Comments:
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 around me says that 15202 and 15300 are completely different, but I can't seem to justify the price difference between the two.
I bought 15300 when there was no craziness of today, and back then, decided on 15300 due to financials(15202 was a bit more expensive without any upsides for me).
But now, the buzz around 15202 makes me want to try it and see what the difference really is between these two 39mm royal oaks.
Any thoughts?
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 angular case of the RO. However, as my tastes have “matured” a bit more, and certainly with the experienced opinions and reflections of the great collectors on this site, I now have a more thorough appreciation for the elegance and history of the 15202. While I know the 15300 will always be my “go-to” RO on any given day, the place of a 15202 in a curated collection makes a lot of sense now.
You will soon see what the experienced owners will be posting, which I think will be quite compelling.
Take care and enjoy your great 15300 in great health and longevity...it really is an awesome model.
I can't acquire neither version. If AP would let me buy both, I'd write a report with a comparison.
No message body
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. Major and really unforgivable design flaw imho.
Make no mistake the 15300st is a sport watch but the 15202 is much more a dress watch.
In fact imho if the 15300st had been the original the interest in the dress version 15202 would be magnitudes lower.
The 15202 version is more 70s but the 15300st is not wedded to any era. It is the timeless RO 🙂
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.
Thank for everyone's input! It seems that 15202 or 15300 is just upto one's preference. thinner or robust I should say... should see and try this 15202 to see!
No message body