ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

JP Chestnut · 6 September 2012, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by improviz

The lugs on your PO are so complex and 3 dimensional compared to the flat (and fat) lugs on the newer maxi-cases. To my eyes it looks like the Omega case requires much more effort to produce.

Ed Rooney · 6 September 2012, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by improviz

Got one, thank you very much. 4130 kicks its ass.

It and the 3186 are the only Rolexes I've got that'll hang with my awful Omega 2500s in accuracy, and the 4130 is the only one with more power reserve.

Any more profound observations you'd care to share?

Thank you for pointing out your signature.

In a not completely unrelated development, I've decided that it would be pointless to discuss the merits of a brand or movement with you.

improviz · 6 September 2012, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

Thank you for pointing out your signature.

In a not completely unrelated development, I've decided that it would be pointless to discuss the merits of a brand or movement with you.

Words simply cannot express the disappointment I feel right now...I was so looking forward to yet more insightful commentary like "3135 ftw", "go go 3135", etc...ah, well, such is life. Thank you for your invaluable contributions to the thread, and enjoy your 3135.

gnuyork · 6 September 2012, 10:10 AM

I just recently purchased a PO. Today is my second day wearing it. I am constantly looking at the rolex forum and I saw one of the members with the PO and I just had to have one. (I think it was Dingoo)...

Anyway I wrote this on the WUS forum for a similar discussion. I chose the 2500 and this was my rationale:

1: Price.
2. I like the solid case-back. I think it's cool to see the movement is display case-backs, but on this watch I think the sea horse creature is way cooler.
3. thickness
4. I like the overall look of the bezel better (black)
5. They are becoming scarce. So if you want one, you better get it now. I really should have waited on this purchase, but I didn't want to miss out.
6. Looks more vintagey classic (is that a made up word? If so then I'll trade mark it )

Things I like about the 8500
1. movement, well supposedly it's better (or at least all in house)
2. I really like the metal applied 6,9,12
3. The orange seamaster type is a nice splash of color with out being too much
4 the fact the bezel is ceramic (scratch resistant?) but wish it was black

But overall these did not outweigh my 2500 preferences.

This is just my opinion.

Rashid.bk · 7 September 2012, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

3135 all the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

Oh, and I've been here for 4000+ posts, 5 years, and I'm a published watch writer. I don't troll.

Sorry, but I have to say that the "3135 atw" post is exactly a trolling post which in fact did what trolling post usually do....take the thread off topic.

I've read and appreciated your posts throughout the forum so I'm a little surprised when you claim your a publisher etc. and then, reading the title of this thread and what the op wants, you just throw 3135 in the mix.

I say this as a person who likes Rolex more, but that's not what this thread is about. I'd rather talk more with the guy complaining about his Pam and choosing an 85 than where this thread has gone.

eralph · 7 September 2012, 07:50 AM

I own a 2500. have worn it for dress and while diving off the Bahamas.

I intend to get an 8500 as I find the 8500's independent 12 hour hand to be a highly desireable feature for traveling across time zones.

Singslinger · 7 September 2012, 04:17 PM

To answer the OP's question - I'm both! I have the 42mm black 8500 and a 42mm orange 2500 that were purchased at the same time following sale of a Panerai that wasn't getting much wrist action.

In the few months I've owned the POs, I've found no discernible difference in performance - both are very accurate. The 8500, being a bit thicker, is heavier on the wrist but I'm OK with that since I also have a Milgauss and Deepsea.

Why did I buy both? Why not? When I got the 8500 I also enquired about the orange 2500 and was told that it's being phased out. After a bit of research, I found that very few ADs had any in stock, so I decided to bite the bullet and go for it rather than kick myself later for not getting it new or wait until one surfaced in the secondhand market. No regrets at all - the 2500 is a beautiful watch!

Craig in oz · 8 September 2012, 01:27 PM

Just got hold of my PO 42mm with Orange Basel, from TRF looks stunning! One of the best looking dive watches on the market today and great value, 8500 movement looks stunning with the sapphire glass back casing.

Perdu · 9 September 2012, 01:37 AM

Personally, I would not switch a SubC for a 2500. The 8500 is a superb movement but there are few watchmakers who know how to service it, whereas just about any watchmaker can service a 3135. Movement wise I would put them in this order

8500
3135
2500

but these movements are all chronometer grade and properly regulated are capable of the same excellent time keeping.

There are many other factors besides movement you need to take into consideration, like which watch do you like on your wrist and resale values if you think you will ever flip. Let us know what you decide.

improviz · 9 September 2012, 01:49 AM

He already made his choice and got a PO with the 2500, specifically a liquidmetal LE:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=253018

I got the same piece a few weeks ago, and so far it's the most accurate in the collection.

dsio · 9 September 2012, 01:50 AM

That 2500 LM is a brilliant, brilliant watch, congrats on that choice OP!

Perdu · 9 September 2012, 02:41 AM

Ok, missed that thread.

outlaw468 · 9 September 2012, 08:40 AM

I have a 8500 but I am going back to the 2500. I personally prefer the lower profile of the 2500. I've had 6 different watches with the 2500 movement and have never had a problem.

How · 15 September 2012, 11:21 PM

2500 is more dressy
8500 is more sporty

phillips29 · 19 September 2012, 05:52 PM

2500 myself.... although can appreciate a nice 8500!!

tigerpac · 20 September 2012, 12:29 AM

2012-08-28.jpg

mikkemus23 · 20 September 2012, 05:55 PM

I got the cal 2500, but I also like the 8500. What`s not to like with either?

(and sorry for the two off topic watches in this picture!)

WJGESQ · 22 September 2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beaglehusky

Yes!

What model is the top photo of?

The dial looks like a pistol grip.

improviz · 22 September 2012, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

What model is the top photo of?

The dial looks like a pistol grip.

Quantum of Solace limited edition.

swiss ghost · 22 September 2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justinsyndicate

The 2500 is an ETA 2892 with the co-axial escapement added. The 8500 is fully in-house as I understand it. As Dsio pointed out, the 8500 itself is only 5.5mm thick and thus is my vote, $6k worth of it actually:

ETA assembles the 8500 for OMEGA. ETA OMEGA under swatch umbrella. 8500 more like in family

beaglehusky · 22 September 2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

What model is the top photo of?

The dial looks like a pistol grip.

As improviz said, it's the QOS LE 45mm PO (222.30.46.20.01.001), and the dial resembles the grip of a Walther PPK, James Bond's weapon of choice.

mikkolopez · 22 September 2012, 11:58 PM

Am on the search for a 2500, no luck yet. I like the slimmer profile.

OTX · 5 October 2012, 12:41 AM

Had the PO 8500. Sold it and got the PO 2500 instead. Much slimmer and better looking imo. The PO 8500 is sporty looking while the 2500 is the perfect balance between sporty and elegant. Also didn't like the grey bezel and thickness if the PO 8500. The PO 2500 is a classic.

Fergus01 · 6 October 2012, 06:11 AM

2500 all the way! oriignal, reliable and hard to get now. my is 42mm and only beaten by my 116710 GMT for looks and price

Fergus01 · 6 October 2012, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by improviz

He already made his choice and got a PO with the 2500, specifically a liquidmetal LE:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=253018

I got the same piece a few weeks ago, and so far it's the most accurate in the collection.

Blimey thats a collection!! Just interested, where does your GMT II rate amongst them. For me it has everything you would want in a watch

watchnut.com · 6 October 2012, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

ETA assembles the 8500 for OMEGA. ETA OMEGA under swatch umbrella. 8500 more like in family

I was hoping someone would point that out.

improviz · 6 October 2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fergus01

Blimey thats a collection!!

Thanks! Pales in comparison to lots of 'em 'round these parts, though...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fergus01

Just interested, where does your GMT II rate amongst them.

I assume you meant accuracy-wise; it is plenty accurate, runs in vicinity of 2-3 seconds a day fast (I personally prefer running fast to running slow, no chance of being late and easier to set to correct time, just stop it and start it back up when time catches up to it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fergus01

For me it has everything you would want in a watch

It is an amazing piece, no doubt about it. Definitely one of my favorites and gets lots of wrist time (in case you meant non-accuracy wise :) )

Cmmatthews · 6 October 2012, 11:35 AM

2500 is a heck of a bargain, I think. Dimension and style are pretty timeless, too.

Boardman · 6 October 2012, 12:30 PM

I had the 2500c

After having it stop 3 x and in for service each time for 6-8 wks I sold it and got the 8500

I did like the lower profile of the 2500 but it wasn't worth the trouble anymore

Kind of glad it happened now....I love the 8500! So glad I went orange too.

gettocard · 6 October 2012, 09:25 PM

I'll be 2500 for sure,better hurry before they become hard to find.

9 September 2012, 01:37 AM	#69
Perdu "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Gary Location: GMT-6 Watch: GMT Posts: 3,350	Personally, I would not switch a SubC for a 2500. The 8500 is a superb movement but there are few watchmakers who know how to service it, whereas just about any watchmaker can service a 3135. Movement wise I would put them in this order 8500 3135 2500 but these movements are all chronometer grade and properly regulated are capable of the same excellent time keeping. There are many other factors besides movement you need to take into consideration, like which watch do you like on your wrist and resale values if you think you will ever flip. Let us know what you decide. __________________ Omega Seamaster 300M GMT Noire Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 8500 Benson 1937 Sterling Silver Hunter

9 September 2012, 01:49 AM	#70
improviz "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Tejas Watch: your step Posts: 2,806	He already made his choice and got a PO with the 2500, specifically a liquidmetal LE: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=253018 I got the same piece a few weeks ago, and so far it's the most accurate in the collection. __________________ 116520 white; 16613 black; 116710; 16570 polar; 16600. AP 15400; 15703. Blancpain Fifty Fathoms. Glashutte Sport Evo GMT. Omega Planet Ocean 2907.50.91; Planet Ocean Liquidmetal LE 222.30.42.20.01.001; Seamaster 2255.80.00. Breitling Crosswind, white. Panerai PAM 005. VC Overseas Chrono, black.

9 September 2012, 01:50 AM	#71
dsio "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Real Name: Ashley Location: Brisbane Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79 Posts: 2,301	That 2500 LM is a brilliant, brilliant watch, congrats on that choice OP! __________________ -- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 -- -- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 --

9 September 2012, 02:41 AM	#72
Perdu "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Gary Location: GMT-6 Watch: GMT Posts: 3,350	Ok, missed that thread. __________________ Omega Seamaster 300M GMT Noire Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 8500 Benson 1937 Sterling Silver Hunter

9 September 2012, 08:40 AM	#73
outlaw468 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Steve Location: Chicago Watch: Rolex and Omega Posts: 546	I have a 8500 but I am going back to the 2500. I personally prefer the lower profile of the 2500. I've had 6 different watches with the 2500 movement and have never had a problem. __________________ Regards, Steve

6 September 2012, 10:10 AM	#64
gnuyork "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Marietta, GA Posts: 3,247	I just recently purchased a PO. Today is my second day wearing it. I am constantly looking at the rolex forum and I saw one of the members with the PO and I just had to have one. (I think it was Dingoo)... Anyway I wrote this on the WUS forum for a similar discussion. I chose the 2500 and this was my rationale: 1: Price. 2. I like the solid case-back. I think it's cool to see the movement is display case-backs, but on this watch I think the sea horse creature is way cooler. 3. thickness 4. I like the overall look of the bezel better (black) 5. They are becoming scarce. So if you want one, you better get it now. I really should have waited on this purchase, but I didn't want to miss out. 6. Looks more vintagey classic (is that a made up word? If so then I'll trade mark it ) Things I like about the 8500 1. movement, well supposedly it's better (or at least all in house) 2. I really like the metal applied 6,9,12 3. The orange seamaster type is a nice splash of color with out being too much 4 the fact the bezel is ceramic (scratch resistant?) but wish it was black But overall these did not outweigh my 2500 preferences. This is just my opinion.

7 September 2012, 07:50 AM	#66
eralph "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: Dan Location: Sandy Hook, NJ Watch: 14060 Posts: 18	I own a 2500. have worn it for dress and while diving off the Bahamas. I intend to get an 8500 as I find the 8500's independent 12 hour hand to be a highly desireable feature for traveling across time zones.

7 September 2012, 04:17 PM	#67
Singslinger "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: singapore Posts: 6,422	To answer the OP's question - I'm both! I have the 42mm black 8500 and a 42mm orange 2500 that were purchased at the same time following sale of a Panerai that wasn't getting much wrist action. In the few months I've owned the POs, I've found no discernible difference in performance - both are very accurate. The 8500, being a bit thicker, is heavier on the wrist but I'm OK with that since I also have a Milgauss and Deepsea. Why did I buy both? Why not? When I got the 8500 I also enquired about the orange 2500 and was told that it's being phased out. After a bit of research, I found that very few ADs had any in stock, so I decided to bite the bullet and go for it rather than kick myself later for not getting it new or wait until one surfaced in the secondhand market. No regrets at all - the 2500 is a beautiful watch!

8 September 2012, 01:27 PM	#68
Craig in oz "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Real Name: Craig Location: Perth Australia Watch: Omega planet ocean Posts: 3	Just got hold of my PO 42mm with Orange Basel, from TRF looks stunning! One of the best looking dive watches on the market today and great value, 8500 movement looks stunning with the sapphire glass back casing.

15 September 2012, 11:21 PM	#74
How "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Melbourne Watch: 16610, Tudor 1960 Posts: 1,554	2500 is more dressy 8500 is more sporty

19 September 2012, 05:52 PM	#75
phillips29 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: UK Posts: 78	2500 myself.... although can appreciate a nice 8500!!

20 September 2012, 12:29 AM	#76
tigerpac "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Hoboken, NJ Posts: 646	2012-08-28.jpg

22 September 2012, 11:58 PM	#82
mikkolopez "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Philippines Posts: 2,301	Am on the search for a 2500, no luck yet. I like the slimmer profile.

5 October 2012, 12:41 AM	#83
OTX "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Twilight Zone Posts: 496	Had the PO 8500. Sold it and got the PO 2500 instead. Much slimmer and better looking imo. The PO 8500 is sporty looking while the 2500 is the perfect balance between sporty and elegant. Also didn't like the grey bezel and thickness if the PO 8500. The PO 2500 is a classic.

6 October 2012, 06:11 AM	#84
Fergus01 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: london Watch: GMT IIC Posts: 14	2500 all the way! oriignal, reliable and hard to get now. my is 42mm and only beaten by my 116710 GMT for looks and price

6 October 2012, 11:35 AM	#88
Cmmatthews "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Pacifica, CA Watch: Double Red SD Posts: 307	2500 is a heck of a bargain, I think. Dimension and style are pretty timeless, too.

6 October 2012, 12:30 PM	#89
Boardman "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: Houston Watch: Rolex, Omega, IWC Posts: 321	I had the 2500c After having it stop 3 x and in for service each time for 6-8 wks I sold it and got the 8500 I did like the lower profile of the 2500 but it wasn't worth the trouble anymore Kind of glad it happened now....I love the 8500! So glad I went orange too.

6 October 2012, 09:25 PM	#90
gettocard Banned Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Andy Location: EU Watch: them come and go.. Posts: 2,052	I'll be 2500 for sure,better hurry before they become hard to find.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)