Community Stories

PO 2500 vs 8500

SpeedyMcNasty
Posts
139
Likes
73
Hey Y’all. I seem to remember finding info on, I think, the PO 8500 being transitional because of new movement but with aluminum bezel, maybe with WG hands? Cut sheets I find aren’t descriptive enough. Anyone have any info? Thanks!

restarting my hunt (again) for an older PO of either 2500 or 8500. Or maybe a steel PP1200. Who in knows, lol.
 
dsio
Posts
34,266
Likes
38,883
SpeedyMcNasty SpeedyMcNasty
Hey Y’all. I seem to remember finding info on, I think, the PO 8500 being transitional because of new movement but with aluminum bezel, maybe with WG hands? Cut sheets I find aren’t descriptive enough. Anyone have any info? Thanks!

restarting my hunt (again) for an older PO of either 2500 or 8500. Or maybe a steel PP1200. Who in knows, lol.
So the PO 8500 was interesting because the orange bezel was painted aluminium but the black bezel was ceramic. There was also a blue bezel titanium model which was also ceramic.

The issue was that at the time of the PO8500 launch, Omega did not have a ceramic orange pigment mixed that met their standards. Eventually they released the ceramic orange with the following generation but the color is a bit different and more reddish than the old painted style.
 
SpeedyMcNasty
Posts
139
Likes
73
Ah super interesting! Ready to deploy black ceramic but not orange. I believe the hands were white gold on this PO?
 
dsio
Posts
34,266
Likes
38,883
SpeedyMcNasty SpeedyMcNasty
Ah super interesting! Ready to deploy black ceramic but not orange. I believe the hands were white gold on this PO?
The hands on the majority of Omega’s of that era are rhodium plated white gold, it doesn’t corrode with time which is why it makes such a good material for hands and dial furniture.
 
Jones in LA
Posts
5,562
Likes
54,022
Here's the black (or dark grey as I see it) Cal. 8500. The finish on the ceramic is matte, not glossy.

IMG_2168.jpg
 
dsio
Posts
34,266
Likes
38,883
Jones in LA Jones in LA
Here's the black (or dark grey as I see it) Cal. 8500. The finish on the ceramic is matte, not glossy.

IMG_2168.jpg
Its interesting that the PO2500 LM LE is glossy black bezel, and the blue bezel titanium LM Edition in Cal 8500 is glossy blue but they went matte with the black 8500
 
ILeicaWatches
Posts
18
Likes
21
The PO2500 is what got me back into watches nearly a decade ago. I had gone with the orange XL and still have it to this day. Don’t think you can go wrong with either, but thickness was a factor in my decision.
 
w@tcher
Posts
296
Likes
1,119
The 42mm PO with the 2500cal has a smaller case and it's much comfortable for smaller wrists.

 
Modernism
Posts
336
Likes
164
As a side not, I own both models, and you won't go wrong with either if you can find decent examples.
 
w@tcher
Posts
296
Likes
1,119
`In my eyes the 8500 looks much thicker. The 2500 seems really slimmer in comparison with the 8500 on my small wrist.
 
Jones in LA
Posts
5,562
Likes
54,022
I have always envied the Cal.2500 P.O. for its thinness compared to my Cal.8500, but not enough to go on the hunt for one. My Cal.8500 was the first "nice" watch I bought for myself and to this day still gets more spontaneous compliments from non-watch nerds than any other watch I own.
 
SpeedyMcNasty
Posts
139
Likes
73
dsio dsio
The hands on the majority of Omega’s of that era are rhodium plated white gold, it doesn’t corrode with time which is why it makes such a good material for hands and dial furniture.
That’s what I thought, but they don’t seem to advertise the feature anywhere! Pretty sure rolex splashes the info on every watch description (don’t blame them either)
 
SpeedyMcNasty
Posts
139
Likes
73
w@tcher w@tcher
`In my eyes the 8500 looks much thicker. The 2500 seems really slimmer in comparison with the 8500 on my small wrist.
Hmm, interested to find the actual measurements, I will have to look it up.
 
SpeedyMcNasty
Posts
139
Likes
73
Modernism Modernism
As a side not, I own both models, and you won't go wrong with either if you can find decent examples.
I had a 2500 PO for about a minute. Thought I was being savvy buying one on eBay with bad pictures and no description, the case was totally blown out so I sent it back (much to the owners chagrin… thank you eBay guarantee!). But having one in the metal definitely affirmed how much I like the model.
 
SpeedyMcNasty
Posts
139
Likes
73
Modernism Modernism
As a side not, I own both models, and you won't go wrong with either if you can find decent examples.
w@tcher w@tcher
The 42mm PO with the 2500cal has a smaller case and it's much comfortable for smaller wrists.

I definitely want the 42. Great pic!
 
w@tcher
Posts
296
Likes
1,119
Wish you to get the right model according to your needs!
Good luck my friend!
 
Modernism
Posts
336
Likes
164
SpeedyMcNasty SpeedyMcNasty
I had a 2500 PO for about a minute. Thought I was being savvy buying one on eBay with bad pictures and no description, the case was totally blown out so I sent it back (much to the owners chagrin… thank you eBay guarantee!). But having one in the metal definitely affirmed how much I like the model.

I do love the 2500, and the 8500, both 42mm. I seldom wear them on the bracelet, which I think helps a lot when it comes to the 8500, but if you wear rubber or NATO, and even milanese, you won't notice any weight with the 8500. The 8500 is like a tank in comparison, not weight wise, it just feels like a much more bash it around type of watch compared to the delicate of the 2500, which sounds mad now, as I remember when I got mine, when they first came out, so many moaned about the weight and thickness of the 2500, and now everyone talks about how thin it is, because of the 2 iterations that followed it.
 
SpeedyMcNasty
Posts
139
Likes
73
Modernism Modernism
I do love the 2500, and the 8500, both 42mm. I seldom wear them on the bracelet, which I think helps a lot when it comes to the 8500, but if you wear rubber or NATO, and even milanese, you won't notice any weight with the 8500. The 8500 is like a tank in comparison, not weight wise, it just feels like a much more bash it around type of watch compared to the delicate of the 2500, which sounds mad now, as I remember when I got mine, when they first came out, so many moaned about the weight and thickness of the 2500, and now everyone talks about how thin it is, because of the 2 iterations that followed it.
Super informative! Yeah I think I prefer the 2500 for those reasons, I also like the closed caseback. I do have an omega shark mesh strap that either model would be amazing on! I’m generally not a fan of NATO but I also love rubber straps.
 
Modernism
Posts
336
Likes
164
SpeedyMcNasty SpeedyMcNasty
Super informative! Yeah I think I prefer the 2500 for those reasons, I also like the closed caseback. I do have an omega shark mesh strap that either model would be amazing on! I’m generally not a fan of NATO but I also love rubber straps.

Good luck with the hunt. If I was looking now, I'd try to get the 'D' movement if you can, unless the 'C' is a really nice example.
 
SpeedyMcNasty
Posts
139
Likes
73
Modernism Modernism
Good luck with the hunt. If I was looking now, I'd try to get the 'D' movement if you can, unless the 'C' is a really nice example.
Seems super difficult to actually find someone who knows the difference. Any good questions to ask?
 
8 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

502 to right

Do the Omega 2500 and 8500 share the same hole size for hour & minute hands?

502 to right Watchmaking
sathomasga
sathomasga
Posts
1
Views
605
Modernism

Anyone gone from a PO 2500/8500 42mm, to the 8800 39.5?

Modernism Modern Omega Watches
Modernism
Modernism
Posts
3
Views
1K
Modernism

PO 2500 bezel moving both ways?

Modernism Modern Omega Watches
Modernism
Modernism
Posts
12
Views
2K
S

Planet Ocean 8500 vs 8900 readability

Speedy13 Modern Omega Watches
OmegaFan503
OmegaFan503
Posts
2
Views
3K
Blackdog

How much thicker is the 42mm PO 8500 vs the PO 2500 ?

Blackdog Modern Omega Watches
GMPHK
GMPHK
Posts
28
Views
18K
Modernism

PO 2500/8500 to 8800?

Modernism Modern Omega Watches
Foo2rama
Foo2rama
Posts
8
Views
5K