Well, I think you also bring a point that 3940 people will emphasize. And this is perfectly understandable.
On the other hand, if I take 5327 front pictures and forget the 3940, I think it is perfectly balanced. The thing is that the hour numerals are placed in the 5327 in a room that was not available before in the 3940. Thus, it is not exactly the same dial (whereas the difference was not that obvious with the 5140).
If one is having the 3940 very strongly in his mind, then he may have difficulties in reading the new "room" around the subdials.
On the other way, if someone looks at the 5327 for a long time and comes back straight after that to a 3940 picture, he will logically find that the subdials are "eating" all the numerals area.
That's why I talk about what we are used to seeing and say that the 5327's dial is perfectly balanced, as may look the 3940 for a different reader. It is the interaction with the external edge of the dial that has changed as it is larger in the new reference.
I don't have legibility problems so I can't talk about this point!
As for the 240, it is still 27.5mm in diameter, which is not too small imho. The thing is that when we are used to seeing the subdials of a 3940 coming very close to the dial's external limits (near the flange and stepping on the markers), I imagine you feel as they are too close on the 5327. I dont think they are but the balance is different in both watches. On the other hand, if you consider the room left for numerals in the 5327 and the right place of the subdials on the inner side, then it is the 3940 that seems less balanced as the subdials "eat" the numerals. Only a question of habit.
Each owner/fan will of course find which one he prefers in that respect.
Thanks a lot for your input and nice comments Kari.
Cheers, Mark
This message has been edited by Mark in Paris on 2016-04-28 16:36:52