Royal Oak 15300 or 15400?

[dannyjak]

Hi all

Tossing up between a used 15300 or a brand new 15400. Obviously the main difference being the price point.

It will be my first AP, and am quite excited about it. In my opinion this is where I see it:

15300
- perhaps a less comfortable bracelet fit due to older style clasp?
- second hand looks a bit weird
+ 39mm size would probably suit me better
+ like the 'AP' at 12 o'clock
+ case size good proportion to the movement size

15400
- case too large for the small movement?
+ same colour date window
+ new improved clasp
+ new watch
+ improved second hands

What other differences do you see?

Which would you pick?

Unfortunately I have not been able to try the both of them on as they arent that easy to find at ADs here

Thanks

[B. Doggy]

15300 of course. The clasp is great on it, too.

[woodsworth]

I'd go for the classic 39mm case. Although, the 15400 is nice if you have larger wrists.

[Hairdude1]

I say 15300

[Darlinboy]

15300

Well proportioned and comfortable.

[h999r]

15300 for me. The 15400 looks too plain without the chrono.

[caryyee]

Depends on the size of your wrist and how it fits. 15300 fits perfect on me, looks great, but 15400 looks too big.

[mfnj]

I will take a contrary view. I found the 15300 too small and the bracelet underwhelming compared to the rest of the watch (maybe that's too harsh but it wasn't comfortable). For me it was an easy decision and I went for the 15400. It is well balanced and the new clasp is much more comfortable. Frankly you can't lose either way!

[Scott in Arizona]

I'd agree its a wrist size issue but in silver the 15300 wears larger than it seems. I'm a 7 3/4 inch wrist and mine, a 15202, even thinner, is perfect with a dress shirt. It works with short sleeves though on a bare forearm I wouldn't want to go any smaller.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

[iLLGT2]

I love big watches, however, 15300 for me.. Just look much more balanced IMO!

[Captain Kirkwood]

If it wasn't too small for me, I'd choose the 15300. That said, the 15400 looks fantastic in person. I you can't go wrong either way.

[jnelson3097]

I liked how the 15400 felt on my wrist over the 15300. Here are wristshots of both.

15400


15300

[kilyung]

I'm biased towards the 15300.

[TSW]

15300 without a doubt.

[mb23]

All really depends on wrist size, for me the 15300 is just to small. The 15400 fits my wrist perfect and it's also more comfortable as others have said.

I would say try both on and see which looks better, ultimately you can't go wrong both a great!

[Puffy]

15300 for sure. better proportioned

just look at the date window on the 15400, looks silly. the movement isn't a one size fits all. it should have been resized to fit the larger case

[Hanz079]

6.75 inch wrist and I've gone for the 15400.

[Monte Cristo]

Think you need to try them both to fully appreciate. Having said that its impossible to find both the 15300 and 15400 at a Sydney AD (I've tried)...if you do please let me know.

The only place I found a 15300 was at The Hour Glass in Melbourne (thanks Cary). They only had a 15300 Black face.

[Submarino]

15300 of course.

[Rolex Freak]

I went with the 15300. I was lucky enough to get one with the newer clasp similar to the 15400. My wrist size is 6.75" and it fits really well.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Puffy

15300 for sure. better proportioned

just look at the date window on the 15400, looks silly. the movement isn't a one size fits all. it should have been resized to fit the larger case

except.....then there would be a large empty space to the left of the date window, unless a truncated marker should have been inserted there to fill in the space?

just eye-balling it, it doesn't look like the date is in exactly the same position for both watches. looks like it's a tad to the left in the 15400? suggesting that there was some intentional design choice going on?

if one didn't know about the smaller movement being inserted in the 15400, i don't think it would be a big deal. if anything, the small marker to the right of the date window helps lend balance to the dial face.

i have to see these in person, though, to have any real idea about what i'm talking about.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

except.....then there would be a large empty space to the left of the date window, unless a truncated marker should have been inserted there to fill in the space?

just eye-balling it, it doesn't look like the date is in exactly the same position for both watches. looks like it's a tad to the left in the 15400? suggesting that there was some intentional design choice going on?

if one didn't know about the smaller movement being inserted in the 15400, i don't think it would be a big deal. if anything, the small marker to the right of the date window helps lend balance to the dial face.

i have to see these in person, though, to have any real idea about what i'm talking about.

Excellent point. If properly executed a small movement can be effective (design wise) in a larger case. Case in point, the Tudor Pelagos uses a relatively compact ETA 2824-2 for its 42mm case but the markers are thick and the combined date window + short marker add symmetry to the 9 marker.


The markers on the AP however are very thin so you don't get the same effect.

Borrowed from Justin

[Demonoid]

15400 in blue.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Excellent point. If properly executed a small movement can be effective (design wise) in a larger case. Case in point, the Tudor Pelagos uses a relatively compact ETA 2824-2 for its 42mm case but the markers are thick and the combined date window + short marker add symmetry to the 9 marker.


The markers on the AP however are very thin so you don't get the same effect.

Borrowed from Justin

Great point and comparison pictures, Mike, thanks. I understand the 15400 design point perfectly now.