The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 17 May 2018, 02:20 PM   #31
dmash
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
dmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Germany/USA
Posts: 3,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jidonsu View Post
That explains it! I definitely didnít 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!
dmash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 May 2018, 02:27 PM   #32
Jidonsu
2018 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmash View Post
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?
__________________
Current Collection

Audemars Piguet Royal Oak 15400 | Rolex 114060 | Rolex 116710BLNR | Tudor Pelagos Blue | IWC Mark XVIII Le Petit Prince | IWC 3714
Jidonsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 May 2018, 02:31 PM   #33
Jidonsu
2018 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 199
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.



__________________
Current Collection

Audemars Piguet Royal Oak 15400 | Rolex 114060 | Rolex 116710BLNR | Tudor Pelagos Blue | IWC Mark XVIII Le Petit Prince | IWC 3714
Jidonsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 May 2018, 10:59 PM   #34
dmash
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
dmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Germany/USA
Posts: 3,035
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.
dmash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 May 2018, 01:33 AM   #35
Jidonsu
2018 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 199
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.
__________________
Current Collection

Audemars Piguet Royal Oak 15400 | Rolex 114060 | Rolex 116710BLNR | Tudor Pelagos Blue | IWC Mark XVIII Le Petit Prince | IWC 3714
Jidonsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 May 2018, 03:32 AM   #36
AK797
2018 Pledge Member
 
AK797's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Neil
Location: UK
Watch: ing ships roll in
Posts: 48,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon040289 View Post
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.
AK797 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2018, 01:42 AM   #37
karasus
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: N/A
Watch: Royal Oak
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmash View Post
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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 36 vs 39mm.jpg (229.7 KB, 102 views)
File Type: jpg 20180427_181547.jpg (191.4 KB, 103 views)
karasus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2018, 01:14 PM   #38
Likestheshiny
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: U.S.
Posts: 598
Quote:
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.
Likestheshiny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2018, 01:53 PM   #39
mineral
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,700
Look really nice on you

suit your shirt also. Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by V25V View Post
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.

__________________
Watching date changes every midnight
mineral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2018, 03:13 PM   #40
PJ S
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jidonsu View Post
And you guys said I must've measured my wrist wrong. :p

Itís definitely subjective. Ö
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.
PJ S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2018, 03:20 PM   #41
Ichiran
"TRF" Member
 
Ichiran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Real Name: Michael
Location: Near an AD
Watch: 11 and 12
Posts: 733
I prefer the size of the 15300 as compared to the 400. It fits my 6.5" wrist better.
Ichiran is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


*Banner Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2018, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.