM118 and other chunky watches). however, i have been downsizing recently with others (Exp 1, Reversos, IWC 5001)...and whether it's age or just a change in taste, i do think the smaller sizes are beginning to 'fit' me more.
400 looks amazing on the wrist - presence, dial bling, feel of weight, etc.
but the 202 looks 'right'.

i'm sure there's much more but my head is swirling because in many ways i didn't want to see both side by side cuz i knew i was going to be torn in choosing. furthermore, i don't think i'm 100% convinced in one direction over another. having said all that, a few reasons why the 202 is perhaps more 'right'.

- the size thing...like i said, whether age or change in taste, i think i'm going toward more the 'understated' watches. it's probably why i'm trying to purge my personal collection of many of the chunky models.

- i REALLY REALLY REALLY like the dial on the 400 over the 202. the 202 seems perhaps too understated. however, it had dawned on me during the 20minutes i spent staring at the two watches at the boutique: will i some day soon get over the sparkly excitement of that 400...just like i had with the ROO which i've only had for 6 month, and am now considering clearing to make room for a RO! my collection is now going toward models that are completely under the radar...and i kinda like that.

- the 202 is considerably more in price, and the 400 is already damn expensive! but there is one financial rationale that seemed to hit with me: the 400 will very likely devalue in 3-5 years, whereas the 202 may increase in value or worst case stay same.
and if for whatever reason later i have a change of heart and want that shiny dial 400, then i have a far better chance of retaining/increasing my return with the 202.

sooo....
i actually almost walked out of the boutique with the 202. was trying to work out a out-of-state thing, but we couldn't come to an agreement.
maybe that's a good thing...i can use this time to continue twisting myself up about which one to get

my comparative statement to the rep about these, to which he said sounded very appropriate:
the 400 looks spectacular; the 202 is just beautiful.