ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

thlax · 9 May 2019, 05:46 AM

In case anyone wanted to see...

Vaxe · 9 May 2019, 05:47 AM

Very nice, which one do you like more?

thlax · 9 May 2019, 06:25 AM

Both beautiful.

I prefer the Jumbo

gsg · 9 May 2019, 06:28 AM

Thanks for the pics! Interesting side-by-side comparison. As the owner of a 15202, I don't have anything good to say aesthetically about the 15500...

Roccio · 9 May 2019, 02:25 PM

Hard to beat 15202 case profile as its the best of all ROs imo.

Not a huge fan of where they went with the 15500 case but guess it works if you have a larger wrist.

brucethemanlee · 9 May 2019, 02:29 PM

wow.... nice!

i didn't think 2mm would be THAT much of a difference

Ranfni · 9 May 2019, 03:38 PM

I absolutely love the 15500...it’s an all around better watch at this point. Take a look at the back. Amazing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ppalasthira · 9 May 2019, 03:46 PM

I prefer the 202.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

watchaser · 9 May 2019, 04:23 PM

Being a 15400 owner, looking at this pic, the 15202 is far better sized and proportional.

jrs146 · 9 May 2019, 10:30 PM

Greet comparison!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

duc888 · 10 May 2019, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watchaser

Being a 15400 owner, looking at this pic, the 15202 is far better sized and proportional.

I second that

leisen · 10 May 2019, 12:39 AM

15500 is a nice watch with a beautiful caliber, however, Gerald Genta was of the opinion that the perfect measure for the Royal Oak was 39 mil. That's my opinion too.

tcheeco · 10 May 2019, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leisen

15500 is a nice watch with a beautiful caliber, however, Gerald Genta was of the opinion that the perfect measure for the Royal Oak was 39 mil. That's my opinion too.

Maybe because he was a small guy

bruinmd · 10 May 2019, 12:57 AM

As a 15202 owner and formerly the 15400, there is no comparison for me.
If you have a sub 7" wrist, the 15400/15500 is just too big.........IMHO.

I thought I could pull it off but I couldn't stand the way it looked after a while.

The 15202 fits amazingly well by comparison. I know it gets flack for the stiff lugs and inability to hug the wrist, but I think this is fairly negligible given the thinness of the case and overall comfort.

TooWoundUp · 10 May 2019, 01:20 AM

What size wrist are you?

P2725TMB · 10 May 2019, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsg

Thanks for the pics! Interesting side-by-side comparison. As the owner of a 15202, I don't have anything good to say aesthetically about the 15500...

I feel the opposite. Contrary to what I actually expected, I really like the vacant lower portion of the dial. If the dial were plain it wouldn't work, but as it is it allows the intricate machining to be viewed at its best. Size is perfect too.

However, visually I personally don't like the AP logo in the bottom half of the dial on the 202.

blacke90 · 10 May 2019, 01:47 AM

Thanks for sharing. Grey 15500 is amazing! I prefer the cleaner look of the 15500 than the 15400. Jumbo is a classic and 39mm is the sweet spot.

CoveWatch · 10 May 2019, 02:43 AM

Thanks for sharing the comparison.. that first picture makes the new 500 look huge compared to the jumbo

P2725TMB · 10 May 2019, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoveWatch

Thanks for sharing the comparison.. that first picture makes the new 500 look huge compared to the jumbo

...or the 15202 looks small. I admit I'm a fan of bigger watches, but to me the 15500 is a good size, whilst the 202 is too small. Personal preference.

mbalmz · 11 May 2019, 04:10 AM

great pic, thanks for sharing. I know I’ll be in the extreme minority here but for me that pic is confirmation of what I already thought—a royal oak just has no place being 41mm.

V25V · 11 May 2019, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbalmz

great pic, thanks for sharing. I know I’ll be in the extreme minority here but for me that pic is confirmation of what I already thought—a royal oak just has no place being 41mm.

Amazing they took the already big 15400 and made it look even larger with the 15550 by moving the date window over. Its just too big.

maciej · 11 May 2019, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brucethemanlee

wow.... nice!

i didn't think 2mm would be THAT much of a difference

That's what she said.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Colin W · 11 May 2019, 07:13 AM

I like the 15500 but it sure looks huge in comparison- no wonder their isn’t a white dial version, I think that would look and wear even bigger IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mbalmz · 11 May 2019, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maciej

That's what she said.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

somebody had to.

9 May 2019, 05:46 AM	#1
thlax "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Boston Watch: 126610LN Posts: 1,388	Jumbo 15202ST vs Grey 15500 Pic for size refernce In case anyone wanted to see... __________________ 2020 126610LN SubDate 1950 LeCoultre Memovox 2020 Green OP41 124300 (Sold), 2020 114060 ND Sub (Sold) Tudor BB58 Blue (Sold), CHNR (Sold), 126603 TT SD43 (Sold) 116500 Black Daytona (Sold), 5512 vintage ‘69 (Sold) 114060 (Sold), AP15202ST (Sold) AP15500 Grey (Sold), 126710 BLRO Pepsi (Sold), 2018 39MM White OP (Sold), SD43 (Sold), ALS 1815 WG (Sold), 116520 White Daytona (sold), DSSD (Sold), 116655 RG YM (Returned), 116619LB Smurf (Sold), PP 5167A (Sold), AP Diver (Sold), PAM112 (Sold)

9 May 2019, 06:25 AM	#3
thlax "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Boston Watch: 126610LN Posts: 1,388	Both beautiful. I prefer the Jumbo __________________ 2020 126610LN SubDate 1950 LeCoultre Memovox 2020 Green OP41 124300 (Sold), 2020 114060 ND Sub (Sold) Tudor BB58 Blue (Sold), CHNR (Sold), 126603 TT SD43 (Sold) 116500 Black Daytona (Sold), 5512 vintage ‘69 (Sold) 114060 (Sold), AP15202ST (Sold) AP15500 Grey (Sold), 126710 BLRO Pepsi (Sold), 2018 39MM White OP (Sold), SD43 (Sold), ALS 1815 WG (Sold), 116520 White Daytona (sold), DSSD (Sold), 116655 RG YM (Returned), 116619LB Smurf (Sold), PP 5167A (Sold), AP Diver (Sold), PAM112 (Sold)

9 May 2019, 10:30 PM	#10
jrs146 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Josh Location: Lost in time Watch: Me Nae Nae Posts: 9,821	Greet comparison! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ "Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own." -Jerome J. Garcia, Robert C. Hunter

10 May 2019, 12:57 AM	#14
bruinmd "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Sal Location: Las Vegas Watch: Patek/Rolex/GS Posts: 1,096	Nice comparison As a 15202 owner and formerly the 15400, there is no comparison for me. If you have a sub 7" wrist, the 15400/15500 is just too big.........IMHO. I thought I could pull it off but I couldn't stand the way it looked after a while. The 15202 fits amazingly well by comparison. I know it gets flack for the stiff lugs and inability to hug the wrist, but I think this is fairly negligible given the thinness of the case and overall comfort.

11 May 2019, 04:10 AM	#20
mbalmz 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Real Name: marc Location: nyc Posts: 1,357	great pic, thanks for sharing. I know I’ll be in the extreme minority here but for me that pic is confirmation of what I already thought—a royal oak just has no place being 41mm. __________________ _______________ ___________ _______ ___ instagram: @brooklynwatchguy

9 May 2019, 05:47 AM	#2
Vaxe "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Austin TX Posts: 2,122	Very nice, which one do you like more?

9 May 2019, 06:28 AM	#4
gsg "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Texas Posts: 227	Thanks for the pics! Interesting side-by-side comparison. As the owner of a 15202, I don't have anything good to say aesthetically about the 15500...

9 May 2019, 02:25 PM	#5
Roccio "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: Home Posts: 80	Hard to beat 15202 case profile as its the best of all ROs imo. Not a huge fan of where they went with the 15500 case but guess it works if you have a larger wrist.

9 May 2019, 02:29 PM	#6
brucethemanlee "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: 1 of 13 Colonies Posts: 8,509	wow.... nice! i didn't think 2mm would be THAT much of a difference

9 May 2019, 03:38 PM	#7
Ranfni "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Rob Location: SoCal Watch: Rolex Panerai AP Posts: 433	I absolutely love the 15500...it’s an all around better watch at this point. Take a look at the back. Amazing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9 May 2019, 03:46 PM	#8
ppalasthira Banned Join Date: May 2007 Location: ASK Watch: SubC.5711.D500 Posts: 2,236	I prefer the 202. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9 May 2019, 04:23 PM	#9
watchaser 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Park City, Utah Posts: 1,432	Being a 15400 owner, looking at this pic, the 15202 is far better sized and proportional.

10 May 2019, 12:39 AM	#12
leisen "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Spain Posts: 248	15500 is a nice watch with a beautiful caliber, however, Gerald Genta was of the opinion that the perfect measure for the Royal Oak was 39 mil. That's my opinion too.

10 May 2019, 01:20 AM	#15
TooWoundUp "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2019 Location: Palo Alto Watch: Out Posts: 348	What size wrist are you?

10 May 2019, 01:47 AM	#17
blacke90 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: USA Watch: AP\|\|Panerai\|\|Rolex Posts: 759	Thanks for sharing. Grey 15500 is amazing! I prefer the cleaner look of the 15500 than the 15400. Jumbo is a classic and 39mm is the sweet spot.

10 May 2019, 02:43 AM	#18
CoveWatch "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: SoCal Watch: Rolex & AP Posts: 4,535	Thanks for sharing the comparison.. that first picture makes the new 500 look huge compared to the jumbo

11 May 2019, 07:13 AM	#23
Colin W "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: UK Posts: 1,314	I like the 15500 but it sure looks huge in comparison- no wonder their isn’t a white dial version, I think that would look and wear even bigger IMO Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)