- Posts
- 2,588
- Likes
- 2,872
texasmade
·You just won’t get the jump hour with the 8800 vs the 8900. I’ll also be happy if Omega drops the display case back if that shaves another mm off the case thickness.
Any rumors about PO update?
- Posts
- 29,246
- Likes
- 75,644
- Posts
- 2,588
- Likes
- 2,872
- Posts
- 299
- Likes
- 378
Dedlock
·fingers crossed for the 24th, I'm hoping for PO with a thinner case, redone lugs and 41mm to 42mm dial.
- Posts
- 75
- Likes
- 69
neill1975
·Thinner is definitely something they need to look at, the problem really seems to be the case and the 600M WR rating, as the Calibre 8500/8900 isn’t actually that thick at 5.5mm however the new Calibre 8800 used in the Seamaster Pro 300M has almost the same power reserve (55 hours vs 60) and is thinner at 4.7mm, so if they swapped out the movement they could get nearly 1mm lower just from that. I’m wondering if we might see that 8800 replace the 8900 on a much broader basis in the range since its smaller, almost as good specs wise, simpler with a single barrel yet performs about as well.
The weird thing is and perhaps someone can enlighten me, the Blancpain bathyscaphe uses a triple barrel movement has a liquid metal bezel is 13mm thick has five day power reserve and is anti magnetic. Whilst its different ends of the watch world both have the same parent company and unless I am mistaken Blancpain adopted liquid metal first. Surely a lesson in watch movement could be learned?
- Posts
- 983
- Likes
- 1,122
AntonisCy
·The weird thing is and perhaps someone can enlighten me, the Blancpain bathyscaphe uses a triple barrel movement has a liquid metal bezel is 13mm thick has five day power reserve and is anti magnetic. Whilst its different ends of the watch world both have the same parent company and unless I am mistaken Blancpain adopted liquid metal first. Surely a lesson in watch movement could be learned?
Isn't that 30bar WR?
- Posts
- 1,438
- Likes
- 2,213
scapa
·Isn't that 30bar WR?
Yep. Fifty fathoms = 300 feet.
The FF is a weird one. I've tried two versions, and while both were beautiful, there was something about the combo of shiny and toolish, from dial to bezel (and bezel action), that just didn't work for me.
I love the idea of a PO that is thinner and has an upgraded PR while retaining the basic design and super-legible dial tho.
- Posts
- 298
- Likes
- 518
gnuyork
·fingers crossed for the 24th, I'm hoping for PO with a thinner case, redone lugs and 41mm to 42mm dial.
I have the 2500 PO and as great as it is, I often wish it were a 40mm (with crown guards) case size. I think the exact same thing about the Speedmaster. A 40mm Speedmaster with the exact moon watch look, same manual wind movement, etc. would be ideal, though I think the Speedmaster is nearly perfect already.
- Posts
- 2,588
- Likes
- 2,872
texasmade
·41mm to 42mm dial? Yikes! I think you mean case.
I have the 2500 PO and as great as it is, I often wish it were a 40mm (with crown guards) case size. I think the exact same thing about the Speedmaster. A 40mm Speedmaster with the exact moon watch look, same manual wind movement, etc. would be ideal, though I think the Speedmaster is nearly perfect already.
- Posts
- 298
- Likes
- 518
- Posts
- 2,588
- Likes
- 2,872
texasmade
·It's close the same thickness as the 42mm 2500 PO.
- Posts
- 299
- Likes
- 378
Dedlock
·41mm to 42mm dial? Yikes! I think you mean case.
I have the 2500 PO and as great as it is, I often wish it were a 40mm (with crown guards) case size. I think the exact same thing about the Speedmaster. A 40mm Speedmaster with the exact moon watch look, same manual wind movement, etc. would be ideal, though I think the Speedmaster is nearly perfect already.
yup case.
- Posts
- 75
- Likes
- 69
- Posts
- 75
- Likes
- 69
neill1975
·Yep. Fifty fathoms = 300 feet.
The FF is a weird one. I've tried two versions, and while both were beautiful, there was something about the combo of shiny and toolish, from dial to bezel (and bezel action), that just didn't work for me.
I love the idea of a PO that is thinner and has an upgraded PR while retaining the basic design and super-legible dial tho.
The point I was making was more in relation to size, the planet ocean is a terrific watch however its 16.5mm thick that's Panerai thickness. I know the argument is on water resistance and depth however from memory the older Planet Ocean watches were still 600m water resistant and were thiner 14mm?
- Posts
- 287
- Likes
- 443
Blackdog
·
Guys, the problem here is the modern movements' thickness. The 2500 is 3.6mm tall.
To survive the higher pressure you basically need a thicker caseback and a thicker crystal. These are the largest surfaces on which the high pressure can produce deformation. The mid-case of the SeaDweller only got thicker to accommodate the He Valve.
Edited:
- Posts
- 29,246
- Likes
- 75,644
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerGuys, the problem here is the modern movements' thickness. The 2500 is 3.6mm tall.
Not sure where you get this information from, but it is incorrect. The 2500 movements are 4.1 mm tall.
People have this odd idea that the newer Omega movements are unusually thick, and they simply are not.
The 8800 is 4.6 mm tall, and the 8900 is 5.5.
In contrast the Rolex 3135 is 6.0 mm tall.
The movements are not the issue, as I've said many times. It's the cases, and in particular the addition of the transparent case back.
- Posts
- 287
- Likes
- 443
Blackdog
·I stand corrected then. I thought that the 2500 was the same thickness as the 2892.
Then, if not the movements, it's a deliberate design choice... and the crystal case back.
That means there's hope for a thinner PO with the current movements, that's good to know. Me, I prefer a solid case-back on a diver. One less gasket to worry about.
Thanks for the accurate info ! I didn't know that the 3135 was that tall ! How about the 3185 ? I would think thicker, given the GMT complication, but the 16710 is thinner than the 16610...
Then, if not the movements, it's a deliberate design choice... and the crystal case back.
That means there's hope for a thinner PO with the current movements, that's good to know. Me, I prefer a solid case-back on a diver. One less gasket to worry about.
Thanks for the accurate info ! I didn't know that the 3135 was that tall ! How about the 3185 ? I would think thicker, given the GMT complication, but the 16710 is thinner than the 16610...
- Posts
- 29,246
- Likes
- 75,644
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerI stand corrected then. I thought that the 2500 was the same thickness as the 2892.
No - the 2892A2 is not the same movement as even the Omega Cal. 1120, let alone the 2500. People do say they are the same all the time, but this is the problem with forums sometimes, misinformation gets posted and repeated, and suddenly it becomes "knowledge."
Thanks for the accurate info ! I didn't know that the 3135 was that tall ! How about the 3185 ? I would think thicker, given the GMT complication, but the 16710 is thinner than the 16610...
3186 is 6.45 mm. Cases have a much bigger impact than movements do with regards to overall thickness.
- Posts
- 299
- Likes
- 378
Dedlock
·Thanks archer, this gives us hope for new leaner planet ocean to come.
- Posts
- 31
- Likes
- 12
gr4z
·Anyone seen anything in the last few weeks? I have not heard anything so looks like no PO this year unfortunately 🙁