I'm starting to lose interest in this piece

[cascavel]

I've owned two 15400, one gold on strap and one SS and found both of them too large for me to wear. Sold them and bought a 15202, back when it was possible to walk into an AP boutique and ask for one. I agree with PanosI about the 15300, it was the perfect Royal Oak.

[ezinhk]

Sell it and get a Roo 42/44, then you have best of both world.

[Waitlisted Watches]

Makes sense to me. The 15202 is awesome

[m3tek44]

Originally Posted by chiscott_29

There’s nothing wrong with selling if it doesn’t work for you any more. Trust me...I change my mind sometimes daily and if you’re in at retail you’re going to make a nice return on it.

I love the 15500 personally.

But, I say sell it...I don’t see why you’d have a Jumbo and blue dial 15500. Use the money and buy a couple of “dailies”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

+1 well said.

[Abre]

Proportions are spot on



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PanosI]

The solution!
15202-15300
pic from the internet

[TankTom]

Originally Posted by Abre

Hello fellow members,
So i had this watch for some time now,
I bought this and a 15202 at the same time thinking that this would be my daily driver, and that the 15202 would be for special occasions,
But let me tell you the truth, I actually hate this watch and I know it's very hyped and all but i actually don't like to wear it and I think it's too big and bulky .
Now I'm wearing the 15202 much more than I thought I would.
What do you guys think ?

Each to their own, but why you bought this AND the 15202 is beyond me. Virtually the same watch. The 202 is miles miles better than this so ditch this and wear the 202 I say. I love the RO but this version with the empty dial is truly awful IMO

[ts3]

Originally Posted by TankTom

Each to their own, but why you bought this AND the 15202 is beyond me. Virtually the same watch. The 202 is miles miles better than this so ditch this and wear the 202 I say. I love the RO but this version with the empty dial is truly awful IMO

Exactly my thoughts.

[danicasi2002]

I have a similar piece (and no other ROs) and I still love it on my 6.75 in wrist after 1.5y. As I personally tend to diversify, I can see why your interest would wane on this remarkable piece having the classic 15202/Blue at the same time. Has a different piece caught your eye or just looking to unload? Best of luck.

[danicasi2002]

Originally Posted by PanosI

The solution!
15202-15300
pic from the internet

now that blue is so bright!

[Goin2drt]

Personally would have never bought it to begin with as it does nothing for me and don’t see the hype at all.

Having said that like many have said I would be offloading any watch that I wasn’t wearing any longer and get something I would enjoy.

[TooWoundUp]

I’d be more than happy to take it off your hands :) But honestly, you can’t go wrong with a 15202. It does everything a 15500 does and much much more!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eskiserkan]

AP is 15202... Completely agree about 15500 being dinner plate. 26331 is acceptable in size at 41mm

[Soondooboo]

Originally Posted by TooWoundUp

But honestly, you can’t go wrong with a 15202. It does everything a 15500 does and much much more!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn't have a second hand, it has worse power reserve, it does not have a quick set date, it is way more delicate, so it doesn't do a lot of things the 15500 does

[illiguy]

Originally Posted by Soondooboo

It doesn't have a second hand, it has worse power reserve, it does not have a quick set date, it is way more delicate, so it doesn't do a lot of things the 15500 does

This. The 15202ST is a connoisseur’s watch. But it is an excellent one at that and I love it. Unless a daily wearer, sort of a pain to set. It’s also delicate. 15500 is much more practical for a daily wearer.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I feel the same way about the size of my VC Overseas. It’s also too big but it also beautiful just like your 15500 so I will deal with it.

Interesting my friend.

I’ve tied the Overseas on many times and have always walked away from it, partly due to its size. Beauty watch though, I have to say

Remind me of your wrist size ...

[turborolex]

Originally Posted by Soondooboo

It doesn't have a second hand, it has worse power reserve, it does not have a quick set date, it is way more delicate, so it doesn't do a lot of things the 15500 does

I own both and I don’t believe it’s a fair comparison.

The 15202 is a 1970s watch being worn in 2020, and that’s the “charm”.

AP managed to keep the 15202 almost identical to the original, and that’s quite an amazing thing.

Think air cooled 993 and a 992, you really can’t compare, but the 993 is something special and nothing in the current or Porsche line up compares.

What you mentioned is correct, but that’s what you get with that movement and it’s not for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[7sins]

Originally Posted by Soondooboo

It doesn't have a second hand, it has worse power reserve, it does not have a quick set date, it is way more delicate, so it doesn't do a lot of things the 15500 does

It isn't more "delicate" or fragile than a 15500, it is in a much thinner case and has a nicer feel to it than a 15500 but just as durable. Buy a watch winder and that solves your no quick set date. So to say it doesn't "do a lot of things 15500 does" is a stretch, while subjectively, the 15202 does most of what the 15500 does in a much better design and dial.

[Soondooboo]

Originally Posted by 7sins

It isn't more "delicate" or fragile than a 15500, it is in a much thinner case and has a nicer feel to it than a 15500 but just as durable. Buy a watch winder and that solves your no quick set date. So to say it doesn't "do a lot of things 15500 does" is a stretch, while subjectively, the 15202 does most of what the 15500 does in a much better design and dial.

I'm responding to the post saying that "the 15202 does everything the 15500 does and and more", which is factually not true. It is not a stretch at all to say that the 15202 has no quick set date, lower power reserve, and less durable, there's no argument to say otherwise. Buying a watch winder does not give the watch a quick set date or more power reserve so I don't know what you're trying to say.

[TooWoundUp]

Originally Posted by Soondooboo

It doesn't have a second hand, it has worse power reserve, it does not have a quick set date, it is way more delicate, so it doesn't do a lot of things the 15500 does

I wasn’t quite using the word “does” in the active sense. I was speaking more subjectively, in terms of aesthetics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[porschejeff]

I think it looks and fits great on your wrist.

[Jster]

I hear you. I had a 15400 for a while but it was awkward looking on my wrist (a 7 incher). Should have gone for the 15300 but I bought into the 15400 hype at the time.
The 15300 is the equivalent of the 5 digit Rolex Sub - the best version of an icon, but with a better bracelet.

[7sins]

Originally Posted by Soondooboo

I'm responding to the post saying that "the 15202 does everything the 15500 does and and more", which is factually not true. It is not a stretch at all to say that the 15202 has no quick set date, lower power reserve, and less durable, there's no argument to say otherwise. Buying a watch winder does not give the watch a quick set date or more power reserve so I don't know what you're trying to say.

How is the 15202 less durable? Just because the watch is thinner doesn't mean it is less durable in any capacity, I've used mine without any issue as a daily for quite some time and also own a 15500 with no issue.

A watch winder means you do not need to set the date and hence renders not having a quick set date meaningless but potato tomato.

[Fishrus]

I think the 15202 is overhyped at this point, but thats because i cant get it at retail :( i think the 15500 still fits in your collection as its a different size and is a sportier look. But if you hardly wear it theres no harm to letting it go in this market environment especially if u got it at retail.

I love my 15500 and wouldnt let it go due to the memories associated with it. If yours doesnt hv much sentimental value to you and doesnt sing to u anymore then do what you think is best.

[MrJKLFoams]

Unload keep the money think of something that will make you happy. Maybe a lange?

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

[Abre]

Trying to force my self



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cassidy776]

You hate the watch.......certainly don't need our opinions

[HMHM]

Hey! Actually I would say that the 15500ST is a better watch than the 15202ST but that’s just my personal opinion (not expecting any mercy on this forum but here we go). I think size wise it’s a bit bigger (ideally I would prefer 40mm instead of 41) but quick set date, seconds hand, in-house movement, more affordable price and just greater everyday usability. If 39mm was really the right size, why would AP use a 41mm case for the 15407ST or the perpetual calendars?

I do agree that 15202 is rich in tradition and is the only watch that has the DNA of the Genta designed 5402. But objectively I’m for the 15500 and that’s also why my next AP would be the 15407ST instead of the 15202 and why I’m skipping the 15202 unless for it’s 50 anniversary there’s a big enough difference for me to add the 15202.

Just reiterating: it’s just an opinion. No hate please.

[illiguy]

Originally Posted by HMHM

Hey! Actually I would say that the 15500ST is a better watch than the 15202ST but that’s just my personal opinion (not expecting any mercy on this forum but here we go). I think size wise it’s a bit bigger (ideally I would prefer 40mm instead of 41) but quick set date, seconds hand, in-house movement, more affordable price and just greater everyday usability. If 39mm was really the right size, why would AP use a 41mm case for the 15407ST or the perpetual calendars?

I do agree that 15202 is rich in tradition and is the only watch that has the DNA of the Genta designed 5402. But objectively I’m for the 15500 and that’s also why my next AP would be the 15407ST instead of the 15202 and why I’m skipping the 15202 unless for it’s 50 anniversary there’s a big enough difference for me to add the 15202.

Just reiterating: it’s just an opinion. No hate please.

I thought this post by TRF user “November” was spot on with respect to the 15202ST Jumbo ...

“I find this comically ironic in an AP forum, considering the fact that the initial absurdity of the 5402 was derived from the relative value of similar/superior functional mechanical sport watches produced in steel. The ONLY reason the 15202 exists today is because of its old world charm and F*** you factor for those who know (along with the quirks that come with it); Otherwise, your statement is correct - the 15202 is backdated and should be obsolete. The fact that it’s not is what makes it SO special - it’s traditional watchmaking through and through. With the exception of the transparent case back, and the extra 1mm sacrifice that comes with it, the 15202 is the ultimate Trojan horse in high-end mechanical wristwatches. Period. The 5711 is a steel outfit for a movement acting as a base module for just about every other automatic watch in a mass produced brand catalogue - nothing special there. Modified Cal 921 (and now in house to AP) is reserved only for the most special watches in the AP catalogue - and to me, the only watches worth comparison in the world of mass produced watch brands (from a movement perspective... ceramics would squash this debate in a heartbeat). Outside of independents (and only a select few) I would challenge anyone on this forum to find me a more value oriented proposition in the world of mass produced watches today... 15500 and any skin derivative to the 5402 is for those you who would have scoffed at AP, and leaped for a Rolex when the original Jumbo was released.

Banksy’s Rembrandt “self portrait” may have sold for ~$20m usd; but the true “Self Portrait” last transacted at nearly 2.5x that value; the real baller owns the Rembrandt, not the other one. I am not a baller - but if I were, the 15202 is where my money goes. Not towards a 15407st... sand blasting is nowhere near as time consuming/impressive as the near fully hand assembled/ hand finished jlc adopted legendary 921. I may be incorrect in my thinking, and if so please excuse my ignorance.”

Post #11 here - https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...15202+November

[HMHM]

Originally Posted by illiguy

I thought this post by TRF user “November” was spot on with respect to the 15202ST Jumbo ...

“I find this comically ironic in an AP forum, considering the fact that the initial absurdity of the 5402 was derived from the relative value of similar/superior functional mechanical sport watches produced in steel. The ONLY reason the 15202 exists today is because of its old world charm and F*** you factor for those who know (along with the quirks that come with it); Otherwise, your statement is correct - the 15202 is backdated and should be obsolete. The fact that it’s not is what makes it SO special - it’s traditional watchmaking through and through. With the exception of the transparent case back, and the extra 1mm sacrifice that comes with it, the 15202 is the ultimate Trojan horse in high-end mechanical wristwatches. Period. The 5711 is a steel outfit for a movement acting as a base module for just about every other automatic watch in a mass produced brand catalogue - nothing special there. Modified Cal 921 (and now in house to AP) is reserved only for the most special watches in the AP catalogue - and to me, the only watches worth comparison in the world of mass produced watch brands (from a movement perspective... ceramics would squash this debate in a heartbeat). Outside of independents (and only a select few) I would challenge anyone on this forum to find me a more value oriented proposition in the world of mass produced watches today... 15500 and any skin derivative to the 5402 is for those you who would have scoffed at AP, and leaped for a Rolex when the original Jumbo was released.

Banksy’s Rembrandt “self portrait” may have sold for ~$20m usd; but the true “Self Portrait” last transacted at nearly 2.5x that value; the real baller owns the Rembrandt, not the other one. I am not a baller - but if I were, the 15202 is where my money goes. Not towards a 15407st... sand blasting is nowhere near as time consuming/impressive as the near fully hand assembled/ hand finished jlc adopted legendary 921. I may be incorrect in my thinking, and if so please excuse my ignorance.”

Post #11 here - https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...15202+November

Yeah I remember that reply. It was directed towards me back then as well if you refer to that thread again. My opinion hasn’t changed since then :)
That’s why TRF is a watch forum to encourage discussion, not to have everybody having the same opinion.