New PO LM + titanium with Cal 8500 announced

[dsio]

Originally Posted by RanHong

Hmmmm on paper, compared to the subc, it looks like the PO has a better bezel,a better dial, a case thats made from a better material, a better depth rating, a newer more 'advanced' movement, and more versatility thanks to the interchangeable bracelet/strap .....
I wonder how much it will cost?

Not to forget better lume.

I think they'll price it just under the Sub-C, that's where it will do the most damage.

[everose]

Well Done Omega!....finally a 8500 LM PO

The question is......thickness??? is it thicker than the normal 45.5mm case????


I can see several dial differences with the 42mm ss LM.

The hands seem to have a more square,less elongated design on the Ti (for me,..maybe more elegant on the ss version)
Also the lume application on the hands seem maybe more elegant on the ss.

The small hour markers at 3,6,9 are not as well matched as on the ss vis a vis the larger hour markers IMO.

As already mentioned,a closed arabic design.
Bezel grip.


I do like Ti....especially if it is treated!!...I would be very surprised if Omega did not give it a surface treatment.

I like it!
(The lighting may not be favouring the blue in those first photos!!)

[mondodec]

Does sound strange as the 8500 is a 29mm x 5.5 mm movement. It will fit easily into a 42mm case even with all that armour around it.

Originally Posted by TheDude

That sounds strange since it's in the 38.5mm AT case as well as the 41.5mm AT.

Is the shape of the case to blame?

[RanHong]

Originally Posted by dsio

Not to forget better lume.

I think they'll price it just under the Sub-C, that's where it will do the most damage.

Ah Yes the lume. The current limited po lm retails for $6750 in Australia, so I am guessing it will be somewhere around the same.
With the 8500 being thicker than the 2500, I suspect titanium was used in order to reduce the overall thickness of the new PO, given titanium being a stronger metal than ss.

[RanHong]

Originally Posted by mondodec

Does sound strange as the 8500 is a 29mm x 5.5 mm movement. It will fit easily into a 42mm case even with all that armour around it.

I am guessing its the thickness of the 8500. AT is at 13-14mm already if I remember correctly, and the PO is built like a tank.

[asadtiger]

lovely watch

[TheDude]

I'm watching all the Sub comparison remarks.

Since I'm not an Omega WIS/owner, could you guys explain your logic for comparing it to the Sub?

I imagine the comparisons should be made to the SeaDweller DeepSea instead.

The PO is BIG like the SDDS (bigger actually)
The PO is supposed to be a "serious" diver like the SDDS
The SDDS is Rolex's "serious" diver

etc...

[dsio]

Originally Posted by TheDude

I'm watching all the Sub comparison remarks.

Since I'm not an Omega WIS/owner, could you guys explain your logic for comparing it to the Sub?

I imagine the comparisons should be made to the SeaDweller DeepSea instead.

The PO is BIG like the SDDS (bigger actually)
The PO is supposed to be a "serious" diver like the SDDS
The SDDS is Rolex's "serious" diver

etc...

The DSSD competes with the PloProf, the PO is the Sub's competitor, it may be wide, but it isn't high like the DSSD and it isn't top heavy, it really wears more like the sub than the DSSD. Having worn both they really are completely different types of watch.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by dsio

The DSSD competes with the PloProf, the PO is the Sub's competitor, it may be wide, but it isn't high like the DSSD and it isn't top heavy, it really wears more like the sub than the DSSD. Having worn both they really are completely different types of watch.

That's an interesting opinion.

[dsio]

Originally Posted by TheDude

That's an interesting opinion.

haha and that's an interesting response!

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by dsio

haha and that's an interesting response!

I just mean I always thought/think of the Ploprof as more of a historic model rather than a serious dive watch (yet I suppose it does eclipse the PO's capabilities pretty substantially). Is the Ploprof slated to be around for very long? Also, its capabilities align more with the previous generation of SeaDweller (depth).

It is always interesting as an outside observer to see how members within a group or sub-group (no pun intended) think about the concerns of the day. Thanks for humoring me.

[TARDIS]

Very nice, but what's with the dreadful strap with the stitching. This is a dive watch is it not?

I'm not sure about the blue. Like many others here, I would like to see it in a better light.

I prefer the bezel on my PO 45. The new hands are controversial but overall I think it will be a challenge to the Sub C.

Will the new lume last as long as the old?

[psv]

Originally Posted by mondodec

While I have seen several somewhat simplistic articles jibing at the 8500, I have yet to find any piece that offers a negative critique on the basis of horology and engineering.

Perhaps you can post the urls of these articles, so we can assess them for their technical bona fides?

Cheers

Desmond

Here is one to start with http://www.luxurytyme.com/movement/index.html

[Ken Cox]

Originally Posted by psv

Here is one to start with http://www.luxurytyme.com/movement/index.html

The author of the article, above, seems to have some technical knowledge, but he also has a clear bias and agenda.

Too bad: I'd really hoped to read a more informative article rather than an editorial opinion.

[dsio]

Originally Posted by Ken Cox

The author of the article, above, seems to have some technical knowledge, but he also has a clear bias and agenda.

Too bad: I'd really hoped to read a more informative article rather than an editorial opinion.

This isn't the first 8500 bagging thread, the last one ended up thin on evidence as well, I think the only argument in the end was that they hadn't been out long enough to fail?

I'll try to dig it up later but at the end of the day, the 3135 rotor uses a simplistic sleeve bearing, which is known to be a point of failure in its winding systems (the same point of failure that caused my Rolex 1680 to ruin itself with metal filings throughout the movement).

That problem we know about tends to get overlooked rather frequently which is odd.

Some will also say that ball bearings are not needed, but do keep in mind that the most recent two movement designs by Rolex both used ball bearings (4130/4160). Which I don't see them doing for entertainment value.

[Dweller of the Sea]

The new PO series will be available in a new 38mm size, and still the current 42mm and 45,5mm.
Colors will be blue, black and orange. Black and blue are LM, orange will still be aluminium.
The price should be a little more than the LE LM, around 6000$

The "Bond" Seamasters will come in a new version, still black and blue, but with LM bezels

[RanHong]

Originally Posted by Dweller of the Sea

The new PO series will be available in a new 38mm size, and still the current 42mm and 45,5mm.
Colors will be blue, black and orange. Black and blue are LM, orange will still be aluminium.
The price should be a little more than the LE LM, around 6000$

The "Bond" Seamasters will come in a new version, still black and blue, but with LM bezels

If that's the case I will be lining up for a 42mm :)

[Dweller of the Sea]

Originally Posted by RanHong

If that's the case I will be lining up for a 42mm :)

Black 42mm for me. I already called my AD

Unfortunatly Omega is notoriuos for taking a loooong time, before Basel models hits the AD´s. I was told to expect oct-jan

[Rippin]

Hmm, I've told myself that I will not purchase any more watches that are larger than 40mm, but the new blue ceramic PO in 42mm looks quite nice. I wonder if they will provide the 38mm in blue and black as well, in addition to the white shown at Basel?

[psv]

Originally Posted by Ken Cox

The author of the article, above, seems to have some technical knowledge, but he also has a clear bias and agenda.

Too bad: I'd really hoped to read a more informative article rather than an editorial opinion.

And where it the technical unbiased evidence that the Cal 8500 is far superior to any other movement on the market?

[Ken Cox]

Originally Posted by psv

And where it the technical unbiased evidence that the Cal 8500 is far superior to any other movement on the market?

I don't know.

However, I'd like to read a real article on the subject of the 8500 movement.

And, similarly, I'd like to read some real articles about the comparable Rolex movements.

A lot of emotion seems to surround these subjects.

[dsio]

Originally Posted by psv

And where it the technical unbiased evidence that the Cal 8500 is far superior to any other movement on the market?

You've got a pretty clear agenda here, so there's fairly little point arguing with you. The reality is that Rolex is running the same movement more or less that they've had since the 1980s, which many other makers (including both Omega and Blancpain) have developed new high end movements more recently.

If you want to read about both the Omega and Blancpain flagship movements (both swatch group) you're welcome to visit www.google.com and attempt it yourself.

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by steelinox

the ginormous size is a deal breaker !

Still nice though...

+1

[apeogre]

I really like it! The blue is awesome. I've been wanting to downsize from my 45.5 and this just might be the one.

[psv]

Originally Posted by dsio

You've got a pretty clear agenda here, so there's fairly little point arguing with you. The reality is that Rolex is running the same movement more or less that they've had since the 1980s, which many other makers (including both Omega and Blancpain) have developed new high end movements more recently.

If you want to read about both the Omega and Blancpain flagship movements (both swatch group) you're welcome to visit www.google.com and attempt it yourself.

You are the one stating keep making the point that Omega and their movements are far superior, I'm just asking for you to provide some objective analysis to support that statement. And as far as co-axial, Omega didn't develop that, they bought the technology and incorporated into their design if I understand things correctly.

Hence, I have no agenda and I'm not anti-Omega.

[dsio]

Originally Posted by psv

...

And as far as co-axial, Omega didn't develop that, they bought the technology and incorporated into their design if I understand things correctly...

This is very true, and the guy that stitched the band may have been a Polish immigrant named Kevin (not the most common name, but they probably have the odd Kevin) so technically the Swiss Made on the bottom of the dial could be brought into question as well ;)

If you read back, I suggested the 8500 was superior to the sub-date movement, which I think is a valid assessment given that the sub's movement, new hairspring not withstanding is from the 1980s. The De Lorean is from the 1980s too and it hasn't lost any of its impressiveness, but when Swatch Group gives Omega a mandate to spend a fortune developing a new movement, they're going to do it well, and frankly they have.

The 8500 (co-axial side) offers a greater power reserve (meaning it can last a weekend without use, the sub can't) a better winding system (I've been through a winding mechanism failure on an admittedly older sub, and am not impressed with the cheapness of the design) and a great deal of beauty.

Now the Rolex 4130 and 4160, their modern offerings are very modern, and beautiful, and have similar power reserves, and have an improved winding system (all of the things the 8500 has over the 3xxx). If it didn't matter, why would they have bothered with the YM2 and Daytona?

[favonian]

Omega seems now being as creative and as marketing agressive as Rolex were in the 70's. Unfortunately not much has happened at Rolex since then and that's one of the reasons my money will probably be spent on one of these.
(Unless they only come in 45mm's... then I'll wait for the black ceramic bezel panda dial ss daytona ....)

[Ken Cox]

Originally Posted by psv

You are the one stating keep making the point that Omega and their movements are far superior, I'm just asking for you to provide some objective analysis to support that statement. And as far as co-axial, Omega didn't develop that, they bought the technology and incorporated into their design if I understand things correctly.

Hence, I have no agenda and I'm not anti-Omega.

Given the ego-involvement, brand loyalty and emotion surrounding this subject, I question whether an "objective analysis" exists.

I read an analysis of the Explorer movement, I think the 3000, some years ago, and the reviewer did not treat Rolex kindly.

In my reading of the review, above, I perceived the same bias in that review that I perceived in the review provided by psv.

This sounds like a worthy topic to pursue, and I will spend some time today looking for online articles on Rolex and Omega movements.

Let's see what surfaces.

[Ken Cox]

From Walt Odet's review of the Rolex 3000 movement:

"The caliber 3000 is obviously engineered for minimum parts count, easy assembly, and economy of manufacture and service. It is an extremely simple movement by design and I imagine that it could be produced in a workman-like way at a cost equal to or below that of some of the most inexpensive automatic movements in current production. As the simplicity of the movement also makes--or ought to make--some contribution to reliability and reduced routine service costs, there is certainly nothing wrong with such a design in an appropriately priced wristwatch. The price of this watch--and the Rolex reputation-- left me entirely unprepared for the number of shortcuts that had been taken in the actual production of this movement."

http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...75591245315012

[Ken Cox]

A review of the Rolex 3135 movement (edited for brevity and relevance):

"I would say that Rolex's tendency to be independent has good and bad sides. On one hand, independence in business is good, but on the other hand it makes manufacturing less flexible. There are too many costs associated with producing a new caliber, and replacing an old caliber with a new one has to be justified economically. That's why Rolex sometimes uses older conceptions and decisions in its movements.

This watch has been well worn for about 7 years without any service. When I checked it, I noticed a strange noise inside the watch. The winding weight (rotor) touched bridges and the case back while rotating. I hoped that perhaps the automatic winding module was not screwed in properly. But after one look at the movement it was clear that the problem is in the oscillating weight axle. The movement was full of red dust - a product of wear. I've checked the rotor axle jewel - it was dirty but not damaged. As for the axle - it was worn enough to allow the rotor to touch movement parts.

Unfortunately, Rolex still does not use ball bearings in its top calibers. Instead, there is a plain sleeve bearing, and proper oiling is critical. When the lubricant evaporates or migrates, the metal axle experiences wear against the jewel. In Fig. 6 above you can notice a rut left by the jewel. If Rolex specialists had designed an automatic device based on ball bearings (like in most modern automatic devices) - the watch would be more reliable."

http://people.timezone.com/mdisher/a...135/3135_1.htm