PO 2500 vs PO 8500 Comparative Review

[gaopa]

Your review is very well done! Thanks! Cheers, Bill P.

[KeepTicking]

Originally Posted by mfer

Nice write up! Is this the 45.5mm?

Both watches pictured are 42mm

[KeepTicking]

Originally Posted by ReXTless

Great review. Thanks for putting it together.

I have both watches as well and also prefer the 8500 by a wide margin, and largely for the same reasons you articulated.

Here's where my impressions differ from yours:

1. I prefer the green lume on the 2500. I find it to be much brighter and it lasts longer. The green/yellow tint in daylight doesn't bother me at all. The blue lume is bright enough to read in the dark, but it loses the "pop" that green offers.

2. The 8500 dial is great, EXCEPT for the date window. It's not beveled and looks like a big hole in the dial, as compared to the 2500. This is the biggest issue I have with the watch. It drives me nuts. Note: this is only on the 42mm version. The 45.5 has a beveled window, as it has more dial space to work with.

3. The clasp on the 8500 is too short. The bracelet barely opens enough to slide the watch over my hand. A longer clasp, like the 2500, avoids this problem.

- Mark

I do agree that the date window should be beveled, it's a detail that was missed and should be changed. As for the clasp length I have to disagree. Yes, the visible clasp is shorter, but the piece that folds underneath the bracelet is the same length and it is the length of the piece thatunfolds that dictates how wide the bracelet opens. On the 2500 the folding piece fits entirely inside the clasp, on the 8500 it actually extends past the clasp into the bracelet, both bracelets actually open the exact same amount.

[ReXTless]

Originally Posted by bmendick1

I do agree that the date window should be beveled, it's a detail that was missed and should be changed. As for the clasp length I have to disagree. Yes, the visible clasp is shorter, but the piece that folds underneath the bracelet is the same length and it is the length of the piece thatunfolds that dictates how wide the bracelet opens. On the 2500 the folding piece fits entirely inside the clasp, on the 8500 it actually extends past the clasp into the bracelet, both bracelets actually open the exact same amount.

You are probably right about the 2500 clasp being equally deficient. My 2500 is the XL version and it's too big for me to wear on a bracelet, so it permanently resides on rubber or nylon. So, I assumed the 2500 bracelet would open wider, but that appears to not be the case.

It's a minor quibble for me anyway.

Thanks again for the review. Well done!

- Mark

[Mike 75]

This may be nitpicking, but the dial of the 2500 is black, not grey. Otherwise a very informative and thorough comparo.

[KeepTicking]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

This may be nitpicking, but the dial of the 2500 is black, not grey. Otherwise a very informative and thorough comparo.

Actually if you take a look at the 2500's bezel, that is black. The dial on the other hand is nuch lighter, a "light black" if you will, and since there are no shades of black I am going to stick by my assessment of the 2500 dial being grey. I realize it would be a very dark grey, but unless you want to make the argument that black has various shades, the 2500 dial should be classified as grey.

[experimentjon]

Outstanding review! Thanks for posting it. But now, I feel like I want to upgrade my 2500 to an 8500. Main reason is the dial and overall presence. I've only seen 8500s in display windows, but it definitely has more "presence" than the 2500 due to the improvements to the dial. Maybe in a few years. Haha.

[kymwatchlog]

i am opposite... Brian's review made me relook at a 2500. now i want her more and trying to offload my "catch and release" 8500! lol

[Justinsyndicate]

Outstanding review. Also I appreciate the pointing out that the 42 mm has no beveling in the date window.

[biotechmanjr]

Great comparative review. I went back and forth repeatedly before ordering the 8500, and maintain the correct choice was made. Both are great though!

[htc8p]

great review thanks! i saw the improvements on the 8500 and was blown away.

its my first omega and i have no problem getting another omega.

[Billythekid]

The only thing i hate in the 8500 is the grey bezel and the bracelet's big screws , the big screw heads make the bracalet look silly to me and adds a extra element when viewing the watch from the side which is not needed


Sent from my 

[RXPete]

Originally Posted by ReXTless

Great review. Thanks for putting it together.

I have both watches as well and also prefer the 8500 by a wide margin, and largely for the same reasons you articulated.

Here's where my impressions differ from yours:

1. I prefer the green lume on the 2500. I find it to be much brighter and it lasts longer. The green/yellow tint in daylight doesn't bother me at all. The blue lume is bright enough to read in the dark, but it loses the "pop" that green offers.

2. The 8500 dial is great, EXCEPT for the date window. It's not beveled and looks like a big hole in the dial, as compared to the 2500. This is the biggest issue I have with the watch. It drives me nuts. Note: this is only on the 42mm version. The 45.5 has a beveled window, as it has more dial space to work with.

3. The clasp on the 8500 is too short. The bracelet barely opens enough to slide the watch over my hand. A longer clasp, like the 2500, avoids this problem.

- Mark

Originally Posted by bmendick1

I do agree that the date window should be beveled, it's a detail that was missed and should be changed. As for the clasp length I have to disagree. Yes, the visible clasp is shorter, but the piece that folds underneath the bracelet is the same length and it is the length of the piece thatunfolds that dictates how wide the bracelet opens. On the 2500 the folding piece fits entirely inside the clasp, on the 8500 it actually extends past the clasp into the bracelet, both bracelets actually open the exact same amount.

The lack of a beveled date window opening was a disappointment for me as well. I came from the 45.5mm 2500 then 45.5mm 8500 which I exchanged for the 42mm. The bevel was a nice detail which I really enjoyed on the other 2 POs. However, I don't think that it was an over site. It must have been omitted because the date opening is too close to the indicie.

As a side note, here are 2 more differences between the 45.5mm and 42mm 8500 PO. The crystal on the 45.5 is more convex compare to the almost flat crystal on the 42mm.

Also, the bezel on the 45.5mm turned a dark matte black color under dim conditions whereas the 42mm is the same shade of gray always.


Mark, I also initially thought the blue lume was disappointing compared to the green of the 2500 until I took a trip to Mexico this spring. There was no alarm clock in my room, for some crazy reason. I only had my PO to check the time in the middle of the night. I was amazed each time I looked at the time how bright the lume was ALL night. I probably lost a few minutes of sleep each night because I was staring at my PO. What's even more amazing is that the room was dim before I went to bed so the lume wasn't fully charged. Unfortunately, this makes me hate the lume on my SubC even more. I can't tell what time it is even after a 1/2 hour in the pitch black.

[LeChefre]

Originally Posted by warrior

I've had the 8500 and currently have the 2500. I agree that the 8500 is better finished. The reason I kept the 2500 is

1) it was thinner

2) the areas on the 2500 hour markers actually looked bigger than the 8500 hour markers. ( I prefer this look) I think this has to do with the fact that the hour marker surrounds on the 8500 are faceted and take up more "space", thereby making the marker areas smaller.

3) the 2500 looked a little more "classic" to me, which I prefer over the more modern look of the 8500.

+1. I personally vastly prefer the 2500. Don't like white gold numbers and hour indices, and really don't like the grey bezel. It's also ridiculously thick and heavy.

[double]

Great post bmendick1, enjoyed reading your review very much and great comparison photos. I agree that the 8500 improves on the original Planet Ocean and definitely has much more presence in looks department.

I have a 2201.50 on order and I would have went with the PO 8500 if I could have afforded it. The 2201.50 I snagged new from an AD has the current 2500D movement and I paid under $2900. Quite the bargain vs the PO 8500.

[kymwatchlog]

Originally Posted by double

Great post bmendick1, enjoyed reading your review very much and great comparison photos. I agree that the 8500 improves on the original Planet Ocean and definitely has much more presence in looks department.

I have a 2201.50 on order and I would have went with the PO 8500 if I could have afforded it. The 2201.50 I snagged new from an AD has the current 2500D movement and I paid under $2900. Quite the bargain vs the PO 8500.

how do you tell if it is a 2500A, B C or D?

[KeepTicking]

Originally Posted by kymwatchlog

how do you tell if it is a 2500A, B C or D?

By serial number and by the font of the date window. Do a search here and on watchuseek, there are very detailed threads on this that will help you

[bcacncnc]

Great review and thanks for sharing.

What about the weight difference between the two? I have the PO 2500 and thats pretty heavy. Just wondering if the equivalent 8500 weighs more or less.

[aardvarkbark]

One notable advantage of the 8500 is the presence of the Si-14 hairspring. I have the 2500. The 8500 case is too big on my puny wrist. I personally prefer the finer notching of the 2500's bezel edge, as well as the dagger-shaped lume on the hands and the more angled sides to the 3,6,9,12 markers.

[kymwatchlog]

Originally Posted by aardvarkbark

One notable advantage of the 8500 is the presence of the Si-14 hairspring. I have the 2500. The 8500 case is too big on my puny wrist. I personally prefer the finer notching of the 2500's bezel edge, as well as the dagger-shaped lume on the hands and the more angled sides to the 3,6,9,12 markers.

looks like i am not alone!

[timenut]

Thanks for the review. This will be definitely be very helpful for anyone looking to buy a PO.

[Sunster]

Thanks for this great review

[Rashid.bk]

Very nice review, I was looking for a comparison like this. Thank you.
Might be me or the back to back dial comparison, but my 2500 dial definitely looks jet black not grayish at all, love to look at it in the sun light for its black luster, but maybe dial to dial the 8500 is deeper but again I stand by that the 2500 is not gray or grayish.
Another thing I really like about the 25 that the 85 looses is the open numeral 6 and 9. They look very classic and timeless, the 85 has them closed off giving that more modern look that while really nice....I prefer the classic style. Don't remember if you mentioned that but wanted to share my thoughts anyway.
You're pictures were wonderful also. Love it.

[tinger]

Excellent comparison review!!!!
I like the subdue 'matted' bezel of the 8500.
Our eyes gravitates to anything light/bright first (look at any artwork).
A quick glance at the watch and the eyes automatically zooms in on the dial/markers/hands.
Shiny/bright bezels like the ceramic rolexes fights the dial for attention.

[Singslinger]

Thanks for the detailed writeup!

(I couldn't decide between the two, so I bought both - the same 8500 you have and an orange 2500, both 42mm).

[Hoppyjr]

While I own and love the PO 8500 (for it's movement and other improvements), I miss my PO 2500 and the more "classic" style. Someday I'll pick up a 2500D XL and my life will be complete :)

[shamardal]

Thank you very much bmendick for this review and comparison. It is outstanding, I've been waiting months for a side by side with the old PO like this one. I was beginning to think nobody had both watches in their possession at the same time, I asked on multiple forums and still no go. This is perfect and much more revealing than wrist shot comparisons etc.
Both look fantastic, but the new one is so tempting. I still can't understand why they made the bezel so chunky vs the old, a little increase I expected, but the new one is almost twice the thickness of the old. Still a great watch...gonna have to pick one up eventually!

[kimjmoon]

I too want to thank you for the review. I have the PO8500 (42mm) and really like it. I did own a SMP300Chronograph diver breifly and after having it on my wrist for a week, found the 8500 to seem almost thin in comparison! I was expecially miffed with the 'wobble' it had as well!

So if you are concerned that it is too thick and heavy, I would say that in about a week you will be used to it and love it for the 'presence it has' I have 7" wrists so the Chronograph version is out for me....which is too bad, because I really loved the look of the pushers on a watch.

I havent had the need to time anything at 2000', so I guess its not a total loss!

[OTX]

I had the PO 8500 with orange numbers and ended up selling it for a PO 2500d which I bought brand new in the box a few days ago for almost the same price as used PO 8500 are going for. So to me it wasn't a price issue. While I agree with many of the points the op made about the quality, my major issues with the PO 8500 and the reason I sold it was the grey bezel; thickness and overall look. While the PO 8500 is a good looking watch, the PO 2500 looks better imo. The PO 2500 is a very elegant sporty watch and has a classic look that will always look good. On the other hand, the PO 8500 has a sporty look and not as classic as the PO 2500. The PO 2500 is also much slimmer which is one of the main reasons I switched. I also prefer the seahorse over the clear case back for aesthetic and comfort reasons. In the end, it really comes down to personal preference but having owned both I can tell you both are very high quality watches and either one will make you happy. Personally, the PO 2500 will always be the original PO and is my preference.

[gnuyork]

Great review.

Before your review I wasn't even aware there were different POs. But after reading, found myself gravitating towards the 2500. I did end up getting a 2500D about two months ago. I have been wearing it everyday. I REALLY like the watch.

My decision was based mostly on price and the more classic look of the 2500.