What are your thoughts on owning both the PO 2500 and the P0 8500?

Redbirdsfan70

The OP may no longer care but I'm happy to hear your perspective. And I think a few others are as well since it's gotten more responses lately then it did when originally posted. 😀 I'm curious, why did you flip the LMLEPO instead of the 2500 PO?

Modernism

Thanks for that. Appreciated.

That's a good question actually, and not one I can explain easily, but I'll try...
Firstly I had the standard black s/s 2500, which I still have now, over 11 years later and still love it. The main reason I got rid of the POLMLE purchased new 2012, was for a similar reason to the reason that I'm not a big fan of the current Mk3 range now. It was too blingy. Sometimes when looking at the dial it was too shiny to see the time. That wasn't a major issue but it was something that bothered me. Also, I purchased it based on pictures from the forums, and not seeing it in any store up close. I had it brand new, and sold it brand new, pretty much unworn. Now for me, that watch is the most photogenic watch I've ever seen. In the metal, it looked amazing in certain lights, but for the most part, being indoor, it didn't look as great to me as it did in those amazing forum pictures or when it was in sunlight. I will dig out a shot to show that point when I can find my old pics. The bezel is the best part of that watch. The red writing sets it off nicely, but in certain lights, my 8500 still compensates for that missed small red splash, with their orange writing. The new one would look better with one line of orange, not two, for me anyway. What I will say is when I see these amazing pics of the LMPO on here, I do think sometimes I made a mistake, because I'll never be able to get an unworn one again, but then I just remind myself of the reasons I sold it when I did, and why I did. I just didn't like it as much. And believe me it took a real slog to find a brand new one at the end of 2012 too. But in short, too blingy, and that is just the reflective dial, the ceramic dial was a beauty, and not as loud as the Sub ceramic, but that was THE main reason, plus it didn't look like it did in the pictures online. Pics of the standard 2500 far more reflect the actual look than that did, and the lume on the standard is far superior to the LMPO, but the lume on original is far superior to my 8500 too. I think that's a blue thing. Same with the current Subs. It's a shiny thing. I am not a fan of watches that shine too blingy. And the 8500 matt ceramic bezel is still subtle enough to not attract too much attention.

The watch on the left is the one I kept the original PO, I can read the time. The watch on the right is the LMPO in direct light.
Same lighting, same angle. This kind of explains my point a bit.

Modernism

Yes, that's the thing. There were a lot of stories about the 2500 C being a lemon for many, but mine runs better and is more accurate than my 8500. It was serviced once, about 7 years ago. Great movements, for the most part... but stories of it's problems are scarce now.

Redbirdsfan70

I thought the lemons were the first two versions of the 2500 (A and B)? I think the 2500 C movements have had very low service issues.

Modernism

Yes, that's the thing. There were a lot of stories about the 2500 C being a lemon for many, but mine runs better and is more accurate than my 8500. It was serviced once, about 7 years ago. Great movements, for the most part... but stories of it's problems are scarce now.