Reply With QuoteI prefer the new 8500 version, great watches.
The 8500 does allow the hour hand to be advanced/retarded without stopping the watch, which is an advantage for travellers. The lack of quickset date on the 8500 is a bit of a pain if you have several watches, but for most owners (who keep the watch running), it's a reasonable trade-off.
I am one of the lucky owners of the transitional liquid-metal PO LE. This one has the 2500 movement and classic proportions, together with a couple of features of the new model. The one feature which I think is an improvement is the narrower edge on the inside of the bezel.
I prefer the new 8500 version, great watches.
I was actually convinced that the 8500 was the one to aim for, but after reading the entire thread I'm not so sure anymore. My main reason for the 8500 was that I heard that the 2500 had some movement problems. Those rumors + the increased warranty period made me think that it was indeed true. However in the entire thread I read no complaints about the 2500 movement. No one...?
What I like more about the 2500 is that it's thinner and less bulky. On the other hand I love the matte black/grey of the ceramic bezel and the display back with the 8500 caliber. Though one... on the other hand, I've been thinking about a PO for such a long time that I can postpone it a bit longer until I'm absolutely certain.
I tried on the 8500 PO XL when I was looking for a new watch last summer, and it just didn't do it for me at all. I'm not a fan of the ceramic bezel, it's too fat, and it just doesn't feel right at all. The only right choice for me was the old PO XL, and I've loved it. It's accurate, heavy and pretty, and works as both beater and shiny, casual dress watch.
Stick a Cyclops on itOriginally Posted by downer
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Really? Are you sure you're talking about the new one? The dial on mine (8500, Feb 2013) is matt black and the hands a good sized "broad arrow" type.
This is a relatively simple, but very effective added feature. I once had a watch that did this, and I missed it when it was replaced. My only concern is how this mechanism in the motion works (the hands) interacts with the going train; does it involve effectively winding the watch forward through 24+ hours from time to time, or is the hour hand disengaged altogether?
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Here's my 2005 model, had to have one when I saw an early advertisement of Micheal Phelps (an American Olympic swimmer) wearing one of these. I think the first PO's stood out from the crowd just because of the use of orange accents although people seem to like them less now. The 2500A movement still performes flawlessly (+2 sec/24h) and I like this combination of orange and the black OEM rubber strap. My ideal summer watch and a definite keeper.
I think the older model has a more classic look (like in "less is more") and I prefer over the high-tech ceramic see-through back new ones.
Last edited by Retep; 2nd July 2013 at 19:51.
The loud bang followed by a huge splash you just heard there was the 8500 being blown clean out of the water.
If I was a betting man it will be the 8500!
I prefer the 42mm 2500c from 2007. You get the whole feeling of the PO for 1.3k. And btw for normal arms this will be a heavy and high enough, its for me on the borderline of weight and height.
And - for me its the allday-watch for heavy wheather, can wear it in all situations. A watch for the double price of that would kill my lightheartedness of doing all things with watch on the wrist.
Old vs new.. It's a tough one, and I think it's just personal preference. Each has its own merits.
Old one for me! Just a bit more of a dive watch, less bothered about the fancy case back, I like more of a tool watch
I'd go with the old'un - nothing to do with my age by the way!
Posting Permissions
