PO 2500 vs PO 8500 Comparative Review

[KeepTicking]

Hello Guys, I want to start off by saying I am by no means a photographer but I did the best I could with my iphone and some indirect outdoor light. I purchased the PO 2500 in September 2011 and love it. Looking at pics of the 8500 model made me a bit jealous, so I had to go and pick up the new one, plan being to sell one of the two after wearing both. Below is a bit of a comparison of the two and my take on each.

Side by side:


The first thing that you'll notice is just how much bolder the face of the 8500 looks. The 2500 is very flat, whereas the 8500 has thicker indices, applied OMEGA emblem, and raised polished numerals, giving the dial an almost 3D appearance. Additionally, although it is hard to tell in the pic, the dial of the 8500 is much darker, the 2500 is a dark gray dial whereas the 8500 is a true black, though this comes down to preference (mine is towards the true black).

Another detail that does not show through in the photo is the color of the lume on the indices during the day. The 2500 indices have a very yellow/green color to them, where the 8500 is pure white. Again, this comes down to preference, but I prefer the pure white color indices of the 8500. Also, if you look closely at the polished metal border surrounding the lume indices on each, the 8500 has thicker borders that are cut at angles, where the 2500's is thinner and round. The thicker, angled borders produce much more reflection that gives the dial a bit of sparkle in the sun that is really not seen on the 2500.

Finally, the hands have been tweaked and enlarged on the 8500 model. I always liked the shape of the original 2500 hands and still prefer them to the 8500. I will say that I initially did not like the hands on the 8500 at all, but they grew on me and I now do like them, though I would trade for the 2500 hands if I could.

Overall, I do prefer the new dial to the old. The new adds more contrast, more depth, and a splash of color with the red seamaster logo. It is worth noting that the hands are considerably different, with the 8500 hands being a bit bigger. I really don't have a preference for either as I think both look nice, but some will prefer one to the other.

Case:





There is really nothing that immediately jumps out in terms of the case until closer inspection. Yes, the 8500 is a bit thicker, which I personally like because it gives the watch more presence on the wrist, but the details are noticed upon close observation. First, the 8500 is more finely finished in transitioning from polished to brushed surfaces. If you observe closely the line which the 2500 goes from polished to brushed, you can see small imperfections, tiny chips if you will. This is not obvious in the photos, but it is there to the naked eye. On the other hand, the 8500 is absolutely butter smooth going from polished to brushed surfaces, brilliant job in finishing the case.

Second, the 8500 just has more detailing, period. The crown on the 8500 is brushed with a polished logo, as is the HE valve, whereas the 2500 is just you basic polished crown. The crown grooves are also noticeably deeper and wider on the 8500, giving it a cool texture and making the watch look and feel more finely finished and more special. The 8500 also has an additional line of polishing at the bottom of the watch that can be seen in the photos that the 2500 does not, simply more detail.

Overall, both cases are very nice, but the 8500 is a step above, though not in any drastic manner, the 2500 case is still quite nice.

Bezel:

This is one that polarizes a lot of people. I always loved the bezel on my 2500 and had mixed feelings looking at the 8500 online. When I received my 8500 I was not sure that I loved the bezel and thought that I might keep the 2500 instead for this reason. After wearing it for a few days, it not only grew on me, I began to prefer it to my 2500. In the pictures you can notice that the 8500 bezel appears thicker, and this is because the silver ring around the bezel that butts up to the sapphire on the 8500 is considerably thinner, giving the impression of a thicker bezel.

Another thing that I like MUCH more about the 8500 bezel is the notching. The notching on the 2500 is simply too small and too close together, it is something that has always bothered me about my 2500. The 8500's notching is much blockier, polished on the outside and brushed on the concave portions. This alternation of polished and brushed gives the watch a very cool appearance and in my opinion is a HUGE improvement to the 2500.

As for the pure black on the 2500 vs the gray on the 8500, this comes down to preference. The 2500 has a pure black bezel with a grayish dial, whereas the 8500 has a grayish bezel with a pure black dial. I think the contrast each watch provides between bezel and dial is awesome, each has a great look. Obviously the 8500 bezel has the advantage of being highly scratch resistant, but I'm not telling you something you don't already know on this one.

Overall, the 8500 bezel has grown on me after wearing it and I do prefer it to the 2500.

Caseback/movement:


Everyone knows the merits of each movement, so I won't touch on them. As far as accuracy, my 8500 is running +4 per day, 2500 is +2. Each is very accurate and the 2500 is no slouch here. As far as the casebacks, I prefer the sapphire back of the 8500, especially with the well decorated movement, but again, this is pure preference.

Bracelet:




They are basically the same. The 8500 has screw pins where the 2500 has friction pins. Most prefer the screws as they are easier to change, and I prefer the look myself, but I actually prefer the friction pin system as there is no chance at one of those backing out, it is the safer of the two systems. The only other difference is the clasp which is shorter on the 8500 and says only OMEGA which I prefer to all of the writing on the 2500 clasp. If I had to choose one I would take the 8500 bracelet purely because it has less writing on the clasp, each is an excellent design and very sturdy.

Lume:



The first shot is right out of the sun and the second shot is about 13 minutes later. They are equally bright, this one comes down to preference in color. Of the two I prefer the 8500 as I like the look of the blue and really like the contrasting minute hand and pip at the top, I think these are cool touches.
It is worth noting that the color of the lume DOES influence the color of the indices during the day. As I stated earlier, the 2500's indices have a yellow/green appearance during the day, where the 8500's is pure white. I give a big advantage to the 8500 here as I do not like to color tint of the 2500 indices during the day.

Conclusion:

I much prefer the 8500 and will be selling my 2500. Both are great watches, but the 8500 just improves on the 2500 in almost every dimension. The 8500 has more presence on my wrist, and I find myself stopping and admiring it more than I ever did with the 2500. That said, the 2500 is still an awesome watch, and for the price it is hard to beat. I would tell anyone looking that if you can afford it, go with the 8500, if money is an issue, the 2500 is a damn fine watch and should make any owner proud to wear it.

[MCV]

Nice comparo job. I have owned both and sold my 2500 for the new 8500 and like it very much.

Cheers,

-Marc

[AndyK]

Nice write up. You articulated two of the things that I prefer about the 8500 to the 2500 as well:
The white lume (as opposed to a yellowish tint), and the way the metal surrounding the lume "sparkles".

[chicagofan]

Excellent report! Thanks for sharing.

[Redbox]

Great write up! I agree with everything you said.
I have been talking to Fr. John and went to his AD on Wednesday. After talking to him and looking at everything I bought the PO 42mm 8500.
Some have commented that it is too thick. I don’t think so. It fits my 7 ¼” wrist perfectly.
Love it!

[eric23]

Great review! Thanks for sharing!

[kymwatchlog]

hi Brian, great work! thanks!

now u get me contemplating. u know something, i bought a bnib 8500 and thinking to sell her for a bnib 2500 on mesh.

i have not sized the 8500 but felt the new bracelet might pose a fit issue so thinkin about mesh...in our earlier discussion too that u contributed a lot! thanks.


but now i must re-think...


here's mine:

[yessir69]

Great comparison. Boy the 8500 is thick!

[capote]

Very nice, but I gotta say the details and finish just looks better on the 8500

[exxondus]

Thanks for the detailed comparison, the 8500 is def a much better watch in my books.

[The GMT Master]

Very well balanced review, you've gone through both watches with a very fine toothcomb, and treated both with fairness. I only wish more comparative reviews were like this! Good job

[psv]

Great review. Thank you for putting so much time and thought into it and sharing it with us. I agree, the 8500 is a winner.

[byeedo]

Great write up! Thanks

[jmsrolls]

Good review but my PO LM LE trumps them both.

Fr. John†

[colpol]

Thanks for putting that comparison together

[Perdu]

Very nice review - thank you

[ttomczak]

Great review! Thanks for taking the time!!!

[zeroshiki]

thanks for the comparison, especially with the extra effort comparing the thickness by taking off the bracelets.

[outlaw468]

Good review thanks.

[warrior]

I've had the 8500 and currently have the 2500. I agree that the 8500 is better finished. The reason I kept the 2500 is

1) it was thinner

2) the areas on the 2500 hour markers actually looked bigger than the 8500 hour markers. ( I prefer this look) I think this has to do with the fact that the hour marker surrounds on the 8500 are faceted and take up more "space", thereby making the marker areas smaller.

3) the 2500 looked a little more "classic" to me, which I prefer over the more modern look of the 8500.

[00Seven]

That's my kind of review! Really, well done.

[KeepTicking]

Originally Posted by warrior

I've had the 8500 and currently have the 2500. I agree that the 8500 is better finished. The reason I kept the 2500 is

1) it was thinner

2) the areas on the 2500 hour markers actually looked bigger than the 8500 hour markers. ( I prefer this look) I think this has to do with the fact that the hour marker surrounds on the 8500 are faceted and take up more "space", thereby making the marker areas smaller.

3) the 2500 looked a little more "classic" to me, which I prefer over the more modern look of the 8500.

Hey don't get me wrong, I still like the 2500 a lot, great watch and definitely more of a classic look, congrats on yours!!

[ReXTless]

Great review. Thanks for putting it together.

I have both watches as well and also prefer the 8500 by a wide margin, and largely for the same reasons you articulated.

Here's where my impressions differ from yours:

1. I prefer the green lume on the 2500. I find it to be much brighter and it lasts longer. The green/yellow tint in daylight doesn't bother me at all. The blue lume is bright enough to read in the dark, but it loses the "pop" that green offers.

2. The 8500 dial is great, EXCEPT for the date window. It's not beveled and looks like a big hole in the dial, as compared to the 2500. This is the biggest issue I have with the watch. It drives me nuts. Note: this is only on the 42mm version. The 45.5 has a beveled window, as it has more dial space to work with.

3. The clasp on the 8500 is too short. The bracelet barely opens enough to slide the watch over my hand. A longer clasp, like the 2500, avoids this problem.

- Mark

[garymyman]

Awesome review!

[Transient]

wow i really love that 8500.... such a stunning looking watch...

[warrior]

Yours was a great review and I should have mentioned this in my original post. 2500 or 8500...the PO is really a cool watch. Enjoy it.

Originally Posted by bmendick1

Hey don't get me wrong, I still like the 2500 a lot, great watch and definitely more of a classic look, congrats on yours!!

[mfer]

Nice write up! Is this the 45.5mm?

[incontrol]

Great review! I learned much from your hard work!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gharddog03]

Nice review.

[mikkemus23]

Great review, thanks! The 8500 is a very very nice watch!