I own a 2201.50 original and also used to own the 8900 model. I sold the 8900. It's too thick for its diameter, and the shiny dial is not for me (prefer the dial to disappear).
I bought my 2500C back in 2012. My wrist is thin to normal so the 42mm I chose to buy was more than well! Not to flatter my preference, but the first one has an extraordinary style and elegant that some how, I do not recognize in 8900...I adore ceramic innovating technique and certainly is a pros, but it comes too shiny and I mean the dial in particular...and the thickness of it...one and half the size of the original! Apart of the above mentioned observations it is in my opinion the most elegant so far Omega watch. Oh and by the way the Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean 2201.50.00 (2500 calibre) such as the one displayed in this video it has AR double coating in both sides inside and outside. Cheers!
Ive owned the 2500 version for years and will continue. The new 8900 version at least to me looks too busy. My 2500 is one of my only non chronograph pieces. It has an iconic look. A look that shouldnt be exaggerated simply for change. Simple, timeless and elegant. That's the 2500.
I own the 8900 and I love it. Although I wish it was a little thinner, it’s actually very comfortable. You really can’t tell you have it on. I went with this model over the Seamaster 300 because I felt it looked better and the bracelet was a better quality. I love the quick adjustment button. I feel for the value which included a nice AD discount, kills the Rolex Submariner and Sea Dweller!
same here! i actually went to the AD to pick up 300. They had a PO 39.5 in stock, so i decided to try it on. The watch instantly felt like it belonged to a higher segment. Bezel movement, bracelet, lume and overal giving the feeling of a tank like watch. Yes the 300m is thinner, but i really dont like the classic metal bracelet it comes with and although sitting bit thinner, the 42mm still felt chunky. So at the end, i walked out with the PO and i really love it! May i ask what deal you ended up getting for yours?
Agree. It is a more "from the ground up" modern and masculine design. The Sub is trying to keep a 1960's design updated for the modern era and it shows.
It's refreshing to see a watch review that is only about the watch and not the reviewer's personality. And the review itself is really well done. As for the watches in question, I am lucky to have experienced both. I had 2500D for roughly a year and the 8900 for almost 2 years now. My take aways: the 2500 with the male lugs and 14.5m thick makes it appear very wide, it's an unflattering proportion from certain angle and always bugged me. Due to lack of micro-adjust I was never able to get the bracelet right: it's always either too tight or too loose. I had no idea how much these things were annoying me until I wore the 8900. It's beefy and sharp from every angle and the excellent clasp made it fit like a glove at any time. After a few days of getting used to the weight, it's been smooth sailing wearing it 7 days a week . It would be unimaginable to go back to the 2500.
Really good comparison video actually, thanks. The newer PO is very beautiful for sure, but I think this video really highlights just how cool and classic the original PO was.
I have the PO model with the 8500 movement, the model in between the two you reviewed. I have found this watch very robust and durable, and probably the most accurate mechanical watch I have ever owned. I would put my PO up against any other dive watch, including the Rolex Submariner, for accuracy and durability. Great review. Thanks for posting.
I am definitely a little biased but I own this exact model Planet Ocean 2500 in 42mm and even though I appreciate what the new PO offers in quality and refinement I still much prefer the look of my original, mine is from 2010 and nothing about it looks dated and I feel it'll stay that way, it has such a classic look, Omega where ahead of the curve when this model was originally released as you can see so much of the early Omega diver DNA before the whole vintage craze was really a thing, you kinda get the best of both worlds where you still get a relatively modern and very capable diver with very classic looks, for me it's not leaving my possession, love my PO 2500.
Totally agree with you David I have the same model as you had mine since 2011 a 50th birthday present from my wife . Still love it and still looks great . Future classic..
When stowing the dive extension make sure the first fold in piece sits flush before snapping in the second piece, otherwise it will stick out into the wrist as seen on this video, great review tho!
The 8900's shiny surfaces are beautiful to be sure, but when I look at the 2500's matte dial and shiny indices and parts of the case, it's ver well done and compelling..
Some good discussion here! I have owned the 8900 for about 6 weeks. I got it because I wanted a chunky dive watch. I have been pleasantly surprised how well it sits on the wrist with the relatively compact length and female end links. The thicker bracelet is well proportioned for case thickness... And there is some magic at play because it does not wear like a 16mm watch the way they have designed the case and bezel. Feels way thinner than my 15mm Seiko mm300. Anyways - fits the job of the big tough diver really well. I got some other dive watches for when I am in the mood for something slimmer or more conservative.
Good video! I have a Cal 2500 (although with the orange bezel instead of black). I've had it for almost 9 years now and still gives excellent time (about +1 to +2 sec per day). Two complaints though. 1st (& my only major negative). It never came close to the 42 to 48 hours power reserve even when fully wound. I had it serviced on year 7 but still same issue. 2nd negative (& probably just a change of preference during the 9 years I've had it), weight and thickness cause some wearability issues! Still a very good watch and I still wear it now especially on weekends.
Agree with the guys below. Super video. Best comparison I have seen yet. And now finally I am 100% sure which version to get. The 2500 is timeless class - like a Porsche (or Aston Martin). Clear winner for me - but matter of taste of course.-) If they reduce the H of the 8900 to about 14mm it would change from a modern tank to a Ferrari. So get on it .... .-)
My watch starts with 809 ..... serial number, so I can not exactly see if there is a C or D series of 2500 in it ??? At the authorized service they told me that the serial number of my watch should be from 2007 and with the D series of the mechanism, but the servicer was not exactly 100% sure, so I really would like to find out.
My watch starts with 809 ..... serial number, so I can not exactly see if there is a C or D series of 2500 in it ??? At the authorized service they told me that the serial number of my watch should be from 2007 and with the D series of the mechanism, but the servicer was not exactly 100% sure, so I really would like to find out.
My watch starts with 809 ..... serial number, so I can not exactly see if there is a C or D series of 2500 in it ??? At the authorized service they told me that the serial number of my watch should be from 2007 and with the D series of the mechanism, but the servicer was not exactly 100% sure, so I really would like to find out.
This was fantastic, hugely informative and helpful! Thank you so much! I wish I watched this last year, when I took the plunge of my first big watch purchase and got the 8900 PO brand new from an AD. I was torn on the Diver 300M and PO, and the PO felt and looked so much better on my wrist so it was an easy choice. Fast forward a bit, and I sold that PO! It was just a bit too thick, a bit too chunky. Didn't mind the weight really, but it just looked bloated, especially at the classic Omega lugs, and I just didn't enjoy seeing it as much as I had hoped. The bracelet on the PO's is my favorite part, but I didn't know the 8900 bracelet was thicker than the older ones, and again it was a bit bloated looking. But the biggest thing for me was how glossy the dial is, checking the time was like looking in a mirror and I'm not into seeing myself that much LOL. Plus the reflections took away from the utility and readability of it... didn't feel like a "tool watch" it felt more like 600m water resistant jewelry. I'm now finally realizing I should have been looking for the older 2500 series PO because it's what I really really want. Newer is not always better (though the 8900 movement, especially the silicon spring, is fabulous... and I do like being able to watch it work).
I love the 8900 and have tried one on recently at my local authorised dealer. The blue dial version is my preference and what I’m saving for. The ceramic is so much better than the aluminium bezel and the display case back is something I enjoy. $8400 Australian dollars new isn’t exactly cheap for me but you’re getting good value for your money at this price point when you consider how much watchmaking you’re getting. I was considering a no date Submariner but they’re so difficult to find new. I don’t like second hand. Thanks for sharing your watches.
If you have your heart set on the no-date sub i advise you to wait for that one. If the 8900 is your second choice i wouldn't bother with it unless you plan on owning both one day. The 8900 may satisfy you in the short term but because its not your number one choice you'll never be completely satisfied. Good luck on your decision.
I 1000% agree with this dude. Wait or save longer for a new Grey market sub. Get the one you want and you’ll save more money in the long run. Take it from a guy who spent thousands on watches that didn’t satisfy and don’t play the AD game unless you have connections
I had the old 2500 one, I do regret selling it but I will replace it with the 8900 with orange markers and orange 15 minute bezel. The 2500 case back was a nuisance. The seahorse emblem would cup into my wrist leaving an indent. The way the new one wraps around the lugs is better also. The new ones bezel is thicker in dimension, makes for a better proportioned appearance
It wears fine. I own 8900. It is a little tall but adds to robust macho feeling of the watch. I have average wrists just under 7 inches and It wears nicely. Theyre hefty but you can get used to it. Now I sleep with them.
I agree, but I’d say that the 8900 doesn’t justify the thickness on the wrist. I went with a 2500 after trying on a 8900, and I don’t regret it. But I still look at the glorious caseback on the 8900 in awe.
@@jakubhladil5340 they’re both stunning watches, for sure. I have fairly slim wrists, so maybe I noticed it more. The 2500 PO is somewhere between the classic Bond SMP and the 8900 PO. It’s probably better to think of it as a beefed up SMP 300m, which it kinda is. It still won’t fit under a shirt cuff anywhere near as well as my SMP 300m does, but it’s probably my favourite watch in my collection. Plus the orange is very striking.
@@alfrede.neuman9082 i have the black on black with orange details. Love It so far. Yes it is heavy but I got used to it. Scratched them yesterday with bracelet and even though its barely visible under the right conditions I am still pissed. It is only a matter of time until you get that little scratch that you know you caused🤣
@@alfrede.neuman9082 I have a 8500po 42 not happy with it hat 🧢 to buy micro adjustable clasp £2,30 it's very top heavy, thinkin of a Aqura terra part x it
Nice review,. Thanks, David... Both watches are beautiful. I have the 2500D and had an OMEGA AD upgrade the clasp to the micro-adjust version. Perfection. I like the look of the 2500D, though you can't go wrong with either. For me, personally, I prefer less glitz, less height, and the matte face of the 2500D. Also - the fact that is has a 20mm lug width means i can change out bands with my other watches, and the 20mm's are more readily available.
Hi bud I have the 8500 movement fits terrible did u have to change end links scews pins etc r is it just a case of changing the clasp ?? I'm grant from Durham England
@@Granto-ni9qw Hi, Grant...The AD did the swap. I'm not wearing the watch at the moment, but I think there are some regular links at either end of the clasp that need to be switched to screw links. Pretty certain of that.
@@JJL206 hi jef I'm totally pissed off with omega the clasp is shocking I think the one I need is the number ending in1159 what is the one on the new model with I just got the new one now a £50 pounds timex has a better fit big f up with omega on this model may go back to Rolex now ??
The main difference under normal light is the older one has a black dial and bezel, and the new one is so shiny that it looks kind of grey in comparison. The old 45,5 has a much slimmer profile than the 43,5 which is also 2 mm higher. They are both great watches, but the AD price tags are crazy nowadays…
nice comparison.. I just have a couple of comments: Lug to lug is usually distance between the outermost points of the upper and lower lugs, not the width of the bracelet/strap. And while you are correct that the bezel is smaller than the advertised size it is the case size that denotes the size of the watch. Other than that I found it informative and nice to see the original and the latest one side by side.
Thanks, i found the expression 'Lug to lug' to be ambiguous and the term 'Overall length' to be more accurate. You are right its the case diameter that is being measured.
The newer ones are just too thick on my wrist. I have the original and it's far more practical. However, the 2500 movement is highly susceptible to magnetism. Mine has become magnetized twice while traveling and that is a huge negative.
I've owned my PO2500C 45.5 since 2005. Did an overhaul after 11 years. Super accurate at less than 2s/d. Still looks amazing to me in a classic way. Went to the boutique to compare my PO to the new PO8900 in 2017. The ceramic dial looked too shiny to me. I prefer matte dials. I dislike display caseback in sports watches, it adds unnecessary thickness. My biggest gripe with the 8900 is the change of date. You need to move the hour hand to set the date and that would be an absolute pain. Having to move the hour hand 24 times to advance one day, 720 times to advance 30 days, that lack of a quick date set is totally unacceptable. Needless to say I passed. Bought the Rolex Sea-Dweller 50 anniversary instead.
You’d never have to flip it 30 days - I believe that the hour/date set also works *backwards*, so you’d only have to go back 1 day in that scenario. At most, if your watch sat that long, you’d have to go one direction 15-16 days. The positives: easier to adjust for Daylight Savings Time, and when you travel across time zones, as mentioned in the video.
@@ayjaymay I bought a Speedmaster Racing 44 Co-ax, cal 9900, back in 2019. I rotate my watches, they can sit in the box easily up to two weeks. Having to set the date without a quick set was a real PITA, up to 15 days at times onwards or backwards, that's up to 360 movements with the hour hand, just to set the date. Totally unacceptable. The quick hour set is useless unless you travel between time zones. Why would they prioritise a mostly useless feature over a useful one to most people like the date quickset? These are not GMT watches. I dont get it. I quit setting the date in my Speedy and sold it after 2 years. Will never buy another Omega with this feature.
When you close the diver extension, you have to angle it in because there is a catch bar to hold it in place. You closed both of them wrong. Good video otherwise.
I think you were safe when you set the date on the 2500 (at 10:36) since it appears you were doing this in the late morning, but I cringed a little. For those that don't know, you can damage a movement if you engage the quick set date function when the watch is also in the process of changing the date (a few hours before and after midnight). Public service announcement over.
Nice comparison between the first and the newest iteration of the PO. I own a black 42mm PO as shown here and an orange PO chronograph. But I have to correct a mistake from the video. The older POs also have anti reflective coating on both sides of the crystal. That was one of the main differences to the SMP 300 of that time which had AR coating only on the inside surface of the crystal.
I don't know why Omega didn't make them waterproof to say 300m and then lose some of that thickness. I've owned both the 2500 and 8500, and the latter was just stupid thick. This still looks to be a problem on the 8900. And it is all well and good putting those nice applied numbers on the dial, but in that mirrored finish, and the wrong light they just blend into the dial. I mean, it is a nice watch for this price point, but still some issues.
Completely agree! It's a shame as I love the look of 8500 but it's just too thick, thickness of 2500 is perfect. Also you're right about bit bring avke to see the applied indices on the 8900 at certain angles, annoys the hell out of me!
The 2500-based 2201.50 original already has a depth rating of 600M/2000ft so it's entirely possible to have great depth rating and be thin (which you can clearly see how much thinner the original is to the 8900 in this video).
Je suis horloger, collectionneur et ami de fau Mr Richon du musée Omega Je peux vous dire que la nouvelle P.O cal 8500 est beaucoup plus épaisse, que celles équipée du 2500. De plus le calibre est comme le 2500 fabriqué par Eta, n'est pas plus mouvement manufacture que le 2500, puisqu'il possède des poinçons Eta, c'est tout simplment un mouvement exclusif totalment crée pour Omega. Le 2500 est aussi un calibre exclusif, mais sur une base omega1120,, ébauche Eta 2892.
Perfectly made video. Great comparison. Especially the dimensions was to much help for me. 42 mm is maximum for me and I was afraid of the 43.5 mm 8900 but thanks to you I now know that should go with that size .
I am not an expert, but own a 2500 and I was fairly confident that it had AR coatings on both sides of the crystal. In this video, I am seeing a lot more glare on the 8900.
Nice review of the first generation PO and the latest generation PO. I have first generation PO (42mm) with the orange arabics and black bezel and I still love it. A couple of things with your review were inaccurate though. The first one I noticed is that a silicon balance spring does not make a watch more accurate. It helps make the watch more anti-magnetic and it requires less lubrication so it wears longer. Second, the crystal on the 2500 PO has double-sided AR coating as well. Lastly, the 8900 PO resists magnetic fields to greater than 15,000 gauss, not 1,500. It is pretty much a-magnetic. Also, when you put the divers' extension in always snap the folded end in first then snap in the rest of it so it stays secure.
Nicool333 it's double sided. For some reason the page for this watch on the Omega website isn't working but here is an old review from a trusted resource. www.chronomaddox.com/omega/articles/downtown_mike/PO_vs_SeMP/review.htm#Crystal
I like the 2500. I own the new 8900. I like the robust thick feeling and styling of the new one but I have to agree that it could be little lower on the wrist like the old one. Its slightly thick
New one is lovely. Personally I wish they’d sacrificed some of the depth rating for less thickness . . . but then I guess that’s marketing: where would be the value separation between that and the Seamaster?
the 8900 needs double sided AR coating seeing as its dial is reflective af (which is easy to tell in this video which frequently showcases this problem). the 2500 doesn't
The original 45.5 is the best. The newer PO’s are to gimmicky and fussy with all the shine. The original is the most timeless looking Seamaster of all, no frills
The matt dial and bezel on the original was a stunner. The new one's shinny dial and thickness kills the watch. And the transparent case back is a joke. What is it, a Lange?
Those are the three reasons I sold my 8900 Planet Ocean and kept the 2001.50 original Planet Ocean. Too thick, like inky/black-hole dials not shiny ones, and I prefer engraved caseback designs, not see-through ones.
The aluminum bezel on the 2500 is WAY LESS durable than the ceramic bezel on the 8900. But I do like how the 2500 is less shiny than the 8900. Don't miss my 2500 because I have a bigger wrist so the 43.5 PO fits me better.
Thanks for the comparison! Do you know if the bezels (or at least the bezel insert) are swappable between the two? Also, on a separate note, I like the 2500 more than the 8900. I find the 8900 is too shiny and bling-bling, whereas the older planet ocean is more classy.
No the bezel inserts are not swappable, they are different sizes. Also not sure where you'd get the bezel insert from, these parts are probably near impossible to get. Also agree the 2500 is more classy for sure.
@@DavidPhamChannel I see, thanks for the input. I'm just curious, someone like you who has both could probably swap the inserts around if you wanted - I know I would, just coz I like the design of the 2500, but prefer the hardy ceramic bezel insert of the 8900. Have a nice day
Someone gifted me the PO 2500 all black and silver around 2009 and wear the watch since but the second hand tip has the same color as hour and minute hands instead of orange or red. I have not seen the same watch anywhere on UA-cam so I always wonder which version it was
Hi, very good video, thanks. I have this 2500 and have been looking at various Rolex watched for years - can’t pull the trigger! Really like the Cal. 8900 and I’m v tempted. A number of improvements and time-keeping much better. Do you now own both? Any thoughts on changing? Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words, I do have both and think they are both great. The 2500 wears better and is more versatile, i believe most PO owners prefer the 2500 and with vintage watches being popular lots of people want pre-ceramic understated models. I'm a fan of modern watches so obviously I was drawn to the 8900, the new movement, materials and design made the decision easy. The enhancements in time keeping are great and all but it also depends on the watch, most 8900s owners report accuracy between 0-2 s/d but i have read of some performing +4s/d, so it all comes down to luck. Your current 2500 could theoretically keep better time than many of the newer models. I'm assuming you've been looking at the sub as well, though many people compare them i think they are very different. The sub thrives on tradition, great looking watch and reliable movement. The PO 8800/8900 on the other hand are basically the opposite, modern look with the newest innovation, it really comes down to what you prefer. The 8900 is a hefty sports watch and is much thicker than the sub and 2500. If you want a hefty sports watch the 8900 would fit that bill. If case thickness and diameter are a big deal to you look at the 39.5mm version (Cal. 8800), its basically the same watch/movement but much thinner, its even thinner than your PO 2500 and wears the best of all the POs. I wanted one myself but felt it was smaller than I willing to go (the bezel diameter measuring 38mm). Whether you choose to stick with your current PO, go with the 8800/8900 or go with the sub you cant go wrong, they are all great watches, go with the one you think looks the best, most of the technical specs you won't even notice. Hope that was helpful, good luck!
Superb. Great info and your analysis is spot on; I have looked at the latest Sub, older Sea Dwellers, the new SD, the new Sky Dweller and the Datejust 41. Every time, I come back to my PO and think it looks great and is so comfortable to wear. The bracelet and clasp are more comfortable than all the others. The 8900 you have is now of interest and I will check it out. Anyway, I got PO in 2010, but can’t figure out which 2500 it is (C,D, for example) - the first four digits are 8481XXXX - any ideas? Thank you very much! p.s. going to get a service which should give it a new lease of life.
I believe you have the 2500C version, Serial numbers 8525XXXX and higher have the D version. You can also tell by the date, the 2500D versions have a different date wheel. The most obvious difference are the ones. This pictures shows what I'm referring to. s18.postimg.org/rb3cv0yex/2500_C_vs_2500_D.jpg
I always preferred the 8900 but own a 2500 and have hardly worn it (I drink a lot) but will now likely take it out of my safe and use it since everyone (except me) thinks it is a classic.
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The 2500 looks classy! The 8900 looks very good, but for some reason the 2500 just calls to me as a more cohesive package. I like it much better!
Both are beautiful watches, something for everyone.
Imagine the 2500 had the 8900 movement inside. That would make it the perfect piece.
@@chulkcha But then it would be as chunky as the 8900 😟
👍👍👍
I have both and far prefer the 2500. It looks classier, wears lower, and is one of my favorite watches.
I own a 2201.50 original and also used to own the 8900 model. I sold the 8900. It's too thick for its diameter, and the shiny dial is not for me (prefer the dial to disappear).
@@pauldoherty435 I have a 2200.51.00 and a new 8900. Both great watches and keepers.
2500 for the win.
Excellent review and comparison. I prefer the 2500. Thinner case and I like the green lume.
Stephen Rudberg me too! Actually,i wear po 2500 now😂🤨🤣
@@tuanhoang1672⁰9⁹òò⁹ò
I love my 2500, I don't think I'll ever sell it, it think its a future classic like the submariner.
i agree
Ditto. I love my Reference 2201.51
Agree. I don't own it, but remember checking it out at the store when it was out. Thats a honest dive watch with high end finishing.
I bought my 2500C back in 2012. My wrist is thin to normal so the 42mm I chose to buy was more than well! Not to flatter my preference, but the first one has an extraordinary style and elegant that some how, I do not recognize in 8900...I adore ceramic innovating technique and certainly is a pros, but it comes too shiny and I mean the dial in particular...and the thickness of it...one and half the size of the original! Apart of the above mentioned observations it is in my opinion the most elegant so far Omega watch. Oh and by the way the Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean 2201.50.00 (2500 calibre) such as the one displayed in this video it has AR double coating in both sides inside and outside. Cheers!
Ive owned the 2500 version for years and will continue. The new 8900 version at least to me looks too busy. My 2500 is one of my only non chronograph pieces. It has an iconic look. A look that shouldnt be exaggerated simply for change. Simple, timeless and elegant. That's the 2500.
The old 2500 looks more elegant in my opinion, less flashy. Also better to read because it's not as reflective, so it's more practical too.
I own the 8900 and I love it. Although I wish it was a little thinner, it’s actually very comfortable. You really can’t tell you have it on. I went with this model over the Seamaster 300 because I felt it looked better and the bracelet was a better quality. I love the quick adjustment button. I feel for the value which included a nice AD discount, kills the Rolex Submariner and Sea Dweller!
same here! i actually went to the AD to pick up 300. They had a PO 39.5 in stock, so i decided to try it on. The watch instantly felt like it belonged to a higher segment. Bezel movement, bracelet, lume and overal giving the feeling of a tank like watch. Yes the 300m is thinner, but i really dont like the classic metal bracelet it comes with and although sitting bit thinner, the 42mm still felt chunky. So at the end, i walked out with the PO and i really love it! May i ask what deal you ended up getting for yours?
@@Island606 I got 20% off. I agree with you!
@@sidneyt1016 sounds like a great deal!
@@Island606 and a bottle of bourbon
@@sidneyt1016 even better! Ive got about 17.5% off myself for the 39.5mm with 8800 movement.
Planet ocean is a nicer looking watch than a submariner I think.
Agree. It is a more "from the ground up" modern and masculine design. The Sub is trying to keep a 1960's design updated for the modern era and it shows.
I agree also, better looking,better built and a less pretentious brand
It is
indeed!
Movement has always been superior too!
It's refreshing to see a watch review that is only about the watch and not the reviewer's personality. And the review itself is really well done. As for the watches in question, I am lucky to have experienced both. I had 2500D for roughly a year and the 8900 for almost 2 years now. My take aways: the 2500 with the male lugs and 14.5m thick makes it appear very wide, it's an unflattering proportion from certain angle and always bugged me. Due to lack of micro-adjust I was never able to get the bracelet right: it's always either too tight or too loose. I had no idea how much these things were annoying me until I wore the 8900. It's beefy and sharp from every angle and the excellent clasp made it fit like a glove at any time. After a few days of getting used to the weight, it's been smooth sailing wearing it 7 days a week . It would be unimaginable to go back to the 2500.
The 8900 is a way better looking watch.
Many thanks fir this comment. I'm trying to decide between a 2500 and 8900 at the moment - you just swung it for me 😁👍
Really good comparison video actually, thanks. The newer PO is very beautiful for sure, but I think this video really highlights just how cool and classic the original PO was.
8900 most beautiful timepiece ever made.
I feel the same
I bought a 43.5mm 2020 planet ocean 8900 calibre same black dial and bezel for 3900£ very solid and amazing looking watch worth every single penny
I have the PO model with the 8500 movement, the model in between the two you reviewed. I have found this watch very robust and durable, and probably the most accurate mechanical watch I have ever owned. I would put my PO up against any other dive watch, including the Rolex Submariner, for accuracy and durability. Great review. Thanks for posting.
Good choice!
Totally agree with your view!
I am definitely a little biased but I own this exact model Planet Ocean 2500 in 42mm and even though I appreciate what the new PO offers in quality and refinement I still much prefer the look of my original, mine is from 2010 and nothing about it looks dated and I feel it'll stay that way, it has such a classic look, Omega where ahead of the curve when this model was originally released as you can see so much of the early Omega diver DNA before the whole vintage craze was really a thing, you kinda get the best of both worlds where you still get a relatively modern and very capable diver with very classic looks, for me it's not leaving my possession, love my PO 2500.
Totally agree with you David I have the same model as you had mine since 2011 a 50th birthday present from my wife . Still love it and still looks great . Future classic..
I have the old 2500 and I absolutely love that watch, classic looking and just the right proportions in my opinion, as I don't have a huge wrist.
When stowing the dive extension make sure the first fold in piece sits flush before snapping in the second piece, otherwise it will stick out into the wrist as seen on this video, great review tho!
finally, the most informative watch review. others talk about their feelings too much w/o actual info.
Wow. How far we’ve come. Thanks for the tech lesson.
The 8900's shiny surfaces are beautiful to be sure, but when I look at the 2500's matte dial and shiny indices and parts of the case, it's ver well done and compelling..
It’s a tough call. I like the proportions of the 2500, but I like the movement and better technology of the the 8900.
I tried both, and I chose the 2500. It’s so much better on the wrist.
Some good discussion here!
I have owned the 8900 for about 6 weeks. I got it because I wanted a chunky dive watch. I have been pleasantly surprised how well it sits on the wrist with the relatively compact length and female end links. The thicker bracelet is well proportioned for case thickness... And there is some magic at play because it does not wear like a 16mm watch the way they have designed the case and bezel. Feels way thinner than my 15mm Seiko mm300. Anyways - fits the job of the big tough diver really well. I got some other dive watches for when I am in the mood for something slimmer or more conservative.
Good video! I have a Cal 2500 (although with the orange bezel instead of black). I've had it for almost 9 years now and still gives excellent time (about +1 to +2 sec per day). Two complaints though. 1st (& my only major negative). It never came close to the 42 to 48 hours power reserve even when fully wound. I had it serviced on year 7 but still same issue. 2nd negative (& probably just a change of preference during the 9 years I've had it), weight and thickness cause some wearability issues! Still a very good watch and I still wear it now especially on weekends.
2500 is gorgeous
excellent no nonsense details. more reviews should be like this!
I think the 2500 pays tribute to the Seamaster and the 8900 is just a newer variant with up to date materials. Love both and both have a place.
The Omega PO with calibar 2500 D is the best watch ever for me.💪💪💪
Agree with the guys below. Super video. Best comparison I have seen yet. And now finally I am 100% sure which version to get. The 2500 is timeless class - like a Porsche (or Aston Martin). Clear winner for me - but matter of taste of course.-) If they reduce the H of the 8900 to about 14mm it would change from a modern tank to a Ferrari. So get on it .... .-)
Glad it was helpful!
The 2500 is my daily beater definitely a future classic with the late 60s dial
Great video, two things for fyi only the C and D movements went into the planet oceans and both watch’s have the double coated AR.
Great video 👍
My watch starts with 809 ..... serial number, so I can not exactly see if there is a C or D series of 2500 in it ???
At the authorized service they told me that the serial number of my watch should be from 2007 and with the D series of the mechanism, but the servicer was not exactly 100% sure, so I really would like to find out.
My watch starts with 809 ..... serial number, so I can not exactly see if there is a C or D series of 2500 in it ???
At the authorized service they told me that the serial number of my watch should be from 2007 and with the D series of the mechanism, but the servicer was not exactly 100% sure, so I really would like to find out.
My watch starts with 809 ..... serial number, so I can not exactly see if there is a C or D series of 2500 in it ???
At the authorized service they told me that the serial number of my watch should be from 2007 and with the D series of the mechanism, but the servicer was not exactly 100% sure, so I really would like to find out.
aca faca starting with 8525xxxx is a 2500D (2011).
This comparison video is very helpful for me. Thank you for taking the time to make this video.
You're very welcome!
This was fantastic, hugely informative and helpful! Thank you so much! I wish I watched this last year, when I took the plunge of my first big watch purchase and got the 8900 PO brand new from an AD. I was torn on the Diver 300M and PO, and the PO felt and looked so much better on my wrist so it was an easy choice. Fast forward a bit, and I sold that PO! It was just a bit too thick, a bit too chunky. Didn't mind the weight really, but it just looked bloated, especially at the classic Omega lugs, and I just didn't enjoy seeing it as much as I had hoped. The bracelet on the PO's is my favorite part, but I didn't know the 8900 bracelet was thicker than the older ones, and again it was a bit bloated looking. But the biggest thing for me was how glossy the dial is, checking the time was like looking in a mirror and I'm not into seeing myself that much LOL. Plus the reflections took away from the utility and readability of it... didn't feel like a "tool watch" it felt more like 600m water resistant jewelry. I'm now finally realizing I should have been looking for the older 2500 series PO because it's what I really really want. Newer is not always better (though the 8900 movement, especially the silicon spring, is fabulous... and I do like being able to watch it work).
Glad you took something from the video. Thanks for the comment.
16.04 mm thickness is absolute crazy and insane to wear.
Superb review/comparison. I knew Omega changed a lot about the PO along the years but seeing them side by side like this really shows how it evolved.
An excellent review David! Very well made and very informative!
I love the 8900 and have tried one on recently at my local authorised dealer. The blue dial version is my preference and what I’m saving for. The ceramic is so much better than the aluminium bezel and the display case back is something I enjoy. $8400 Australian dollars new isn’t exactly cheap for me but you’re getting good value for your money at this price point when you consider how much watchmaking you’re getting. I was considering a no date Submariner but they’re so difficult to find new. I don’t like second hand. Thanks for sharing your watches.
If you have your heart set on the no-date sub i advise you to wait for that one. If the 8900 is your second choice i wouldn't bother with it unless you plan on owning both one day. The 8900 may satisfy you in the short term but because its not your number one choice you'll never be completely satisfied. Good luck on your decision.
I 1000% agree with this dude. Wait or save longer for a new Grey market sub. Get the one you want and you’ll save more money in the long run. Take it from a guy who spent thousands on watches that didn’t satisfy and don’t play the AD game unless you have connections
Pretty darn good review. Straight and to the most important points. Well done!
Thanks
The thickness of the cases in the new coaxial Seamasters and Planet Oceans are their Achilles Heal, no doubt. Otherwise, a really good watch.
Bro, you changed the quick set date on the forbidden hours between 9 and 3. my goodness!!
I own the Casino Royale 45.5mm which I bought new in 2007. Brilliant watch and for a special edition PO, was far more affordable then than newer PO's.
I had the old 2500 one, I do regret selling it but I will replace it with the 8900 with orange markers and orange 15 minute bezel.
The 2500 case back was a nuisance. The seahorse emblem would cup into my wrist leaving an indent. The way the new one wraps around the lugs is better also.
The new ones bezel is thicker in dimension, makes for a better proportioned appearance
It wears fine. I own 8900. It is a little tall but adds to robust macho feeling of the watch. I have average wrists just under 7 inches and It wears nicely. Theyre hefty but you can get used to it. Now I sleep with them.
I have the 8900 and love it. It is on the thicker side but I really don’t notice it. I like both designs but prefer having the 8900 co-axial movement.
I agree, but I’d say that the 8900 doesn’t justify the thickness on the wrist. I went with a 2500 after trying on a 8900, and I don’t regret it. But I still look at the glorious caseback on the 8900 in awe.
@@alfrede.neuman9082 you just have to get used to it but I never tried the 2500.
@@jakubhladil5340 they’re both stunning watches, for sure. I have fairly slim wrists, so maybe I noticed it more. The 2500 PO is somewhere between the classic Bond SMP and the 8900 PO. It’s probably better to think of it as a beefed up SMP 300m, which it kinda is. It still won’t fit under a shirt cuff anywhere near as well as my SMP 300m does, but it’s probably my favourite watch in my collection. Plus the orange is very striking.
@@alfrede.neuman9082 i have the black on black with orange details. Love It so far. Yes it is heavy but I got used to it. Scratched them yesterday with bracelet and even though its barely visible under the right conditions I am still pissed. It is only a matter of time until you get that little scratch that you know you caused🤣
8900 is a beauty!!
The 2500 is a beauty. I own it and have never gotten tired of its looks. It's also a Bond watch that Craig wore in Quantum of Solace.
Was it not the 8500 model?
@@granto6738 not sure, but he definitely wore a 2500 in casino Royale.
@@alfrede.neuman9082 I have a 8500po 42 not happy with it hat 🧢 to buy micro adjustable clasp £2,30 it's very top heavy, thinkin of a Aqura terra part x it
Correct. 2500 for Quantum of Solace. 8500 for Skyfall.
Nice review,. Thanks, David... Both watches are beautiful. I have the 2500D and had an OMEGA AD upgrade the clasp to the micro-adjust version. Perfection. I like the look of the 2500D, though you can't go wrong with either. For me, personally, I prefer less glitz, less height, and the matte face of the 2500D. Also - the fact that is has a 20mm lug width means i can change out bands with my other watches, and the 20mm's are more readily available.
Hi bud I have the 8500 movement fits terrible did u have to change end links scews pins etc r is it just a case of changing the clasp ?? I'm grant from Durham England
@@Granto-ni9qw Hi, Grant...The AD did the swap. I'm not wearing the watch at the moment, but I think there are some regular links at either end of the clasp that need to be switched to screw links. Pretty certain of that.
@@JJL206 hi jef I'm totally pissed off with omega the clasp is shocking I think the one I need is the number ending in1159 what is the one on the new model with I just got the new one now a £50 pounds timex has a better fit big f up with omega on this model may go back to Rolex now ??
@@Granto-ni9qw I have no idea on the correct part #. Your AD will know.
@@JJL206 it's 1159 this planet Ocean f sucks bud I'm grant from Durham England
Now that was a very good comparison. I like them both too. I’m not sure which I’d buy. Thanks
15 thousand G. Love that watch.
2500 looks way more elegant and refined, I don't know why
The main difference under normal light is the older one has a black dial and bezel, and the new one is so shiny that it looks kind of grey in comparison.
The old 45,5 has a much slimmer profile than the 43,5 which is also 2 mm higher. They are both great watches, but the AD price tags are crazy nowadays…
nice comparison.. I just have a couple of comments: Lug to lug is usually distance between the outermost points of the upper and lower lugs, not the width of the bracelet/strap.
And while you are correct that the bezel is smaller than the advertised size it is the case size that denotes the size of the watch. Other than that I found it informative and nice to see the original and the latest one side by side.
Thanks, i found the expression 'Lug to lug' to be ambiguous and the term 'Overall length' to be more accurate. You are right its the case diameter that is being measured.
The newer ones are just too thick on my wrist. I have the original and it's far more practical. However, the 2500 movement is highly susceptible to magnetism. Mine has become magnetized twice while traveling and that is a huge negative.
Wow, how did that happen? How did your watch get magnetized, and how did you realize it happened?
I've owned my PO2500C 45.5 since 2005. Did an overhaul after 11 years. Super accurate at less than 2s/d. Still looks amazing to me in a classic way.
Went to the boutique to compare my PO to the new PO8900 in 2017. The ceramic dial looked too shiny to me. I prefer matte dials. I dislike display caseback in sports watches, it adds unnecessary thickness. My biggest gripe with the 8900 is the change of date. You need to move the hour hand to set the date and that would be an absolute pain. Having to move the hour hand 24 times to advance one day, 720 times to advance 30 days, that lack of a quick date set is totally unacceptable. Needless to say I passed. Bought the Rolex Sea-Dweller 50 anniversary instead.
Oui exacte, le dateur est une bévue, pas digne d'Omega.
You’d never have to flip it 30 days - I believe that the hour/date set also works *backwards*, so you’d only have to go back 1 day in that scenario. At most, if your watch sat that long, you’d have to go one direction 15-16 days. The positives: easier to adjust for Daylight Savings Time, and when you travel across time zones, as mentioned in the video.
@@ayjaymay I bought a Speedmaster Racing 44 Co-ax, cal 9900, back in 2019. I rotate my watches, they can sit in the box easily up to two weeks. Having to set the date without a quick set was a real PITA, up to 15 days at times onwards or backwards, that's up to 360 movements with the hour hand, just to set the date. Totally unacceptable. The quick hour set is useless unless you travel between time zones. Why would they prioritise a mostly useless feature over a useful one to most people like the date quickset? These are not GMT watches. I dont get it. I quit setting the date in my Speedy and sold it after 2 years. Will never buy another Omega with this feature.
When you close the diver extension, you have to angle it in because there is a catch bar to hold it in place. You closed both of them wrong. Good video otherwise.
I think you were safe when you set the date on the 2500 (at 10:36) since it appears you were doing this in the late morning, but I cringed a little. For those that don't know, you can damage a movement if you engage the quick set date function when the watch is also in the process of changing the date (a few hours before and after midnight). Public service announcement over.
TheElectricCentaur thank you for pointing that out!
not _after_ midnight, a few h earlier, typically from 8pm, until it switches and disengages, which it should do pretty much exactly midnight
The 2500 goes well with my sub. Both uncluttered classics.
Nice comparison between the first and the newest iteration of the PO. I own a black 42mm PO as shown here and an orange PO chronograph. But I have to correct a mistake from the video. The older POs also have anti reflective coating on both sides of the crystal. That was one of the main differences to the SMP 300 of that time which had AR coating only on the inside surface of the crystal.
Just bought a 2500D, such a classy watch!
How do I know whether it is 2500C or 2500D?😢
@@terencetan7798 2012 and it has the new numbers on the calendar date.
Man that 8900 is so nice, I want it so bad
You've had two years' time. Did you get it yet?
39.5mm version has 8800 which have quickset date instead of independent hour hand like 8900.
Excellent video. Clear and detailed.
Very interesting and informative watch review and comparision of two maginificent O,mega watches. Thank you!
My pleasure!
I don't know why Omega didn't make them waterproof to say 300m and then lose some of that thickness. I've owned both the 2500 and 8500, and the latter was just stupid thick. This still looks to be a problem on the 8900. And it is all well and good putting those nice applied numbers on the dial, but in that mirrored finish, and the wrong light they just blend into the dial. I mean, it is a nice watch for this price point, but still some issues.
Completely agree! It's a shame as I love the look of 8500 but it's just too thick, thickness of 2500 is perfect. Also you're right about bit bring avke to see the applied indices on the 8900 at certain angles, annoys the hell out of me!
The 2500-based 2201.50 original already has a depth rating of 600M/2000ft so it's entirely possible to have great depth rating and be thin (which you can clearly see how much thinner the original is to the 8900 in this video).
Je suis horloger, collectionneur et ami de fau Mr Richon du musée Omega Je peux vous dire que la nouvelle P.O cal 8500 est beaucoup plus épaisse, que celles équipée du 2500. De plus le calibre est comme le 2500 fabriqué par Eta, n'est pas plus mouvement manufacture que le 2500, puisqu'il possède des poinçons Eta, c'est tout simplment un mouvement exclusif totalment crée pour Omega. Le 2500 est aussi un calibre exclusif, mais sur une base omega1120,, ébauche Eta 2892.
Perfectly made video. Great comparison. Especially the dimensions was to much help for me. 42 mm is maximum for me and I was afraid of the 43.5 mm 8900 but thanks to you I now know that should go with that size .
PO with alu bazel is so much,much better and more beautiful !!!
I am not an expert, but own a 2500 and I was fairly confident that it had AR coatings on both sides of the crystal. In this video, I am seeing a lot more glare on the 8900.
Yes there is AR coating on both sides. The 8900 has a glossier dial, kind of mirror like that reflects a lot, much more than the 2500.
Nice review of the first generation PO and the latest generation PO. I have first generation PO (42mm) with the orange arabics and black bezel and I still love it. A couple of things with your review were inaccurate though. The first one I noticed is that a silicon balance spring does not make a watch more accurate. It helps make the watch more anti-magnetic and it requires less lubrication so it wears longer. Second, the crystal on the 2500 PO has double-sided AR coating as well. Lastly, the 8900 PO resists magnetic fields to greater than 15,000 gauss, not 1,500. It is pretty much a-magnetic. Also, when you put the divers' extension in always snap the folded end in first then snap in the rest of it so it stays secure.
I don't know why Omega didn't bring the orange arabics to the latest version. Mistake.
rjy8960 they still do that version.
The 2500 is single sided AR coating...not double
Nicool333 it's double sided. For some reason the page for this watch on the Omega website isn't working but here is an old review from a trusted resource. www.chronomaddox.com/omega/articles/downtown_mike/PO_vs_SeMP/review.htm#Crystal
@@rjy8960 Orance is not an availalble colour in ceramic ( - note they use plastic/rubber on the ones with orange on the bezel)
2500 looks classier.
I really dont know which one to get. The 8900 seems built to last centuries but its newer and that's a bit of a gamble.
I like the 2500. I own the new 8900. I like the robust thick feeling and styling of the new one but I have to agree that it could be little lower on the wrist like the old one. Its slightly thick
New one is lovely. Personally I wish they’d sacrificed some of the depth rating for less thickness . . . but then I guess that’s marketing: where would be the value separation between that and the Seamaster?
That's basically it. I agree
The 2500 is a future classic, but as far as looks, the 8500 (grey bezel) is the best looking hands down.
The 8900 does nothing for me.
the 8900 needs double sided AR coating seeing as its dial is reflective af (which is easy to tell in this video which frequently showcases this problem). the 2500 doesn't
I believe the 8900 has double AR coating.
@@DavidPhamChannel yes, my point was; it needs it, while the 2500 doesn't
The 2500 for me, please.
The original 45.5 is the best. The newer PO’s are to gimmicky and fussy with all the shine. The original is the most timeless looking Seamaster of all, no frills
I enjoyed this review
Glad you enjoyed it
Just letting you know that your 'lug to lug' supposed to be 'lug width' and your 'overall length' is the 'lug to lug' length.
Nice video tho.
The matt dial and bezel on the original was a stunner. The new one's shinny dial and thickness kills the watch. And the transparent case back is a joke. What is it, a Lange?
Those are the three reasons I sold my 8900 Planet Ocean and kept the 2001.50 original Planet Ocean. Too thick, like inky/black-hole dials not shiny ones, and I prefer engraved caseback designs, not see-through ones.
The aluminum bezel on the 2500 is WAY LESS durable than the ceramic bezel on the 8900. But I do like how the 2500 is less shiny than the 8900. Don't miss my 2500 because I have a bigger wrist so the 43.5 PO fits me better.
Thanks for the comparison! Do you know if the bezels (or at least the bezel insert) are swappable between the two?
Also, on a separate note, I like the 2500 more than the 8900. I find the 8900 is too shiny and bling-bling, whereas the older planet ocean is more classy.
No the bezel inserts are not swappable, they are different sizes. Also not sure where you'd get the bezel insert from, these parts are probably near impossible to get. Also agree the 2500 is more classy for sure.
@@DavidPhamChannel I see, thanks for the input. I'm just curious, someone like you who has both could probably swap the inserts around if you wanted - I know I would, just coz I like the design of the 2500, but prefer the hardy ceramic bezel insert of the 8900. Have a nice day
@@dragonniz Look into the PO LM LE if you want to ceramic on the 2500.
8900 awsome
Very good comparison !
I like the 8900 but the face should be matte that's the only thing that turned me off about them. Makes it look cheap like a fashion watch.
Agreed and one reason why I sold my 8900. IMO a dial should disappear, leaving the rest of the dial readable.
The 2500 looks so classy and beautiful. I love it. How often do you have to service it though?
Some people will say every 5 years, others will say service when you have a problem.
Ran mine ten years and wore it every day
Didn’t put the dive extension back on the 2500 correctly. The sharp tooth like feature needs to under the clasp bar.
Someone gifted me the PO 2500 all black and silver around 2009 and wear the watch since but the second hand tip has the same color as hour and minute hands instead of orange or red. I have not seen the same watch anywhere on UA-cam so I always wonder which version it was
You didn't close up the diver extension properly.
Hi, very good video, thanks. I have this 2500 and have been looking at various Rolex watched for years - can’t pull the trigger! Really like the Cal. 8900 and I’m v tempted. A number of improvements and time-keeping much better. Do you now own both? Any thoughts on changing? Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words, I do have both and think they are both great. The 2500 wears better and is more versatile, i believe most PO owners prefer the 2500 and with vintage watches being popular lots of people want pre-ceramic understated models. I'm a fan of modern watches so obviously I was drawn to the 8900, the new movement, materials and design made the decision easy. The enhancements in time keeping are great and all but it also depends on the watch, most 8900s owners report accuracy between 0-2 s/d but i have read of some performing +4s/d, so it all comes down to luck. Your current 2500 could theoretically keep better time than many of the newer models. I'm assuming you've been looking at the sub as well, though many people compare them i think they are very different. The sub thrives on tradition, great looking watch and reliable movement. The PO 8800/8900 on the other hand are basically the opposite, modern look with the newest innovation, it really comes down to what you prefer. The 8900 is a hefty sports watch and is much thicker than the sub and 2500. If you want a hefty sports watch the 8900 would fit that bill. If case thickness and diameter are a big deal to you look at the 39.5mm version (Cal. 8800), its basically the same watch/movement but much thinner, its even thinner than your PO 2500 and wears the best of all the POs. I wanted one myself but felt it was smaller than I willing to go (the bezel diameter measuring 38mm). Whether you choose to stick with your current PO, go with the 8800/8900 or go with the sub you cant go wrong, they are all great watches, go with the one you think looks the best, most of the technical specs you won't even notice. Hope that was helpful, good luck!
Superb. Great info and your analysis is spot on; I have looked at the latest Sub, older Sea Dwellers, the new SD, the new Sky Dweller and the Datejust 41. Every time, I come back to my PO and think it looks great and is so comfortable to wear. The bracelet and clasp are more comfortable than all the others. The 8900 you have is now of interest and I will check it out. Anyway, I got PO in 2010, but can’t figure out which 2500 it is (C,D, for example) - the first four digits are 8481XXXX - any ideas?
Thank you very much!
p.s. going to get a service which should give it a new lease of life.
I believe you have the 2500C version, Serial numbers 8525XXXX and higher have the D version. You can also tell by the date, the 2500D versions have a different date wheel. The most obvious difference are the ones. This pictures shows what I'm referring to.
s18.postimg.org/rb3cv0yex/2500_C_vs_2500_D.jpg
David Pham Sweet. C is a solid performer? Thanks again 👍
The movement on the 38mm is different. You cannot jump the hour hand forward on its own.
As a 8900 owner I much prefer the 2500 - less busy and much classier.
No pie crust shapes on the back, those are waves, but now i'm hungry for pie, 🎵r0ck0n 🎵
Neither one of these watches is a small watch. With that said, the thickness of the watch doesn't play into the decision on which I would buy.
Just buy both! I love em!
2500
You are doing the divers extension always wrong! That's the reason, the clasp doesn't close properly!
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
What r u doing wrong ????
@@Granto-ni9qw: The nose belongs beneath the latch, so the extension can’t move anymore.
I love omega
Nice review. Thanks
They should reduce the thickness, most people would be happy to reduce the diving depth in order to facilitate this
They do have thinner ones, they are called the Diver 300m.
I always preferred the 8900 but own a 2500 and have hardly worn it (I drink a lot) but will now likely take it out of my safe and use it since everyone (except me) thinks it is a classic.
It's a classic but it's not for everyone. Wear what you like.
Then why not sell it? The 2201.50 is worth a lot.
@@pauldoherty435 it's not worth that much. Maybe $2,500
@@nickvegas2459 People paying more say otherwise. How is your estimation of value better than the prices being paid?
@@pauldoherty435 I paid about the same more than a decade ago. It's been in my safe since I bought it.
The old one is way better imo