closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Your experiences of the 42mm Planet Ocean

  1. #1
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    719

    Your experiences of the 42mm Planet Ocean

    On paper it is perfect, what is it like to live with. But is it a bit thick? As per my other thread, it would be paired with a Speedy in a two watch collection. Interested in thoughts experiences on both steel and the blue titanium model. Pics always appreciated! The blue on the titanium version looks particularly appealing.




  2. #2
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    17,644
    Thereís only one way to answer this, go and try one then make your mind up. Other peoples opinions are of limited help.

  3. #3
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    719
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    Thereís only one way to answer this, go and try one then make your mind up. Other peoples opinions are of limited help.
    Yeah I know. Just wanted to chat about how others liked theirs.

  4. #4
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Inverness UK
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by watchstudent View Post
    Yeah I know. Just wanted to chat about how others liked theirs.
    If you think it’s a bit chunky try it on the rubber strap. It feels perfect

  5. #5
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Surrey, UK. OdiŠxere or somewhere in-between
    Posts
    7,489
    Blog Entries
    19
    The later with the 8800 are a bit thick. The early ones with 2500 are less thick. Iíve had quite a few but sold them all on - thatís my personal experience. (Well you did ask).

  6. #6
    2201.50 is the model to go for. Anything newer is a bit top heavy, too tall and I have never found them comfortable. All IMHO of course. I am sure there are people out there that prefer the newer models.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Master mondie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Llandudno (ex Oz)
    Posts
    1,898
    Had an 8500 for a short while and found it awkward on the wrist and hated the ceramic bezel that looked washed out in certain light and never seemed to match the dial colour. Sold it and was quite disappointed because I thought the PO looked a fantastic watch in photos. A 2500D then came up on SC and thought I'd have another go. Its turned out to be a great decision, its a fantastic watch, not too think and the it just looks right on. The less glossy & fussy dial is also a step up from the 8500.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by watchstudent View Post
    On paper it is perfect, what is it like to live with. But is it a bit thick?
    Yes, practically perfect in every way, just too thick. The original version is the one to go for.

  9. #9
    I have the older 42mm 2201.50 with the 2500 movement. To my eyes, it is visually smaller than my Speedy on the wrist. Probably due to dial size. It definitely feels heavier than the Speedy, even when worn on a strap, which is my preference for both. Iíve never worn the newer 8500 models, but based on the thickness of mine, they would be too thick for my taste.

  10. #10
    Just no.
    It's just a matter of time...

  11. #11
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    455
    I bought a 8500 equipped, 41.5mm PO almost 7 years ago as my first luxury watch. I was a bit nervous of its size but I put it on and forgot any worries. My wrist isn't huge, 6.75" when hot, and my PO doesn't have the adjustable clasp but after a little playing with half links I got a bracelet size I was happy with and I've found it comfortable to wear. Yes its heavy and I notice its on, but I'm used to that and its not a problem. Its tall, and being a lefty and wearing it on my left I have learnt to be careful in doorways etc, and it has survived well. I love it to bits, its my daily, it fits with jeans and imo it dresses up with smart clothes very well indeed. I recently got a Pelagos blue, which I love but if I were to go back to one watch then it would be the PO with absolutely no doubt at all. I think I will spend the cash to get an adjustable clasp for the bracelet though, the current versions come with that anyway.

    the 8500 or 8850 movement is very very good, mine gained 2.25 sec/day from new with no more than 0.25 sec from day to day. now it has slowed a little and gains 0.7 sec/day. I've not bothered to check it from one day to the next in a long time. I really think it is a fabulous watch.

  12. #12
    I have a PO 2500 since 2008. Fantastic watch IMO. I enjoy it every time. I do not think that, at least the 2500, is too thick.

  13. #13
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    176
    The 2500 version is nice but the one with 8500 is too thick for the diameter,felt a bit like a thicker pam 392

  14. #14
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    504
    I had my 8500 for about a year and loved it. I liked the colour and appearance of the ceramic bezel and thought the quality was great. I had the matt bezel which I prefer to the shinier versions of the newer model.
    All was great until I read a review where it was criticised for being too thick. From that point on I couldn't help but notice how thick and heavy the watch was. I sold it soon after that. I have a 7" wrist.
    As others have said, go and try one on and see how it looks and feels to you.

    Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    Grand Master oldoakknives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Brussel land.
    Posts
    13,042
    I have the earlier 2500 version and like it better than the later, thicker version. It feels less top heavy.
    Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.

  16. #16
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    593
    I've also had most incarnations of this wonderful watch - the original 2500 (42mm and 45mm), the 2500 LiquidMetal limited edition, the 8500 (42mm) and 8500 titanium blue (45mm).

    The 8500 is definitely heavier and, crucially, taller than the 2500. The heft is something you can get used to relatively quickly and can even mitigate by getting the titanium version - which I think looks great on the bracelet and I would definitely recommend over the standard black. However the height of the 8500 is more noticeable, especially if you are wearing shirts often and like the watch to slip under the cuff. The display back and the massively improved movement and bracelet on the 8500 are definitely factors that could sway you to take it over the 2500 despite it's slightly chunkier proportions, but leaving those aside I would say the 2500 42mm is one of the most perfectly proportioned watches I've ever had.

    On a side note, I'd suggest staying away from the 45mm sizes unless you have 8" wrists.

  17. #17
    My favorite amongst these is the original 2500 LE Liquid Metal, my favorite Planet Ocean ever.

  18. #18
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    719
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    My favorite amongst these is the original 2500 LE Liquid Metal, my favorite Planet Ocean ever.
    Agreed, it is a great watch. I think Watchfinder have a couple for sale... at over £6k...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Master pacchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    ZŁrich
    Posts
    1,884
    I love my 42mm, 8500. I have 7,5íí wrists and it fits perfectly. It is a solid watch and is worn for all occasions. I had a 45mm, 2500 before and it did not fit me as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  20. #20
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    455
    Thought I'd add, it's smaller visually than my pelagos, as the po had very chamfered sides and slender lyre lugs. The pelagos, a very similar size on paper, with its slab sides is visually far larger. I find both fine with cuff linked shirt cuffs though tbh.

  21. #21
    Grand Master 100thmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    London Town
    Posts
    16,382
    For me the Original 45mm PO with the 2500 movement is in my top 3 watches ever. If your wrists are smaller then the 42mm, the new versions just never sat right for me
    "When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say,
    For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today"

  22. #22
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    338
    It will definitely feel much thicker and heavier than the speedy.

    I had a 45mm 2500 po (sadly stolen) and a 42mm 8500 po. The 8500 I felt was the right size for my 7 inch wrist, but like so many others, the thickness and weight became annoying after a while. The bracelet is also very thick too, so it is an all round chunky watch.

    The titanium may solve the weight issue, but not the thickness.

    In hindsight, I think I have reached the same conclusion as others have said, the 2500 42mm po is the best proportioned model!

  23. #23
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    My favorite amongst these is the original 2500 LE Liquid Metal, my favorite Planet Ocean ever.
    Couldn't agree more and one of my all time selling regrets. Unbelievably great watch and truly limited edition.

  24. #24
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    rutland
    Posts
    165
    I have a 8500 on the aluminium orange bezel and I love it, I have skinny wrists and never noticed it as being especially tall!!

    Scottie

  25. #25
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    455
    Could skinny wrist wearers have more shirt cuff space and consequently find it wears ok, when thicker wrist wearers can't tuck it in a cuff?

  26. #26
    Journeyman woodruffm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Surrey, Uk
    Posts
    87
    I enjoyed the earlier 42mm 2201.50 version for a number of years before eventually selling it, a stupid decision I now have to admit.

    It was a very comfortable watch on a 7.25" wrist and an absolute strap monster.








  27. #27
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    4,096
    I'd go for the comfort of the 39 were I choosing from the PO range.

  28. #28
    8500 PO was too thick. 2500 looked a bit dated (that might be because my mate has worn one for years).

    I went for a left field choice of the 8500 Skyfall Aqua Terra. Not too thick, modern looking, fine with a suit or casual. and like the PO, a "Bond" watch

  29. #29
    Craftsman Byron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    365
    2500 is an incredible watch imo. So versatile (like the far more expensive submariner) but a 3rd of the price.
    I have had 3x 2500 selling my last one earlier this year. Not regretted it yet but will probably own another one day.

  30. #30
    I have a 2500 42 mm and wear it every day. It has a nice weight to it on its bracelet but I wear it mostly on a nato during the walmer months.

    Just got a new watch last week but still find myself looking at the PO's dial, it's just so nicely proportioned and designed in my opinion.

    Sent from my SM-T520 using Tapatalk

  31. #31
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_X View Post
    Couldn't agree more and one of my all time selling regrets. Unbelievably great watch and truly limited edition.

    Another one that got away!

  32. #32
    I do like the 2500 LE liquid metal but one of the things I really love about the standard 2500 model is the matte dial. Given the LE is now pretty much 3x the price of a standard one I donít think it warrants the price difference.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  33. #33
    Master mondie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Llandudno (ex Oz)
    Posts
    1,898
    Thats very true Waser, the matt dial makes the hands really standout with the NR coating. The glossy dials on the later PO's are another reason I could not get on with the 8500. It was just too much bling.

Posting Permissions

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