15300 vs 15202

[brockburst]

Would it be a fair assessment to say the 15300 wears 'bigger' than a 15202? Not having the ability to try on both at the same time just curious the honest thoughts between both references if someone has had the opportunity to spend meaningful time with them.

Comparatively, I have always thought a 15400 wears much bigger than a Submariner for example, curious on the thoughts on that too.

Thanks in advance for the responses and TRF for the space.

[cascavel]

The 15300 is taller than the 15202 and I think the bracelet is thicker so that it matches the lug size of the case. If you are thinking of acquiring one of these two watches I would get the 15300, and I own the 15202. The 202 is an extremely elegant but highly impractical watch.

[V25V]

They are both 39mm, jumbo will just be a bit thinner. They should wear the same, jumbo will feel lighter, because it is. If you can get a blue 15300, jump on it.

[brockburst]

Originally Posted by cascavel

The 15300 is taller than the 15202 and I think the bracelet is thicker so that it matches the lug size of the case. If you are thinking of acquiring one of these two watches I would get the 15300, and I own the 15202. The 202 is an extremely elegant but highly impractical watch.

Thanks yeah that is interesting....compared to a 15400 I have always felt perhaps the 15400 appears to wear MUCH bigger to my eyes than a Submariner for example. Would you agree with that?

[brent95m3]

Originally Posted by cascavel

The 15300 is taller than the 15202 and I think the bracelet is thicker so that it matches the lug size of the case. If you are thinking of acquiring one of these two watches I would get the 15300, and I own the 15202. The 202 is an extremely elegant but highly impractical watch.

Why would you say it is impractical? It doesn’t seem like it would wear or in function be any different than a 15300.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by brockburst

Thanks yeah that is interesting....compared to a 15400 I have always felt perhaps the 15400 appears to wear MUCH bigger to my eyes than a Submariner for example. Would you agree with that?

15400 is 41mm and it wears even larger than that.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by brent95m3

Why would you say it is impractical? It doesn’t seem like it would wear or in function be any different than a 15300.

No quickset date, no screw down crown, no second hand.

[Claymie]

Problem I’ve had with the 15300 is the dial colors. I much prefer the 15300 case size, but love the 15400 dial combos. Particularly the silver, blue and the new grey. They are completely different colors IMO.

[AK797]

Pretty similar.

[subtona]

The fit and feel of the 202 is incredible and imho if you have an opportunity to try both on , side by side, the decision is made!

[cascavel]

Originally Posted by brent95m3

Why would you say it is impractical? It doesn’t seem like it would wear or in function be any different than a 15300.

No second hand, no screw down crown, and no rapid date advance. It takes me about one minute to advance to date on my 15202 by one day. I love the 15202 for its looks but the movement is an anachronism.

[jb335]

I've never worn a 15300 so I can't compare it to a 202, but I own both a 15400 and a SubC and yes, the 15400 wears bigger than the SubC. It's not excessively bigger (I have around a 7 inch wrist), but it is bigger than the Sub on the wrist.

If the SubC feels fine on your wrist, I doubt the 15400 size would be a deal breaker for you. It's not for me and I own nothing over 41.

[HarryLime]

Am I wrong in saying that the "blue" in the blue dials of both the 15202 and 15400 are heavily on the darker side of the spectrum?

[kimwizzzuuu]

I’ll just leave this here,lol


从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk

[bruinmd]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

Am I wrong in saying that the "blue" in the blue dials of both the 15202 and 15400 are heavily on the darker side of the spectrum?

The 15202 is reportedly darker than the 15400/15450 (the latter of which I briefly owned).

I'll be curious to see how the blue looks when I get my Jumbo later this year.
Perhaps others can weigh in who have both or seen them side by side.

[wisguy]

Originally Posted by brockburst

Would it be a fair assessment to say the 15300 wears 'bigger' than a 15202? Not having the ability to try on both at the same time just curious the honest thoughts between both references if someone has had the opportunity to spend meaningful time with them.

Comparatively, I have always thought a 15400 wears much bigger than a Submariner for example, curious on the thoughts on that too.

Thanks in advance for the responses and TRF for the space.

I've owned both (and a 15400 too).

The 15300 does wear larger that the 15202, by a lot, it's thicker and larger lug to lug.

[cascavel]

a

[Horolojust]

Not exactly 15202 vs 15300 side by side, rather 15400 (on left) vs 15300 (on right). See the contour shade difference and sizes.

15300 is dull greyish blue and 15400 is more vibrant. I am preferring the siZe of 15300 of course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[V25V]

Originally Posted by wisguy

larger lug to lug.

I believe this is very inaccurate. The 15300 is barely larger lug to lug, if any. Maybe .5mm at most.

True on the color but I believe the 15300 did have some different shades of blue during its time.

[dlhussain]

The jumbo is the jumbo, the 15300 is a 'mass market' version of it.

I like the fact it doesn't have seconds hand, don't care about screw down crown and I have a winder.

For me 15202 is THE Royal Oak (bar 5402 A series)

[Johnfm69]

Originally Posted by dlhussain

The jumbo is the jumbo, the 15300 is a 'mass market' version of it.

I like the fact it doesn't have seconds hand, don't care about screw down crown and I have a winder.

For me 15202 is THE Royal Oak (bar 5402 A series)

This x 100000

[V25V]

Originally Posted by dlhussain

The jumbo is the jumbo, the 15300 is a 'mass market' version of it.

I like the fact it doesn't have seconds hand, don't care about screw down crown and I have a winder.

For me 15202 is THE Royal Oak (bar 5402 A series)

"mass market" version. Gimme a break.... I would be willing to bet the production numbers when the 15300 was around compared to the 15202 were probably very similar. Wasn't until recently when anyone gave a crap about availability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[dlhussain]

Originally Posted by V25V

"mass market" version. Gimme a break.... I would be willing to bet the production numbers when the 15300 was around compared to the 15202 were probably very similar. Wasn't until recently when anyone gave a crap about availability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Your comment shows your ignorance in this topic. The 15202 movement is finished to a much higher standard than the 15300 hence the lower production volume as they don’t have many master watchmakers to undertake the task. You’re lucky I’m not the gambling type or else I would’ve included the shirt on your back in the bet.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by dlhussain

Your comment shows your ignorance in this topic. The 15202 movement is finished to a much higher standard than the 15300 hence the lower production volume as they don’t have many master watchmakers to undertake the task. You’re lucky I’m not the gambling type or else I would’ve included the shirt on your back in the bet.

ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[dlhussain]

Originally Posted by V25V

ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You own a 15300 so you got upset, I get it you felt it was a personal attack. But should you really be misinforming people? FYI the 15300 and 15202 do not wear the same. Due to case design the 15202 wears larger than the 15300. I've owned a 26124st dual time which has the same case as the 15300 and ive owned a 15202, the lugs flare out more on the 15202

[ChipWong]

15202 overrated. I would take a blue 15300 over the 15202. The 15202 fanboys dont realize the watch was fairly easy to obtain at retail less than 3 yrs ago.

[agsstructures]

15300 Blue!!

[wisguy]

Originally Posted by V25V

I believe this is very inaccurate. The 15300 is barely larger lug to lug, if any. Maybe .5mm at most.

True on the color but I believe the 15300 did have some different shades of blue during its time.

I don't believe, I know.

The 15202 spans 52.3mm and the 15300 52.7mm, a small but noticeable difference.

The proportions are very different as well, you may not notice if you've only experienced te 15300 but once you hold a 15202 you really notice how much better the overall look is.

I've owned a 15300, 15400, 26300 and 15202. Hands down the 15202 is my favorite, I only sold it because the non quickset date drove me crazy (the crown feels like you're going to break it every time you manipulate it).

[red1108nyc]

15300 wears thicker than 15202 and has a sportier feel for me. I owned both and prefer the 15300.

[ppalasthira]

A very good thread indeed. Here to gather some wisdom.

I have very small wrists. Was considering the ROO Diver. But still shopping around. I would love to have the 15202 one day. But my budget doesn’t allow for it atm.