38mm ROC vs 15450

[srvrf]

Originally Posted by Commonproject

Feel like this is a Daytona killer. At maybe $5-6K more in grey market I would much rather have this

I’ve owned two ROCs and two Daytonas. The Daytona is definitely more of a tool watch especially with a ceramic bezel. And it is 100m WR. It’s iconic. But for me, I prefer the look of the ROC and the functionality of the date. It is way more legible and the bracelet is awesome. If it were 100m WR with a ceramics bezel I think it would be ideal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flybak]

The 38mm has the ideal proportions in the Royal Oak Chronograph line-up. The off-center date is the one minor grievance but not a deal-breaker. OP, that's an excellent piece

[Commonproject]

Originally Posted by NYG1121

Does the chrono feel more "substantial" on the wrist? In terms of heft and due to the thicker profile?

curious on this as well. It's thicker compared to 15450 but still thinner than the Rolex SS watches, so wondering if this is more comfortable

[EdwardC]

The 38mm chronograph actually has a thicker and a bit wider bracelet. More solid feeling than the 15450 but by no means the 15450 is flimsy. I went with the 15450 as I hate the 38mm chronograph date window and I really want to see the movement. And saving 6k

[Adirondoc]

My Daytona wears smaller than the 38mm ROC. That is to say, I notice it less on the wrist. The Daytona simply feels smoother, catches the sleeve less, and is the watch I forget I'm wearing. It's oyster bracelet is hard to find fault with, comfort wise. My 15450 also quite comfortable, bracelet-wise. The 38mm ROC's bracelet, perhaps being so new, has edges I'm always aware of. As it moves ever so slightly about the wrist, the links' edges are noticeable. I've heard others say otherwise, but that's been my take. It's the price I pay for having a watch with bold geometric designs and sharper, well defined edges that give it it's signature industrial look.

[locutus49]

You should send that sharp-edged AP in for a polish. It will return with nicely rounded edges.

Originally Posted by Adirondoc

My Daytona wears smaller than the 38mm ROC. That is to say, I notice it less on the wrist. The Daytona simply feels smoother, catches the sleeve less, and is the watch I forget I'm wearing. It's oyster bracelet is hard to find fault with, comfort wise. My 15450 also quite comfortable, bracelet-wise. The 38mm ROC's bracelet, perhaps being so new, has edges I'm always aware of. As it moves ever so slightly about the wrist, the links' edges are noticeable. I've heard others say otherwise, but that's been my take. It's the price I pay for having a watch with bold geometric designs and sharper, well defined edges that give it it's signature industrial look.

[NYG1121]

Originally Posted by Adirondoc

My Daytona wears smaller than the 38mm ROC. That is to say, I notice it less on the wrist. The Daytona simply feels smoother, catches the sleeve less, and is the watch I forget I'm wearing. It's oyster bracelet is hard to find fault with, comfort wise. My 15450 also quite comfortable, bracelet-wise. The 38mm ROC's bracelet, perhaps being so new, has edges I'm always aware of. As it moves ever so slightly about the wrist, the links' edges are noticeable. I've heard others say otherwise, but that's been my take. It's the price I pay for having a watch with bold geometric designs and sharper, well defined edges that give it it's signature industrial look.

Thank you. But does it have more of a wrist presence/heft compared to your 15450? Despite similar in size, I would imagine the thickness would lead to a different experience but I have not had the opportunity to compare

[Adirondoc]

Originally Posted by NYG1121

Thank you. But does it have more of a wrist presence/heft compared to your 15450? Despite similar in size, I would imagine the thickness would lead to a different experience but I have not had the opportunity to compare

Ah sorry, I missed the mark. Yes, the ROC carries more wrist presence owing to its dial, and however small the difference, its slightly wider case. As you mention, the increased thickness adds to the wrist presence as well, with the dial set slightly deeper.

[NYG1121]

Originally Posted by Adirondoc

Ah sorry, I missed the mark. Yes, the ROC carries more wrist presence owing to its dial, and however small the difference, its slightly wider case. As you mention, the increased thickness adds to the wrist presence as well, with the dial set slightly deeper.

Awesome thanks for all your helpful input. Appreciated by all!

[kenta986]

I see this is an old thread, but just wanted to add that the bracelet size of the two is identical. Both is 23 mm at the case and 16 mm at the clasp. Both have a wrist span of 49 mm.

Compare it to the 15202 and the 15300 which has a bracelet size of 26 mm at the case and 16 mm at the clasp, with a wrist span of 52,3 mm.

The 15400 has a bracelet of 26 mm at the case, similar to the 15202, however the size at the clasp is 18 mm. The wrist span of the 15400 is also larger than the 15202, measuring at 55 mm.

My experience is that for the Royal Oaks, it is important to look at the overall size and appearance of the watch, inkl. the bracelet.

Beautiful watches though! I own a 26315 in silver, and are waiting for my 15450 in blue.

[Benzsiam]

Both look very good, they are just about the same size (only 1 mm diff.).

The panda looks beautiful but 15450 looks more elegant and dressier to me.

[Benzsiam]

Originally Posted by Adirondoc

Quite stunning!

Wow, with yellow gold bracelet, make it looks gorgeous and perfect size.

[sgwatchguy]

Originally Posted by kenta986

I see this is an old thread, but just wanted to add that the bracelet size of the two is identical. Both is 23 mm at the case and 16 mm at the clasp. Both have a wrist span of 49 mm.

Compare it to the 15202 and the 15300 which has a bracelet size of 26 mm at the case and 16 mm at the clasp, with a wrist span of 52,3 mm.

The 15400 has a bracelet of 26 mm at the case, similar to the 15202, however the size at the clasp is 18 mm. The wrist span of the 15400 is also larger than the 15202, measuring at 55 mm.

My experience is that for the Royal Oaks, it is important to look at the overall size and appearance of the watch, inkl. the bracelet.

Beautiful watches though! I own a 26315 in silver, and are waiting for my 15450 in blue.

[60sec]

Beautiful!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sir Thalas]

Originally Posted by kenta986

I see this is an old thread, but just wanted to add that the bracelet size of the two is identical. Both is 23 mm at the case and 16 mm at the clasp. Both have a wrist span of 49 mm.

Compare it to the 15202 and the 15300 which has a bracelet size of 26 mm at the case and 16 mm at the clasp, with a wrist span of 52,3 mm.

The 15400 has a bracelet of 26 mm at the case, similar to the 15202, however the size at the clasp is 18 mm. The wrist span of the 15400 is also larger than the 15202, measuring at 55 mm.

My experience is that for the Royal Oaks, it is important to look at the overall size and appearance of the watch, inkl. the bracelet.

Beautiful watches though! I own a 26315 in silver, and are waiting for my 15450 in blue.

Thank you for this! I finally found what I was looking for. Did you recieve your 15450 yet?

[tuan2195]

I wonder if AP will release a 38mm time-only RO anytime soon as an update to the aging 15450 - I've recently accquired a 15300 and I think the 39mm size is great but 38mm might be a tad better. 37mm is a bit small for me.

[Swaye]

Loving the 26315

[NYG1121]

The 38mm ROC is just about perfection!

[illiguy]

Originally Posted by srvrf

With a smaller wrist, you can also consider the older 39mm ROCs. I personally love the size and balance. The date window is also centered if that bothers you on the 38mm models.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 for the 39mm ROC. Same size as the Jumbo, but with Chrono complication? Yes, please. Think these are a good value proposition relative to other APs at the moment.

For the record, I love the 38 mm ROC, the 37 mm, 39mm, 41 mm ROs .... you get the point.