Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread - Page 11
Like Tree294Likes

Thread: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 222
  1. #101
    Member Muddy250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,009

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by iinsic View Post
    Chris, the only long-term watch I own is my late father's Datejust, which I've had since his passing in 2001. Everything else is newer ... a LOT newer.

    I would never be so foolish as to say anything I own (except for his watch) is a "keeper." The beginning-of-the-end is when I start thinking about flipping something. No matter how long it takes me to act on that, the end result is inevitable. So far, I have not been thinking about flipping this new PO ... and that's as close as I can come to saying it's gonna stick.
    It's as sticky as they come so far then, good to know there are some constants in this strangest of years


    What's the bezel and dial diameter on this? I'm assuming 2mm or so less than the 39.5mm case for the bezel at around 37.5mm? Just thinking if that's the case then the 43.5 will have an SMP sized bezel and be a good option for me to consider.
    Chris
    Ω
    Seamaster 3

    Hidden Content




  2. #102
    Member iinsic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southwest FL
    Posts
    10,547

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy250 View Post
    It's as sticky as they come so far then, good to know there are some constants in this strangest of years


    What's the bezel and dial diameter on this? I'm assuming 2mm or so less than the 39.5mm case for the bezel at around 37.5mm? Just thinking if that's the case then the 43.5 will have an SMP sized bezel and be a good option for me to consider.
    The bezel diameter is 39mm, and the crystal diameter is 29mm. Frankly, I have no clue as to how they came up with a case diameter of 39.5mm. No matter how I measure it with my digital caliper, it comes out slightly larger than 40mm, excluding the crown. Ditto for the case height: Everyone was saying back in the Spring that the case height would be the same 14.17mm as on the 18k version with a solid caseback. Wrong! The alveol display back bumps it up to 14.37mm ... although still thinner than the 14.5mm PO 2500. And the OAL of only 45mm makes this watch wear much smaller than one would expect for a ~40mm diver, including the Submariner.

    The head-scratching about the diameter might also mean the PO435 is slightly larger than 44mm, something that might please the complainers who loved the 45.5mm size, but disappoint fans of the 42mm size. Also, expect the bezel to be about 43mm in diameter. The real problem with the PO435 is Omega's insistence on keeping a place for the poorly-designed cal. 8900 (née cal. 8500), making this watch entirely too thick. Yes, the "female" endlinks likely will keep OAL around 50mm, but it still will look like a hockey puck.
    Datejust 16233 • Seiko SKX013
    Opiniones sunt foramina intestinorum ... omnis persona habet illud. -- Harry Callahan the Elder (200 BCE)

  3. #103
    Member Muddy250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,009

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by iinsic View Post
    The bezel diameter is 39mm, and the crystal diameter is 29mm. Frankly, I have no clue as to how they came up with a case diameter of 39.5mm. No matter how I measure it with my digital caliper, it comes out slightly larger than 40mm, excluding the crown. Ditto for the case height: Everyone was saying back in the Spring that the case height would be the same 14.17mm as on the 18k version with a solid caseback. Wrong! The alveol display back bumps it up to 14.37mm ... although still thinner than the 14.5mm PO 2500. And the OAL of only 45mm makes this watch wear much smaller than one would expect for a ~40mm diver, including the Submariner.

    The head-scratching about the diameter might also mean the PO435 is slightly larger than 44mm, something that might please the complainers who loved the 45.5mm size, but disappoint fans of the 42mm size. Also, expect the bezel to be about 43mm in diameter. The real problem with the PO435 is Omega's insistence on keeping a place for the poorly-designed cal. 8900 (née cal. 8500), making this watch entirely too thick. Yes, the "female" endlinks likely will keep OAL around 50mm, but it still will look like a hockey puck.
    Thanks Rob, hmm, odd one? The cases used to be measured across the flats so to speak of the crown guard section to the opposite side which was always 2mm bigger than the bezel. Hence my 45.5 PO has a 43.5mm dia bezel and my 41.5 AT has a 40mm bezel due to the crown guard offset. It looks from the images as if the new PO still has the built in crown guard so I was working on that basis. On this basis a 435 is likely 44.5 across the largest section of the case.


    Are they cheating a little do you think? Choosing to reference the bezel rather than the case for this series to make it seem smaller than it is? Most folks of course won't be entering into WIS forensics will they.
    The thickness difference is strange, different movements, very odd and not very well thought thru, still I'm gonna go have a look at these in the flesh, just for reference ...
    iinsic likes this.
    Chris
    Ω
    Seamaster 3

    Hidden Content




  4. #104
    Member iinsic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southwest FL
    Posts
    10,547

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy250 View Post
    Are they cheating a little do you think?
    If they wanted to come up with a <40mm watch, I'd say yes. But while the watch is obviously more than 40mm including the crown guard, it wears smaller than a SubC (except for thickness, of course). Since they're positioning this model as a "ladies" model, perhaps their marketing research had shown that ≥40mm was too large for most ladies, hence the "nominal" diameter of 39.5mm. I think the true diameter of the PO435 will be closer to 45.5mm than to 43.5mm ... but it is still too thick.

    They really did a great job with the design of the cal. 8800, so everyone who enjoys the cal. 2500 in current models will be delighted with its replacement. I just don't know why they hang on to the "albatross" of the cal. 8500.
    Datejust 16233 • Seiko SKX013
    Opiniones sunt foramina intestinorum ... omnis persona habet illud. -- Harry Callahan the Elder (200 BCE)

  5. #105
    Member Muddy250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,009

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Well the original 2500 press release said the 42 was intended as the ladies piece didn't it. I didn't know they'd done that again. It's ridiculous to specify like that. They do seem to be making a bit of a hash of getting everything aligned to the new master co-ax series don't they. I like my 8500 in the AT tho, that said the 2500 is more accurate, but not as pretty
    iinsic likes this.
    Chris
    Ω
    Seamaster 3

    Hidden Content




  6. #106
    Member iinsic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southwest FL
    Posts
    10,547

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy250 View Post
    Thanks Rob, hmm, odd one? The cases used to be measured across the flats so to speak of the crown guard section to the opposite side which was always 2mm bigger than the bezel. Hence my 45.5 PO has a 43.5mm dia bezel and my 41.5 AT has a 40mm bezel due to the crown guard offset. It looks from the images as if the new PO still has the built in crown guard so I was working on that basis. On this basis a 435 is likely 44.5 across the largest section of the case.


    Are they cheating a little do you think? Choosing to reference the bezel rather than the case for this series to make it seem smaller than it is? Most folks of course won't be entering into WIS forensics will they.
    The thickness difference is strange, different movements, very odd and not very well thought thru, still I'm gonna go have a look at these in the flesh, just for reference ...
    I spent a little more time measuring the underside of the watch this morning. The case diameter without the crown guard is 38.85mm, and with the crown guard is 40.55mm. My guess is that 39.5mm is a nominal diameter, based on a loose average of the diameter with and without the crown guard. So, yes, Omega is cheating.
    Datejust 16233 • Seiko SKX013
    Opiniones sunt foramina intestinorum ... omnis persona habet illud. -- Harry Callahan the Elder (200 BCE)

  7. #107
    Member Muddy250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,009

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by iinsic View Post
    I spent a little more time measuring the underside of the watch this morning. The case diameter without the crown guard is 38.85mm, and with the crown guard is 40.55mm. My guess is that 39.5mm is a nominal diameter, based on a loose average of the diameter with and without the crown guard. So, yes, Omega is cheating.
    Thought so, sneaky buggers. Right, just checking out the bracelet. Wondered if the one from the chrono would fit my 2500 case so have asked the dealer to check with Omega for me. Be nice if it fit and I could get the benefit of the female end link and adjustable clasp.
    Chris
    Ω
    Seamaster 3

    Hidden Content




  8. #108
    Member raja_3012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    857

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Very informative thread. However, I was hoping to know if anyone knows how much the PO395 weighs?

    I am contemplating flipping my 42mm Omega Ti PO for the new black or blue PO 395. The Titanium version is very light and despite its 15.7mm thickness, it does not feel uncomfortable.

    Thoughts and opinions?

    Aiming to retire with a Patek Philippe Nautilus (5711/1A-010) & Richard Lange (232.025)

  9. #109
    Member iinsic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southwest FL
    Posts
    10,547

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy250 View Post
    Thought so, sneaky buggers. Right, just checking out the bracelet. Wondered if the one from the chrono would fit my 2500 case so have asked the dealer to check with Omega for me. Be nice if it fit and I could get the benefit of the female end link and adjustable clasp.
    If the chronos still have 22mm lugs, you should be golden. Hope it works out.

    Quote Originally Posted by raja_3012 View Post
    Very informative thread. However, I was hoping to know if anyone knows how much the PO395 weighs?

    I am contemplating flipping my 42mm Omega Ti PO for the new black or blue PO 395. The Titanium version is very light and despite its 15.7mm thickness, it does not feel uncomfortable.

    Thoughts and opinions?
    The PO395 in steel weighs 190g (less if you have a small wrist). Its weight has been the hardest thing for me to get used to, but I'm noticing it less and less each day (seven weeks and counting).
    Last edited by iinsic; November 13th, 2016 at 20:21.
    Datejust 16233 • Seiko SKX013
    Opiniones sunt foramina intestinorum ... omnis persona habet illud. -- Harry Callahan the Elder (200 BCE)

  10. #110
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    124

    Re: Unofficial PO 8900 Owner's Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by raja_3012 View Post
    Very informative thread. However, I was hoping to know if anyone knows how much the PO395 weighs?

    I am contemplating flipping my 42mm Omega Ti PO for the new black or blue PO 395. The Titanium version is very light and despite its 15.7mm thickness, it does not feel uncomfortable.

    Thoughts and opinions?
    I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this too, as when I tried on the new planet oceans I thought they were very heavy. Despite the gorgeous looks, weighed a bit more than I'd like to consider daily wearing. That furthered my interest in the previous titanium series.

    Except in the previous series, the 42mm always seemed a little off to me. Couldn't figure out whether it was the thickness to case ratio or if the size wore smaller than the size suggests. For example, the 42mm speedmaster fit me much better.

    But I think in titanium, the light weight would cancel this consideration for dailey wear. My experience indicates then the 42 titanium would be a better fit.

    I'd be also interested to hear actual experiences of owners as well to hear their thoughts on it.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Squale Owner's Club (Unofficial)
      By AlphaWolf777 in forum Dive watches
      Replies: 4298
      Last Post: 17 Hours Ago, 00:32
    2. Replies: 49
      Last Post: February 20th, 2017, 08:26
    3. Unofficial but official Shoe thread?
      By SSingh1975 in forum The Cafe
      Replies: 146
      Last Post: October 21st, 2016, 17:48
    4. Raven Owner's Club (Unofficial)
      By AlphaWolf777 in forum Dive watches
      Replies: 127
      Last Post: July 27th, 2014, 11:42
    5. Replies: 7
      Last Post: January 20th, 2009, 10:32

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •