Hi all. My first post here. I've been into watches for about 18 months now. Like many, my tastes started fairly modest, but are migrating to more expensive and refined watches. I'm interested in the PO 45.5mm 2500 - mainly because the 8500 just seems too thick for me. I can't seem to find a definitive answer on the thickness of the PO 45.5mm 2500. I figure this is a good place to find the answer. Thanks!
@Nobel Prize has a 2500 for sale in the forum. He also has multiple photos with it compared with an 8500. Maybe he can find the old post.
I had both. I still have the 2500 PO. Just sold the 8500. See pic, maybe does not look that much different, but too much for me. Really wanted the 8500ti to work and tried for 6 weeks before deciding to sell.
It's about a crown higher so to speak as you can see eon the pics. I do have a 2500 Cal D for sale but the comparison pics I had around are.from the 42mm. This is 2500. On 45.5 size I do really favor it over the 8500
Just to throw my 2 cents in... I recently bought a 42mm 8500 and gotta say I absolutely love it. I wear in with a suit as well as with jeans and a t-shirt. I liked the case size 45 better in overall dimension and looks on my wrist. But, I also wanted something thinner then what the 45 offered. The 42 is much thinner and fit the bill perfectly. It works in all situations without adding the extra thickness I was trying to avoid, while still feeling substantial and hefty on the wrist. Just food for thought, if you're not dead set on 45 and more concerned with thickness...
Thanks, I've seen that one. It's comparing the 42mm versions. Funny how hard it is to find the thickness of the 45.5 2500. Intriguing that Omega doesn't publish it in the specs.
I usually use this website to compare thickness info. They have it listed for most. http://www.prestigetime.com/item/Omega/Planet-Ocean---46mm/232.30.46.21.01.001.html