ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Sunster · 31 August 2012, 10:20 PM

I 'considering cashing in on my Sub C' and thinking about getting a PO to replace it as my dressy diver. Just wondering taking all factors of movement, dial, price and difference in height, which camp are you in?
(Unfortunately I've not seen a 8500 near me to try on)

Gogo Monomaneshi · 31 August 2012, 10:25 PM

8500 all the way.

TheCanadian1 · 31 August 2012, 10:44 PM

I use to have the 2500. The 8500 is amazing! I'm still try to decide between this and a PAM000

Dweller of the Sea · 31 August 2012, 11:12 PM

Neither...

Im a nine-three-zero-zero man

double · 31 August 2012, 11:40 PM

If it's a dressy diver you are after then go with the 2500. It has a more classic look and not as bulky. I think the 8500 has more of a tool watch appearance when comparing it to the 2500, except for the display case back on the new model.

iwant1 · 31 August 2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gogo Monomaneshi

8500 all the way.

+1. Just got one and love it.

beaglehusky · 1 September 2012, 12:11 AM

Yes!

Sunster · 1 September 2012, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beaglehusky

Yes!

The Liquid metal would be perfect but very expensive and rare

jmsrolls · 1 September 2012, 12:34 AM

I am among the 1948 blessed to own the PO Liquidmetal Limited Edition:

I've briefly owned three cal. 8500 Omegas and the thick cases required by the movement is a deal killer for me. I much prefer the comfort of the svelte 2500 case.

The GMT Master · 1 September 2012, 01:56 AM

I'm a cal. 8500 man through and through

Survivor · 1 September 2012, 02:44 AM

2500 baby (45MM)...............less than half the price and looks much more iconic

You can't go wrong with either

Ramiks · 1 September 2012, 03:05 AM

2500 42 mm .
and the 8500 ti is singing to me.
the po is made to be your daily beater whether on suite or t-shirt.

KeepTicking · 1 September 2012, 03:33 AM

8500

InTime · 1 September 2012, 04:23 AM

2 5 0 0...

the height is just right.

Rashid.bk · 1 September 2012, 04:28 AM

I like the 2500, more classic to me. I love the open font numbers 6 and 9 that add to the appeal. The 8500 is really on another level though. I would only consider a LM LE over my 2500 though. Just me I guess.

One of members, Brian did an awesome review if you haven't seen it...

http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=247254

ColT32 · 1 September 2012, 05:03 AM

Love my 2500. Tried on an 8500 first but it just looked too big for me.

Birch · 1 September 2012, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCanadian1

I use to have the 2500. The 8500 is amazing! I'm still try to decide between this and a PAM000

I have the Zero and a 2500. I'm keeping the Zero. The 2500 is for sale.

Haven't seen an 8500 in the wild yet.

joe100 · 1 September 2012, 12:47 PM

8500 orange, 42mm

Sent from my  using Tapatalk

htc8p · 1 September 2012, 01:07 PM

8500 definitely

warrior · 2 September 2012, 12:11 AM

If you end up doing it, you're making a very good decision in my opinion regardless of which PO you choose. I think the ceramic subs are waaaay too shiny. They don't look at all "classic" to me... and are extremely blingy. Almost too "fashion" looking.

Either way...you win with the 2500 or 8500. The 8500 has a more advanced movement and is slightly better finished. However, I prefer the aesthetics and lower height of the 2500.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunster

I 'considering cashing in on my Sub C' and thinking about getting a PO to replace it as my dressy diver. Just wondering taking all factors of movement, dial, price and difference in height, which camp are you in?
(Unfortunately I've not seen a 8500 near me to try on)

Point2Point · 2 September 2012, 01:06 AM

8500 - love the display case back and ceramic bezel.

kymwatchlog · 2 September 2012, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InTime

2 5 0 0...

the height is just right.

plus one!

kymwatchlog · 2 September 2012, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

I like the 2500, more classic to me. I love the open font numbers 6 and 9 that add to the appeal. The 8500 is really on another level though. I would only consider a LM LE over my 2500 though. Just me I guess.

One of members, Brian did an awesome review if you haven't seen it...

http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=247254

classic is the word of the day!

NCD1979 · 2 September 2012, 03:27 AM

8500 all day long...

Mickey® · 2 September 2012, 03:30 AM

2500 well worth the reasonable price.

A.I. · 2 September 2012, 05:45 AM

2 5 0 0

Classically - understated.

InTime · 2 September 2012, 07:42 AM

will the 2500 be around 2500$ this time next year? pre owned of course

VetteBandit · 2 September 2012, 10:28 AM

I'm a 2500 guy as well. I can appreciate the 8500, but the bezel and the overall thickness do t do it for me. If they make the blue ti in 42 I may have to pull the trigger.

karmatp · 3 September 2012, 12:32 AM

Call me over cautious, but I would never own a watch with the 2500, especially the early models. The 8500 is the only way to go if you ask me, a much better movement.

This is the same as the Panerai P9000 movement. I had one for a few months and every day I was thankful it was still running. Yes the failures were with the early models, but the movement had flaws, just like the 2500.

There are way to many watches out there with solid movements to buy one with a history of failing. I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a watch with a history like that, especially when Omega has now fixed all the problems with the 8500.

Survivor · 3 September 2012, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karmatp

Call me over cautious, but I would never own a watch with the 2500, especially the early models. The 8500 is the only way to go if you ask me, a much better movement.

This is the same as the Panerai P9000 movement. I had one for a few months and every day I was thankful it was still running. Yes the failures were with the early models, but the movement had flaws, just like the 2500.

There are way to many watches out there with solid movements to buy one with a history of failing. I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a watch with a history like that, especially when Omega has now fixed all the problems with the 8500.

So silly.............

The 2500 movement in the Planet Oceans were the "C" and "D" types...........no problems there. I own 2.........never an issue. Have had many more problems with Rolex and other supposedly "higher end" brands.

Long live the PO

31 August 2012, 10:20 PM	#1
Sunster "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 169	Planet Ocean 42, are you a 2500 man or a 8500 man? I 'considering cashing in on my Sub C' and thinking about getting a PO to replace it as my dressy diver. Just wondering taking all factors of movement, dial, price and difference in height, which camp are you in? (Unfortunately I've not seen a 8500 near me to try on) __________________ Current line up: Omega Speedmaster, Rolex Sea Dweller 16600, Tudor Black Bay ETA

1 September 2012, 12:47 PM	#18
joe100 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Joe Location: New Mexico Watch: Explorer Posts: 12,753	8500 orange, 42mm Sent from my  using Tapatalk __________________ It's Espresso, not Expresso. Coffee is not a train in Italy. -TRF Member 6982-

2 September 2012, 10:28 AM	#28
VetteBandit "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: JP Location: USA Watch: All of them! Posts: 917	I'm a 2500 guy as well. I can appreciate the 8500, but the bezel and the overall thickness do t do it for me. If they make the blue ti in 42 I may have to pull the trigger. __________________ ********************************* "Eveyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Instagram: @30threejosh

3 September 2012, 12:32 AM	#29
karmatp "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Real Name: Trevor Location: Arizona Posts: 5,740	Call me over cautious, but I would never own a watch with the 2500, especially the early models. The 8500 is the only way to go if you ask me, a much better movement. This is the same as the Panerai P9000 movement. I had one for a few months and every day I was thankful it was still running. Yes the failures were with the early models, but the movement had flaws, just like the 2500. There are way to many watches out there with solid movements to buy one with a history of failing. I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a watch with a history like that, especially when Omega has now fixed all the problems with the 8500. __________________ My grails:

31 August 2012, 10:25 PM	#2
Gogo Monomaneshi "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: USA Posts: 7	8500 all the way.

31 August 2012, 10:44 PM	#3
TheCanadian1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: ON Watch: GMTIIC, Sub Hulk Posts: 90	I use to have the 2500. The 8500 is amazing! I'm still try to decide between this and a PAM000

31 August 2012, 11:12 PM	#4
Dweller of the Sea "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: EU Watch: ing TRF Posts: 576	Neither... Im a nine-three-zero-zero man

31 August 2012, 11:40 PM	#5
double 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: NC Watch: Holy Diver Trio Posts: 39	If it's a dressy diver you are after then go with the 2500. It has a more classic look and not as bulky. I think the 8500 has more of a tool watch appearance when comparing it to the 2500, except for the display case back on the new model.

1 September 2012, 12:34 AM	#9
jmsrolls Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,185	I am among the 1948 blessed to own the PO Liquidmetal Limited Edition: I've briefly owned three cal. 8500 Omegas and the thick cases required by the movement is a deal killer for me. I much prefer the comfort of the svelte 2500 case.

1 September 2012, 01:56 AM	#10
The GMT Master "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: England Posts: 8,148	I'm a cal. 8500 man through and through

1 September 2012, 03:05 AM	#12
Ramiks "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: Rami Location: Jordan Watch: Rolex and others Posts: 825	2500 42 mm . and the 8500 ti is singing to me. the po is made to be your daily beater whether on suite or t-shirt.

1 September 2012, 03:33 AM	#13
KeepTicking "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Brian Location: NY Watch: DJ2, BLNR, PO, Nav Posts: 606	8500

1 September 2012, 04:23 AM	#14
InTime Banned Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: BermudaAntarctica Posts: 892	2 5 0 0... the height is just right.

1 September 2012, 04:28 AM	#15
Rashid.bk "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas Watch: 12800ft = 3900m Posts: 11,172	I like the 2500, more classic to me. I love the open font numbers 6 and 9 that add to the appeal. The 8500 is really on another level though. I would only consider a LM LE over my 2500 though. Just me I guess. One of members, Brian did an awesome review if you haven't seen it... http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=247254

1 September 2012, 05:03 AM	#16
ColT32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Real Name: Col Travis Location: Manchester, UK Watch: TTDJ, ΩPO, Posts: 62	Love my 2500. Tried on an 8500 first but it just looked too big for me.

1 September 2012, 01:07 PM	#19
htc8p "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Bert Location: philippines Watch: 116710 ln Posts: 3,443	8500 definitely

2 September 2012, 01:06 AM	#21
Point2Point "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: SoCal Posts: 142	8500 - love the display case back and ceramic bezel.

2 September 2012, 03:27 AM	#24
NCD1979 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,037	8500 all day long...

2 September 2012, 03:30 AM	#25
Mickey® Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Mickey® Location: Atlanta, GA Watch: Swiss Made Posts: 5,801	2500 well worth the reasonable price.

2 September 2012, 05:45 AM	#26
A.I. "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Glasgow UK Watch: 126610LV Posts: 759	2 5 0 0 Classically - understated.

2 September 2012, 07:42 AM	#27
InTime Banned Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: BermudaAntarctica Posts: 892	will the 2500 be around 2500$ this time next year? pre owned of course

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