Forums Latest Members

Was at the Omega Boutique ........

  1. Robert D Nov 3, 2015

    Posts
    11
    Likes
    2
    I viewed several pieces, they are all so nice, it makes it very difficult to just pick one !

    Planet Ocean 600M 42mm ..... heck of a watch, it was just a bit too thick.

    Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial ....... the vintage lume killed it for me, if it was white lume, it might be on my wrist now.

    Aqua Terra 150M Blue 41.5mm ....... this one surprised me, it fit me perfect and was just stunning to look at, funny thing is I didn't think this would be something I would have liked, I tend to go for "Divers/Bezel"

    Decisions ... Decisions
     
  2. jcmartinez98 Nov 3, 2015

    Posts
    711
    Likes
    944
    amen.
     
  3. Nobel Prize Spell Master! Nov 3, 2015

    Posts
    6,832
    Likes
    13,409
    I went looking for the sm300 and like you didn't quite like it on my wrist so I got... The 41.5 blue AT as per my Avatar.
     
  4. Rockmastermike Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    543
    Likes
    5,483
    +1 I never cared for these in pictures/online but that all changed when I saw one live and in person - very impressed and surprisingly good looking (based on my pre-determined opinion)
     
  5. PatrickJ Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    1,567
    Likes
    858
    On paper the PO 42mm is only a 1mm thicker than the seamaster pro? I thought the xl PO was to high off the wrist?
     
  6. PatrickJ Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    1,567
    Likes
    858
    What about a speedy pro?
     
  7. nurseford25 Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    1,119
    Likes
    5,980
    Go for the PO 42mm. Especially if you are dawn more to divers watches with bezels. Do I wish it was just a few mm thinner? Yes. However if it were thinner it wouldn't be quite the bullet proof beast that it is. I've worn mine almost everyday for the last 4 years and it still looks like new.
     
    Which Watch Next and T WIN like this.
  8. yinzerniner Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    1,869
    Likes
    1,394
    On paper yes, but the weight and designs make the PO seem much more than just 1mm thicker than the SM300 MC.
    @nurseford25 I really don't think thickness has anything to do with how sturdy a watch is. I would pit the 2254.50 vs a 42mm PO 8500 any day of the week for overall usability and durability, especially since the 2254 doesn't have the exterior AR which picks up scratches.
     
  9. T WIN Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    29
    Likes
    30
    I find my PO 8500 to be very substantial and comfortable on the wrist all at the same time. It's a nice change up from my watches that have a thinner profile.
     
  10. Robert D Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    11
    Likes
    2
    I'm planning to make a second visit, I tend to get excited when surrounded by the watches, it causes brain disturbances !

    After a few days of thinking about the models, I need to retest the Planet Ocean.
     
  11. nurseford25 Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    1,119
    Likes
    5,980
    Your correct about the 2254, it is a killer watch and can sure take the abuse of being a daily wearer and it does have a very comfortable size and height. Something about the PO though just always spoke to me more. I guess it's toughness is more based on personal perception. Everyone always mentions that AR coating but I have to say I have never had an scratches on the glass. It looks just as invisible as the day I purchased the watch. Bottom line is if you want a rugged daily wearer you can't go wrong with any of the seamaster models.
     
    T WIN likes this.
  12. Robert D Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    11
    Likes
    2
    I have the 2254.50, I don't think I will ever let this one go. The PO 42mm is a very sharp looking piece, I just don't see why the designers went with such a thick profile, 15.7mm vs 14.2mm, in the watch world 1-2mm is a big difference. The prior model PO 2500 had a perfect height.
     
  13. Robert D Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    11
    Likes
    2
    Maybe a silly question, can a different case back be used on the 8500 to reduce the height ?
     
  14. nurseford25 Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    1,119
    Likes
    5,980
    The Aqua Terra 8500 uses a thinner case with the same movement however it only has a depth rating of 150 meters. The PO has a depth rating of 600 meters and due to the fact that it has a sapphire case back the watch has to be thicker in order to achieve that depth rating. At least that's the spiel I was given at the omega boutique when I was chatting with the sales person the other day about the difference between the PO and the AT 8500 movements.
     
  15. yinzerniner Nov 4, 2015

    Posts
    1,869
    Likes
    1,394
    There's a Planet Ocean special edition out there that uses a steel caseback, and I believe it's only marginally thinner, something like .5mm, so the answer to @Robert D's question is technically yes, although not THAT much of a difference.
    And to @nurseford25's earlier point perceived quality and sturdiness is such a weird thing. I found the weight of the new 8500 POs a huge detriment as it always felt like a weighted hockey puck was swinging from my wrist just waiting to topple over like an overloaded semi truck, while the low-profile 2254 just seems to become an extension of one's arm. Then again I've never comfortably worn a titanium watch, as they just feel too insignificant.
     
  16. Blackbox0903 Nov 12, 2015

    Posts
    21
    Likes
    8
    i went into the shop planning on an SM300 and ended up purchasing the AT. You never know :)
     
    Knezz likes this.