15300....

[dmash]

Originally Posted by Jidonsu

That explains it! I definitely didn’t lose weight. Those two pics were probably taken two weeks apart, max.

Definitely quite interesting, as you can see on my red markings how much the two differ!

[Jidonsu]

Originally Posted by dmash

Definitely quite interesting, as you can see on my red markings how much the two differ!

At least now we know why it looks different. The question is, which version is a more realistic representation of how the watch wears?

[Jidonsu]

I just printed this here. http://www.gibcobracelets.com/GIBCO-...sure-sheet.pdf

Thoughts? One pic taped at roughly the 7 inch mark, and it's definitely loose as you can see with the gap below. The other is around 6.8 at a normal snugness but I can still easily rotate the paper.

[dmash]

I just printed one off and did it myself. Flash drowned out some numbers, but yeah.




I think you should definitely be going with the 6.75" measurement, the 7" looks too loose. I maybe could have cinched mine down a touch more to 7.125" as well. Good tool! I like how we've went from 15300 v 15400 to measuring our wrists

This truly shows how subjective the watch v wrist subject is. As you can see, I'm 7.125"-7.25", pretty lean with a flat wrist, and I think that 15400 looked borderline silly on me. Yet on the other spectrum, we have guys with 6.25" wrists wearing them and the lugs overhanging. Same thing with a 40mm Sub, I think it looks great on my wrist, whereas others with the same size think it's tiny.

[Jidonsu]

And you guys said I must've measured my wrist wrong. :p

It's definitely subjective. There are times that I think the watch looks big, but every time I put it on, I think "this watch is amazing." So it stays. I wouldn't be opposed to selling it for a 15202 or even a 15450 though.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Simon040289

Love my 15300, tried a 15400 on once and it looked ok but the 39mm 15300 looks miles better on my small wrists

A beautiful piece and was all set to be my first ever PM until a great deal came up for a ROC.

[karasus]

Originally Posted by dmash

I just printed one off and did it myself. Flash drowned out some numbers, but yeah.




I think you should definitely be going with the 6.75" measurement, the 7" looks too loose. I maybe could have cinched mine down a touch more to 7.125" as well. Good tool! I like how we've went from 15300 v 15400 to measuring our wrists

This truly shows how subjective the watch v wrist subject is. As you can see, I'm 7.125"-7.25", pretty lean with a flat wrist, and I think that 15400 looked borderline silly on me. Yet on the other spectrum, we have guys with 6.25" wrists wearing them and the lugs overhanging. Same thing with a 40mm Sub, I think it looks great on my wrist, whereas others with the same size think it's tiny.

How a watch looks on a wrist is subjective, but I've also noticed that the length of the watch tends to make the watch look much bigger. Next to my 36mm Vacheron from the 1970s the AP 15300 doesn't look that much bigger with 3 more mm since the lugs and case shape makes the Vacheron longer and look bigger.

But that dial and case shape on the 15300 and the AP logo on the 12 o'clock is just epic, also the 39mm case shape tends to not overpower the shape of the bracelet which in my personal opinion is a major part of the watch.

[Likestheshiny]

I've had the 15300, and I ended up trading it up for a 15400. I have a 6.75 inch wrist. I don't think it's too big, although I wouldn't mind having a 39mm either. Here's a picture taken while facing a mirror.

Thanks for the pic -- I'm also 6.75", so that's very helpful.

And, yeah, an awful lot of wrist shots are too close to tell how large the watch really is. Shots from farther away often tell a very different story.

[mineral]

suit your shirt also. Cheers

Originally Posted by V25V

Beg to differ but I may be biased. I do not see the prices going anywhere but up and I do not see AP coming out with a 39mm variant to compete with their precious 202.

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by Jidonsu

And you guys said I must've measured my wrist wrong. :p

It’s definitely subjective. …

Nothing subjective about it, just basic musculoskeletal differences.
Your wrongness was just their forgetfulness that not all wrists are the same shape, irrespective of what number the tape measure displays.

[Ichiran]

I prefer the size of the 15300 as compared to the 400. It fits my 6.5" wrist better.