ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
11 October 2013, 04:05 AM | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 487
|
Rose gold royal oak. (Extra thin)
Hi people.
No wish to over explain why- but I'd really like to know if anyone has one/ pics??? 15202OR has just nudged its way into my "wish list" and I'd love see pics of it other than from the AP site itself. Ie wrist shots etc Ideally comparison with 15400 ( which I have already ) so I can gauge just how thin it is.... Sounds silly but I hope it isn't too thin for my taste I'm hoping to get to Marcus next month to try it on but would really appreciate some shots if u have them. Cheers |
11 October 2013, 06:24 AM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: Cory
Location: NY
Posts: 681
|
26320 vs 15202 for size comparison. The 26320 is 10% thicker than your 15400. The 15202 is 17% thinner than your 15400.
Side question. I have a 1.5 link for my Jumbo that I got to make it slightly tighter, but when I tried it I wasn't sure if it was better with or without it. Do these pics make you think it would fit better if it were 0.5 links tighter? |
11 October 2013, 02:57 PM | #3 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rolex Estate
Posts: 1,304
|
Quote:
|
|
11 October 2013, 04:19 PM | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 487
|
I don't think it looks loose by an means.
But I'd hate to wear a tight watch- Thanks for ur reply and info. |
11 October 2013, 11:58 PM | #5 |
2025 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NYC
Watch: Patek / AP / Rolex
Posts: 795
|
RO needs to be pretty snug on the wrist for the right look IMHO - you can't have it flopping around on your wrist.
BZ |
12 October 2013, 12:57 AM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NL
Posts: 115
|
They're both much too loose. An AP shouldn't slide over your wrist. I would take out 1 link.
|
12 October 2013, 01:21 AM | #7 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Mr. H
Location: Dallas
Watch: them for me!
Posts: 7,180
|
Quote:
http://www.watchcollectinglifestyle....raph-ref-26300 http://www.watchcollectinglifestyle....oyal-oaks-ever http://www.watchcollectinglifestyle....oak-extra-thin I'll post a picture in a little bit with the 5402, 15300 and 15400.
__________________
WATCHES ARE THE NEW CURRENCY!/ MEMBER 27491/OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED OLD TIMER /AP OWNERS CLUB MEMBER Instagram @watchcollectinglifestyle |
|
12 October 2013, 01:38 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Mr. H
Location: Dallas
Watch: them for me!
Posts: 7,180
|
Here's a good comparison shot of the thickness. A Jumbo 5402SA, discontinued 15300 and a 15400. Enjoy!
__________________
WATCHES ARE THE NEW CURRENCY!/ MEMBER 27491/OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED OLD TIMER /AP OWNERS CLUB MEMBER Instagram @watchcollectinglifestyle |
12 October 2013, 01:43 AM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: Cory
Location: NY
Posts: 681
|
Wow, very cool shot, Hal.. Even owning my pair, I don't often get such a sense for how much slimmer the Jumbo really is -- look at that bracelet...
|
12 October 2013, 02:07 AM | #10 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 487
|
Quote:
Excellent thanks Given the obvious weight difference between jumbo and 15400 It's slightly odd to me that in the solid rosé gold models (uk rrp) there is only a couple hundred pounds between them!! There is oddly enough a few thousand pounds separating the steel versions!! Any thoughts on that??? |
|
12 October 2013, 02:15 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Real Name: Wayne
Location: Singapore
Watch: AP, PP, Rolex
Posts: 1,791
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.