Royal Oak 15500 vs 15400

[doramas]

Which one do you like better? Why?

[dauster]

New movement 15500 for me. Dial is indeed a bit empty but not enough to bother me

[karasus]

15400st, its a bit thinner for the same size. I like 41mm, but the 15500 with its thickness wears more like a 42mm offshore.

[Jgives]

The 15400 is a forced design based on a smaller caliber used to fit a larger frame. The longer hour markers are used to help balance the position of the date window, which is awkwardly indented. The window in the back is made smaller and out of proportion to the front of the watch. It’s by no means terrible, but I don’t think it compares to the 15500. The 15500 was designed with intention from start to finish. I do think it could have looked better with the AP mounted in the lower half of the dial. But that’s debatable. Then there’s the movement itself...the new 4302 is simply better than the 3120.

[Benzsiam]

I like 15500 more than 15400

1. New movement
2. Date window go all the way to the edge and bigger
3. Hour markers are more proportion to the dial
4. Minute markers are clearer to read

Overall looks more elegant.

[AK797]

I'd like most the 500 at 40mm.

[Sg6067]

I love them both but I prefer the arguably dressier look of the 400 over the 500. Better dial balance on 400. The shorter markers, see through second hand, and separated minute track all make the 500 seem sportier but also less elegant IMO. That being said they are both beautiful and I would wear either!

[alexlt730512]

prefer 15500 over 15400 based on the dial and new movement is definitely a huge improvement.

[WWC]

15500 for the movement. Enough said.

[JayHantz]

Another vote for the 15500 - it's the dial and the movement. I like simple, and I am never a fan of the word "AUTOMATIC" on any watch.

[Skyrider01]

Originally Posted by Jgives

The 15400 is a forced design based on a smaller caliber used to fit a larger frame. The longer hour markers are used to help balance the position of the date window, which is awkwardly indented. The window in the back is made smaller and out of proportion to the front of the watch. It’s by no means terrible, but I don’t think it compares to the 15500. The 15500 was designed with intention from start to finish. I do think it could have looked better with the AP mounted in the lower half of the dial. But that’s debatable. Then there’s the movement itself...the new 4302 is simply better than the 3120.

👍🏻 Well said! That about sums it up.

[phow]

Originally Posted by Jgives

The 15400 is a forced design based on a smaller caliber used to fit a larger frame. The longer hour markers are used to help balance the position of the date window, which is awkwardly indented. The window in the back is made smaller and out of proportion to the front of the watch. It’s by no means terrible, but I don’t think it compares to the 15500. The 15500 was designed with intention from start to finish. I do think it could have looked better with the AP mounted in the lower half of the dial. But that’s debatable. Then there’s the movement itself...the new 4302 is simply better than the 3120.

This x100. I looked at both in person before going with the 15500. The decision took all of a few minutes. Not to mention, you can actually get a 15500 at retail from a boutique vs the 15400 where the only option is the secondary market which is selling with a 10-20% premium (Blue dial is more). If the 15400 had some major advantages over the 15500, I could see this being worth it but IMHO the 15500 is the winner.

[sokoloka]

15500 for me personally.

[Caramba]

The 15500 has a more modern look, both with the seconds marker, the date font and the general layout of the dial. This is one step further away from the original RO, and an obvious move to distance it from the 15202. I see that as a continuation of the trend that started when they updated from the 15300 to the 15400.

I prefer the timeless design of the 15400 over the more modern 15500.

[JonnyBCisco]

Ok I will be the odd one out, here. I wish I liked the 15500 but I don’t. In fact when the new one came out I was really disappointed at what they had done to the dial. I don’t like any of the changes that they made to the dial. And for this reason alone I am for the 15400 all the way. Don’t care about the new movement. Don’t care that it is “too small for the watch” either. Those upgrades mean nothing to me if I don’t like the dial.

To me the 15500 dial looks too big and empty. The “Automatic” on the dial of the 15400 balances everything out and it just looks like there is something missing on the 15500. Also the outer chapter (?) ring on the 15500 looks fussy to me. Wish they would have just printed the min markers directly on the dial like the 15400.

The date window. To me it was always fine where it was on the 15400. I never looked at it and thought, “hey it needs to be further towards the edge.” Never crossed my mind.

I also prefer the font they use for the numbers on the date on the 14500.

I think the hour markers on the 15500 are too short. Again they make the dial look too big and empty.

I see the 15400 as more elegant — which I like — and the 15500 more modern which I don’t like.

[startrolexendrolex]

I have both and I perfer the 15400.

Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

[yoast]

Neither. 15300 or 15202 for best proportions

[ericksakti]

Originally Posted by JonnyBCisco

Ok I will be the odd one out, here. I wish I liked the 15500 but I don’t. In fact when the new one came out I was really disappointed at what they had done to the dial. I don’t like any of the changes that they made to the dial. And for this reason alone I am for the 15400 all the way. Don’t care about the new movement. Don’t care that it is “too small for the watch” either. Those upgrades mean nothing to me if I don’t like the dial.

To me the 15500 dial looks too big and empty. The “Automatic” on the dial of the 15400 balances everything out and it just looks like there is something missing on the 15500. Also the outer chapter (?) ring on the 15500 looks fussy to me. Wish they would have just printed the min markers directly on the dial like the 15400.

The date window. To me it was always fine where it was on the 15400. I never looked at it and thought, “hey it needs to be further towards the edge.” Never crossed my mind.

I also prefer the font they use for the numbers on the date on the 14500.

I think the hour markers on the 15500 are too short. Again they make the dial look too big and empty.

I see the 15400 as more elegant — which I like — and the 15500 more modern which I don’t like.

yep after looking at this photo I can conclude i like the 15500 way more, the automatic and the date position is way off on this one

[Jutch]

I was deciding between a 15400 and 15500 last week and ended up pulling the trigger on a 15400. I like the new movement and the redesigned seconds hand on the 15500, but I felt the dial looked stretched compared to the 15400, where the proportions looked more pleasing.

Below are some photos for comparison

[Nav01L]

15500, altogether a more coherent watch, even though I prefer the finer indexes of the 400. Also cannot quite get over that bold date font, which doesn’t really work with the refined vibe this watch should have. Movement is a big upgrade in the 500, especially given its size, though it’s still behind the curve of what it should be in terms of craftsmanship and finish considering the competitive landscape at the 20k mark. It’s still a RO though, and being the original* makes up for a lot.

*or at least the version of the original people can actually buy.

[jay_kay]

The 15500 is a better proportioned watch and is as intended rather than a make do like the 15400.

[phow]

I personally don’t think the “automatic” does anything for the dial and I really dislike when this is term is used on dials in general. I’ve never looked at the 15500 and thought, “man the dial really need something there”. The additional space just allows the texture and sun burst to really shine.

IMO the biggest offender is the date... it’s so clear the placement is based on the movement being too small for the case and the case back sapphire is also tiny by comparison.

On the other hand, I think the 15450 looks perfect.

[mongrelnomoad]

Definitely 15400. On 15500, the bezel is too thin, the markers are too short and fat, and there's something wrong with the proportions of the dial. Only thing I prefer on the 15500 is the position of the date.

[Benzsiam]

It's personal preference, buy whatever you like.

[mdtddd2007]

I feel the 15400 dial is more nicer and more balanced.

[S2000_driver]

15500. The dial is so much cleaner and showcases the grande tappisserie well. It would be even better if they removed the Audemars Piguet text!

And that movement!!! Perfect size for the 41mm case. The movement on the 15400 looks like it was "borrowed" from little brother...

[rumnyc]

To me it doesn’t even compare. I never liked the 15400 because of ‘automatic’. It always rubber me the wrong way. And the back was horrible with the thick bezels.

However, I love the 15500 because:
1) no ‘automatic’. It showcases the dial craftsmanship like no other royal oak.
2) the back is so much nicer—the bezel aaround the display back is just the right thickness and that beautifully finished movement is almost as nice as the one in jumbo, especially the skeletonized AP rotor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RolexZen]

I don’t think the larger, unsmooshed AP logo at 12 o’clock on the 15500 gets enough praise. Much nicer.

[Cru Jones]

400 for the longer hour markers. For me, they suit the overall design (including bezel and bracelet) better.

I’m also not a fan of the 500’s date disk font.

[7sins]

Originally Posted by mongrelnomoad

Definitely 15400. On 15500, the bezel is too thin, the markers are too short and fat, and there's something wrong with the proportions of the dial. Only thing I prefer on the 15500 is the position of the date.

+1. 15400 for me, mostly for the dial and I too think the 15500 bezel looks way too thin (perhaps more optics than anything else).

As someone mentioned earlier, I would take a 15202 over both.