Community Stories

omega seamaster pro midsize peter blake 2252.50 questions

W
Posts
3
Likes
0
Hi all,

I've been looking for a midsize diver and am considering an omega seamaster pro peter blake 2252.50

Seller is reliable but I'm not able to check it out in person as seller is in a different country

Basically I have 2 questions

First is dial colour, in most pictures the dial looks black but sometimes I come across pictures where the dial is more grey (example attached) . Anyone who owns/owned this watch can shed some light on this? (pun intended)

Second is - you guessed it - size
I'm not a stranger to small watches, my daily
is a 34mm vintage OP and bigger watches bother me.
My 42mm SKX and 40mm Invicta don't get any wrist time anymore.
Question is more about proportions, in pictures the watch seems well proportioned, the dial doesn't look small compared to the bezel but off course pictures can give a distorted view.
Any guys here rocking this model who care to comment on this?

Thanks
AJ
 
20200809_160716.jpg
padders
Posts
10,438
Likes
16,317
I thought you would have had responses by now, hopefully my comment will stimulate a few.

I have owned Blake Seamasters in both the mid and full size. I much prefer the full size. This model is very slim and has a very organic curved shape so actually wears smaller than its bare 40mm measurement suggests. You mention the ratio of dial to bezel. IMO on the mid size the bezel robs the face of valuable surface area leading to a tiny dial with stumpy hands vs the full size. The mid size actually has a similar dial area to that of a 30mm non diver watch, ie tiny. There is one upside to the mid size, they are far less popular so are available from markets with slimmer wrists (like Japan or Asia) much cheaper then the full size, maybe as much as $300-400 less.

Regarding the dial, the wave pattern on the dial is in relief and can look different in different lights so I wouldn't worry about that, they all look black in the flesh.

In summary, unless your wrist is very small, like 6.5" or smaller I would say that the full size should work. Try one for size and hopefully you'll see what I mean.
Edited:
 
mr_smith
Posts
214
Likes
297
Interesting about the dial color observation, because I had a similar thought... I've owned three of the full-size version, the 2254.50. I didn't have a way to compare them side by side because I didn't own them at the same time, but I always thought the second one had more of a grey (or, a flatter black anyway) dial, with my current one being more black, or a richer black.
 
W
Posts
3
Likes
0
padders padders
I thought you would have had responses by now, hopefully my comment will stimulate a few.

I have owned Blake Seamasters in both the mid and full size. I much prefer the full size. This model is very slim and has a very organic curved shape so actually wears smaller than its bare 40mm measurement suggests. You mention the ratio of dial to bezel. IMO on the mid size the bezel robs the face of valuable surface area leading to a tiny dial with stumpy hands vs the full size. The mid size actually has a similar dial area to that of a 30mm non diver watch, ie tiny. There is one upside to the mid size, they are far less popular so are available from markets with slimmer wrists (like Japan or Asia) much cheaper then the full size, maybe as much as $300-400 less.

Regarding the dial, the wave pattern on the dial is in relief and can look different in different lights so I wouldn't worry about that, they all look black in the flesh.

In summary, unless your wrist is very small, like 6.5" or smaller I would say that the full size should work. Try one for size and hopefully you'll see what I mean.

thanks for your reply

my wrist size is 6,7".. I've worn 42 and 40mm watches before but my current daily driver is a vintage OP which measures 34mm
whenever I put those bigger watches on they come off right away, it's weird can't seem to shake the feeling that I'm wearing a huge church clock on my wrist

I realize that a 34mm dresser has different proportions (dial-case) compared to a diver
unfortunately I'm not able to compare irl, called a few AD's and none of them have a midsize available

So what I did -don't laugh- is I downloaded a picture of a 2252.50, sized it to the actual real life size of 36mm, printed the thing and cut it out.
I "sugar-glued" it on top of my OP to get a kind of depth perception and I must say it doesn't look strange to me, in fact I like it.
Did the same for the 41mm and I felt it was too big... guess I'm just not used to bigger watches anymore
 
W
Posts
3
Likes
0
mr_smith mr_smith
Interesting about the dial color observation, because I had a similar thought... I've owned three of the full-size version, the 2254.50. I didn't have a way to compare them side by side because I didn't own them at the same time, but I always thought the second one had more of a grey (or, a flatter black anyway) dial, with my current one being more black, or a richer black.

that's interesting, do you remember the build years? maybe that has something to do with it
 
10mmauto
Posts
290
Likes
677
I had the 2551.80 which is the 36mm midsize to the 2541.80 (2531.80) 41mm Blue Bonds. I found the proportions were very good and the watch was very wearable. You say you are comfortable with a 34mm, this should be right up your alley.

BTW, the press has made a big deal about Prince William who wears a 36mm given to him by his mother. IMO, there is too much emphasis on bigger watches. I think the smaller watch looks a little more formal.
 
mr_smith
Posts
214
Likes
297
W WAJ
that's interesting, do you remember the build years? maybe that has something to do with it

Sorry, I don't know the build years. I believe the one that looked more grey had a serial number starting with 81, as does my current one... suggesting they were both produced in later years of the model's run but I don't have specifics on the years.
 
J
Posts
5
Likes
8
Re: color - the dial is definitely black, but the wave pattern texture can make it look a bit more dark grey in very bright lighting conditions, if that makes sense. But the dial definitely looks solid black in most lighting conditions and looks much, much darker than the picture you posted.

Re: size/proportions - I have a 6.25" wrist and also prefer smaller watches, and I find it to be a good fit. It feels good on the wrist, as the the lug to lug is around 43mm (just 1 or 2mm more than the OP34), and it feels substantial as the bracelet doesn't taper, so it doesn't feel too light.

Although the watch wears great, the dial size is rather small, given the dive bezel. Not out of proportion, just smaller in absolute terms, and because the smaller size is unusual for dive watches, it looks/feels almost a bit "dressier," if that makes sense. Note also that, unlike the 40mm, there is no partial marker to the right of the date window at 3 o'clock, which makes the dial look a bit less balanced. I don't mind any of the above - in fact, I really appreciate the smaller size and love the classic design, but it's definitely good to be aware of this ahead of time.
 
Walrus
Posts
10,751
Likes
52,789
Looks nice. I’m with you I like midsize on certain watches. I do wear my skx007 and a few other plus 40mm and up watches and I don’t think they look bad on me but really I don’t like going over 39 if possible. I see what people are saying with that bezel taking up dial realestate and making it look small but the bottom line is you need to feel comfortable with the watch. As long as legibility isn’t an issue sounds good. I’m actually keeping my eyes open for a midsize seamaster.
 
M
Posts
4
Likes
1
I have another question, I own a 2252.50 ("Peter Blake" 36mm) however, mine is in a "Bond-style" bracelet, is this correct? Most watches this reference I've seen them in a speedy style bracelet.
 
J
Posts
5
Likes
8
M Manugtz
I have another question, I own a 2252.50 ("Peter Blake" 36mm) however, mine is in a "Bond-style" bracelet, is this correct? Most watches this reference I've seen them in a speedy style bracelet.

You technically have the 2052.50. Same as 2252.50 but with the bond bracelet rather than the speedy bracelet.
 
M
Posts
4
Likes
1
J jodydavis
You technically have the 2052.50. Same as 2252.50 but with the bond bracelet rather than the speedy bracelet.

Thanks for the shared knowledge mate
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Tjmmartin

Omega Seamaster 300m 41mm Automatic Peter Blake 22545000

Tjmmartin Watches For Sale
Tjmmartin
Tjmmartin
Posts
0
Views
76
Tjmmartin

Omega Seamaster 300m 41mm Automatic Peter Blake 22545000

Tjmmartin Private Watch Sales
Tjmmartin
Tjmmartin
Posts
0
Views
154
dougwhiz

Omega Seamaster 2252.50 Peter Blake Midsize

dougwhiz Wanted To Buy
dougwhiz
dougwhiz
Posts
0
Views
456
Davidt

Omega Seamaster 300 ‘Peter Blake’ 2254.50 Unpolished

Davidt Private Watch Sales
Davidt
Davidt
Posts
1
Views
1K
KeyWestPaw

Omega Seamaster Pro 300M SMP 2054.50. Peter Blake. Black Wave Dial.

KeyWestPaw Private Watch Sales
KeyWestPaw
KeyWestPaw
Posts
2
Views
1K
dougwhiz

Omega Seamaster 2254.50 "Peter Blake" In Excellent Condition

dougwhiz Private Watch Sales
dougwhiz
dougwhiz
Posts
1
Views
4K