The 8500 movements are housed in the new chunkier AT case, which IMHO does not look as good as the ones in the 2500 case. The 2503.80 AT with it's blue sunburst dial is as beautiful as they come
from somewhere on the internet:
The 8500 movements are housed in the new chunkier AT case, which IMHO does not look as good as the ones in the 2500 case. The 2503.80 AT with it's blue sunburst dial is as beautiful as they come
from somewhere on the internet:
I have a small wrist and don't like thick watches. I have no issue with the 8500 AT. I don't know how thick the POs are, but
Side by side thickness comparsion shot 13.00mm vs 11.25 mm (8500 vs 2500) (the blue is the 2500, white is 8500)
Nice comparison pics.
I can confirm that the AT 8500's really aren't that cumbersome even with the added thickness due to the sapphire exhibition caseback and thicker movement. Comparing an AT 8500 Master Coax to my 2254.50 there's only a slight wrist comfort edge to the 2254.50, and that's mostly because of the shallower caseback. Then again the 2254.50 is renowned for their wrist comfort, and I'd say the AT 8500 Master Coax is about as comfortable on the wrist as my 3572.50.
The PO 8500's are a totally different case. They not only are very thick but extremely heavy, mostly I would think because of the heft due to the sapphire thickness needed on the exhibition casebacks to achieve a 600m water resistance. Since the AT's are only rated to 150m the sapphire can be much shallower, and thus the piece much lighter.
You're correct. The PO 8500 comes in at 16.3mm thickness and it does weight considerably more. Factor that with the 42mm case and it just sits awkward on the wrist, especially my small 6.5" wrist.
It is a shame these two issue are problem, because other than that it is a beautiful diver timepiece IMHO.
T tsbphdThis may be my first post on this forum and I realize folks do not know who I am, so if I post inappropriately please let me know.
I own the 2503.80 AT with blue sunburst dial and the watch is stunning. It is 39.2mm, but appears to wear larger and this is likely due to its uncluttered dial-bezel combination and relatively thin profile. I prefer this watch to the later version because the blue sunburst dial is visually striking and I don't have much use for the numerals chasing the edge of the dial all around the watch on the 8500 series. This is my co-everyday watch that shares the majority of my wrist time with a Seiko SARB 065 Cocktail Time, which if you are familiar with it you might know more about the aesthetics that call my name.
It appears that the majority of folks would buy the 8500, but if you like the blue sunburst dial then the 2500 is the way to go and would make a spectacular purchase. Alas, finding one with low mileage might be tough. Good luck.
I absolutely agree. To quote a forum member from a few years back, "The 8500 AT reminds me of some NYC lawyers with the double breasted pin striped suit, the cufflinks, the contrasting collar and shirt, the tie clip, the collar stays - just too much going on for my tastes even if the quality is high."
The 2500 series Railmaster and AT are classic designs that are comfortable and have an uncluttered look. While the 2500 AT is one of my favorite watch designs of all time from any manufacturer, I wouldn't even wear the 8500 AT.
IMO, Aqua Terra 2500 > Explorer I > Aqua Terra 8500
Unless your wrist is particularly large, I'd go 39.2mm. It wears large in diameter, due to the large face. It is nice and thin, though, so it lays flat against the wrist compared to my Sub Date, and my Sub is slightly thinner than an AT 8500.
Honestly, with a 6.5" wrist, I'd go with the 36.2mm AT 2500. It still wears larger than the 36mm Rolex watches.
Here's my black AT 2500 on Perlon:
I absolutely agree. To quote a forum member from a few years back, "The 8500 AT reminds me of some NYC lawyers with the double breasted pin striped suit, the cufflinks, the contrasting collar and shirt, the tie clip, the collar stays - just too much going on for my tastes even if the quality is high."
The 2500 series Railmaster and AT are classic designs that are comfortable and have an uncluttered look. While the 2500 AT is one of my favorite watch designs of all time from any manufacturer, I wouldn't even wear the 8500 AT.
IMO, Aqua Terra 2500 > Explorer I > Aqua Terra 8500
Unless your wrist is particularly large, I'd go 39.2mm. It wears large in diameter, due to the large face. It is nice and thin, though, so it lays flat against the wrist compared to my Sub Date, and my Sub is slightly thinner than an AT 8500.
Honestly, with a 6.5" wrist, I'd go with the 36.2mm AT 2500. It still wears larger than the 36mm Rolex watches.
Here's my black AT 2500 on Perlon:
@tegee26 the only way you're really going to figure this one out is trying them both on in different sizes. At the end of the day opinions are like...well you know how it goes, everyone has one. They are all great watches but only you can tell which is "your" great watch.
