nafetS
1995
15300 and 15202 are both great, but also very different. You can‘t go wrong with any of those two, so it should really be a question of what feels better on YOUR wrist.
I just prefer the 15202 because I‘m attracted to thin and ultra thin watches in general, not because I think it‘s a better watch.
15202 vs 15300
Hi, With the fuss around Genta sports watches these days, there seems to exist peer pressure to buy one of those pieces.. I have always been more of a leather strap kind of guy, but have owned and own some steel watches - one of them being 15300. Everyone...
Notable differences...
I have a couple of 15300s which I like very much, still. Initially, the 15202 didn’t grab me as much because it is notably thinner and dressier than the 15300...which I like because of it relative ruggedness that I regarded as going with the uniquely angu...
15300 and 15202 are both great, but also very different. You can‘t go wrong with any of those two, so it should really be a question of what feels better on YOUR wrist.
I just prefer the 15202 because I‘m attracted to thin and ultra thin watches in general, not because I think it‘s a better watch.
The watches feel much different on the wrist.
I wore a 15300 starting in 2006, and wore both a bracelet and strap model for some time. The 15202 is just different. Thinner, obviously, but a different experience. I admire the robustness of the 15300, I love the dial. But I prefer the 15202.
I like the 15300st more than any other RO
As you and others have said, there is a robustness to it. However it is still quite thin and sleek. I love the proportions, just perfect. But the biggest plus in its favour is the second hand. I just can’t get into a sport watch that doesn’t have one. Maj...
I agree. To add...
The lack of a quick date changing mechanism and the difficult to change time with a hexagonal crown made it a constant annoyance plus horror stories about broken stems from inadvertent winding exercise definitely make a compelling case for a 15300.
