View Single Post
Old 23 January 2019, 10:59 PM   #199
lhawli
"TRF" Member
 
lhawli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 1,256
AP 15400 vs 15500

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cru Jones View Post
I think the fatter minute track was needed because they couldn't have carved a little bit of tapestry between the date window and edge of the dial.



I suppose the movement could have been designed just a tad smaller, which would have left more room.

Not sure about that, mate! Look at the 15202 - had they done it that way I would be the first to say I’ll flip my 15400 for the 15500. Even the 15202 uses the thinner and longer hour markers like the 15400 that are more elegant.

I’m not in the know but based on the articles I’ve been reading, they designed the caliber for the 11.59 and shoved it in the RO. Not sure it was designed for the 15500 in mind.

15202


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
AP Royal Oak [15400ST.01]
Rolex DateJust 41 [126334]
Rolex Submariner Date [116610LV]
Rolex GMT Master II [116710BLNR]
Rolex Cosmograph Daytona [116500LN]
lhawli is offline   Reply With Quote