My comprehensive review of the Aqua Terra and my personal notes on the 8500

[Bubblemunche]

'Comprehensive' is an understatement. This is such a great review, it makes me feel proud of being a AT8500 owner.

[dbakiva]

Great posts, CitizenM. I came to your thread last night, and started it, but my weary eyes told me to check back in the morning when I could assimilate it. Great work. Although I went a different way with my recent acquisition, I really like and respect Omega (an older Seamaster GMT is my daily wearer). After reading your excellent post, I am even more impressed with the AT and the 8500 movement, as I am with your analysis.

Wear yours in very good health and isochronism.

[CitizenM]

Regarding the twin barrel; I quite like the suggestion made by another member here, that Omega's use of twin barrels could also be to do with simple packaging.
Two smaller barrels takes up less radial space than a single large one and when you have a large-ish balance wheel on a bridge to stick in there too, movement real estate becomes a premium.

Maybe two barrels just fit better than a single large one.

It's certainly possible that was a factor, but I think the most telling fact about the double barrels is that they don't operate in parallel, or at least not in the beginning. There's no reason you can't just hook up two barrels and let them both unwind simultaneously. Omega chose to go the sequential route. So even if they chose double barrels for reasons of space, the choice to use sequential as opposed to parallel would have been motivated for concerns of power delivery.

[CitizenM]

I have to admit that I was a bit surprised with a few of the recent reports about GS relative poor accuracy, especially in light of what you've demonstrated from the 8500. But that is one risk of such a small data pool- it is easy to get distorted results. I'm actually starting to wonder if the 8500 may not be a more accurate movement than the GS. The question then becomes- why is the Seiko guaranteed to a higher accuracy officially? I'm sure that if Omega could guarantee a tighter range in accuracy they would- imagine the Swatch marketing machine promoting something that reliably beats COSC standards? Anyways these things have been on my mind. Eventually I hope to be making a similar purchase decision so I am particularly interested in the performance of these competing movements.

Well, remember, Seiko can't be COSC certified, so they may just advertise their internal accuracy stats, whereas since Omega does send all co-axials off to chronometer testing, it gets the same COSC rating that everyone else gets, no matter how accurate. So Omega really has no motivation to advertise that stat, for one, because then they'd basically be accountable for it if there was an anomalous model.

But we just have two not very accurate GSes out of hundreds here. Most people have reported excellent accuracy. And, at any rate, they do have a smoother seconds hand and a longer power reserve than I do. I really will try to get one for comparison.

Ultimately, the 8500 is a much newer calibre, both in terms of year released and in terms of the approach to design. I dare say it's an Anti-Seiko design. When it comes to mechanical watches, Seiko doesn't like to play with new designs. They find a design they like, and then they refine it endlessly until they pound it into submission and make it perform. Almost all of the success of the 9S is attributable, in my opinion, to the materials used, the precision in making the parts (MEMS is the most precise process anywhere in the world) and the human element in assembling, finishing and tuning the movements. But a byproduct of this approach is that there's very little risk involved. How will silicon hairsprings perform in 20 years? I have no idea. I'm not particularly worried either, since I think Omega is a trust worthy source when it comes to their commentary on the parts they use, but it's a concern you wouldn't have with the Seiko. Additionally, because the 9S has been out around 14 years, there's not going to be many surprises there.

I'd really, really like to go nuclear and bring in Seiko's big guns, the 9S85, for testing. I just don't know how I could do it without selling the AT first, but that may be what I have to do in order to test it.

[Marts7]

First post. Just thought I'd say I think this forum is great, I like taking in all thoughts and opinions (some of which I adopt as my own) from a very educated community. I have no brand loyalty, I just like watches and hopefully my own personal wealth will continue to grow at the rate I'd like to collect pieces!

I thought I'd post some of my first thoughts on my newly acquired 8500 (new from AD as of this past Saturday)...

Love the watch, and love the green accents of the 'golf' variety. I had my eye on the 41.5mm teck grey dial for months and actually thought the golf version looked pretty tacky in pictures (perhaps part of the reasoning is that I've always associated green with Rolex? Who knows...?). When I saw it in the metal, I really changed my opinion. As everyone on this thread is fully aware, the dial on the AT8500 is very dynamic in varying light conditions, and I found the green minute track/seamaster font to contribute to this effect immensely. On many occasions, the green isn't even perceptible - and in others it really pops. I guess there was a certain amount of uniqueness which appealed to me. So, the story goes... I went in to my AD fully ready to purchase the Teck Grey 41.5mm AT, saw the green version/black dial (the other thing I like about this model being the sharpness/contrast of the black over the grey) and proceeded to give it about 30 minutes wrist time in store. I went home and sat on the thought of going with the golf for about 2 weeks, went back into my AD and gave it another 30 minutes wrist time to confirm what I had played over in my head for a fortnight. I understand that the green may not be for everyone, but it spoke to me. Here are a few pictures (excuse the camera phone!).

I can confirm that my watch is fitted with the Si-14, which is indicated on the pictogram but not on the case-back. I would take a photo to confirm but I'm in the midst of a timing accuracy exercise and don't want to hack the watch.

Speaking of the accuracy, I wasn't able to synchronise with an atomic clock until 9:00am Monday morning so I've only just gone beyond 48 hours in my efforts. Thus far it appears to be picking up +4 seconds per day . I was hoping for something a little more closely regulated but it may still be in the midst of its own break in period (and it is within COSC specs). The good thing is that there doesn't appear to be any isochronism to speak of. It's literally picking up 1 second every 6 hours and overnight I've done face up, and then crown up. For me, better fast than slow - and, truth be told, it seems like every auto I've ever owned has run fast on me. Must be something in my daily usage... I'll continue to monitor the accuracy in a couple of other positions but it's likely that over the life of this watch I will default to either face up or crown up (when I'm not thinking it always ends up in one of the two). I suppose that if the +4 holds for a couple of months I could take it into a watchmaker or my AD to see if they could regulate tighter for me but I'm kind of loathe to open up a new case that is otherwise perfect if not a little bit fast. I'm probably getting ahead of myself anyway and I don't really want to fall into a no-nit-too-small-to-pick mindset.

Bottom line, great satisfaction thus far. Just love the look.





And two wrist shots... (sorry about the glare from the overhead fluorescent)

[lvt]

+4 sec per day is well within COSC but FYI my automatic watch with an ETA 2836-2 COSC runs +/-2 sec per day since 2 years in a row, now it's in the first half of the third year with the same accuracy, and I've seen a lot of watches with ETA COSC movements run equally accurate or even better than mine. No wonder why several watch brands are confident enough to make $5,000 watches with ETA movements.

[jilgiljongiljing]

The the OP, great review. This is the sort of sales talk the SA's need to do to push watches, I am almost tempted to go to the dealer right now to pick one up :)

BUt I haz no monies....%#$#@R

[Marts7]

Yeah, I know LVT. I have an Aquatimer (non-COSC) that runs +4/week based on every-other-day usage (which won't be the case for the next month or two while I get my AquaTerra fix on).

[CitizenM]

First post. Just thought I'd say I think this forum is great, I like taking in all thoughts and opinions (some of which I adopt as my own) from a very educated community. I have no brand loyalty, I just like watches and hopefully my own personal wealth will continue to grow at the rate I'd like to collect pieces!

I thought I'd post some of my first thoughts on my newly acquired 8500 (new from AD as of this past Saturday)...

Love the watch, and love the green accents of the 'golf' variety. I had my eye on the 41.5mm teck grey dial for months and actually thought the golf version looked pretty tacky in pictures (perhaps part of the reasoning is that I've always associated green with Rolex? Who knows...?). When I saw it in the metal, I really changed my opinion. As everyone on this thread is fully aware, the dial on the AT8500 is very dynamic in varying light conditions, and I found the green minute track/seamaster font to contribute to this effect immensely. On many occasions, the green isn't even perceptible - and in others it really pops. I guess there was a certain amount of uniqueness which appealed to me. So, the story goes... I went in to my AD fully ready to purchase the Teck Grey 41.5mm AT, saw the green version/black dial (the other thing I like about this model being the sharpness/contrast of the black over the grey) and proceeded to give it about 30 minutes wrist time in store. I went home and sat on the thought of going with the golf for about 2 weeks, went back into my AD and gave it another 30 minutes wrist time to confirm what I had played over in my head for a fortnight. I understand that the green may not be for everyone, but it spoke to me. Here are a few pictures (excuse the camera phone!).

I can confirm that my watch is fitted with the Si-14, which is indicated on the pictogram but not on the case-back. I would take a photo to confirm but I'm in the midst of a timing accuracy exercise and don't want to hack the watch.

Speaking of the accuracy, I wasn't able to synchronise with an atomic clock until 9:00am Monday morning so I've only just gone beyond 48 hours in my efforts. Thus far it appears to be picking up +4 seconds per day . I was hoping for something a little more closely regulated but it may still be in the midst of its own break in period (and it is within COSC specs). The good thing is that there doesn't appear to be any isochronism to speak of. It's literally picking up 1 second every 6 hours and overnight I've done face up, and then crown up. For me, better fast than slow - and, truth be told, it seems like every auto I've ever owned has run fast on me. Must be something in my daily usage... I'll continue to monitor the accuracy in a couple of other positions but it's likely that over the life of this watch I will default to either face up or crown up (when I'm not thinking it always ends up in one of the two). I suppose that if the +4 holds for a couple of months I could take it into a watchmaker or my AD to see if they could regulate tighter for me but I'm kind of loathe to open up a new case that is otherwise perfect if not a little bit fast. I'm probably getting ahead of myself anyway and I don't really want to fall into a no-nit-too-small-to-pick mindset.

Bottom line, great satisfaction thus far. Just love the look.





And two wrist shots... (sorry about the glare from the overhead fluorescent)

Awesome. Yeah the Golf doesn't look super great to me in photos, but it's the one model I haven't seen in person, so I could definitely shift if I could see it in the flesh.

+4 is technically within the official (COSC) rating, but it is a little anomalous in the grand scheme of 8500s, which seem to vary between +2 and -1. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure the "wear in" theory of watches, and currently believe it does exist in the majority of mechanical watches, but there are people that disagree. I can say that I've personally observed it on my watches, and as you can see, I test the accuracy very thoroughly. One day I'll buy a timing machine and get really good numbers.

Well, it's good to know that all Golfs, at least, are receiving the SI-14...or at least, it seems like all Golfs. This makes sense since it's the or one of the most recent models. Now the question is: do all new "big" AT 8500s have it, or just the Golf? In either case, do any of the midsized models (like mine) have it?

And the even bigger question, as your experience suggests, is does the SI-14 hairspring make a real world difference or have any tradeoffs.

As per your particular experience, if you wind it all the way up on Day 1, wear it, let it sleep crown up, in that circumstance (I consider best case circumstance) does it still gain +4?

Personally, it's a little disappointing (the +4) but I don't think it warrants messing with. Besides, we don't really know if the 8500s experience any wear in, or I guess I should say, if they do I haven't seen it, but maybe yours will slow down to a more leisurely +3.

[Athram]

Brilliant review. Took me a while to get through it. I'm sure it took you a while to write it