So I raise this point after having a fun discussion with Archer about the older 2500 mvmt planet ocean, vs the newer one with its latest and greatest 8900. I struck this up after finding an AD with a BNIB 2500, offering it at $3800. I thought that seemed a little high. Especially when the newer iterations will soon be available for anywhere from 20-30% off. What's everyone's opinion... Is the newer technology really better in the long run? I mean everything from screw pin links, to a ceramic bezel to the antimagnetic qualities, to the silicone balance. Or is the aluminum bezel actually stronger, and the 2500d an absolute easily serviced work horse that does a perfectly wonderful job. Aaaaaaaand GO!
I'd go for the 2500D on the PO's. I don't really like the ceramic bezels and I like the slimmer profile. As far as better...I think all are good enough. You get the 8900 this year and then next year the 8900B will come out, or the 8925 or whatever. But everyone was happy with the 2500D, and the profile of the watch was certainly more elegant....and everyone pays more money for the Vintage versions that don't have any of these "advancements"
Yeah very true. And it's funny I called the AD back and he informed me that the rep made a mistake... They cannot sell it for 15% off but he wants full retail. Interesting that the shop owner seems to think it's already gone up in value and hasn't been serviced.
I have a 2008 PO 2500C. Owned new since 2008. Never a problem , accurate, great watch. I am not pushing it, just reporting my experience . I could have a lucky freak?
Sorry.... I thought the whole thing peaked with the 30T2 SC PC I mean... check it out.... non magnetic (says so, right on the face) dead reliable, tough enough for the US army and the RCAF and available in a chronometre state of tune... and the corner watchmaker could overhaul it correctly.....have we really come all that far since 1944?
In terms of positives, I kinda appreciate the aesthetics/finishing of the 89xx, 93xx movements that Omega has produced, to my eye they look more pleasing than the 25xx movements. I also like the fact that they are anti-magnetic, which is a big practical positive for daily wear. When I've played with the new watches at the OB, I've liked the new dials on these watches. They look well made ( or expensive ) In terms of the complete package though, I have skinny wrists which immediately rules out most of omega's divers and chronos with the newer movements so I'm likely not going to buy them.
I'm of the opinion that the newer ones are better. I've owned both a 2500 2201.50 and the new 8500 Ti 45.5. The bracelet is less domed and feels more secure. The ability to natively put the 300's micro adjusting clasp on is also nice (or to have it natively in the 8900 POs). Some pics that won't help your decision: Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It does, and I personally prefer the movement in the 8500 series. The adjustable hour hand is priceless to me. [emoji1360] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Try wearing the 8500/8900 with a lead apron for a few hours & you'll really appreciate the newer generations
I guess in terms of size, the ETA's really are the best. Keeping the SMPc in the lineup and probably a great contender for many people who want something for suit to shorts. Im curious to see what will happen to them down the line. You guys think they will keep it as is, or end up changing the movement and adding more anti-magnetic qualities?
I don't think they will keep them for long, they will either change the movement or stop making them. The only think thats gonna be as is in the long run is the classic speedmaster hessalite/1861
I doubt they will kill it. It's they're entry level at this point and the thinnest dive watch. Next dive watch (PO) is a $2k jump... Just my opinion
Its not gonna be an entry level any more if they change the movement to a 8900. Either its not gonna be a $2k jump to the PO or they will price the PO even higher.
They all keep good time. The improvements make for fun watch-geek talk. But at the end of the day, buy what you like the most. I let the watches aesthetics rule 99% of my decision making anyhow. When your talking pure "value", its hard to beat a $500 ETA Hamilton... so the "luxury" element starts to kick in where the dollar vs. value is very subjective and often ruled by overall desirability.
what is "better" ... my old clunkers (eg Rolex 1600): - keep time within COSC and - don't break down for 10 years (my aprox service invervals in rotation) - I don't see how the new ones are "practically" better. most of the technical mumbo-jumbo of today is marketing fluff - the last real practical improvement was quick-setting-date.
This 2500 C v D argument has gone on for years, and just because you only ever hear about the ones that went wrong online, it's assumed the 'C' was troublesome. I know loads of people who still wear the 'C', me included, and there is nothing wrong with it. Versus the 8500, I'd probably say that the 2500 can lose or gain +3, generally. With the 8500 It's marginally better, but not by a great deal. Both sound movements. If a good 'C' comes up don't be put off by it being a 'C'.