Thick watches

[GTS Dean]

Practically all the 8500/9300 Co-Ax watches appear to suffer from the common complaint of being too thick for many people. (myself included) Don't they all come with a display caseback, and isn't this a significant contributor to the thickness? I've never had a watch with a display back, and frankly don't care much what the insides look like as long as they work.

Perhaps it's more due to the 300 & 600m case rating because I don't think I've ever heard the complaint about an 8500 AT 150. My GMT II-C has a very flat, comfortable case back and wears about like my Speedy. The big dial/fat case designs don't do much for me.
____________________________
TT OysterQuartz
SS/Black "U" Daytona
TT GMT II-C
DD OysterQuartz
Breitling Aero
Omega Speedmaster Pro

[jmsrolls]

I have to agree. I've owned a 2500 and an 8500 PO as well as two 8500 AT's. None remained in my collection very long. I love Omegas but try as I might, I just don't like "hockey pucks" on my wrist.

My favorite GMT is Omega's "Great White" but it would not fit comfortably under a dress shirt cuff. I ended up switching to a 42mm EXPII. The PO's were replaced by a classic 2254.50 and for dress, I wear a Seamaster 120m, the predecessor of the 2500 AT. And for me, the only Speedmaster is the Speedy Pro.

I brought this issue up with Omega's former director of development (now national sales manager) and he agreed. Omegas need to slim down.

[tegee26]

It's obvious the most concerns/complaints are about the thickness of the 8500 PO vs the older model 2500.

Does anyone have any factual MM numbers of the 2500 and the 8500? It would be interesting to see the "actual" MM difference. I tried to search the internet (and the Omega specs) and could not find them.

It's worth noting that I do own the PO8500 and it weighs in at 180 grams. I have weighed my SubC, my Breitling Cockpit Chronomat and my Tag Calibre 5 Aquaracer. And all three weigh in the low 160's. So I frankly do not know what all the fuss is about the "weight" issues.

I do not mean to come off defensive, because there is obviously a ton of chatter in regard to the 2500 vs 8500, BUT what are the #'s telling us. If the debate is going to continue let's see where the case thickness is so we can speak facts.

To that end, I know we can talk specs until we are blue in the face and comfort is what really matters. But I am just curious what the difference(s)......not trying to turn this into a Hatfield and McCoy debate:-).

Thx so much in advance.........

[KBM]

I agree they are not thin watches, and it troubles some more than others. My 9300 Speedy is 16mm thick, which I find proportional to the 44.25mm wide case. It is, in fact, only 0.5mm thicker than the new SDc, which no one seems to find thick or unproportional, and that watch is 40mm wide.

[tegee26]

Ok....I was able to obtain a caliber gauge from a person at work.

Looks like the PO 8500 measure just over 16mm (disregard the yellow post-it note, didn't want to scratch the crystal).

So there you have it. 42mm case and 16mm thickness. And the overall weight came it at 180grams.

Curious is someone can measure the PO 2500 just for giggles!

Take it FWIW.........

[KBM]

I did a quick search on the subject and measurements seem to go as follows:

PO 8500 is 15.7 mm thick on the 42mm version and 16.5 mm on the 45mm.
The PO 2500 is 14.2 mm thick on the 42mm version.

Also check out this thread:

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

[tegee26]

Th Kaue.....my point exactly. Is the 1.5mm REALLY make that big of a difference?

My apologies for being a bit bias due to the fact I own the 8500 and not the 2500. But the fact remains that there is not a huge difference in case thickness IMHO.

But I remain.

[mrallen13]

I'd have to say that, yes, it makes a difference.

I've measured both of the PO8500 sizes with a digital caliper and the 45.5mm is actually 16.9mm and the 42mm is 16.3mm thick. The 15.7 number is wrong and is a calculation off the ratio of the 45.5mm diameter to thickness. I've seen that several places.

To me they're unnecessarily thick. I can't remember the link, but someone posted the actual thickness of various movements and the 8500 was actually thinner than the 3135. If that is true, then there is no reason for the added thickness of the Omega watches other than that is what Omega wants them to be. Aren't some of the DeVille's thinner? And the newer models have the 8500 right?

When you compare the PO2500 to the PO8500 the case diameters are listed as the same, but there is a subtle difference in the styling and the 2500s just seem to be a bit wider across the body and flatter on the case back without the display back. The PO8500 is actually closer to 44mm across at the bezel. Just makes it a bit awkward sometimes. When the fit is right on, the watch is great. But when it's off a little bit it's not nearly as nice.

Just to be clear, I love the look of the new PO and the movement is fantastic. I like it so much that I've had multiple versions of both sizes trying to make it work for me and still have the larger size. I will admit though that at times it's challenging to own. With all the complaints you see around the DSSD, it's much more comfortable in my opinion than the PO. Too bad that Omega refused to embrace micro-adjustments on the clasp for so long.

[vwpilot]

Have you tried the PO with the rubber band on it? I have the 45.5 and find it much more comfortable with the rubber. I purchased both in order to swap them back and forth, however, I find I like the rubber so much more, I'll be selling the bracelet.

I think it makes a big difference in the feel of the watch.

[GTS Dean]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

I have to agree.

My favorite GMT is Omega's "Great White" but it would not fit comfortably under a dress shirt cuff. I ended up switching to a 42mm EXPII. The PO's were replaced by a classic 2254.50 and for dress, I wear a Seamaster 120m, the predecessor of the 2500 AT.

The EXP II and the Daytona both share a low, beveled bezel and approximately the same case dimensions. They do wear very comfortably under the shirt cuff. I'm surprised to hear that the Great White is thick. It doesn't look it from pictures, but I've never had one on.

_____________________
TT OysterQuartz
SS/Black "U" Daytona
TT GMT II-C
DD OysterQuartz
Breitling Aero
Omega Speedmaster Pro

[superdog]

The Speedmaster 57 is 41.5 mm case.

I am not sure of the thickness. However, it does not wear very thick to me.

I also wear a 9300 Ti Speedy. It is so light and comfortable that I love it. The thickness does not bother me much there either. Hard to say which ones I like better.

But I have not flipped any of these in over a month. That is pretty much a record for me.

[Choo Yao Chuen]

I understand that the 8500 is thicker than the 2500. Remember reading it somewhere when the 8500 first hit the market.

[Ken B]

like going from not wearing a watch to wearing one, you get used to it. What really happens is once you have gotten used to it, a rolex seems petite.
Now you also need to consider watch size to wrist size. larger wrists work well with the larger PO.

[cedargrove]

Originally Posted by tegee26

Th Kaue.....my point exactly. Is the 1.5mm REALLY make that big of a difference?

My apologies for being a bit bias due to the fact I own the 8500 and not the 2500. But the fact remains that there is not a huge difference in case thickness IMHO.

Well the 42mm 8500 is actually 16.3mm, so more than 2mm thicker than the 2500. This is 15% additional thickness over an already thick watch.

The 45mm 8500 is even thicker (16.9mm), and the 9300 PO is over 19mm.

I have the 45mm 8500 and would prefer it to be thinner (2mm less would be perfect). I'd also be happy with a sleeker solid caseback. I don't wear this watch with cuffs due to the thickness.

However I have the titanium version (which weighs less than even my GMTc) so weight or top heaviness is not an issue.

[Fiery]

Even if the 3135 and 8500 calibers are the same height, the 600m WR of the PO will inevitably result in a thicker, bulkier case construction. What Omega has to do (IMHO) is take a step back in WR. There's no need to use 600m, half of it is more than enough. It's clear why they use 600m, but it still doesn't make much sense, it's only a silly number.

[GTS Dean]

I fail to see the need for an He escape valve on any sport watch that isn't expected to be worn as a dive watch. Get back to a 100 or 150m depth rating for most of the lineup and the "problem" will pretty much go away.

It might be nice to have a display back to see what goes on inside my Speedy. It's been 15 years or better since I could hear the gears inside a watch - even my OQs, which tick loudly.

____________________________
TT OysterQuartz
SS/Black "U" Daytona
TT GMT II-C
DD OysterQuartz
Breitling Aero
Omega Speedmaster Pro

[soundserious]

Originally Posted by tegee26

Th Kaue.....my point exactly. Is the 1.5mm REALLY make that big of a difference?

My apologies for being a bit bias due to the fact I own the 8500 and not the 2500. But the fact remains that there is not a huge difference in case thickness IMHO.

But I remain.

Oh, yes of course...it makes all the difference in the world. When it's a question of balance and wrist comfort it's like the difference between 37mm and 38.5mm...it matters a lot.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Fiery

Even if the 3135 and 8500 calibers are the same height, the 600m WR of the PO will inevitably result in a thicker, bulkier case construction. What Omega has to do (IMHO) is take a step back in WR. There's no need to use 600m, half of it is more than enough. It's clear why they use 600m, but it still doesn't make much sense, it's only a silly number.

Do not think it has anything to do with WR. The PO 2500 is thinner and has the same water resistance...did the WR go up in the 8500, no, the design did. You can even look at the SD4c....it's about the same thickness as an 8500 PO but at twice the depth rating.
Omega's issue is in design and sapphire case back. Another comparison is the GMT2c and the Submariner, they are relatively the same thickness but one is 100m and the other 300m. I think the watch companies have water proofing down to a science at this point, it seems to become a factor at 4k feet mark, then design seems to be affected....which can be seen across other brands too like Breitling.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Do not think it has anything to do with WR. The PO 2500 is thinner and has the same water resistance...did the WR go up in the 8500, no, the design did. You can even look at the SD4c....it's about the same thickness as an 8500 PO but at twice the depth rating.
Omega's issue is in design and sapphire case back. Another comparison is the GMT2c and the Submariner, they are relatively the same thickness but one is 100m and the other 300m. I think the watch companies have water proofing down to a science at this point, it seems to become a factor at 4k feet mark, then design seems to be affected....which can be seen across other brands too like Breitling.

The PO 2500 is still thicker than the Sub, a mere 2mm difference there. So the PO was already quite thick before the 8500 upgrade took place. I'm not sure how much the sapphire caseback can be accountable for the thickness increase (PO 2500 --> PO 8500), but I'm pretty certain you have to use a thicker sapphire glass than what you would have to use with an "only" 300m WR case.

As for GMT IIc vs. Sub-C, the former is 0.6mm thinner, albeit having a more complicated and so thicker movement. So the greater WR of the Sub and the thicker movement in the GMT kinda equalizes things out.