Last edited by TSC; December 8th, 2012 at 16:39.
Be interested to hear if any of the owners on this thread have any input on that point raised on other forums about the AR. I kind of see that very shiny dial problem too. Ceramic/LiquidMetal, whatever :)
And what happened to the LiquidMetals in the 2 London Omega boutiques that have been sitting for weeks when there were several on here who were after one. Interested to know
I A/B'd it next to my Casino Royale PO, and both are definitely AR coated, but the CRPO has a more bluish AR. The problem is that you've got to be very careful with the viewing angle, as the dial is so highly polished its reflection "overpowers" the slight reflection off of the crystal. You almost need to hold it at a 90 degree angle to see it, but if you take it and put it next to a watch which definitely is AR'd only on the interior of the crystal (I used both the Rolex GMT and the Omega Seamaster blue dial), there is substantially more glare off the lens that is immediately obvious.
I often read [email protected] on the internet. Mostly I ignore it. But the last few posts in this thread need some sort of response.
The PO LM has to be one of the easiest watches to read in any conditions. The AR is very effective. Of course, there is more reflection off the highly polished dial, but the AR easily handles it, and the hands remain visible in direct light...
The fact that the watch exhibits different colours/reflection in different lighting conditions is one of its most attractive properties. Maybe that's not a property everyone desires, but you cannot blame the AR...
I know what you mean but I think the AR is the same. The shiny dial throws off a lot of reflections, though, and they all bounce around in there despite the best efforts of the underside AR.
AR or no AR, the one thing that annoys me about glossy black dials is that the crystal goes from looking spotless to looking like it was polished by a vagrant's knickers the moment a tiny speck of anything hits the crystal. My Explorer does the same thing but the AR on the PO accentuates the effect.
Thanks for all your replies. I was reading other stuff about this on other forums and I think it's only if you've had the old 2500 for years, which I have you can get this. If you've only had the LM then it's difficult to explain.
I'm going to try to show a comparison under lights to show what we mean. It's not just the fact it's a shiny dial, IMO, but it's not easy to photograph either.
Am not taking anything away from the beauty of the LM or have ever said its harder to read in any light? Have never said that, I just think the old one looks far better in certain light. It's down to individual tastes
Due to camera, I've failed to prove a point here, because the tiny little blue doubled up reflection of a light bulb doesn't photograph well on the PO, you can't see the double edged outline on here, and it doesn't even exist on the LM but you all know what I mean though.
That was ALL I was trying to say. it was an observation. It doesn't take anything away from the fact the LM is a beautiful watch. So it shouldn't be taken as a criticism. I just think the original one holds it's own.
We discuss things here, that's what we do, right?!
Last edited by TSC; December 10th, 2012 at 13:18.
I'm having a real dilemma with this watch. For me it's the best looking watch out there, but do I really want to spend that much on something that will get limited wear time?( I'd never wear it at work so that's over half the year gone for starters!)
I'm also in the position where I can pick up the 8500 at a significant discount. Do I want to spend more on an older movement? Will these watches really be sought after in the future? There are two for sale in the forums and three available in boutiques that I know of, something is stopping people from buying them.
But then I look at the photo's..........
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)