Three generations of AP Royal Oak, 15300, 15400, 15500

[Horolojust]

Thought I will just leave this here. I have put this together as it is something you will rarely see side by side, to help if you're deciding especially between 15400 and 15500, with 15300 almost extinct now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd13ZL3fUGY&t=67s

Feel free to check my other videos on AP at
www.youtube.com/HafizJMehmood

[danicasi2002]

Thank you. Also enjoyed your 15500 video.

[Horolojust]

Originally Posted by danicasi2002

Thank you. Also enjoyed your 15500 video.

Many thanks :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PPFANBOY]

Nice videos

[pepsiretail]

Thank you for the video!

Only critique, not long enough

[Toony]

Very nice. Watched the video on the 15500. I’m intrigued.

[grievor]

watch porn at its best

[myporsche]

Nice vid

[ud101]

I appreciate the video which I just watched.

[AK797]

Just from that 3 pic the 500 does look a bit slimmer than the 400 which is a major plus for me.

[Tomas Eriksson]

Originally Posted by AK797

Just from that 3 pic the 500 does look a bit slimmer than the 400 which is a major plus for me.

Do you mean smaller due to the new dial layout? Slim-, thickness is usually referring to the height of the pieces and the 15500 is thicker.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Tomas Eriksson

Do you mean smaller due to the new dial layout? Slim-, thickness is usually referring to the height of the pieces and the 15500 is thicker.

Slimmer as in less wide, more like the 300, from that view, not thickness.

[Batmannr1]

Originally Posted by AK797

Slimmer as in less wide, more like the 300, from that view, not thickness.

The SA of the AD who have put me on the waitlist told me that the 15500 wears smaller then the 15400. But lug to lug the difference is marginal, probably not noticeable.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by Batmannr1

The SA of the AD who have put me on the waitlist told me that the 15500 wears smaller then the 15400. But lug to lug the difference is marginal, probably not noticeable.

Zero chance, he/she is doing a good job selling however since you seemed to buy it.

[masterserg]

Nice vid. I've debated whether both 400 and 500 can coexist in a collection and I think they could.

[Batmannr1]

Originally Posted by V25V

Zero chance, he/she is doing a good job selling however since you seemed to buy it.

I will buy the story, not that I can buy the AP 15500 anyway. The AD is bone dry for months.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by Batmannr1

I will buy the story, not that I can buy the AP 15500 anyway. The AD is bone dry for months.

The dial is massive on the 15500 and empty. It makes no sense that he/she could come to the conclusion that it wears smaller. The 15400 was already larger than the 15300 and wears even bigger because the dial itself has a larger surface area and bezel is thinner. The 15500 takes this one step further and its clear from the pictures that this would be the case.

[AK797]

.

[Horolojust]

Originally Posted by V25V

Zero chance, he/she is doing a good job selling however since you seemed to buy it.

Originally Posted by grievor

watch porn at its best

Originally Posted by Batmannr1

The SA of the AD who have put me on the waitlist told me that the 15500 wears smaller then the 15400. But lug to lug the difference is marginal, probably not noticeable.

Completely incorrect and false marketing. See below.
DSC_1917.jpg

Originally Posted by Batmannr1

I will buy the story, not that I can buy the AP 15500 anyway. The AD is bone dry for months.

That’s what I’d do too.

Originally Posted by AK797

Slimmer as in less wide, more like the 300, from that view, not thickness.

Not really mate. See the image below.

Originally Posted by ud101

I appreciate the video which I just watched.

Thanks so much.

Originally Posted by pepsiretail

Thank you for the video!



Only critique, not long enough

Haha. Thanks so much my friend. Much needed support :)

Originally Posted by masterserg

Nice vid. I've debated whether both 400 and 500 can coexist in a collection and I think they could.

Yes. They’re very different and certainly they can do exist

Originally Posted by AK797

Just from that 3 pic the 500 does look a bit slimmer than the 400 which is a major plus for me.

Don’t think so mate. See this photo; 15400 wears WAY smallerDSC_1915.jpg

Originally Posted by Toony

Very nice. Watched the video on the 15500. I’m intrigued.

Thanks so much mate. It’s a beautiful watch indeed. For me personally it’s too futuristic. I prefer traditional Royal Oak looks.

Originally Posted by V25V

The dial is massive on the 15500 and empty. It makes no sense that he/she could come to the conclusion that it wears smaller. The 15400 was already larger than the 15300 and wears even bigger because the dial itself has a larger surface area and bezel is thinner. The 15500 takes this one step further and its clear from the pictures that this would be the case.

Completely agreed. 15400 was already a step away from iconic Genta design but it maintained the design due to thinner and longer hour indexes. Now 15500 is big and not even similar looking as gentas sketch. The dial is full of empty space.

Originally Posted by PPFANBOY

Nice videos

Many thanks :)

Originally Posted by myporsche

Nice vid

Thanks so much mate :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AK797]

I don't know, it does seem to depend on the lighting and the angle, when the minute track is prominent on the 500 it looks slimmer , and when the hands are at the top of the dial the 500 looks wider, those two sets of pics both tell a different story, the very first one has them at the same angle so is a better comparison than your wrist pic which has the 500 more tightly bunched on your wrist and protruding out.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by Horolojust

Completely incorrect and false marketing. See below.
Attachment 1059605



That’s what I’d do too.




Not really mate. See the image below.



Thanks so much.



Haha. Thanks so much my friend. Much needed support :)



Yes. They’re very different and certainly they can do exist



Don’t think so mate. See this photo; 15400 wears WAY smallerAttachment 1059604



Thanks so much mate. It’s a beautiful watch indeed. For me personally it’s too futuristic. I prefer traditional Royal Oak looks.



Completely agreed. 15400 was already a step away from iconic Genta design but it maintained the design due to thinner and longer hour indexes. Now 15500 is big and not even similar looking as gentas sketch. The dial is full of empty space.



Many thanks :)





Thanks so much mate :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes the 15400 look small.

Thanks for doing this comparison, really nice to see them all together.

[Horolojust]

Originally Posted by AK797

I don't know, it does seem to depend on the lighting and the angle, when the minute track is prominent on the 500 it looks slimmer , and when the hands are at the top of the dial the 500 looks wider, those two sets of pics both tell a different story.

I’d suggest you to consider the photos below for comparison mate and the reason is because in the image in the original video; the watches are sitting on their straps, and dont quite sit exactly at the same focal plane ie 15500 was sitting tallest (closest to camera lens), 15400 a little lower and 15300 lowest (farthest from camera lens). This makes a difference because the further you move from camera lens, the smaller the image.

In the photos below, the watches aren’t sitting on their clasps/straps, rather on the hand, so the focal plane is exactly the same.

Great observation though and thanks for pointing out. DSC_1922.jpgDSC_1914.jpg9E04F5E5-6EA7-4FE3-9D77-C56AD5B89DA8.jpgIMG_0509.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Horolojust]

Originally Posted by V25V

Makes the 15400 look small.



Thanks for doing this comparison, really nice to see them all together.

No worries mate. And thanks for the support. Feel free to follow my insta; my username is same as here as I share al my photos there :)

I will do a comparison of 15400 vs 15500 very soon on my YT channel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ROA]

Originally Posted by AK797

I don't know, it does seem to depend on the lighting and the angle, when the minute track is prominent on the 500 it looks slimmer , and when the hands are at the top of the dial the 500 looks wider, those two sets of pics both tell a different story, the first has them at the same angle so is a better comparison than your wrist pic which has the 500 more tightly bunched on your wrist and protruding out.

I have the same observation. In the last photo, the minute track on the blue dial is more pronounced making it appear smaller. I wonder how they compare if they were both blue and under the same lighting. But it looks like the base where the bezel sits on the 500 is a tad smaller (as someone had also mentioned), unless my eyes are fooling me.

[pepsiretail]

Originally Posted by Horolojust

I’d suggest you to consider the photos below for comparison mate and the reason is because in the image in the original video; the watches are sitting on their straps, and dont quite sit exactly at the same focal plane ie 15500 was sitting tallest (closest to camera lens), 15400 a little lower and 15300 lowest (farthest from camera lens). This makes a difference because the further you move from camera lens, the smaller the image.

In the photos below, the watches aren’t sitting on their clasps/straps, rather on the hand, so the focal plane is exactly the same.

Great observation though and thanks for pointing out. Attachment 1059606Attachment 1059607Attachment 1059608Attachment 1059609


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These are great photos for comparison, very thoughtful contribution.

Seeing all this it makes me appreciate my 15300 even more!

On you they all look great. The 15400 and 15500 just wear too large for my wrist.

Besides just being a little large for me the proportions of the others have more dial prominence that, while more contemporary, makes the watch appear rounder and less octogonal.


Many thanks mate.

[wiswrist]

In this picture the 500 appears to wear larger. Probably because of a combination of the shorter markers/more empty dial space.

And that's consistent with my in person observation.