Omega Planet Ocean 2500 vs Planet Ocean 8900

[@Towert7]

The 2500 looks classy! The 8900 looks very good, but for some reason the 2500 just calls to me as a more cohesive package. I like it much better!

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Both are beautiful watches, something for everyone.

[@chulkcha]

Imagine the 2500 had the 8900 movement inside. That would make it the perfect piece.

[@David-ft7xz]

@@chulkcha But then it would be as chunky as the 8900 😟

[@omegaknight01]

👍👍👍

[@Autos389]

@@chulkcha The 2500's movement is the faster 28,800 VPH movement with smoother second-hand movement. I agree the 8900 is superior but from a user standpoint I think most people are more interested in smoother movement.

[@1000lightyrs]

Really good comparison video actually, thanks. The newer PO is very beautiful for sure, but I think this video really highlights just how cool and classic the original PO was.

[@goonermike6755]

Planet ocean is a nicer looking watch than a submariner I think.

[@m3mario]

Agree. It is a more "from the ground up" modern and masculine design. The Sub is trying to keep a 1960's design updated for the modern era and it shows.

[@mrglock2313]

I agree also, better looking,better built and a less pretentious brand

[@Qjemuse]

It is

[@henz993]

indeed!

[@ABCdotcom]

Movement has always been superior too!

[@smr32061]

Excellent review and comparison. I prefer the 2500. Thinner case and I like the green lume.

[@StevenHoang0312]

Stephen Rudberg me too! Actually,i wear po 2500 now😂🤨🤣

[@kms08711]

​@@StevenHoang0312⁰9⁹òò⁹ò

[@Autos389]

The green lume will stay visible longer than the blue will, too.

[@Seriously140]

I have both and far prefer the 2500. It looks classier, wears lower, and is one of my favorite watches.

[@pauldoherty435]

I own a 2201.50 original and also used to own the 8900 model. I sold the 8900. It's too thick for its diameter, and the shiny dial is not for me (prefer the dial to disappear).

[@panorama4526]

@@pauldoherty435 I have a 2200.51.00 and a new 8900. Both great watches and keepers.

[@Runoratsu]

The old 2500 looks more elegant in my opinion, less flashy. Also better to read because it's not as reflective, so it's more practical too.

[@Patterson101]

Ive owned the 2500 version for years and will continue. The new 8900 version at least to me looks too busy. My 2500 is one of my only non chronograph pieces. It has an iconic look. A look that shouldnt be exaggerated simply for change. Simple, timeless and elegant. That's the 2500.

[@Apaleutos24]

I bought my 2500C back in 2012. My wrist is thin to normal so the 42mm I chose to buy was more than well! Not to flatter my preference, but the first one has an extraordinary style and elegant that some how, I do not recognize in 8900...I adore ceramic innovating technique and certainly is a pros, but it comes too shiny and I mean the dial in particular...and the thickness of it...one and half the size of the original! Apart of the above mentioned observations it is in my opinion the most elegant so far Omega watch. Oh and by the way the Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean 2201.50.00 (2500 calibre) such as the one displayed in this video it has AR double coating in both sides inside and outside. Cheers!

[@remuswheeler2264]

8900 most beautiful timepiece ever made.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

I feel the same

[@jensrefer7705]

Agree with the guys below. Super video. Best comparison I have seen yet. And now finally I am 100% sure which version to get. The 2500 is timeless class - like a Porsche (or Aston Martin). Clear winner for me - but matter of taste of course.-) If they reduce the H of the 8900 to about 14mm it would change from a modern tank to a Ferrari. So get on it .... .-)

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Glad it was helpful!

[@u.u.u2907]

2500 for the win.

[@RyanVoight]

This was fantastic, hugely informative and helpful! Thank you so much! I wish I watched this last year, when I took the plunge of my first big watch purchase and got the 8900 PO brand new from an AD. I was torn on the Diver 300M and PO, and the PO felt and looked so much better on my wrist so it was an easy choice. Fast forward a bit, and I sold that PO! It was just a bit too thick, a bit too chunky. Didn't mind the weight really, but it just looked bloated, especially at the classic Omega lugs, and I just didn't enjoy seeing it as much as I had hoped. The bracelet on the PO's is my favorite part, but I didn't know the 8900 bracelet was thicker than the older ones, and again it was a bit bloated looking. But the biggest thing for me was how glossy the dial is, checking the time was like looking in a mirror and I'm not into seeing myself that much LOL. Plus the reflections took away from the utility and readability of it... didn't feel like a "tool watch" it felt more like 600m water resistant jewelry. I'm now finally realizing I should have been looking for the older 2500 series PO because it's what I really really want. Newer is not always better (though the 8900 movement, especially the silicon spring, is fabulous... and I do like being able to watch it work).

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Glad you took something from the video. Thanks for the comment.

[@georgesukopp5883]

An excellent review David! Very well made and very informative!

[@sidneyt1016]

I own the 8900 and I love it. Although I wish it was a little thinner, it’s actually very comfortable. You really can’t tell you have it on. I went with this model over the Seamaster 300 because I felt it looked better and the bracelet was a better quality. I love the quick adjustment button. I feel for the value which included a nice AD discount, kills the Rolex Submariner and Sea Dweller!

[@Island606]

same here! i actually went to the AD to pick up 300. They had a PO 39.5 in stock, so i decided to try it on. The watch instantly felt like it belonged to a higher segment. Bezel movement, bracelet, lume and overal giving the feeling of a tank like watch. Yes the 300m is thinner, but i really dont like the classic metal bracelet it comes with and although sitting bit thinner, the 42mm still felt chunky. So at the end, i walked out with the PO and i really love it! May i ask what deal you ended up getting for yours?

[@sidneyt1016]

@@Island606 I got 20% off. I agree with you!

[@Island606]

@@sidneyt1016 sounds like a great deal!

[@sidneyt1016]

@@Island606 and a bottle of bourbon

[@Island606]

@@sidneyt1016 even better! Ive got about 17.5% off myself for the 39.5mm with 8800 movement.

[@Daavi85]

I am definitely a little biased but I own this exact model Planet Ocean 2500 in 42mm and even though I appreciate what the new PO offers in quality and refinement I still much prefer the look of my original, mine is from 2010 and nothing about it looks dated and I feel it'll stay that way, it has such a classic look, Omega where ahead of the curve when this model was originally released as you can see so much of the early Omega diver DNA before the whole vintage craze was really a thing, you kinda get the best of both worlds where you still get a relatively modern and very capable diver with very classic looks, for me it's not leaving my possession, love my PO 2500.

[@williamwalker3072]

Totally agree with you David I have the same model as you had mine since 2011 a 50th birthday present from my wife . Still love it and still looks great . Future classic..

[@joeschmoe6306]

I love my 2500, I don't think I'll ever sell it, it think its a future classic like the submariner.

[@dippin1523]

i agree

[@Nicool333]

Ditto. I love my Reference 2201.51

[@m3mario]

Agree. I don't own it, but remember checking it out at the store when it was out. Thats a honest dive watch with high end finishing.

[@dippin1523]

2500 is gorgeous

[@janageorge651]

Great video, two things for fyi only the C and D movements went into the planet oceans and both watch’s have the double coated AR. Great video 👍

[@omegaknight01]

My watch starts with 809 ..... serial number, so I can not exactly see if there is a C or D series of 2500 in it ??? At the authorized service they told me that the serial number of my watch should be from 2007 and with the D series of the mechanism, but the servicer was not exactly 100% sure, so I really would like to find out.

[@omegaknight01]

My watch starts with 809 ..... serial number, so I can not exactly see if there is a C or D series of 2500 in it ??? At the authorized service they told me that the serial number of my watch should be from 2007 and with the D series of the mechanism, but the servicer was not exactly 100% sure, so I really would like to find out.

[@omegaknight01]

My watch starts with 809 ..... serial number, so I can not exactly see if there is a C or D series of 2500 in it ??? At the authorized service they told me that the serial number of my watch should be from 2007 and with the D series of the mechanism, but the servicer was not exactly 100% sure, so I really would like to find out.

[@simonwarmer8777]

aca faca starting with 8525xxxx is a 2500D (2011).

[@joeschmoe6306]

I have the old 2500 and I absolutely love that watch, classic looking and just the right proportions in my opinion, as I don't have a huge wrist.

[@anthonydry5265]

The 2500 is a beauty. I own it and have never gotten tired of its looks. It's also a Bond watch that Craig wore in Quantum of Solace.

[@granto6738]

Was it not the 8500 model?

[@alfrede.neuman9082]

@@granto6738 not sure, but he definitely wore a 2500 in casino Royale.

[@granto6738]

@@alfrede.neuman9082 I have a 8500po 42 not happy with it hat 🧢 to buy micro adjustable clasp £2,30 it's very top heavy, thinkin of a Aqura terra part x it

[@alwaysgoclockwise6019]

Correct. 2500 for Quantum of Solace. 8500 for Skyfall.

[@omegaknight01]

The Omega PO with calibar 2500 D is the best watch ever for me.💪💪💪

[@jspacone]

It’s a tough call. I like the proportions of the 2500, but I like the movement and better technology of the the 8900.

[@alfrede.neuman9082]

I tried both, and I chose the 2500. It’s so much better on the wrist.

[@Alex-mo9qt]

When stowing the dive extension make sure the first fold in piece sits flush before snapping in the second piece, otherwise it will stick out into the wrist as seen on this video, great review tho!

[@karlomcastro]

Good video! I have a Cal 2500 (although with the orange bezel instead of black). I've had it for almost 9 years now and still gives excellent time (about +1 to +2 sec per day). Two complaints though. 1st (& my only major negative). It never came close to the 42 to 48 hours power reserve even when fully wound. I had it serviced on year 7 but still same issue. 2nd negative (& probably just a change of preference during the 9 years I've had it), weight and thickness cause some wearability issues! Still a very good watch and I still wear it now especially on weekends.

[@ripperx444]

I think the 2500 pays tribute to the Seamaster and the 8900 is just a newer variant with up to date materials. Love both and both have a place.

[@teecchnoboy]

I bought a 43.5mm 2020 planet ocean 8900 calibre same black dial and bezel for 3900£ very solid and amazing looking watch worth every single penny

[@rondj1965]

I have the PO model with the 8500 movement, the model in between the two you reviewed. I have found this watch very robust and durable, and probably the most accurate mechanical watch I have ever owned. I would put my PO up against any other dive watch, including the Rolex Submariner, for accuracy and durability. Great review. Thanks for posting.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Good choice!

[@henrylee4428]

Totally agree with your view!

[@joeschmoe6306]

The 8900's shiny surfaces are beautiful to be sure, but when I look at the 2500's matte dial and shiny indices and parts of the case, it's ver well done and compelling..

[@AkuNoHana]

It's refreshing to see a watch review that is only about the watch and not the reviewer's personality. And the review itself is really well done. As for the watches in question, I am lucky to have experienced both. I had 2500D for roughly a year and the 8900 for almost 2 years now. My take aways: the 2500 with the male lugs and 14.5m thick makes it appear very wide, it's an unflattering proportion from certain angle and always bugged me. Due to lack of micro-adjust I was never able to get the bracelet right: it's always either too tight or too loose. I had no idea how much these things were annoying me until I wore the 8900. It's beefy and sharp from every angle and the excellent clasp made it fit like a glove at any time. After a few days of getting used to the weight, it's been smooth sailing wearing it 7 days a week . It would be unimaginable to go back to the 2500.

[@josephfacey2596]

The 8900 is a way better looking watch.

[@davemerchant8788]

Many thanks fir this comment. I'm trying to decide between a 2500 and 8900 at the moment - you just swung it for me 😁👍

[@NexaTrade]

finally, the most informative watch review. others talk about their feelings too much w/o actual info.

[@gregs8685]

I have the 8900 and love it. It is on the thicker side but I really don’t notice it. I like both designs but prefer having the 8900 co-axial movement.

[@alfrede.neuman9082]

I agree, but I’d say that the 8900 doesn’t justify the thickness on the wrist. I went with a 2500 after trying on a 8900, and I don’t regret it. But I still look at the glorious caseback on the 8900 in awe.

[@jakubhladil5340]

@@alfrede.neuman9082 you just have to get used to it but I never tried the 2500.

[@alfrede.neuman9082]

@@jakubhladil5340 they’re both stunning watches, for sure. I have fairly slim wrists, so maybe I noticed it more. The 2500 PO is somewhere between the classic Bond SMP and the 8900 PO. It’s probably better to think of it as a beefed up SMP 300m, which it kinda is. It still won’t fit under a shirt cuff anywhere near as well as my SMP 300m does, but it’s probably my favourite watch in my collection. Plus the orange is very striking.

[@jakubhladil5340]

@@alfrede.neuman9082 i have the black on black with orange details. Love It so far. Yes it is heavy but I got used to it. Scratched them yesterday with bracelet and even though its barely visible under the right conditions I am still pissed. It is only a matter of time until you get that little scratch that you know you caused🤣

[@Nico_enni]

2500 looks way more elegant and refined, I don't know why

[@ajaxforever5473]

16.04 mm thickness is absolute crazy and insane to wear.

[@Tyler-sl6vg]

Some good discussion here! I have owned the 8900 for about 6 weeks. I got it because I wanted a chunky dive watch. I have been pleasantly surprised how well it sits on the wrist with the relatively compact length and female end links. The thicker bracelet is well proportioned for case thickness... And there is some magic at play because it does not wear like a 16mm watch the way they have designed the case and bezel. Feels way thinner than my 15mm Seiko mm300. Anyways - fits the job of the big tough diver really well. I got some other dive watches for when I am in the mood for something slimmer or more conservative.

[@gp2712]

8900 is a beauty!!

[@mapledoodle5516]

The 2500 for me, please.

[@mrglock2313]

I will take omega over Rolex.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Both solid watches, can't go wrong with either.

[@mrglock2313]

@@DavidPhamChannel not at all. Personal preference for me is Omega. Buy what makes you happy.

[@davidofglenbrook4487]

The thickness of the cases in the new coaxial Seamasters and Planet Oceans are their Achilles Heal, no doubt. Otherwise, a really good watch.

[@williambrownlee9684]

15 thousand G. Love that watch.

[@joeyveloso3851]

I had the old 2500 one, I do regret selling it but I will replace it with the 8900 with orange markers and orange 15 minute bezel. The 2500 case back was a nuisance. The seahorse emblem would cup into my wrist leaving an indent. The way the new one wraps around the lugs is better also. The new ones bezel is thicker in dimension, makes for a better proportioned appearance

[@jakubhladil5340]

It wears fine. I own 8900. It is a little tall but adds to robust macho feeling of the watch. I have average wrists just under 7 inches and It wears nicely. Theyre hefty but you can get used to it. Now I sleep with them.

[@carloslargaespada6051]

Bro, you changed the quick set date on the forbidden hours between 9 and 3. my goodness!!

[@TheElectricCentaur]

I think you were safe when you set the date on the 2500 (at 10:36) since it appears you were doing this in the late morning, but I cringed a little. For those that don't know, you can damage a movement if you engage the quick set date function when the watch is also in the process of changing the date (a few hours before and after midnight). Public service announcement over.

[@mattka5354]

TheElectricCentaur thank you for pointing that out!

[@danielmartini3229]

not _after_ midnight, a few h earlier, typically from 8pm, until it switches and disengages, which it should do pretty much exactly midnight

[@ZCT808]

I don't know why Omega didn't make them waterproof to say 300m and then lose some of that thickness. I've owned both the 2500 and 8500, and the latter was just stupid thick. This still looks to be a problem on the 8900. And it is all well and good putting those nice applied numbers on the dial, but in that mirrored finish, and the wrong light they just blend into the dial. I mean, it is a nice watch for this price point, but still some issues.

[@AZadeh-nd8vx]

Completely agree! It's a shame as I love the look of 8500 but it's just too thick, thickness of 2500 is perfect. Also you're right about bit bring avke to see the applied indices on the 8900 at certain angles, annoys the hell out of me!

[@pauldoherty435]

The 2500-based 2201.50 original already has a depth rating of 600M/2000ft so it's entirely possible to have great depth rating and be thin (which you can clearly see how much thinner the original is to the 8900 in this video).

[@ItsTimePictures]

The newer ones are just too thick on my wrist. I have the original and it's far more practical. However, the 2500 movement is highly susceptible to magnetism. Mine has become magnetized twice while traveling and that is a huge negative.

[@Chris11249]

Wow, how did that happen? How did your watch get magnetized, and how did you realize it happened?

[@Leftystrat]

The 2500 goes well with my sub. Both uncluttered classics.

[@uldis1917]

39.5mm version has 8800 which have quickset date instead of independent hour hand like 8900.

[@JJL206]

Nice review,. Thanks, David... Both watches are beautiful. I have the 2500D and had an OMEGA AD upgrade the clasp to the micro-adjust version. Perfection. I like the look of the 2500D, though you can't go wrong with either. For me, personally, I prefer less glitz, less height, and the matte face of the 2500D. Also - the fact that is has a 20mm lug width means i can change out bands with my other watches, and the 20mm's are more readily available.

[@Granto-ni9qw]

Hi bud I have the 8500 movement fits terrible did u have to change end links scews pins etc r is it just a case of changing the clasp ?? I'm grant from Durham England

[@JJL206]

@@Granto-ni9qw Hi, Grant...The AD did the swap. I'm not wearing the watch at the moment, but I think there are some regular links at either end of the clasp that need to be switched to screw links. Pretty certain of that.

[@Granto-ni9qw]

@@JJL206 hi jef I'm totally pissed off with omega the clasp is shocking I think the one I need is the number ending in1159 what is the one on the new model with I just got the new one now a £50 pounds timex has a better fit big f up with omega on this model may go back to Rolex now ??

[@JJL206]

@@Granto-ni9qw I have no idea on the correct part #. Your AD will know.

[@Granto-ni9qw]

@@JJL206 it's 1159 this planet Ocean f sucks bud I'm grant from Durham England

[@panorama4526]

The main difference under normal light is the older one has a black dial and bezel, and the new one is so shiny that it looks kind of grey in comparison. The old 45,5 has a much slimmer profile than the 43,5 which is also 2 mm higher. They are both great watches, but the AD price tags are crazy nowadays…

[@injuredtabletennisplayer1474]

Wow. How far we’ve come. Thanks for the tech lesson.

[@austinzizzi1142]

The 2500 is my daily beater definitely a future classic with the late 60s dial

[@caseyzaft6734]

The original 45.5 is the best. The newer PO’s are to gimmicky and fussy with all the shine. The original is the most timeless looking Seamaster of all, no frills

[@mr2bmw]

The 2500 is a future classic, but as far as looks, the 8500 (grey bezel) is the best looking hands down. The 8900 does nothing for me.

[@____EA____]

2500

[@omega-tarantula]

Very good comparison !

[@threefive2072]

excellent no nonsense details. more reviews should be like this!

[@ianwoollard2063]

I love the 8900 and have tried one on recently at my local authorised dealer. The blue dial version is my preference and what I’m saving for. The ceramic is so much better than the aluminium bezel and the display case back is something I enjoy. $8400 Australian dollars new isn’t exactly cheap for me but you’re getting good value for your money at this price point when you consider how much watchmaking you’re getting. I was considering a no date Submariner but they’re so difficult to find new. I don’t like second hand. Thanks for sharing your watches.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

If you have your heart set on the no-date sub i advise you to wait for that one. If the 8900 is your second choice i wouldn't bother with it unless you plan on owning both one day. The 8900 may satisfy you in the short term but because its not your number one choice you'll never be completely satisfied. Good luck on your decision.

[@omonteso]

I 1000% agree with this dude. Wait or save longer for a new Grey market sub. Get the one you want and you’ll save more money in the long run. Take it from a guy who spent thousands on watches that didn’t satisfy and don’t play the AD game unless you have connections

[@corrbox2]

Very interesting and informative watch review and comparision of two maginificent O,mega watches. Thank you!

[@DavidPhamChannel]

My pleasure!

[@JB-ou6fl]

This comparison video is very helpful for me. Thank you for taking the time to make this video.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

You're very welcome!

[@adbraham]

New one is lovely. Personally I wish they’d sacrificed some of the depth rating for less thickness . . . but then I guess that’s marketing: where would be the value separation between that and the Seamaster?

[@DavidPhamChannel]

That's basically it. I agree

[@solidus1995]

I really dont know which one to get. The 8900 seems built to last centuries but its newer and that's a bit of a gamble.

[@doug4307]

Je suis horloger, collectionneur et ami de fau Mr Richon du musée Omega Je peux vous dire que la nouvelle P.O cal 8500 est beaucoup plus épaisse, que celles équipée du 2500. De plus le calibre est comme le 2500 fabriqué par Eta, n'est pas plus mouvement manufacture que le 2500, puisqu'il possède des poinçons Eta, c'est tout simplment un mouvement exclusif totalment crée pour Omega. Le 2500 est aussi un calibre exclusif, mais sur une base omega1120,, ébauche Eta 2892.

[@mr2bmw]

2500 looks classier.

[@glorifiedbusdriver7036]

Just letting you know that your 'lug to lug' supposed to be 'lug width' and your 'overall length' is the 'lug to lug' length. Nice video tho.

[@TheFiendRacer]

Man that 8900 is so nice, I want it so bad

[@joeallfrontsquiet8797]

You've had two years' time. Did you get it yet?

[@omegaknight01]

PO with alu bazel is so much,much better and more beautiful !!!

[@davidofglenbrook4487]

Omega confuses me with their gazillion different versions. In their mania to try to catch up with Rolex, it seems they’re always zigging and zagging.

[@JAYJAY-ch4ik]

David B well omega and Rolex is like Samsung and Apple of the mobile world.

[@keesketsers5866]

It's not that bad. There is the old 2500 version that came in two sizes and 1 chrono, and there is a new version that comes in two sizes and a chrono. Pretty straightforward actually. Rolex has just as many, submariner, seedweller, deepsea, date, no-date etc.

[@davidofglenbrook4487]

Edwin Bar I agree. Different classes altogether.

[@toomanywaystofall]

No pie crust shapes on the back, those are waves, but now i'm hungry for pie, 🎵r0ck0n 🎵

[@AZadeh-nd8vx]

The old one is way better imo

[@willielarsson9651]

The longer centre links and 12 & 6 o'clock on the 2500 are far nicer than the current inverted ones. Its ruined the look

[@steveb4012]

I own the Casino Royale 45.5mm which I bought new in 2007. Brilliant watch and for a special edition PO, was far more affordable then than newer PO's.

[@jameskolar9655]

Now that was a very good comparison. I like them both too. I’m not sure which I’d buy. Thanks

[@brianchung1295]

Excellent video. Clear and detailed.

[@JJampppong]

8900 awsome

[@gman826]

I like the 8900 but the face should be matte that's the only thing that turned me off about them. Makes it look cheap like a fashion watch.

[@pauldoherty435]

Agreed and one reason why I sold my 8900. IMO a dial should disappear, leaving the rest of the dial readable.

[@adambrosz5219]

Honestly, the 8500 looks way better, much more of a tool watch, whereas 8900 looks just too shiny.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

The 8500 is a nice sporty variation, everyone's going to have their favorite.

[@mr2bmw]

Totally agree!

[@Eric-is1ek]

The 8500 is a good middle ground between the 2500 & 8900

[@terribletomvu37]

Pretty darn good review. Straight and to the most important points. Well done!

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Thanks

[@foxtrotgolf5698]

OMG! I have a mole on the same spot at the base of your right baby finger😳

[@adbraham]

Why on earth Omega think thickness is a selling feature is beyond me!

[@mrb6597]

2500 wears too small in diameter 8900 is too thick Both nice, but i didnt keep either.

[@m3mario]

The matt dial and bezel on the original was a stunner. The new one's shinny dial and thickness kills the watch. And the transparent case back is a joke. What is it, a Lange?

[@pauldoherty435]

Those are the three reasons I sold my 8900 Planet Ocean and kept the 2001.50 original Planet Ocean. Too thick, like inky/black-hole dials not shiny ones, and I prefer engraved caseback designs, not see-through ones.

[@Autos389]

A difference you didn't mention is that the 2500 has the faster 28,800 VPH movement, while the 8900 is a slower beat movement.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

This isn't exactly true. The original 2500A and B versions may have a higher beat rate but the C and D versions have the lower beat rate. The watch in the video is. 2500D.

[@langvo5031]

Someone gifted me the PO 2500 all black and silver around 2009 and wear the watch since but the second hand tip has the same color as hour and minute hands instead of orange or red. I have not seen the same watch anywhere on KZbin so I always wonder which version it was

[@TheCruizer]

You are doing the divers extension always wrong! That's the reason, the clasp doesn't close properly!

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

[@Granto-ni9qw]

What r u doing wrong ????

[@TheCruizer]

@@Granto-ni9qw: The nose belongs beneath the latch, so the extension can’t move anymore.

[@Alex_J44]

Didn’t put the dive extension back on the 2500 correctly. The sharp tooth like feature needs to under the clasp bar.

[@OscarRPalma]

I have a bond version with 2500 and i purchased it in 2018 wich 2500 i have? Thanks

[@T3L3cast3r]

Superb review/comparison. I knew Omega changed a lot about the PO along the years but seeing them side by side like this really shows how it evolved.

[@Mannykeri]

The 2500 looks so classy and beautiful. I love it. How often do you have to service it though?

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Some people will say every 5 years, others will say service when you have a problem.

[@peterstorey393]

Ran mine ten years and wore it every day

[@greentie792]

Neither one of these watches is a small watch. With that said, the thickness of the watch doesn't play into the decision on which I would buy.

[@thehairlesspersian3273]

I wanna see a comparison between the 2500 and old bond seamaster w wave dial and aluminum bezel, can’t find one anywhere!

[@DavidPhamChannel]

I'd like to see one too 😊

[@danielschiller6785]

Just bought a 2500D, such a classy watch!

[@terencetan7798]

How do I know whether it is 2500C or 2500D?😢

[@danielschiller6785]

@@terencetan7798 2012 and it has the new numbers on the calendar date.

[@imranbecks]

You didn't close up the diver extension properly.

[@u.u.upatreonrequests8679]

That boy said 16mm think like that's not a deal breaker lol. Sorry but 16mm thick is too goofy looking

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Haha fair enough. Thanks for the kind comment.

[@u.u.upatreonrequests8679]

Plus you loose the 6,9,12 depending on the lighting angle on the new one. The 2500 absolutely kills the 8800/8900. Also the case shape is better. Reminds me of the Moonwatch shape

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Definitely good points, the 2500 version is generally more legible.

[@u.u.upatreonrequests8679]

@@DavidPhamChannel I'm hunting for a 2500 now. Great video

[@DavidPhamChannel]

@@u.u.upatreonrequests8679 Thanks, I've seen quite a few around so you shouldn't have problems finding one. Good luck!

[@commentjedi]

Is that liquid metal that fills the etched printing on the insert? I learned that on Watchfinder video. It's Omega's innovation.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Yes it is

[@danielmartini3229]

the 8900 needs double sided AR coating seeing as its dial is reflective af (which is easy to tell in this video which frequently showcases this problem). the 2500 doesn't

[@DavidPhamChannel]

I believe the 8900 has double AR coating.

[@danielmartini3229]

@@DavidPhamChannel yes, my point was; it needs it, while the 2500 doesn't

[@petestowne]

nice comparison.. I just have a couple of comments: Lug to lug is usually distance between the outermost points of the upper and lower lugs, not the width of the bracelet/strap. And while you are correct that the bezel is smaller than the advertised size it is the case size that denotes the size of the watch. Other than that I found it informative and nice to see the original and the latest one side by side.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Thanks, i found the expression 'Lug to lug' to be ambiguous and the term 'Overall length' to be more accurate. You are right its the case diameter that is being measured.

[@Nexus.Achiles]

I've owned my PO2500C 45.5 since 2005. Did an overhaul after 11 years. Super accurate at less than 2s/d. Still looks amazing to me in a classic way. Went to the boutique to compare my PO to the new PO8900 in 2017. The ceramic dial looked too shiny to me. I prefer matte dials. I dislike display caseback in sports watches, it adds unnecessary thickness. My biggest gripe with the 8900 is the change of date. You need to move the hour hand to set the date and that would be an absolute pain. Having to move the hour hand 24 times to advance one day, 720 times to advance 30 days, that lack of a quick date set is totally unacceptable. Needless to say I passed. Bought the Rolex Sea-Dweller 50 anniversary instead.

[@doug4307]

Oui exacte, le dateur est une bévue, pas digne d'Omega.

[@ayjaymay]

You’d never have to flip it 30 days - I believe that the hour/date set also works *backwards*, so you’d only have to go back 1 day in that scenario. At most, if your watch sat that long, you’d have to go one direction 15-16 days. The positives: easier to adjust for Daylight Savings Time, and when you travel across time zones, as mentioned in the video.

[@Nexus.Achiles]

@@ayjaymay I bought a Speedmaster Racing 44 Co-ax, cal 9900, back in 2019. I rotate my watches, they can sit in the box easily up to two weeks. Having to set the date without a quick set was a real PITA, up to 15 days at times onwards or backwards, that's up to 360 movements with the hour hand, just to set the date. Totally unacceptable. The quick hour set is useless unless you travel between time zones. Why would they prioritise a mostly useless feature over a useful one to most people like the date quickset? These are not GMT watches. I dont get it. I quit setting the date in my Speedy and sold it after 2 years. Will never buy another Omega with this feature.

[@truxton1000]

I got the 43.5 8900, black with orange and on the rubber strap. Which bracelet is on the one in this video? I have trouble finding the bracelet reference numbers, could go to the AD but prefer to get one second hand.

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Sorry I don't know it's reference number.

[@AGC828]

2 questions. WEre these watches bought new? And, have you ever noticed any dust under the glas (iinside)--has the seal been perfect in other worlds. One reviewer said he found dust in his Rolex Sub and GS Seiko...don't know if his were used...or what kind of abuse they might hve been put through...or not.He's a CDN YT watch reviewer (he frequents Kavar Jwellers...

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Neither was purchased new and never noticed any dust.

[@jonandrews6018]

I enjoyed this review

[@DavidPhamChannel]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@MrBarcelona1000Productions]

Perfectly made video. Great comparison. Especially the dimensions was to much help for me. 42 mm is maximum for me and I was afraid of the 43.5 mm 8900 but thanks to you I now know that should go with that size .