# 39.5mm PO looks great on small wrist



## gzpermadi

Pictures from Monochrome.
39.5mm size/14.16mm thickness on 6.7inch/17cm wrist.
Now, can we have 300MC with this size please?


----------



## beeman101

REally glad to see they are coming out in that size...


----------



## the.watchdoc

Is it just me or are the proportions a little off in terms of size of the numerals compared to the larger models?


----------



## watch_hor

PhantomThief said:


> Is it just me or are the proportions a little off in terms of size of the numerals compared to the larger models?


Agree, they seem to have kept the font size the same.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TSC

Is that black or blue, hard to tell. Presume it's the standard black S/S?

If it's the smaller version of this watch here, it doesn't look the same, or it's just the light.

(This is just a random pic from the web, by the way, not mine.)


----------



## beeman101

I dont think the numerals or applied indices have been changed. Imo they have been just set in a smaller diameter dial size in this watch.


----------



## the.watchdoc

watch_hor said:


> Agree, they seem to have kept the font size the same.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





beeman101 said:


> I dont think the numerals or applied indices have been changed. Imo they have been just set in a smaller diameter dial size in this watch.


That's unfortunate, I think a small tweak was needed there. To my eyes, anyway.

Time to weigh this vs the existing 42mm version for the end of this year's purchase.


----------



## avt80

I don't like those new end links. They make the bracelet drop at a sharp angle rather than curve around the wrist.


----------



## lewk68

On my 6.7 wrist


----------



## lewk68

43mm on my 6.7 wrist


----------



## kasemo

gzpermadi said:


> Pictures from Monochrome.
> 39.5mm size/14.16mm thickness on 6.7inch/17cm wrist.
> Now, can we have 300MC with this size please?
> 
> View attachment 8890298
> 
> 
> View attachment 8890306


The watch is a stunner and perfect size for your wrist,would work on my 7"wrist Im sure!


----------



## om3ga_fan

beeman101 said:


> I dont think the numerals or applied indices have been changed. Imo they have been just set in a smaller diameter dial size in this watch.


Numerals are slightly boxier than the 8500.

Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## Iowa_Watchman

lewk68 said:


> On my 6.7 wrist


That looks 100% perfect on your wrist. Buy it!

I'd like to see how it looks on on someone with a slightly larger wrist, 7.25-7.5" maybe. The more reasonable dimensions (especially being thinner) have me intrigued, but at 7.25" I'm a little hesitant. It would be nice to see it next to a SubC as well.


----------



## the.watchdoc

om3ga_fan said:


> Numerals are slightly boxier than the 8500.
> 
> Sent from a tiny keyboard


I think you're on to something there. That certainly adds to the perception of size.

It's a damn shame, I was really hoping that the smaller size would be a better fit for my chicken wrists, but that's starting to turn me off. I sure hope it looks better in person.

Worst case scenario, I guess I could go for the old 42mm? ;-)


----------



## lewk68

PO next to my smpc


----------



## om3ga_fan

PhantomThief said:


> I think you're on to something there. That certainly adds to the perception of size.
> 
> It's a damn shame, I was really hoping that the smaller size would be a better fit for my chicken wrists, but that's starting to turn me off. I sure hope it looks better in person.
> 
> Worst case scenario, I guess I could go for the old 42mm? ;-)


Well, I think I might be out. Seeing more photos, the dial and dashed line around the bezel aren't working for me. Now I'm reconsidering an 8500 in 42mm. Which is to say, at least for me, the 3rd gen PO has crossed over to all sport.

Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## 4counters

Looks great, but not as great as my recently acquired 45.5mm Ti in blue


----------



## Ben.McDonald7

Personally I think the new PO looks great. I think a lot of the changes will grow on people in time and when they see it in the flesh. I don't particularly care for the new end links however. It just looks slightly off personally. The other changes have there pros and cons but I could see if I didn't already have an 8500 XL I would be really really interested in a 43.5. I have a 7" flat wrist and the 45.5 fits perfect but its at the limit of what my wrist can do, a slightly smaller 43.5 would be ideal but not enough for me to make a change so far. 

The new PO has gotten a lot of criticism on this forum but I think they will become quite popular once they get out in the flesh as the new sizes really open them up to more people at 39.5 and 43.5. While I personally prefer the older numerals and non connected second marks I think the design will only grow on me over the years.


----------



## tbensous

Beautiful. I hope the ratio thickness/width is nice, and closer to the PO2500.


----------



## the.watchdoc

Hmm, I quite liked the glossy dial when it came out on the LM limited edition, so I think I'm pretty okay with that. But the dashed line around the bezel is bugging me too.

Guess we'll be fighting over 42s now?



om3ga_fan said:


> Well, I think I might be out. Seeing more photos, the dial and dashed line around the bezel aren't working for me. Now I'm reconsidering an 8500 in 42mm. Which is to say, at least for me, the 3rd gen PO has crossed over to all sport.
> 
> Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## tbensous

Ben.McDonald7 said:


> Personally I think the new PO looks great. I think a lot of the changes will grow on people in time and when they see it in the flesh. I don't particularly care for the new end links however. It just looks slightly off personally. The other changes have there pros and cons but I could see if I didn't already have an 8500 XL I would be really really interested in a 43.5. I have a 7" flat wrist and the 45.5 fits perfect but its at the limit of what my wrist can do, a slightly smaller 43.5 would be ideal but not enough for me to make a change so far.
> 
> The new PO has gotten a lot of criticism on this forum but I think they will become quite popular once they get out in the flesh as the new sizes really open them up to more people at 39.5 and 43.5. While I personally prefer the older numerals and non connected second marks I think the design will only grow on me over the years.


I have a PO 45.5 and small wrist too, and the 43.5 looks like a very good nice in deed.


----------



## om3ga_fan

Ben.McDonald7 said:


> Personally I think the new PO looks great. I think a lot of the changes will grow on people in time and when they see it in the flesh. I don't particularly care for the new end links however. It just looks slightly off personally. The other changes have there pros and cons but I could see if I didn't already have an 8500 XL I would be really really interested in a 43.5. I have a 7" flat wrist and the 45.5 fits perfect but its at the limit of what my wrist can do, a slightly smaller 43.5 would be ideal but not enough for me to make a change so far.
> 
> The new PO has gotten a lot of criticism on this forum but I think they will become quite popular once they get out in the flesh as the new sizes really open them up to more people at 39.5 and 43.5. While I personally prefer the older numerals and non connected second marks I think the design will only grow on me over the years.


Good point Ben. I think it's all about seeing it in person. Photos are always a tricky business. I want to love it, but clearly I'll have to hold it and wear it to figure it out. I'm also a 7" wrist. I can pull off a 45.5mm but the 8500 is too thick to look right with a suit. For me. The 42mm 2500 - perfect. Really want to see the 43.5mm 8900.

Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## 6R15

The proportions are almost the same as the Sea-Dweller 4000, except with 600m WR


----------



## the.watchdoc

Ben.McDonald7 said:


> Personally I think the new PO looks great. I think a lot of the changes will grow on people in time and when they see it in the flesh. I don't particularly care for the new end links however. It just looks slightly off personally. The other changes have there pros and cons but I could see if I didn't already have an 8500 XL I would be really really interested in a 43.5. I have a 7" flat wrist and the 45.5 fits perfect but its at the limit of what my wrist can do, a slightly smaller 43.5 would be ideal but not enough for me to make a change so far.
> 
> The new PO has gotten a lot of criticism on this forum but I think they will become quite popular once they get out in the flesh as the new sizes really open them up to more people at 39.5 and 43.5. While I personally prefer the older numerals and non connected second marks I think the design will only grow on me over the years.


You could well be right there, we WIS are always up in arms whenever the new models come out with even the slightest differences.

Best case in point: maxi dials. Still a lot of bitter feelings over that one, I think, though to be fair that was a fairly sudden and big change.

Best way to tell will be at the AD/OB when it hits our shores.


----------



## exarkun12

Has anyone seen the blue stainless steel model yet? How does the blue compare to the 8500 Ti version?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## HiggsBoson

That looks awesome on a slimmer wrist. |>


----------



## mesaboogie18

Good:

-39.5mm case size
- shiny black bezel insert

Bad:
- squared numerals
- fat hands
- perforated inner bezel insert ring
- connected inner minute tracks
- fat numerals on bezel insert
- endlinks


----------



## Ben.McDonald7

mesaboogie18 said:


> Good:
> 
> -39.5mm case size
> - shiny black bezel insert
> 
> Bad:
> - squared numerals
> - fat hands
> - perforated inner bezel insert ring
> - connected inner minute tracks
> - fat numerals on bezel insert
> - endlinks


The perforated inner bezel doesn't bother me as much as it actually has a function of being smaller minute tracks but the connected inner minute track does annoy me because they don't connect them to the 5 minutes marks. Someone said to their eye it makes it look like 4 sections rather than 5 minute marks so had they connected it to the 5 minute marks it would make sense and look more like the Black Bay. I think the hands are the same size as the 8500 only they may look bigger now with the 39.5 size. I do think as we get used to them more pros will be seen eventually but I can see how the above changes are big negatives for a lot of people.


----------



## SynMike

gzpermadi said:


> Pictures from Monochrome.
> 39.5mm size/14.16mm thickness on 6.7inch/17cm wrist.


It looks great in your pictures. I don't mind the number size at all.
I have a 42mmm 2500 that suits my wrist perfectly - the perfect P.O. model for me and that one might be too small for me.
But the proportions of that model are great to my eyes, perfect for a smaller wrist.


----------



## LikeClockWork

looks great, I have a small wrist and really think the 37-40mm range is the perfect fit


----------



## risturm

Do you guys think the lumed hour markers are too fat / large for the 39mm? It looks great on the larger version.


----------



## urbino

I think it looks fine. Highly legible. Good for Omega, making it in a more traditional size.


----------



## jinugi39

PhantomThief said:


> Is it just me or are the proportions a little off in terms of size of the numerals compared to the larger models?


+1... that's why I decided to get a 8500 PO ti model before discontinued. The new one looks ugly and does not attract me at all.


----------



## DocJekl

om3ga_fan said:


> Well, I think I might be out. Seeing more photos, the dial and dashed line around the bezel aren't working for me. Now I'm reconsidering an 8500 in 42mm. Which is to say, at least for me, the 3rd gen PO has crossed over to all sport.
> 
> Sent from a tiny keyboard


You have enough PO's that the only ones to consider now are the blue Ti PO 8500 LM or the PO 2500 LM LE... Maybe a Ti PO 9300 LM (but not steel).


----------



## om3ga_fan

DocJekl said:


> You have enough PO's that the only ones to consider now are the blue Ti PO 8500 LM or the PO 2500 LM LE... Maybe a Ti PO 9300 LM (but not steel).


Always on the lookout for the LM LE. How was vacation?

Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## sensui123

I had the sample on my wrist (black on bracelet in 39.5 mm) during my local boutiques Basel showing... I am 100% in. Will complement the 2500 LM PO nicely.


----------



## El @

Love this and I don't think that anything is out of proportions on it.


----------



## mjrchabot

This is a nice step in the right direction ... we need more "appropriate" sizes. 
I would agree with others though, the proportions look slightly off - just ever so slightly. It looks a bit clunky to the eyes, not as sleek as other pieces Omega has put out.


----------



## mazman01

None of the proportions bother me. It's a chunky watch for sure but it is a 600m diver. The deal breaker for me is the dashed inner bezel doing and the joined minute markers. I prefer the outgoing 8500 anyway. 39 is too small for me and i like bit of size on my diver because i wear it on rubber. I like the look of bracelets but i tire of them quickly and switch back to rubber anyway. 
The watch will have its fans.


----------



## WatchMedic

to be fair though....that watch looks good on ANY wrist!


----------



## Betterthere

Looks good in general and I think the size will help. To me though, it just looks too busy ie too many dashes and numbers + markers etc.. simplicity is good .


----------



## ccm123

Looks great!


----------



## GX9901

The new PO has grown on me a bit since the initial pictures and when I look at pictures of them now they don't appear to be too much different from the current generation PO. However, in some pictures the updated numeral font really reminds me of the Longines Hydroconquest. Nothing against the Hydroconquest or Longines, but I don't think I want to be reminded of a Longines when I look at an Omega (yes, the first 2 generations of PO has Panerai-esque numeral fonts, but I don't mind that). Maybe the font will appear different in the metal?

It will be interesting to see what the 39.5mm wears like. My 42mm PO 8500 to me wears more like a 40mm watch.


----------



## mkws

Well, regarding the 43.5mm on a 6.7 wrist... In the photo it looks like it's not far away from the "lug overhang" effect, but I assume that if you took the picture with a smartphone camera, the watch seems way larger than it actually looks on your wrist.

As to the 39.5mm... If they would have maintained the same proportions of the numerals and fonts, it would look good. Because they didn't, it's too much of a Rolex Explorer look-alike. Still, a nice watch. To me, regardless of the size, the PO lost a lot of its tool watch spirit. I just look at watches like the original Eterna Super Kon-Tiki, the "sword hands" SM300 from the 1960s, and then I look at the new PO. Ummm, no. Just, no. Too much of a fashion accessory. But then again, I tend to lean towards more conservative designs, so that's just me.

I generally agree with a lot of the points made by the author in the article on Monochrome- however, they've missed one thing: the reduced movement with a lower power reserve. While not a deal-breaker, it just begs the question "why in the name of... why would they do _that_?!!!!"


----------



## 4counters

mkws said:


> Well, regarding the 43.5mm on a 6.7 wrist... In the photo it looks like it's not far away from the "lug overhang" effect, but I assume that if you took the picture with a smartphone camera, the watch seems way larger than it actually looks on your wrist.
> 
> As to the 39.5mm... If they would have maintained the same proportions of the numerals and fonts, it would look good. Because they didn't, it's too much of a Rolex Explorer look-alike. Still, a nice watch. To me, regardless of the size, the PO lost a lot of its tool watch spirit. I just look at watches like the original Eterna Super Kon-Tiki, the "sword hands" SM300 from the 1960s, and then I look at the new PO. Ummm, no. Just, no. Too much of a fashion accessory. But then again, I tend to lean towards more conservative designs, so that's just me.
> 
> I generally agree with a lot of the points made by the author in the article on Monochrome- however, they've missed one thing: the reduced movement with a lower power reserve. While not a deal-breaker, it just begs the question "why in the name of... why would they do _that_?!!!!"


I assume to get the thickness down 2mm to 14mm


----------



## DocJekl

om3ga_fan said:


> Always on the lookout for the LM LE. How was vacation?


It was so nice that we talked about living there all year round.


----------



## Teongpeng

okok. So now which one ...black or blue?


----------



## typ73

mkws said:


> As to the 39.5mm... If they would have maintained the same proportions of the numerals and fonts, it would look good. Because they didn't, it's too much of a Rolex Explorer look-alike. Still, a nice watch. To me, regardless of the size, the PO lost a lot of its tool watch spirit. I just look at watches like the original Eterna Super Kon-Tiki, the "sword hands" SM300 from the 1960s, and then I look at the new PO. Ummm, no. Just, no. Too much of a fashion accessory. But then again, I tend to lean towards more conservative designs, so that's just me.


I'm glad I accidentally happened upon this thread.... I just saw one of these last week in a jeweler's window display and was blown away by this model, as I didn't know it even existed.

It pains me to disagree with mkws, as I've found him to be unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable and also highly entertaining WUS members during my brief time on here, but... to my eyes, the full size one seems bloated and 39.5mm.... just right.

It's no matter. This is well above my watch budget anyway.


----------



## TigerDore

That looks great. It is only .5 mm smaller than a sub. I think it would look good on larger wrists as well. Congratulations!


----------



## Bender.Folder

Anybody saw the ti version yet in person ?


----------



## silentmoo

Has anyone also confirmed the lug width on the 39.5s?


----------



## bt304

The NYC boutique has the new POs. I tried on the 39.5mm, both black and blue (pics below) and the 43.5mm. I didn't take a pic of the 43.5 (probably should have) but to me it looked noticeably bigger than the current 42mm, I was surprised actually.

I'm not sure how I feel about the 39.5mm. On one hand it's a great fit. Sit's low and slim and the bracelet curves around my wrist comfortably. On the other hand I feel the larger numerals move the overall look just to the "sport" side of sporty whereas the older version was slightly more elegant. Still it's a great fit, much better than I expected.

on my 6.5'' wrist...


----------



## Betterthere

bt304 said:


> The NYC boutique has the new POs. I tried on the 39.5mm, both black and blue (pics below) and the 43.5mm. I didn't take a pic of the 43.5 (probably should have) but to me it looked noticeably bigger than the current 42mm, I was surprised actually.
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about the 39.5mm. On one hand it's a great fit. Sit's low and slim and the bracelet curves around my wrist comfortably. On the other hand I feel the larger numerals move the overall look just to the "sport" side of sporty whereas the older version was slightly more elegant. Still it's a great fit, much better than I expected.
> 
> on my 6.5'' wrist...


looks like a good fit


----------



## slo84

Love the size...39.5mm is perfect for us people with small wrist! =)


----------



## silentmoo

Just spoke with the omega boutique - 39.5 lug width is 19mm, 21mm on the 43.5


----------



## drunken monkey

I wonder how much of the better fit is purely down to the new "inny" end-links.
What I'm also curious about is where the reduction in width comes from. In certain photos, it looks like the sides of the case match the bezel more rhan the older models' does.

Anyone got some comparison figures for the case width vs bezel diameter?


----------



## caboer

Looks good on my wrist.. Suddenly I feel my PO LM LE is too big..


----------



## MrCheeky

Thanks bt304 (and others) for the photos. I'm looking to add a PO to my collection. I have a Breitling Avenger II (43mm x 16.50) that I have established as my upper limit size-wise. 

Part of the Omega experience will be trying on the new 39.5 and 43.5 and the previous 42 to see what looks best. Both the 8500 and 8900 have their pros and cons. Really Looking forward to see how each is represented on my 6.5" flat wrist.


----------



## darcyoz

bt304 said:


> The NYC boutique has the new POs. I tried on the 39.5mm, both black and blue (pics below) and the 43.5mm. I didn't take a pic of the 43.5 (probably should have) but to me it looked noticeably bigger than the current 42mm, I was surprised actually.
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about the 39.5mm. On one hand it's a great fit. Sit's low and slim and the bracelet curves around my wrist comfortably. On the other hand I feel the larger numerals move the overall look just to the "sport" side of sporty whereas the older version was slightly more elegant. Still it's a great fit, much better than I expected.
> 
> on my 6.5'' wrist...
> 
> 
> View attachment 8943370
> 
> 
> View attachment 8943378


This watch is a great fit for you. I agree with the numerals looking a bit 'tweaked' for this size. It's not quite there.


----------



## iinsic

I have offered my share of criticism of the new PO 39.5 too, but I've grown to like the watch more and more. Before I break down and buy my sixth (!) Submariner, I may instead pick up a black/black PO 39.5 and see how I like it. The LM bezel is a plus for me, the "female" endlinks provide a better fit on round wrists, the dial does not look busy to me, nor do the numerals look unacceptably large. If I don't like it, I can flip it. But I'm looking for a "last" dive watch, and it will either be the PO 39.5 or the Sub. The biggest advantage for another 116610LN right now? I won't have to wait until November to get it. (I know, I know ... ADs are saying they'll be getting 'em in a couple of weeks. And I'll be getting a lottery check for $10 million about the same time. :roll


----------



## TSC

iinsic said:


> I have offered my share of criticism of the new PO 39.5 too, but I've grown to like the watch more and more. Before I break down and buy my sixth (!) Submariner, I may instead pick up a black/black PO 39.5 and see how I like it. The LM bezel is a plus for me, the "female" endlinks provide a better fit on round wrists, the dial does not look busy to me, nor do the numerals look unacceptably large. If I don't like it, I can flip it. But I'm looking for a "last" dive watch, and it will either be the PO 39.5 or the Sub. The biggest advantage for another 116610LN right now? I won't have to wait until November to get it. (I know, I know ... ADs are saying they'll be getting 'em in a couple of weeks. And I'll be getting a lottery check for $10 million about the same time. :roll


Are you going to go 'old' Sub, as the reasons, _If my addled old brain remembers correctly_, that you got rid of them previously, is because of the size of the new Sub C.


----------



## MattF44

If you think 39.9mm is small you'd have a meltdown at the mere thought of my 36mm on my 7.5-8" wrist. The horror!

The watch looks great. Hope you enjoy it.


----------



## Teongpeng

The watch hasnt arrive at the place where i stay yet, hope it fits my 5.5inch wrist. sucks having a 5.5inch wrist


----------



## hotmustardsauce

bt304 said:


> The NYC boutique has the new POs. I tried on the 39.5mm, both black and blue (pics below) and the 43.5mm. I didn't take a pic of the 43.5 (probably should have) but to me it looked noticeably bigger than the current 42mm, I was surprised actually.
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about the 39.5mm. On one hand it's a great fit. Sit's low and slim and the bracelet curves around my wrist comfortably. On the other hand I feel the larger numerals move the overall look just to the "sport" side of sporty whereas the older version was slightly more elegant. Still it's a great fit, much better than I expected.
> 
> on my 6.5'' wrist...
> 
> 
> View attachment 8943370
> 
> 
> View attachment 8943378


Is it just me but is there an incorrect 9 in place of what should be a 6 in the bottom pic?

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## om3ga_fan

hotmustardsauce said:


> Is it just me but is there an incorrect 9 in place of what should be a 6 in the bottom pic?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


Hilarious. Only on that second photo of the two. What the...

Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## iinsic

TSC said:


> Are you going to go 'old' Sub, as the reasons, _If my addled old brain remembers correctly_, that you got rid of them previously, is because of the size of the new Sub C.


My last Sub - a 114060 - was bought after I had been wearing 36mm watches (a DJ and OP) pretty much exclusively for almost a year. There was some shock at the difference in size between the two 36mm watches and the 40mm (squarish) Sub. As a consequence, I did not give myself time to acclimate to the larger size and flipped the Sub prematurely.

I've been wearing a Doxa 1000T PA a lot lately, and after wearing it continuously for a week - and forgetting I was wearing it at times - I became aware that having a Sub right now would not be such a shock. In fact, it would not seem odd at all after the Doxa. That said, before I get another 116610LN, I will make a concerted effort to get a 39.5mm PO and see how it looks IRL. In my avatar photo, I am wearing a 39mm Broad Arrow. The 39.5mm PO will be almost identical in diameter and case height. Oh, and I (unfortunately) flipped that BA because it was "too small." o|


----------



## DocJekl

hotmustardsauce said:


> Is it just me but is there an incorrect 9 in place of what should be a 6 in the bottom pic?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk





om3ga_fan said:


> Hilarious. Only on that second photo of the two. What the...
> 
> Sent from a tiny keyboard


How is that possible?


----------



## TSC

iinsic said:


> My last Sub - a 114060 - was bought after I had been wearing 36mm watches (a DJ and OP) pretty much exclusively for almost a year. There was some shock at the difference in size between the two 36mm watches and the 40mm (squarish) Sub. As a consequence, I did not give myself time to acclimate to the larger size and flipped the Sub prematurely.
> 
> I've been wearing a Doxa 1000T PA a lot lately, and after wearing it continuously for a week - and forgetting I was wearing it at times - I became aware that having a Sub right now would not be such a shock. In fact, it would not seem odd at all after the Doxa. That said, before I get another 116610LN, I will make a concerted effort to get a 39.5mm PO and see how it looks IRL. In my avatar photo, I am wearing a 39mm Broad Arrow. The 39.5mm PO will be almost identical in diameter and case height. Oh, and I (unfortunately) flipped that BA because it was "too small." o|


I promise not to run any kind of sweepstake as to how long you keep the possibly imminent Sub for. Honest.. I won't! How many will that be now?b-)


----------



## bt304

This is funny, I just noticed that yesterday too. Could it be some weird reflection? I'm tempted to had back to the boutique to have another look.

How ridiculous would it be if Omega let a dial with 2 nines slip through QC?



om3ga_fan said:


> Hilarious. Only on that second photo of the two. What the...
> 
> Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> My last Sub - a 114060 - was bought after I had been wearing 36mm watches (a DJ and OP) pretty much exclusively for almost a year. There was some shock at the difference in size between the two 36mm watches and the 40mm (squarish) Sub. As a consequence, I did not give myself time to acclimate to the larger size and flipped the Sub prematurely.
> 
> I've been wearing a Doxa 1000T PA a lot lately, and after wearing it continuously for a week - and forgetting I was wearing it at times - I became aware that having a Sub right now would not be such a shock. In fact, it would not seem odd at all after the Doxa. That said, before I get another 116610LN, I will make a concerted effort to get a 39.5mm PO and see how it looks IRL. In my avatar photo, I am wearing a 39mm Broad Arrow. The 39.5mm PO will be almost identical in diameter and case height. Oh, and I (unfortunately) flipped that BA because it was "too small." o|


After your excellent advice to me regarding 114060, let me return the favor. Go ahead and get the subc date because I predict the 39.5 PO is going to be too busy and too thick. 
After 3 months, I have no interest in going back.


----------



## 4counters

Betterthere said:


> After your excellent advice to me regarding 114060, let me return the favor. Go ahead and get the subc date because I predict the 39.5 PO is going to be too busy and too thick.
> After 3 months, I have no interest in going back.


Subs are for the sheep, POs for the shepherd


----------



## Betterthere

4counters said:


> Subs are for the sheep, POs for the shepherd


Thats a funny line. A joke I assume. Are you sure you didn't mean to say the PO is for the wolf?

I have owned both and personally the SubC wins. And I think I know iinsic well enough to predict where he's going to go.


----------



## Premise

Happy to see the 40mm and below market growing.


----------



## teeritz

DocJekl said:


> How is that possible?


I'm thinking that it may be a mock-up version. We used to get them every now and then, in order to get a feel for the real thing. The sales rep would bring one in and the time would be permanently set to 10:08 and 36 seconds in that classic watch dial pose. The crown would screw out, but you couldn't change the time on it. There would be a rotor visible through the sapphire case back, but it would not spin. Most of the movement would be visible, in order to showcase the finish on the bridge, rotor, etc, but it would be a non-working sample. The serial number on the lug would be a series of x's. 
The last mock-up I saw was of a Cal 8500 AquaTerra, about a year before they were released on the market.







As for the upside-down number '6', what's the harm? This thing would have been cobbled together at the factory in order to get it out to the reps and I suspect that this incorrect dial would have been slapped onto it. Sure, we may think it's sloppy now, but it'll probably sell at some Christie's watch auction in future for fifty grand. 
And I do think the time on it is more than just coincidence.


----------



## bt304

teeritz said:


> I'm thinking that it may be a mock-up version. We used to get them every now and then, in order to get a feel for the real thing. The sales rep would bring one in and the time would be permanently set to 10:08 and 36 seconds in that classic watch dial pose. The crown would screw out, but you couldn't change the time on it. There would be a rotor visible through the sapphire case back, but it would not spin. Most of the movement would be visible, in order to showcase the finish on the bridge, rotor, etc, but it would be a non-working sample. The serial number on the lug would be a series of x's.
> The last mock-up I saw was of a Cal 8500 AquaTerra, about a year before they were released on the market.
> 
> View attachment 8966201
> As for the upside-down number '6', what's the harm? This thing would have been cobbled together at the factory in order to get it out to the reps and I suspect that this incorrect dial would have been slapped onto it. Sure, we may think it's sloppy now, but it'll probably sell at some Christie's watch auction in future for fifty grand.
> And I do think the time on it is more than just coincidence.
> 
> View attachment 8966281


Hmmmm... this may be but I'm not sure. This particular watch was in the display case along side others and if I remember had a price tag (well one of them did because I remember checking the price. $7K). I've noticed quite a few Omega's on display set to that same time with the crown pull/hacked in both the NYC and Westchester Boutiques. Also the sales women was working hard to get me to "take it home today".

I guess anything's possible. Maybe I'll stop in again next week unless someone in NYC feels like doing some detective work this weekend...


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> After your excellent advice to me regarding 114060, let me return the favor. Go ahead and get the subc date because I predict the 39.5 PO is going to be too busy and too thick.
> After 3 months, I have no interest in going back.


You probably are right. Frankly, my desire to try the new PO is more about my being an Omega loyalist for close to a half century (49 years, to be exact). They've circled back to the realm of reason with this smaller PO, and I feel I owe it to them to at least consider it. If I can see one at a nearby OB in the next month, that will make up my mind. Even if I buy the PO and tire of it later, I can pick up that 116610LN any time. Unlike Omega, Rolex offers essentially the same watch for decade after decade. :think:


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> You probably are right. Frankly, my desire to try the new PO is more about my being an Omega loyalist for close to a half century (49 years, to be exact). They've circled back to the realm of reason with this smaller PO, and I feel I owe it to them to at least consider it. If I can see one at a nearby OB in the next month, that will make up my mind. Even if I buy the PO and tire of it later, I can pick up that 116610LN any time. Unlike Omega, Rolex offers essentially the same watch for decade after decade. :think:


All true. I feel some guilt after 35 years of omegas for not having one but .... Interested to see what you think when you see one but doubt I will be tempted. Can't remember if the 39.5 has those dashes on bezel but once I saw those I could not unsee them.


----------



## Jake_D

Agreed! What is the model number for that?


----------



## iinsic

Jacob Dirr said:


> Agreed! What is the model number for that?


If you're asking about the 39.5mm PO, in black it is 215.30.40.20.01.001; in blue it is 215.30.40.20.03.001


----------



## TSC

So they RRP at £4400GB in the UK, getting nearer to Sub C ND prices, slowly but surely. What's the RRP in the US for these?


----------



## mkawakami

I have a 6.5 wrist and the previous 42mm 8500 model was just too big for me. I excitedly went to the Omega boutique to check out the new 40mm, and I was stunned to find that the 44mm actually fit me better.

The thinner case made a huge difference, and it seemed like the lugs were shaped better too. Though it may have just been my imagination.


----------



## Betterthere

mkawakami said:


> I have a 6.5 wrist and the previous 42mm 8500 model was just too big for me. I excitedly went to the Omega boutique to check out the new 40mm, and I was stunned to find that the 44mm actually fit me better.
> 
> The thinner case made a huge difference, and it seemed like the lugs were shaped better too. Though it may have just been my imagination.


Little confused .. the new one is 43.5 and over 16mm thick so not smaller. Maybe it's the lug shape and if so that is good news.


----------



## silentmoo

After playing with the Basel demo models at my OB I was also surprised by how well the 43.5s fit. I have a 6.5-6.7 in wrist but the 43.5 had nicely curved lugs in combination with the "innie" end links that helped it fit quite nicely. The 39.5s are still nice but actually trying them on made me more keen on the 43.5s


----------



## mkawakami

I just got back from the boutique where I tried on a real model (not the "prototype" they use for the preview showings). You guys are right. The case isn't much thinner, but it's the end link that makes the real difference. The hinge of the endlink sits inside of the lug. So it effectively shortens the lug to lug distance.

The dial is deep, inky black and it looks gorgeous. I can't wait to pick mine up!


----------



## teeritz

bt304 said:


> Hmmmm... this may be but I'm not sure. *This particular watch was in the display case along side others* and if I remember had a price tag (well one of them did because I remember checking the price. $7K). I've noticed quite a few Omega's on display set to that same time with the crown pull/hacked in both the NYC and Westchester Boutiques. Also the sales women was working hard to get me to "take it home today".
> 
> I guess anything's possible. Maybe I'll stop in again next week unless someone in NYC feels like doing some detective work this weekend...


And none of the store staff noticed the dial, from when this watch arrived in-store, to setting the hands to 10:10, to clipping the watch to a C-clip, to putting it out in the display case? 
Very, very slack.


----------



## Betterthere

mkawakami said:


> I just got back from the boutique where I tried on a real model (not the "prototype" they use for the preview showings). You guys are right. The case isn't much thinner, but it's the end link that makes the real difference. The hinge of the endlink sits inside of the lug. So it effectively shortens the lug to lug distance.
> 
> The dial is deep, inky black and it looks gorgeous. I can't wait to pick mine up!


No pics?


----------



## Ken G

I'm intrigued by people with smaller wrists saying how surprisingly wearable the 43.5 is for them. Thanks for the reports - might have to try one out...


----------



## mkawakami

Betterthere said:


> No pics?


No. Sorry, I failed you all 

It was the 43.5 basic model with time and date only. But it was the version with the orange numerals and orange quarter bezel, and it was on the new bracelet with the quick adjust mechanism. The finish was beautiful; much nicer than the last gen. It was a truly stunning watch.


----------



## iinsic

Omega posted this photo of the blue/blue 39.5mm PO on their Facebook page today. What's interesting is that yesterday I committed to a black/black model (215.30.40.20.01.001), which I will receive sometime in the next two-to-four weeks. Pix then, for sure.


----------



## LetItRide1978

iinsic said:


> Omega posted this photo of the blue/blue 39.5mm PO on their Facebook page today. What's interesting is that yesterday I committed to a black/black model (215.30.40.20.01.001), which I will receive sometime in the next two-to-four weeks. Pix then, for sure.
> 
> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9104450&d=1471706442"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]


Already have a blue AT and blue SMPc but yet I also want this. I guess the heart wants what the heart wants.


----------



## solesman

Big congrats on your incoming PO Rob. I tried the 39.5mm blue yesterday and it does wear nicely. If honest a 40.5mm would be perfect for me but its a well made watch for sure. The numerals did look a little too big for the dial though in my opinion.



iinsic said:


> Omega posted this photo of the blue/blue 39.5mm PO on their Facebook page today. What's interesting is that yesterday I committed to a black/black model (215.30.40.20.01.001), which I will receive sometime in the next two-to-four weeks. Pix then, for sure.
> 
> View attachment 9104450


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> Omega posted this photo of the blue/blue 39.5mm PO on their Facebook page today. What's interesting is that yesterday I committed to a black/black model (215.30.40.20.01.001), which I will receive sometime in the next two-to-four weeks. Pix then, for sure.


blue looks good.. look forward to pics and thoughts.


----------



## iinsic

solesman said:


> Big congrats on your incoming PO Rob. I tried the 39.5mm blue yesterday and it does wear nicely. If honest a 40.5mm would be perfect for me but its a well made watch for sure. The numerals did look a little too big for the dial though in my opinion.





Betterthere said:


> blue looks good.. look forward to pics and thoughts.


I should know better than do this ... now the next few weeks will d-r-a-a-a-a-a-g by. o|

Incidentally, the retail price of the watch in the states has been reduced to $6550, which gets it more in line with the existing POs. That makes the upcharge for Master Chronometer and Liquidmetal bezel right at $350. It also now happens to be _exactly_ $2,000 less than the Submariner 116610LN. :think:

P.S. - I've been meaning to ask: What happened to "julywest?"


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> I should know better than do this ... now the next few weeks will d-r-a-a-a-a-a-g by. o|
> 
> Incidentally, the retail price of the watch in the states has been reduced to $6550, which gets it more in line with the existing POs. That makes the upcharge for Master Chronometer and Liquidmetal bezel right at $350. It also now happens to be _exactly_ $2,000 less than the Submariner 116610LN. :think:
> 
> P.S. - I've been meaning to ask: What happened to "julywest?"


Price sounds better. Makes it more reasonable with discount.

I had always meant to distance some of my stuff from a username I use a lot. Latest data breach here (which has rewarded me with tons of spam) and less watch selling seemed to be a good time to change. At one time "Better there than here" was going to be on tombstone but figured that could be misinterpreted. New inscription is from wife "Enjoy every second!".


----------



## DocJekl

Betterthere said:


> iinsic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should know better than do this ... now the next few weeks will d-r-a-a-a-a-a-g by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, the retail price of the watch in the states has been reduced to $6550, which gets it more in line with the existing POs. That makes the upcharge for Master Chronometer and Liquidmetal bezel right at $350. It also now happens to be _exactly_ $2,000 less than the Submariner 116610LN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. - I've been meaning to ask: What happened to "julywest?"
> 
> 
> 
> Price sounds better. Makes it more reasonable with discount.
> 
> I had always meant to distance some of my stuff from a username I use a lot. Latest data breach here (which has rewarded me with tons of spam) and less watch selling seemed to be a good time to change. At one time "Better there than here" was going to be on tombstone but figured that could be misinterpreted. New inscription is from wife "Enjoy every second!".
Click to expand...

Better there than here ain't so bad


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> At one time "Better there than here" was going to be on tombstone but figured that could be misinterpreted. New inscription is from wife "Enjoy every second!".


I always planned to use: "Of all my deals, I really went in the hole on this one." ;-)


----------



## Betterthere

DocJekl said:


> Better there than here ain't so bad


Lol thx Larry but I realized here could be interpreted as hell.


----------



## Alex_TA

I do not understand why Omega decided to dump 42mm


----------



## iinsic

Alex_TA said:


> I do not understand why Omega decided to dump 42mm


I agree. Having three sizes - at 39.5mm, 42mm and 44mm - would cover the proverbial waterfront for most wearers. Of course, they would need to put the 42mm and 44mm on a slimming diet. They're way too thick.


----------



## BobTheBuilder

I have a 38.5mm AT that I think is just a hair on the large side for me. I haven't gotten a chance to try the 39.5mm PO, but how do you guys think that would wear compared to the AT? Because if it's going to wear about the same, I may have to go for a 36mm SMPc. Thanks!

Bob


----------



## iinsic

BobTheBuilder said:


> I have a 38.5mm AT that I think is just a hair on the large side for me. I haven't gotten a chance to try the 39.5mm PO, but how do you guys think that would wear compared to the AT? Because if it's going to wear about the same, I may have to go for a 36mm SMPc. Thanks!
> 
> Bob


I think if you pried off that chamfered bezel and replaced it with an ET bezel, plus added a HRV at 10:00, you'd have a pretty good approximation of the 39.5mm PO. But the PO is going to appear larger because of the 1mm of diameter, and more than 1mm extra case height ... although the smaller dial might mitigate that somewhat.


----------



## DocJekl

Betterthere said:


> Lol thx Larry but I realized here could be interpreted as hell.


Here in the hole is better than here in hell, but there in the hole is worse than here with your loved ones, so you can't win for losing.


----------



## TellingTime

I knew an old timer that used to say every day above dirt is a good day.


----------



## m0c021

It's been a while since I looked at new watches since I got my AT >15000 and have been completely happy with it. I always liked the PO, and even had it before. However, it was too big on me so I sold it. Didn't know they started making a 39.5mm, but it appears it just came out this year and is marketed as a women's watch (from the single source I quickly googled). This is definitely a watch I am interested in.


----------



## Betterthere

TellingTime said:


> I knew an old timer that used to say every day above dirt is a good day.


You know my wife????

Haven't seen the 39 5 but did get to play with a few 43.5s
View attachment 913






8018[/ATTACH]


----------



## dj00tiek

Bender.Folder said:


> Anybody saw the ti version yet in person ?


There is no TI version.. The blue PO with blue dial and blue bezel is steel.



Betterthere said:


> Little confused .. the new one is 43.5 and over 16mm thick so not smaller. Maybe it's the lug shape and if so that is good news.


The 'old' one was 16.5mm thick, the new one is 16mm thick. Only half a mm, but there is dfference 

Did you guys actually know that Omega targetted the 39.5mm version for ladies, not for men? Atleast, that's what they told me at the official Omega boutique. Maybe they smartly choose the same colors with the 39.5 version as the 43.5 version, to have a bigger audience in china/japan.

Personally for me I never wanted a watch smaller then 40mm. That would be the smallest for me. I have had 40mm watches and 42mm watches, and have a Panerai of 44mm which also fits greatly on my 6.7 inch wrist. I don't think i would go for the 39.5mm version, but its cool that Omega made two versions.


----------



## altm

GX9901 said:


> The new PO has grown on me a bit since the initial pictures and when I look at pictures of them now they don't appear to be too much different from the current generation PO


GX, before I type on please allow me apologize to you as I have rather blatantly cherry picked a single sentance out of your post to suit my purposes.
I do however believe that in a few years time, the indignation surrounding the updated models will have largely subsided and most will have settled in to comfortable familiarity with the new look PO's.

I do think Omega's handling of the new release was less than stellar and contributed at least partially to what was, in my view, a rather lukewarm reception.


----------



## Betterthere

dj00tiek said:


> There is no TI version.. The blue PO with blue dial and blue bezel is steel.
> 
> The 'old' one was 16.5mm thick, the new one is 16mm thick. Only half a mm, but there is dfference
> 
> Did you guys actually know that Omega targetted the 39.5mm version for ladies, not for men? Atleast, that's what they told me at the official Omega boutique. Maybe they smartly choose the same colors with the 39.5 version as the 43.5 version, to have a bigger audience in china/japan.
> 
> Personally for me I never wanted a watch smaller then 40mm. That would be the smallest for me. I have had 40mm watches and 42mm watches, and have a Panerai of 44mm which also fits greatly on my 6.7 inch wrist. I don't think i would go for the 39.5mm version, but its cool that Omega made two versions.


There is a Ti version of 43.5 just not seen in the wild yet but not the 39.5. I saw handled the old 42 PO and the new 43.5 side by side and you are not going to notice that .5mm so to average owner they are the same. Too many threads imo on sane watch... I posted elsewhere that the new is better designed than old so will wear better but it is thick.
I think the 39.5 is considered unisex with the chocolate rose gold and bejeweled considered woman's and others either. I think you will find many men are going to go for the 38.5 with 14mm thickness .. I may be wrong.
Jewelry store I was at didn't order 39.5 yet because they are waiting to see how goes.


----------



## m0c021

https://www.omegawatches.com/watches/seamaster/planet-ocean-600m/ladies-selection/

It is advertised as a ladies watch. Not unisex. No confusions at all in where Omega stands on this. Still not gonna stop be from being a watch just because it has a "ladies" label on it though, if I like the watch that is.

EDIT: I was wrong, look a few posts later for correct info! 39.5mm PO comes in ladies and mens versions.


----------



## Betterthere

m0c021 said:


> https://www.omegawatches.com/watches/seamaster/planet-ocean-600m/ladies-selection/
> 
> It is advertised as a ladies watch. Not unisex. No confusions at all in where Omega stands on this. Still not gonna stop be from being a watch just because it has a "ladies" label on it though, if I like the watch that is.


Well you didn't follow your own link apparently. Go further down and you will find 6 models the rose gold chocolate the whites and the diamond encrusted. You won't see the blue or black in that list.

Try this link
https://www.omegawatches.com/watche...ial-master-chronometer-395-mm/21563402013001/
Pretty clear they are trying to keep blue and black as unisex.


----------



## iinsic

m0c021 said:


> https://www.omegawatches.com/watches/seamaster/planet-ocean-600m/ladies-selection/
> 
> It is advertised as a ladies watch. Not unisex. No confusions at all in where Omega stands on this. Still not gonna stop be from being a watch just because it has a "ladies" label on it though, if I like the watch that is.


I can't decide if you're a bomb thrower or simply don't like to be proved wrong. Your link to "ladies" POs feature only an 18k gold version, and those with either white dials/bezels or with diamond bezels. The link for the Men's Collection of Planet Oceans has all three sizes: 39.5mm, 43.5 and the 45.5mm chronos. Thus, the 39.5mm PO is NOT being marketed as a "ladies" watch, nor is it being marketed as "unisex." It is being marketed to men in certain traditional PO models, and to ladies with more feminine models.

I believe the only "confusion" in this matter is your understanding of Omega's marketing strategy. :think:


----------



## m0c021

iinsic said:


> I can't decide if you're a bomb thrower or simply don't like to be proved wrong. Your link to "ladies" POs feature only an 18k gold version, and those with either white dials/bezels or with diamond bezels. The link for the Men's Collection of Planet Oceans has all three sizes: 39.5mm, 43.5 and the 45.5mm chronos. Thus, the 39.5mm PO is NOT being marketed as a "ladies" watch, nor is it being marketed as "unisex." It is being marketed to men in certain traditional PO models, and to ladies with more feminine models.
> 
> I believe the only "confusion" in this matter is your understanding of Omega's marketing strategy. :think:


Neither, at least not intentionally.

I think I might have been on the ladies page and then clicked on one at the bottom and got taken to this link https://www.omegawatches.com/watche...ial-master-chronometer-395-mm/21530402001001/ which just shows all the 39.5mm models. I still thought I was on the ladies page though.

Also, when I first googled this model, there were many links stating it was a ladies watch. Of course they were only talking about the chocolate dial one. To add to the confusion, I believe I was at prestigetime getting the thickness and it is listed as a ladies.

https://www.prestigetime.com/Omega-...l-Master-Chronometer-215-30-40-20-01-001.html

TL;DR: 39.5mm PO comes in ladies and men's versions. Perfect.


----------



## Betterthere

m0c021 said:


> Neither, at least not intentionally.
> 
> I think I might have been on the ladies page and then clicked on one at the bottom and got taken to this link https://www.omegawatches.com/watche...ial-master-chronometer-395-mm/21530402001001/ which just shows all the 39.5mm models. I still thought I was on the ladies page though.
> 
> Also, when I first googled this model, there were many links stating it was a ladies watch. Of course they were only talking about the chocolate dial one. To add to the confusion, I believe I was at prestigetime getting the thickness and it is listed as a ladies.
> 
> https://www.prestigetime.com/Omega-...l-Master-Chronometer-215-30-40-20-01-001.html
> 
> TL;DR: 39.5mm PO comes in ladies and men's versions. Perfect.


Omega website imo could use a complete rework.


----------



## sensui123

Betterthere said:


> Omega website imo could use a complete rework.


From my experience...it's a pre-requisite to have a terrible website for luxury watches.


----------



## Aquaracer1

On one hand, I am still very much on the fence about the new style after handling a black / orange 39.5 at the Botique. The dotted bezel line and the numerals in particular put me off. Think EPOS or Hydroconquest. (Nothing against, just not for me personally). As a fan of the 2500 I much prefer the older numerals, kind of a perfect blend between heritage and modern. These new numerals... Um. OK. Not too subtle. Still working on that... On the other hand, I did tell myself if Omega ever made a blue dial PO that was under 42 mm but above 37 mm - I'm in. So it looks like I'll be buying one, haha. Omega finally listened. PO, check, Blue, check, SS, check, reasonable size, check - Gotta love that!


----------



## iinsic

Aquaracer1 said:


> Omega finally listened. PO, check, Blue, check, SS, check, reasonable size, check - Gotta love that!


Indeed. Most divers (including me) prefer a full minute track on the bezel, so "check" for that one, too. Turning one's back on this watch because of an outer line on the minutes track or because the numerals don't look quite right is too much "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

I'm very excited about receiving mine!


----------



## BarracksSi

Betterthere said:


> Omega website imo could use a complete rework.


"Mobile First" web design is giving us "Desktop Worst" browsing experiences now.

I just graduated a web developer course; if they're hiring, I'll send them my Github profile.


----------



## Betterthere

BarracksSi said:


> "Mobile First" web design is giving us "Desktop Worst" browsing experiences now.
> 
> I just graduated a web developer course; if they're hiring, I'll send them my Github profile.


Spent much of my career with this stuff... retired now so I won't apply 
Good luck.


----------



## TSC

iinsic said:


> Indeed. Most divers (including me) prefer a full minute track on the bezel, so "check" for that one, too. Turning one's back on this watch because of an outer line on the minutes track or because the numerals don't look quite right is too much "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
> 
> I'm very excited about receiving mine!


When is it due, and had you seen it before ordering? I tried it on a couple of weeks ago and I'm pretty sure you'll love it if you haven't. Very wearable size.


----------



## iinsic

TSC said:


> When is it due, and had you seen it before ordering? I tried it on a couple of weeks ago and I'm pretty sure you'll love it if you haven't. Very wearable size.


I could have driven down to the Naples OB to see it IRL (three hour round trip). That was too much effort, frankly.

I get the next one that comes into Topper, likely early September (they've already received one this month, but it was presold). As Tom Petty tells us, "The waiting is the hardest part."


----------



## TSC

I thought he said 'she was an American Girl'?


----------



## iinsic

TSC said:


> I thought he said 'she was an American Girl'?


Like Shakespeare and Churchill, TP has said a lot of things. ;-)


----------



## mkawakami

I just returned from the Omega boutique with my new PO!

To make up for the fact that I forgot to take pics on my visit for the Baselworld preview, I have taken lots of pics for my mini review.

https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/just-...8900-master-coaxial-3524034.html#post32894834


----------



## Betterthere

Great pics and write up
Topper Fine Jewelers: Authorized Dealer of Timepieces, Bridal, and Precious Jewelry. 1315 Burlingame Ave, Burlingame CA 94010


----------



## DocJekl

Betterthere said:


> Great pics and write up
> Topper Fine Jewelers: Authorized Dealer of Timepieces, Bridal, and Precious Jewelry. 1315 Burlingame Ave, Burlingame CA 94010


Yes, great pics and write up.

Actually this watch is growing on me, but I still worry about the weight vs Ti. However, if I can live with my Ti PO 9300 then this PO 8900 in steel should wear about the same in terms of weight, while being less thick and top heavy. 

Of course I don't need a blue steel model as I have the Blue Ti 8500, but the black and orange might appeal to me enough to pick one up some day. I like the LM bezel and ZrO2 dial, being the same as I have with my pair of older PO Liquid Metal Limited Editions; but I kinda resent the fact that they took this technology that made the POLMLE so special and now anyone can get it with the non-limited edition watches. The POLMLE is still special in that it's a thinner 2500 model, and lighter and very comfortable.


----------



## iinsic

Rob just posted his review of the 39.5mm PO on the Topper blog site. This review was based on the first watch they received in August, which was presold. I will be getting the next one, expected later this month (and to say I am VERY excited is supreme understatement). Especially fascinating is the much shorter OAL due to the use of the "female" endlinks. Proportionately, the watch looks only slightly longer than cushion case designs like Doxa.

Topper Fine Jewelers: Authorized Dealer of Timepieces, Bridal, and Precious Jewelry. 1315 Burlingame Ave, Burlingame CA 94010


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> Rob just posted his review of the 39.5mm PO on the Topper blog site. This review was based on the first watch they received in August, which was presold. I will be getting the next one, expected later this month (and to say I am VERY excited is supreme understatement). Especially fascinating is the much shorter OAL due to the use of the "female" endlinks. Proportionately, the watch looks only slightly longer than cushion case designs like Doxa.
> 
> Topper Fine Jewelers: Authorized Dealer of Timepieces, Bridal, and Precious Jewelry. 1315 Burlingame Ave, Burlingame CA 94010


Looks like you may have a winner! I forget blue or black?


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> Looks like you may have a winner! I forget blue or black?


I'm just a basic black kinda guy. ;-)


----------



## Ken G

iinsic said:


> I'm just a basic black kinda guy. ;-)


I thought you had your eye on the white...or did I imagine that?


----------



## iinsic

Ken G said:


> I thought you had your eye on the white...or did I imagine that?


Been there, done that....


----------



## Ken G

iinsic said:


> Been there, done that....


Yeah, but I thought you were going back to do it all over again...
;-)


----------



## BobTheBuilder

Been waiting a long time for the 39.5 PO to come out, but I think in the end, the mid-size SMPc is the best for my 6" wrist.

39.5mm PO:








36.25mm SMPc:








Both:
















The SMPc just wears lighter and feels better on my wrist. Sad, because the new movements are awesome.

Bob


----------



## Betterthere

BobTheBuilder said:


> Been waiting a long time for the 39.5 PO to come out, but I think in the end, the mid-size SMPc is the best for my 6" wrist.
> 
> 39.5mm PO:
> View attachment 9262562
> 
> 
> 36.25mm SMPc:
> View attachment 9262578
> 
> 
> Both:
> View attachment 9262594
> 
> 
> View attachment 9262602
> 
> 
> The SMPc just wears lighter and feels better on my wrist. Sad, because the new movements are awesome.
> 
> Bob


Actually the 39.5 looks pretty good on your wrist.


----------



## DocJekl

Betterthere said:


> BobTheBuilder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been waiting a long time for the 39.5 PO to come out, but I think in the end, the mid-size SMPc is the best for my 6" wrist.
> 
> 39.5mm PO:
> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9262562&d=1473101315"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]
> 
> 36.25mm SMPc:
> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9262578&d=1473101222"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]
> 
> Both:
> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9262594&d=1473101451"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]
> 
> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9262602&d=1473101451"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]
> 
> The SMPc just wears lighter and feels better on my wrist. Sad, because the new movements are awesome.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the 39.5 looks pretty good on your wrist.
Click to expand...

Enabler!


----------



## Ken G

I don't think those close-up pics are helping to show the watch at its best on your wrist. Also, I think it would look better if you wore it closer to your hand (if that's comfortable for you). Showing thin wrist and thin arm at either side of the watch often makes things look worse...

Just my opinion...


----------



## Betterthere

Ken G said:


> I don't think those close-up pics are helping to show the watch at its best on your wrist. Also, I think it would look better if you wore it closer to your hand (if that's comfortable for you). Showing thin wrist and thin arm at either side of the watch often makes things look worse...
> 
> Just my opinion...


Maybe move it to palm just past the thumb? Rofl

I know you didn't mean it that way but ... hey your wrist is thin and your arm is thin but maybe it's the camera! Sorry it's early and struck me funny.


----------



## iinsic

BobTheBuilder said:


> Been waiting a long time for the 39.5 PO to come out, but I think in the end, the mid-size SMPc is the best for my 6" wrist.
> 
> The SMPc just wears lighter and feels better on my wrist. Sad, because the new movements are awesome.
> 
> Bob


Notwithstanding the encouragement of others, you have accurately assessed the size watch that best fits your six-inch wrist. Congratulations! You have resisted the urge - witnessed many, many times on this forum - of one with a six-inch wrist sporting a 43-46mm dive watch, declaring that it "wears well."

Proportionality is the name of the game here, and the midsize SMP is perfect on your wrist. One would not wear trousers that were eight inches longer than one's leg. One would not wear a suit jacket that is four sizes larger than one's frame dictates. Certainly, one would not wear underwear that were too small. ;-) So it never ceases to amaze me that men who would not be caught dead wearing baggy clothes would wear watches that are too large on their wrists.

The 36.25mm midsize SMP will serve you well ... just as it has for many years on the wrist of William of Wales, future King of Great Britain.


----------



## BarracksSi

BobTheBuilder, you've reminded us why, as an easy example, Rolex sells so many different sizes of Oyster Perpetuals and Datejusts.

I'm right in between, with a 6.8"/175mm-ish wrist, where a 36.5 SMP doesn't look out of place and a 41mm doesn't noticeably overhang.

I'd like to try out this new, smaller PO.


----------



## Iowa_Watchman

iinsic said:


> Rob just posted his review of the 39.5mm PO on the Topper blog site. This review was based on the first watch they received in August, which was presold. I will be getting the next one, expected later this month (and to say I am VERY excited is supreme understatement). Especially fascinating is the much shorter OAL due to the use of the "female" endlinks. Proportionately, the watch looks only slightly longer than cushion case designs like Doxa.
> 
> Topper Fine Jewelers: Authorized Dealer of Timepieces, Bridal, and Precious Jewelry. 1315 Burlingame Ave, Burlingame CA 94010


Man, I must be really out of the loop (especially for someone who loves Omega). I had no idea cal. 8800 and 8900 were so different. I sure hope Omega starts using the 8800 for future Seamaster Pro releases to upgrade the movement, while keeping the thickness down.


----------



## om3ga_fan

Can't believe I didn't get a wrist shot but here's one I saw in the wild today.























































Pictured next to second generation 42mm.

Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## WeWannaLing

The midsize fits you well, but I don't like the skeleton hands of the SM. I'd eat more and just get the PO.


----------



## BobTheBuilder

Ha, thanks guys. I'm holding off on making a decision for now, but I'm already leaning towards the SMPc. I know the wrist shots look bigger than in person (plus my normal position of wear is right behind the wrist bone), but I've come to the conclusion that if I suspect a watch may be too big for me, it probably is. We shall see if time changes my mind. It's definitely hard to let go of the new technology and go with the older SMPc, especially since I love my Master AT, but as mentioned, individual fit is important.

Bob


----------



## GTTIME

I visited Rob the day the photo shoot for these pieces was being done, he was kind enough to bring a couple of them down for me to look at! Can't recommend him enough!


----------



## TSC

om3ga seamaster said:


> Can't believe I didn't get a wrist shot but here's one I saw in the wild today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured next to second generation 42mm.
> 
> Sent from a tiny keyboard


I think the 8500 holds up pretty well against the new one.... 
That isn't your 42 without the tag on is it, you're a 45?


----------



## sidrox25

I'm really digging the 39.5mm version. I went to the boutique the other day and apparently they didn't even know about it. I found that a bit funny.


----------



## om3ga_fan

TSC said:


> I think the 8500 holds up pretty well against the new one....
> That isn't your 42 without the tag on is it, you're a 45?


I agree; there are some nice enhancements on the new one but the 2nd gen is still looking sharp.

No, the 42mm wasn't me. I was wearing the AT. I'm traveling this week - the AT is my 'one watch' for the trip. But, yes, my only 2nd gen PO is the 45.5mm.

Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## avt80

om3ga seamaster said:


>


I still like the 2nd generation PO better. The new ones have too much shine to them. I love the matte grey bezel on the 2nd gen model. I also think the new endlinks look stubby and weak. The PO is a big bold watch and those new endlinks are not.


----------



## TSC

The new one doesn't look great in those pics no, but they look better in person, but I still say they are not every day watches for me. The 2500/8500 I wear every day, but that shiny dial makes them look too nice and dressy for an every day. As much as I love the gen 1 and 2, these do look really nice up close.

P.S. those new end links sit better on the wrist and make it more flush to the wrist when it's on. You have to try it to see what I mean


----------



## mazman01

2Nd gen still looks great in those comparison pics, like it hasn't aged. Still my preferred version.


----------



## BHL

Slightly different topic, but I don't get the affinity toward smaller watches.
I am not in the market for humongous watches, but don't see the appeal of smaller watches either.
Most men have large enough wrists to wear watches with diameter of 40-43mm in my opinion.
To OP, that PO does look nice and it is good size at just under 40mm.


----------



## pinmeuphere

Just came back from the boutique tried on the 39mm and 43mm, sorry no pics. I was very interested to see the 39 in person and it lived up to the expectation. On the wrist it sits very well. I really liked the thickness, or rather lack there of, of the watch. The thickness has been brought back to normal territory and the case doesn't look out of proportion, also the case back doesn't protrude as much so it sits more flush on the wrist. The proportions of the dial are quite nice with the new numerals, the gloss black gives a nice class to the watch, but as TSC says above it wouldn't be an every day watch for me. I could wear my 2500 planet ocean every day, but this is a bit too glossy for every day wear. That being said if I didn't already have a PO I think I would jump on the 39. The only thing i didn't like was the thickness of the bracelet, I wish it was a couple mm thinner, but you can't have it all i suppose. Overall it's a winner for me.


----------



## iinsic

BHL said:


> Slightly different topic, but I don't get the affinity toward smaller watches.
> I am not in the market for humongous watches, but don't see the appeal of smaller watches either.
> Most men have large enough wrists to wear watches with diameter of 40-43mm in my opinion.
> To OP, that PO does look nice and it is good size at just under 40mm.


The fashion right now with suits is for suits to be very tightly tailored (I blame Tom Ford for this execrable trend), with the bottom of the suit jacket barely longer than the wrist. Traditional suits are more full cut, with tailoring to subtly accentuate the normal mesomorphic physique (while ignoring the actual physique of the wearer), and the suit jacket typically extends down to the tops of the fingers. There are quite a few older men (I'm especially talking about you, Bill Maher) who have embraced the obviously youthful fashion ... and they look like circus clowns. The Tom Ford-esque skinny suit is for men younger than 40, who are more motivated by conformity than by what looks good. Obviously, if everyone else in their peer group is wearing a skin-tight suit with a skimpy jacket, then it must be a good-looking trend.

The same applies to watches. The optimal proportion for a wristwatch is a diameter of 39mm, based on the average size and height of men (as determined in studies by the watch industry a few years ago). But larger watches have become especially attractive from a fashion standpoint, especially for younger wearers. I think this is great, because I'd rather see a millennial wearing a 45mm wrist frisbee than walking around with a cell phone in his hand. Given a choice, I'd prefer everyone wears watches, so whatever size is desirable is fine with me. That said, I went through the large watch phase, and eventually came to the realization that a 45mm watch looked as stupid on my wrist as a Tom Ford-esque skinny suit would look on my sexagenarian frame. I wear a 36mm Oyster Perpetual almost exclusively now, but am hopeful that the new 39.5mm PO will assume the lion's share of my wrist time. Regardless, that 36mm OP does not look - in any way, shape or form - to be too small on my 7¾" wrist. It looks very well sized in almost every circumstance, just as a figure-flattering well-tailored traditional suit would look on my body. Wearing a 45mm watch and a skinny suit would make me look like ... well, like Shane Warne.



pinmeuphere said:


> The only thing i didn't like was the thickness of the bracelet, I wish it was a couple mm thinner


I agree wholeheartedly. Rolex uses the same thickness bracelet on its Deep Sea as it uses on the Oyster Perpetual. And that is thinner than the bracelet Omega uses on the Aqua Terra. And that, in turn, is quite a bit thinner than the bracelet on the PO. I long ago came to the conclusion that Omega has adopted the thicker bracelet as its stylistic counterpoint to Rolex Oyster bracelets, and I have made my peace with that. Yes, I would like the new PO even more if the bracelet was the same thickness as the AT bracelet (just with the ratcheting adjustable clasp). But one thing you learn at my age is that all of life is a compromise. I've been *****ing for years that Omega has abandoned those of us (and we're not by any means a small cohort) who prefer smaller watches. And now they have answered my plea with a reasonably sized 39.5mm Planet Ocean. So I will accept the thicker bracelet, and might even learn to love it as proportionally appropriate for the watch. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## Ken G

iinsic said:


> the suit jacket typically extends down to the tops of the fingers. .




Now _that's_ the look of a circus clown! Or a 40s gangster, or an 80s TV host...

Even if one were having a "traditional" suit made, I very much doubt a good (=traditional) tailor would advise that kind of sleeve length.

I agree the recent sleeve length trend has been taken too far (no pun intended!), but a quarter inch of shirt cuff showing (when standing) is generally considered the classic, "traditional" cut.

Having said that, we're talking style here and it's therefore totally personal. If people want their suit sleeves halfway up their arms, or down to their knuckles, that's their choice. There really are no right or wrong answers...

Just like watches, then...


----------



## iinsic

Ken G said:


> Now _that's_ the look of a circus clown! Or a 40s gangster, or an 80s TV host...
> 
> Even if one were having a "traditional" suit made, I very much doubt a good (=traditional) tailor would advise that kind of sleeve length.
> 
> I agree the recent sleeve length trend has been taken too far (no pun intended!), but a quarter inch of shirt cuff showing (when standing) is generally considered the classic, "traditional" cut.
> 
> Having said that, we're talking style here and it's therefore totally personal. If people want their suit sleeves halfway up their arms, or down to their knuckles, that's their choice. There really are no right or wrong answers...
> 
> Just like watches, then...


Apparently, you do not know the difference between jacket length and sleeve length. I was not talking about _sleeve_ length at all. Never mentioned it. I was referring to the jacket length. You quoted me accurately. You just didn't comprehend what I was saying.


----------



## Ken G

And as for Tom Ford et al, these designers have just copied the Italian style of the early 60s - which itself was quickly and more famously adopted by the London _modernists_ - and reinterpreted it for a new generation 55 years later...


----------



## Ken G

iinsic said:


> Apparently, you do not know the difference between jacket length and sleeve length. I was not talking about _sleeve_ length at all. Never mentioned it. I was referring to the jacket length. You quoted me accurately. You just didn't comprehend what I was saying.


My mistake. And what a relief! I had a very disturbing image of you walking around with your sleeves down to your fingernails!


----------



## iinsic

Ken G said:


> And as for Tom Ford et al, these designers have just copied the Italian style of the early 60s - which itself was quickly and more famously adopted by the London _modernists_ - and reinterpreted it for a new generation 55 years later...


Indeed. I actually had such a skinny suit in the late-60s ... sharkskin blue. And it looked pretty good on me at that age. Now I'd look like a sausage. :-d

Fashion is indeed rotary. Wide ties give way to medium ties which give way to skinny ties which give way to wide ties. Pleated trousers with a generous cut give way to plainfront trousers with a tight cut. Brightly colored shirts give way to white shirts which give way to brightly colored shirts. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I am so grateful that now I live where the fashion is t-shirt, shorts and flip-flops for pretty much everything. If it gets chilly, you add a fleece hoodie to that. When I'm feeling formal, I throw on a pair of jeans and pair it with an Hawaiian shirt. I might even wear shoes. The next suit I wear will be in a casket. ;-)


----------



## Betterthere

Ken G said:


> My mistake. And what a relief! I had a very disturbing image of you walking around with your sleeves down to your fingernails!


As I remember the definition of suit jacket arm/sleeve length (yes I wore a corporate suit, white shirt, tie and wingtips for decades), you should be able to reach your fingers up towards wrist and be able to just touch the jacket sleeve. Then in normal wear it will give and take properly. 
And the color could be navy blue, blue or gray pinstripe.
The current tight fit to an old man looks silly at best. Yes it was I that made the comment on the Daniel Craig/James Bond outfits. 
Like extremely large watches just because it's fashion doesn't make it right or attractive. 
Don't get me started on the fashion of not shaving. 

And yes iinsic definition of jacket length was correct.


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> ...
> The next suit I wear will be in a casket. ;-)


I wear a suit to funerals (of which there are many) to show respect but my instructions are to be buried in my current favorite outfit. Which currently would be jeans / polo shirt.

Maybe a G Shock?


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> I wear a suit to funerals (of which there are many) to show respect but my instructions are to be buried in my current favorite outfit. Which currently would be jeans / polo shirt.
> 
> Maybe a G Shock?


In truth, I was being whimsical. My wife loathes the southern tradition of "viewings" as ghoulish, so I expect I'll be going to the oven straightaway, without an unnecessarily extensive wardrobe. Then my remains will be cast into a cement artificial reef and made a part of the aquatic habitat. Perhaps I'll have her include one of my dive watches, so I'll be able to "time" my immersion. ;-)


----------



## Ken G

iinsic said:


> Indeed. I actually had such a skinny suit in the late-60s ... sharkskin blue. And it looked pretty good on me at that age. Now I'd look like a sausage. :-d-)


What is it the youngsters say in these social media-obsessed times? "Pictures or it didn't happen!" 

Seriously, I'd love to see some pics of people in the fashions of the 60s...

50s and 70s are welcome too, but no 80s, please!


----------



## Ken G

••• OFF TOPIC •••



Betterthere said:


> And the color could be navy blue, blue or gray pinstripe.


While I agree these are among the traditional choices in the formal corporate world, I think it's nice to break the rules* occasionally (if your company culture/circumstances allow it).

One of life's great pleasures is to spend an afternoon on the tailor's sofa flicking through cloth sample books and picking out something a little bit different. Over the years I've worn (and in some cases, still wear) chocolate brown, moss green, black & white puppy tooth, brown/beige houndstooth etc. And even though I don't have to wear a suit these days, I sometimes choose to; I like the look and feel of them.

* There are certain "rules" which must be followed, but others are more flexible, I think.
To be honest, I don't really like the word "rules" when it comes to tailoring, I prefer "guidelines"...


----------



## iinsic

Ken G said:


> What is it the youngsters say in these social media-obsessed times? "Pictures or it didn't happen!"


Sorry, but cameras hadn't been invited back then. I think there might be a charcoal sketch or two around somewhere.... ;-)

EDIT: Actually, this photo (of someone else) is pretty darn close (to the suit, that is):


----------



## Ken G

^^^^
Very nice-looking color and material I'm sure you looked super-sharp.

But I'd say _that_ guy's jacket sleeves are a little too short and the shirt sleeves way too short...and wear a belt! And do something about that tie - it looks like it's too wide for those lapels...

Anyway, about those charcoal sketches we're waiting on...


----------



## Betterthere

Ken G said:


> ••• OFF TOPIC •••
> 
> While I agree these are among the traditional choices in the formal corporate world, I think it's nice to break the rules* occasionally (if your company culture/circumstances allow it).
> 
> One of life's great pleasures is to spend an afternoon on the tailor's sofa flicking through cloth sample books and picking out something a little bit different. Over the years I've worn (and in some cases, still wear) chocolate brown, moss green, black & white puppy tooth, brown/beige houndstooth etc. And even though I don't have to wear a suit these days, I sometimes choose to; I like the look and feel of them.
> 
> * There are certain "rules" which must be followed, but others are more flexible, I think.
> To be honest, I don't really like the word "rules" when it comes to tailoring, I prefer "guidelines"...


No I really meant that was all we were allowed to wear period . There was no individual choice.

Guidelines came much later.


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> No I really meant that was all we were allowed to wear period . There was no individual choice.
> 
> Guidelines came much later.


Sounds like IBM in the 60s and 70s. In the cold weather, the CEs would wear what they called a "breakaway suit:" They wore appropriate trousers, white shirt and tie, with their outer coat over it. There was no suit jacket. Everyone else wore dark suits, white shirts and ties. Interestingly, there was never a written dress code at IBM, but everyone seemed to get the "memo." ;-)


----------



## Ken G

A few days after I started at IBM (mid-90s; Europe), a "casual dress code" was introduced. A lot of the old timers just couldn't bring themselves to dress down! I hadn't discovered the joys of suits at that time and wasn't too happy that I'd just bought a couple in preparation for the new job that were not needed! Had to borrow money to get them as I recall...


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> Sounds like IBM in the 60s and 70s. In the cold weather, the CEs would wear what they called a "breakaway suit:" They wore appropriate trousers, white shirt and tie, with their outer coat over it. There was no suit jacket. Everyone else wore dark suits, white shirts and ties. Interestingly, there was never a written dress code at IBM, but everyone seemed to get the "memo." ;-)


You are correct sir. May not have been written but was pretty clear. Another reason I resisted Rolex for so long.

@Ken g - nice to meet another IBM er. Did you stay or... would be funny if I encountered you when travelling over there.

Guess enough off topic. Just waiting on iinsic 39.5 to come in.


----------



## iinsic

Ken G said:


> A few days after I started at IBM (mid-90s; Europe)


Interesting. My older son worked for IBM in the 90s, too. He left after several years because they wanted to promote him, but send him to Ireland (he was in RTP at the time). The "Dilbert" culture that pervaded the company - at least in the States - likely was the real reason he bailed.


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> Interesting. My older son worked for IBM in the 90s, too. He left after several years because they wanted to promote him, but send him to Ireland (he was in RTP at the time). The "Dilbert" culture that pervaded the company - at least in the States - likely was the real reason he bailed.


wouldnt have wanted to join in the 90s... i turned down promotions that would have taken me to NY so understand.

back on topic: How much longer before we see this 39.5?


----------



## Baz44

Yeah I never got on with casual Friday in the City when it came in (actually thought it was a wind up). Tried it got so tied up in working out what to wear every Friday morning I just went back to suits. Wearing suits I would just grab a shirt, suit and tie combo every morning and it always worked job done in seconds - cannot beat a good suit sets the right tone for business. Paired with the right watch , belt, shoes (matching naturally) and hanky and you just feel the part 

Now passing this on to my son along with my love for watches.

Cheers 


The name is Bond, Basildon Bond I have letters after my name


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> How much longer before we see this 39.5?


Not soon enough is all I can say! o|


----------



## Ken G

Just before getting back to those 39.5mm POs...

To answer some of the questions above re. IBM, I only stayed for about 2 years before moving on to something completely different. Nothing to with the corporate culture, working conditions, or direction the company was heading, I just had to try something (so that I wouldn't ever regret _not_ trying it!). I actually look back very fondly at my time there: I was even looking at screen grabs of "PROFS" on the web recently and the memories came flooding back! It was my first real job and am very grateful for the doors it opened for me...


----------



## Betterthere

Finally got to see 39.5 in flesh... Imo too small ...proportion for me not right


----------



## TigerDore

The blue PO looks to be the same size as your Rolex. Is the black PO the 42mm size?



Betterthere said:


> Finally got to see 39.5 in flesh... Imo too small ...proportion for me not right
> View attachment 9337058
> 
> View attachment 9337082


----------



## Betterthere

TigerDore said:


> The blue PO looks to be the same size as your Rolex. Is the black PO the 42mm size?


Sorry in rush.. the black is 43.5 .. 39.5 looks smaller than SubC in person. Slightly taller of course.


----------



## Baz44

On a business trip this week so passing through the airport I tried the new PO 39.5. Actually side by side with my PO TI 42mm there was not a huge difference in size but of course there was on weight. But as I expected the difference for me did not make an upgrade worth while I will stick with what I have for now.

However as these become mainstream and the default PO I can they will bring on a new generation of PO lovers. If I was starting to collect now I would probably go for one. They did seem a little thinner as well in a side by size comparison.

Cheers 


The name is Bond, Basildon Bond I have letters after my name


----------



## TigerDore

Thanks, Betterthere. Photos can distort sizes for sure, especially close up. BTW, the 43.5 looks really good on your wrist. Thanks for doing this.

BTW, what is your wrist size?



Betterthere said:


> Sorry in rush.. the black is 43.5 .. 39.5 looks smaller than SubC in person. Slightly taller of course.


----------



## TigerDore

I like the bezel/dial ratio on the 39.5 better in photos. I am anxious to try the 42/39.5/43.5 on side-by-side before the 42s are gone. I need to make that happen soon.



Baz44 said:


> On a business trip this week so passing through the airport I tried the new PO 39.5. Actually side by side with my PO TI 42mm there was not a huge difference in size but of course there was on weight. But as I expected the difference for me did not make an upgrade worth while I will stick with what I have for now.
> 
> However as these become mainstream and the default PO I can they will bring on a new generation of PO lovers. If I was starting to collect now I would probably go for one. They did seem a little thinner as well in a side by size comparison.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> The name is Bond, Basildon Bond I have letters after my name


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> Finally got to see 39.5 in flesh... Imo too small ...proportion for me not right


For me, you were the ideal candidate to post these photos, since you have a SubND for perspective. Based on your photos, it does appear the 39.5mm PO is smaller than your Sub ... which is exactly what I want. Even more important, it appears the dial of the PO is almost the same size as your Sub's dial. I've been wearing a 36mm OP, which has essentially the same size dial as the Sub (the Exp hands I had installed are also used on the earlier model Subs and Sea Dwellers). I did not want a much bigger case (which another Sub would provide me), but I did want a similarly sized dial (because I understand the critical crystal/case ratio when it comes to perceived size). Your photos have only amped up my impatience to finally get this new acquisition.

Thanks so much for checking these out and posting photos. Where did you see them, BTW? AD or OB?

P.S. - I am very, very thankful I stuck with black and did not opt for blue, based on your photos. It will be worth the wait.

P.P.S. - When trying to photograph two different size watches on your wrist at the same time, the larger watch should be the one higher on your arm. By putting the 43.5 lower, you made it look bigger than it was, and conversely made the 39.5 appear smaller.


----------



## Betterthere

.


----------



## Betterthere

TigerDore said:


> Thanks, Betterthere. Photos can distort sizes for sure, especially close up. BTW, the 43.5 looks really good on your wrist. Thanks for doing this.
> 
> BTW, what is your wrist size?


7.25 inches


----------



## Betterthere

Baz44 said:


> On a business trip this week so passing through the airport I tried the new PO 39.5. Actually side by side with my PO TI 42mm there was not a huge difference in size but of course there was on weight. But as I expected the difference for me did not make an upgrade worth while I will stick with what I have for now.
> 
> However as these become mainstream and the default PO I can they will bring on a new generation of PO lovers. If I was starting to collect now I would probably go for one. They did seem a little thinner as well in a side by size comparison.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> The name is Bond, Basildon Bond I have letters after my name


Yes slightly thinner.. old POs discounted pretty well.


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> For me, you were the ideal candidate to post these photos, since you have a SubND for perspective. Based on your photos, it does appear the 39.5mm PO is smaller than your Sub ... which is exactly what I want. Even more important, it appears the dial of the PO is almost the same size as your Sub's dial. I've been wearing a 36mm OP, which has essentially the same size dial as the Sub (the Exp hands I had installed are also used on the earlier model Subs and Sea Dwellers). I did not want a much bigger case (which another Sub would provide me), but I did want a similarly sized dial (because I understand the critical crystal/case ratio when it comes to perceived size). Your photos have only amped up my impatience to finally get this new acquisition.
> 
> Thanks so much for checking these out and posting photos. Where did you see them, BTW? AD or OB?
> 
> P.S. - I am very, very thankful I stuck with black and did not opt for blue, based on your photos. It will be worth the wait.
> 
> P.P.S. - When trying to photograph two different size watches on your wrist at the same time, the larger watch should be the one higher on your arm. By putting the 43.5 lower, you made it look bigger than it was, and conversely made the 39.5 appear smaller.


Yes on pps was rushing actually. Use the 2nd picture in that regard. 
I was thinking of you when I checked it out. I was at an AD in Durham nc and the salesman said omega didn't make one but lo and behold there it was.

For me I think too small but probably is what you are after. Yes the dial is very close to same size as the subc. The bracelet is as solid as all other POs and that contributes to illusion on size. Subc bracelet thinner smaller.
Also think you made right decision on black. The 43.5 in black looks very expensive/ high quality.
Had my wife check them out and no encouragement but she said black looked much better.

Glad that you are still excited. Also the thinner case was a definite plus.


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> Yes on pps was rushing actually. Use the 2nd picture in that regard.
> I was thinking of you when I checked it out. I was at an AD in Durham nc and the salesman said omega didn't make one but lo and behold there it was.
> 
> For me I think too small but probably is what you are after. Yes the dial is very close to same size as the subc. The bracelet is as solid as all other POs and that contributes to illusion on size. Subc bracelet thinner smaller.
> Also think you made right decision on black. The 43.5 in black looks very expensive/ high quality.
> Had my wife check them out and no encouragement but she said black looked much better.
> 
> Glad that you are still excited. Also the thinner case was a definite plus.


I really like my OP and would like to keep it in the rotation with a dive watch. I am hoping that the PO will not be so much bigger that I grow tired of the difference between the two. When I had my last Sub, it was so much bigger than my 36mm Rolexes that I tended to wear one or the other, rarely switching (and, in fact, the smaller Rolexes won that battle).

However, if I find the PO not quite large enough, I likely will step up to another 116610LN, selling both the PO and the OP. A jump from the PO to the Sub should not be as jarring as a jump from the OP to the Sub. Time will tell.... :think:


----------



## GTTIME

I wear a suit Monday through Friday. Last year I updated all my suits and moved from pleats and cuffs to flat front and no cuff. My taylor laughed when I told him I wanted pleats.

I've gotten quite comfortable in lower cut and flat front. I'm shocked, as I couldn't stand the look before. 

I like my coat sleeves a little longer as I sit with the coat on for certain meetings, just half an inch max, but have also gone shorter on the overall cost length, again I like that look a lot it feels like a cape if it's too long.


----------



## Pferdeleder

It's about time I contribute to this thread... tried this on tonight at Omega AD in Melbourne, Australia. Retails for ~AUD8,400 :-|

Wrist size - a wimpy 6.5" (winter), 6.7" (summer or after too many beers)

30 secs impression - awesome. A great fit for me. Wears smaller than Speedy Pro / FOIS. Thickness is acceptable.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Betterthere

Pferdeleder said:


> It's about time I contribute to this thread... tried this on tonight at Omega AD in Melbourne, Australia. Retails for ~AUD8,400 :-|
> 
> Wrist size - a wimpy 6.5" (winter), 6.7" (summer or after too many beers)
> 
> 30 secs impression - awesome. A great fit for me. Wears smaller than Speedy Pro / FOIS. Thickness is acceptable.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> View attachment 9363474
> View attachment 9363466


Nice... Have you tried more beers?


----------



## m0c021

I was so excited until I saw it in person. It is quite thick still and the thickness to diameter proportions just look completely off to me.


----------



## Ricky T

iinsic said:


> Apparently, you do not know the difference between jacket length and sleeve length. I was not talking about _sleeve_ length at all. Never mentioned it. I was referring to the jacket length. You quoted me accurately. You just didn't comprehend what I was saying.


We must be close in age because I knew exactly what you meant. I really dislike today's Tom Ford inspired suits. I wear old timers suits and 38.5 or 40mm watches


----------



## iinsic

Ricky T said:


> I wear old timers suits


I prefer the term "appropriately tailored suits." ;-)


----------



## Ricky T

iinsic said:


> I prefer the term "appropriately tailored suits." ;-)


Or "age appropriate" style. 

I did own a 42mm PO for about a year before deciding that 42mm is a bit much for my wrist and quite heavy. So I went back to my GMT and picked up the Aqua Terra for everyday wear.


----------



## Betterthere

m0c021 said:


> I was so excited until I saw it in person. It is quite thick still and the thickness to diameter proportions just look completely off to me.


That's what I saw too I didn't describe it well.. maybe not completely off...


----------



## iinsic

m0c021 said:


> I was so excited until I saw it in person. It is quite thick still and the thickness to diameter proportions just look completely off to me.


I once had a 3551.20 Broad Arrow, 39mm in diameter and about 14mm in height. I loved that watch, and miss it a lot. I really don't see the proportions of a 39.5mm x 14.2mm PO to be a problem.


----------



## Betterthere

It's not a problem but in my post after seeing it on person it just seemed slightly out of kilter... wear it a day and probably is fine. Still think the bracelet being umm thick adds some to that . And it is a great bracelet..

Don't you "hate" the arm chair generals commenting while you wait for yours? 

Only have 2 more I'm waiting to see in real life... Tudor bb dark and new explorer

Here's what I am wearing on way to montana which is proof specs never tell a complete story..figured I would have flipped by now


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> Don't you "hate" the arm chair generals commenting while you wait for yours?


----------



## m0c021

iinsic said:


> I once had a 3551.20 Broad Arrow, 39mm in diameter and about 14mm in height. I loved that watch, and miss it a lot. I really don't see the proportions of a 39.5mm x 14.2mm PO to be a problem.
> 
> View attachment 9368602
> View attachment 9368610


Sometimes it's more than just the mere numbers. A 39x14 on one watch model isn't the same as 39x14 on another model. Lug to lug, lug shape, case shape, bezel, along with many other factors can affect the visuals of a watch. My Omega AT is 41.5x13.2 (If my memory is correct) and that looks a lot thinner even though it is only 1 mm off in thickness.


----------



## iinsic

m0c021 said:


> Lug to lug, lug shape, case shape, bezel


There is virtually no difference between all models of Omega with the characteristic twist-lug case. That is their distinctive look, just as Rolex has theirs with the Oyster case. Watches in the 38-40mm range will be almost indistinguishable at a glance. Where the difference becomes noticeable is in the crystal/case ratio. If the watch has a narrow bezel and a large crystal (e.g.-Aqua Terra), the apparent case size is enhanced (which is why Omega intended the 38.5mm AT to be paired with the 42mm PO). However, a Speedy bezel and box-bubble crystal offers almost the same "coverage" as the PO ET bezel, so - given identical cases (and the twist-lug cases essentially are) - the 39.5mm PO should appear pretty close in apparent size to my old 39mm BA (the PO has a crown guard, whilst the BA does not). Obviously, there is only one significant difference between the bracelet on the PO and the BA: The presence of tiny polished sub-links on the BA. Otherwise, both have very thick links and clasp.


----------



## m0c021

iinsic said:


> There is virtually no difference between all models of Omega with the characteristic twist-lug case. That is their distinctive look, just as Rolex has theirs with the Oyster case. Watches in the 38-40mm range will be almost indistinguishable at a glance. Where the difference becomes noticeable is in the crystal/case ratio. If the watch has a narrow bezel and a large crystal (e.g.-Aqua Terra), the apparent case size is enhanced (which is why Omega intended the 38.5mm AT to be paired with the 42mm PO). However, a Speedy bezel and box-bubble crystal offers almost the same "coverage" as the PO ET bezel, so - given identical cases (and the twist-lug cases essentially are) - the 39.5mm PO should appear pretty close in apparent size to my old 39mm BA (the PO has a crown guard, whilst the BA does not). Obviously, there is only one significant difference between the bracelet on the PO and the BA: The presence of tiny polished sub-links on the BA. Otherwise, both have very thick links and clasp.


So you're ruling out lug shape and case shape. Still looks different and proportions still look off in person IMO. Looks great in pictures though. However, I will not be buying one after seeing it in person.


----------



## iinsic

m0c021 said:


> So you're ruling out lug shape and case shape.





iinsic said:


> There is virtually no difference between all models of Omega with the characteristic twist-lug case.


.


----------



## Betterthere

The lugs on new PO seem to curve down uh quicker but that could be an illusion due to the bracelet end links?


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> The lugs on new PO seem to curve down uh quicker but that could be an illusion due to the bracelet end links?


In this photo that Rob took for his blog, you can see the lugs on the 39.5mm PO (left) are a bit shorter than the lugs on the old 42mm PO (right), probably because it does not have to accommodate that long, honking endlink. But the lugs don't look like they turn down more. In fact, they appear slightly straighter, since the "female" endlink allows a better drape for the bracelet. And, of course, it doesn't have that pork belly of a caseback underneath.


----------



## HobsonJJ

I recently tried on the PO 42.5mm 8500... I think it fitted well but would love everyone opinion? I am waiting on the jewellers getting in the 39.5 for me to try on. The PO will be my first expensive watch purchase so I want to make sure it's right! My wrist is just under 7inch. I currently have a rotary that is a 40mm case. Pics below.  I agree with some of the comments on here rewarding the number sizes etc on the 39.5 but my main concern with the 42.5 is the thickness of it.


----------



## om3ga_fan

HobsonJJ said:


> I recently tried on the PO 42.5mm 8500... I think it fitted well but would love everyone opinion? I am waiting on the jewellers getting in the 39.5 for me to try on. The PO will be my first expensive watch purchase so I want to make sure it's right! My wrist is just under 7inch. I currently have a rotary that is a 40mm case. Pics below.  I agree with some of the comments on here rewarding the number sizes etc on the 39.5 but my main concern with the 42.5 is the thickness of it.


Looks good! But, from that angle they usually do. Thickness is typically the sticking point. Here's a couple of shots of the 42 and 39.5...














































Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## HobsonJJ

I still prefer the look of the 42, the bezel colour seems nicer and although from the side it's clearly thicker I think from a top view the 39.5 seems to look more bulky... Or is that just me? I'm new to watches so not as experienced as some of the peeps on here. But reading the comments a lot of people seem to say the 42 was too thick? How do people get on wearing with a suit etc. Unfortunately as someone mentioned earlier, I'm of the Tom ford style suit era.


----------



## om3ga_fan

I've tried everything with suits but mostly rotate between the AT and 300 MC, and 2500 PO. THE 8500 works better (for me) with casual attire. 


Sent from a tiny keyboard


----------



## iinsic

Well, the watch came in at Toppers yesterday. There are two problems: The bezel pip might be slightly misaligned with the 12 (he's having others look at it); and the clasp on the 39.5 is not the same clasp as on the 43.5. In fact, as you can see from the photo below, it really is Omega's equivalent of the Easylink ... it only expands slightly, to accommodate some wrist swelling (one can't help but wonder why they didn't use this clasp on the Globemaster, instead of that stupid butterfly with no half-links). It is not in any way, shape or form a dive clasp, which means that Omega is assuming that the "ladies" (or men who dress with "ladies" watches) would never want or need to go diving with this watch.









There is a resolution, however: It appears that the 43.5 clasp is interchangeable with the 39.5 clasp, and the 43.5 clasp is a clasp meant for use underwater.









My only concern is that I am starting out with modifications to make this watch acceptable. That does not bode well for my long-term satisfaction with it. That said, if this watch does not work out for me, my continued presence on WUSOF will be because I like the people here, not because I own any Omegas. I hope that will be enough. :think:


----------



## Betterthere

Hope the pip is ok. Clasp could have been killer if no soln. Hope rob caught it or your attention to detail.

You know the definition of a pioneer.


----------



## raulfragoso

I have been on the fence to buy a PO 8500 42mm for a while, but after seeing the pictures on this thread, and having a wrist that is just under 7", I guess I will have to wait and try the new 39.5mm size as well.


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> Hope the pip is ok. Clasp could have been killer if no soln. Hope rob caught it or your attention to detail.
> 
> You know the definition of a pioneer.


They're doing three checks for me: Pip aligned properly; the minutes hand and hours hand overlay precisely at 12:00; and the watch is pressure-tested by a watchmaker. They're also installing the 43.5 clasp. If all goes well, it could ship to me by Monday. Fingers crossed. Here it is on Rob's 7" wrist (he took this to show that there are plenty of links for my wrist):


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> They're doing three checks for me: Pip aligned properly; the minutes hand and hours hand overlay precisely at 12:00; and the watch is pressure-tested by a watchmaker. They're also installing the 43.5 clasp. If all goes well, it could ship to me by Monday. Fingers crossed. Here it is on Rob's 7" wrist (he took this to show that there are plenty of links for my wrist):


that bracelet is just a killer!


----------



## Teongpeng

Here is the 39.5mm on my 5.5inch wrist


----------



## TSC

iinsic said:


> They're doing three checks for me: Pip aligned properly; the minutes hand and hours hand overlay precisely at 12:00; and the watch is pressure-tested by a watchmaker. They're also installing the 43.5 clasp. If all goes well, it could ship to me by Monday. Fingers crossed. Here it is on Rob's 7" wrist (he took this to show that there are plenty of links for my wrist):
> 
> View attachment 9421682


Come on already, I could walk there quicker!
from here


----------



## BarracksSi

I didn't realize how long the end links were on the 43.5 until I saw the comparison pics. The ones on the 39.5 make a lot more sense.


----------



## iinsic

BarracksSi said:


> I didn't realize how long the end links were on the 43.5 until I saw the comparison pics. The ones on the 39.5 make a lot more sense.


Actually, the 39.5 and 43.5 both have the same style "female" endlinks, which shorten the effective OAL of the case and bracelet. Even the new 45.5 chronos have those endlinks. It is the Gen2 PO which has the long "male" endlink.


----------



## TSC

So a completely different design clasp adjustment between the 39 and the 43? That's bonkers!


----------



## iinsic

TSC said:


> So a completely different design clasp adjustment between the 39 and the 43? That's bonkers!


I agree. I can see why women might want a smaller clasp than the men, but Omega should have been upfront about that, and offered both clasps. Duh! :roll:


----------



## cadomniel

looks great. Have been waiting a long time for a slightly smaller PO...Had the 42mm one twice but just a bit too big ,and could not wear it on the bracelet at all.
This looks perfect

Its on my wish list now... even though I already have a NO DATE Sub that is not going anywhere , I have always loved the PO as well


----------



## TSC

iinsic said:


> I agree. I can see why women might want a smaller clasp than the men, but Omega should have been upfront about that, and offered both clasps. Duh! :roll:


I don't think most women care, they should just leave it alone and try to get some uniform into their collections.
The fact you can go on their site now and view 1309 watches is beyond ridiculous. Far too many variants and far too much choice

EDIT: and by the way... 103 of them are Planet Oceans, yes that's right, ONE HUNDRED AND THREE!! of that 'exclusive' collection are POs.


----------



## pcypret

The omega website is frustrating. I could forgive the hundreds of options if they had a better way of 1) filtering to what I'm interested in (evidently the and/or logic works weird so filtering to more than one criteria yield unexpected returns) and 2) provide the basic information watch enthusiasts will seek. Sinn, Christopher Ward and a dozen other smaller brands can tell me what the lug to lug length is.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## TSC

It makes no sense. And no it's not particularly well laid out either. If you click on their collections' list of PO, it only contains the current new releases, but if you search through the whole 1300+ you'll find the 8500, which are still in production, or so they claim. I'd imagine it's just the stock that's already been produced. It doesn't warrant over 100 PO variations though, surely?


----------



## Iowa_Watchman

Since they're the same lug width (20mm, correct?) and virtually the same thickness, any guesses on whether this bracelet will fit the 2201? I sure would love to be able to have the new clasp on my 2201 and so far it seems that none of the newer screw-style bracelets fit it.


----------



## iinsic

Iowa_Watchman said:


> Since they're the same lug width (20mm, correct?) and virtually the same thickness, any guesses on whether this bracelet will fit the 2201? I sure would love to be able to have the new clasp on my 2201 and so far it seems that none of the newer screw-style bracelets fit it.


My understanding is that the 43.5 is 21mm wide and the 39.5 is 19mm wide, both tapering to 18mm at the clasp. It is in keeping with Omega's recent policy of making odd-width lugs to discourage the use of aftermarket straps. After all, they make decent money on the watches, but they make out like bandits on the straps (especially the natos).


----------



## Iowa_Watchman

iinsic said:


> My understanding is that the 43.5 is 21mm wide and the 39.5 is 19mm wide, both tapering to 18mm at the clasp. It is in keeping with Omega's recent policy of making odd-width lugs to discourage the use of aftermarket straps. After all, they make decent money on the watches, but they make out like bandits on the straps (especially the natos).


Rats...


----------



## iinsic

Fingers crossed ... the watch should ship today, and I'll have it tomorrow morning.


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> Fingers crossed ... the watch should ship today, and I'll have it tomorrow morning.


good luck... nice to have something to look forward to......


----------



## iinsic

iinsic said:


> Fingers crossed ... the watch should ship today, and I'll have it tomorrow morning.


It's on its way!


----------



## iinsic

Well, it's here! A Q&D (many more to follow in a separate post):









Quick observations: 1) It is exactly the size I was looking for (the OAL is several mm shorter than the effective OAL of the 38.5mm AT because of the "female" endlinks, but it has an obviously bigger footprint on the wrist than the 38.5 AT); 2) At around 185g, it is a bit heavier than anything I've worn regularly, but I have adapted quickly (as I did earlier for my Doxa 1200T MkII); 3) There are no half-links for either the 43.5 _or_ the 39.5, but the half-links for the 42mm Gen2 PO fit perfectly (however, the outside of the half-links will need to be brushed to match the bracelet); and 4) The adjustable clasp on this watch might be preferable to the 99.8% of PO wearers who do not dive, because it quickly adds 4mm of length to the bracelet when the heat/humidity makes the watch feel a tad tight (essentially Omega's version of Rolex's 5mm Easylink, but I actually like it better). Regardless, the 43.5mm clasp, which is a true diving clasp, is a bolt-on for this bracelet ... and I'll have one in about three weeks (it had to be ordered separately once we realized the 39.5 did not have a true dive clasp).

First day impression: A definite win! (I know better than to _ever_ describe any watch of mine as a "keeper" :roll


----------



## TSC

Congrats mate. Enjoy. Not like we've waited that long huh.


----------



## mdgrwl

iinsic said:


> Well, it's here! A Q&D (many more to follow in a separate post):
> 
> View attachment 9483818
> 
> 
> Quick observations: 1) It is exactly the size I was looking for (the OAL is several mm shorter than the effective OAL of the 38.5mm AT because of the "female" endlinks, but it has an obviously bigger footprint on the wrist than the 38.5 AT); 2) At around 185g, it is a bit heavier than anything I've worn regularly, but I have adapted quickly (as I did earlier for my Doxa 1200T MkII); 3) There are no half-links for either the 43.5 _or_ the 39.5, but the half-links for the 42mm Gen2 PO fit perfectly (however, the outside of the half-links will need to be brushed to match the bracelet); and 4) The adjustable clasp on this watch might be preferable to the 99.8% of PO wearers who do not dive, because it quickly adds 4mm of length to the bracelet when the heat/humidity makes the watch feel a tad tight (essentially Omega's version of Rolex's 5mm Easylink, but I actually like it better). Regardless, the 43.5mm clasp, which is a true diving clasp, is a bolt-on for this bracelet ... and I'll have one in about three weeks (it had to be ordered separately once we realized the 39.5 did not have a true dive clasp).
> 
> First day impression: A definite win! (I know better than to _ever_ describe any watch of mine as a "keeper" :roll


Congratz


----------



## Betterthere

Congrats!


----------



## cadomniel

Looks great! I am really starting to like the blue version now...
I have added this new smaller PO to my wishlist..the question now is which one to go for: blue or black

I am also hoping prices will level out to be more on par with the 42mm versions.


----------



## gzpermadi

Congratulation, looks good on your wrist.
Are you sure it is 185g? I thought it would be lighter with the smaller size.


----------



## Betterthere

cadomniel said:


> Looks great! I am really starting to like the blue version now...
> I have added this new smaller PO to my wishlist..the question now is which one to go for: blue or black
> 
> I am also hoping prices will level out to be more on par with the 42mm versions.


I think MSRP is $6500? so not that different.


----------



## iinsic

gzpermadi said:


> Are you sure it is 185g? I thought it would be lighter with the smaller size.


With one link removed (to fit my wrist), it weighs 184.1g on a calibrated jeweler's scale. Once the larger clasp from the 43.5 is installed, it will weigh more ... although if a link has to be removed to compensate, it could still net out to around 185g.

Sorry, but Omega makes heavy watches. A 38.5mm AT weighs about 150g, and it doesn't have the thick case a 600m WR rating requires, or the thicker, heavier bracelet and clasp. My guess is that the 43.5mm PO easily will top 200g.


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> I think MSRP is $6500? so not that different.


The MSRP is $6550 ... exactly $2,000 lower than the Submariner date. Coincidence? I think not. Of course, if you want a true, adjustable dive clasp, that will cost more. And if you want half-links for the best fit, that might cost more, too.


----------



## Iowa_Watchman

iinsic said:


> Well, it's here! A Q&D (many more to follow in a separate post):
> 
> View attachment 9483818
> 
> 
> Quick observations: 1) It is exactly the size I was looking for (the OAL is several mm shorter than the effective OAL of the 38.5mm AT because of the "female" endlinks, but it has an obviously bigger footprint on the wrist than the 38.5 AT); 2) At around 185g, it is a bit heavier than anything I've worn regularly, but I have adapted quickly (as I did earlier for my Doxa 1200T MkII); 3) There are no half-links for either the 43.5 _or_ the 39.5, but the half-links for the 42mm Gen2 PO fit perfectly (however, the outside of the half-links will need to be brushed to match the bracelet); and 4) The adjustable clasp on this watch might be preferable to the 99.8% of PO wearers who do not dive, because it quickly adds 4mm of length to the bracelet when the heat/humidity makes the watch feel a tad tight (essentially Omega's version of Rolex's 5mm Easylink, but I actually like it better). Regardless, the 43.5mm clasp, which is a true diving clasp, is a bolt-on for this bracelet ... and I'll have one in about three weeks (it had to be ordered separately once we realized the 39.5 did not have a true dive clasp).
> 
> First day impression: A definite win! (I know better than to _ever_ describe any watch of mine as a "keeper" :roll


That looks great! Congrats on the new additional. What's your wrist size?


----------



## iinsic

Iowa_Watchman said:


> What's your wrist size?


7¾ inches


----------



## cadomniel

MSRP in CANADA IS $7,850 CAD

I would probably pay up to $6k Canadian for a new one but not msrp...its too much for a Planet Ocean.


----------



## Betterthere

cadomniel said:


> MSRP in CANADA IS $7,850 CAD
> 
> I would probably pay up to $6k Canadian for a new one but not msrp...its too much for a Planet Ocean.


Yes I would not either just meant it's more or less in line with 8500 POs


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> With one link removed (to fit my wrist), it weighs 184.1g on a calibrated jeweler's scale. Once the larger clasp from the 43.5 is installed, it will weigh more ... although if a link has to be removed to compensate, it could still net out to around 185g.
> 
> Sorry, but Omega makes heavy watches. A 38.5mm AT weighs about 150g, and it doesn't have the thick case a 600m WR rating requires, or the thicker, heavier bracelet and clasp. My guess is that the 43.5mm PO easily will top 200g.


The 43.5 was definitely heavy.

How's the thickness feeling so far?


----------



## iinsic

Betterthere said:


> How's the thickness feeling so far?


I've been wearing Rolexes - with their thin cases and thin bracelets/clasps - for long enough that the change is pretty significant. In truth, the watch wears "low" so that it does not appear that thick, but the bracelet - as you alluded earlier - is really massive.

When I bought my first PO - a 2201.50 - more than five years ago, I loved that heavy-duty bracelet, with those fat, oval links. Now I'm not so sure. But after a few weeks I likely will acclimate to it, and it really won't be as noticeable. In fact, I might return to preferring those fat, oval links ... but I'm not counting on it.

In the meantime, I am really enjoying the adjustable clasp. It has two increments of extension: 2mm and 4mm. That compares to Rolex's 5mm Easylink. Frankly, I like this better, because sometimes only a 2mm bump in size is needed. At least Sub wearers have the Glidelock, which has 3mm increments. But I never cared for the Easylink on my old DJII because it went from tight to floppy when I opened the extra link. Also, the Omega clasp is very easy to adjust "on the fly" without removing the watch from one's wrist: You just undo the clasp, reach inside to the push button, and let it out a notch or two.

Finally, I really like the Liquidmetal bezel and ceramic dial. The dial is very artfully done. And the narrower bezel makes way for a larger dial, which makes the watch appear larger without increasing the "footprint" ... a longstanding complaint I've had with the maxi-case Subs.


----------



## Betterthere

^^

I had adjustable clasp on sm300mc and it's really great. Altho I am enjoying the SubC and am not tempted to flip, I think Omega makes a better bracelet. It's easier to adjust than the glidelock and just more substantial. Now if I liked the Ti version of PO, I might be tempted. Enjoy that nice watch.


----------



## Pferdeleder

Congrats! It looks great on you. There's still hope in humanity when one with a regular sized wrist choose to wear a 39.5mm timepiece


----------



## DocJekl

iinsic said:


> 7¾ inches


He asked about WRIST size.


----------



## iinsic

DocJekl said:


> He asked about WRIST size.


A sad physiological factoid: Men lose about 20% of their "wrist" size between the ages of 40 and 70. That's why I prefer smaller watches. ;-)


----------



## Alex_TA

Hi Rob, now million dollar question: are you going to dive with it or at least swim in the pool?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Betterthere

iinsic said:


> A sad physiological factoid: Men lose about 20% of their "wrist" size between the ages of 40 and 70. That's why I prefer smaller watches. ;-)


And as I have aged , I am thankful I never had a large wrist.


----------



## lewk68

the 39.5 mm planet ocean is marketed as a ladies watch on prestigetime.com


----------



## solesman

And?


lewk68 said:


> the 39.5 mm planet ocean is marketed as a ladies watch on prestigetime.com


----------



## iinsic

Alex_TA said:


> Hi Rob, now million dollar question: are you going to dive with it or at least swim in the pool?


I've already had it in the pool, since I use that every day. We've got a red tide outbreak right now (just like last year this time), so it might be a few weeks before I can get over to Point of Rocks for snorkeling. If all goes well, it will get its final test diving at Pennekamp State Park next spring ... which would be my 50th year of diving. :-!


----------



## Betterthere

lewk68 said:


> the 39.5 mm planet ocean is marketed as a ladies watch on prestigetime.com


Usually it's the chocolate etc..not the blue or black.


----------



## iinsic

lewk68 said:


> the 39.5 mm planet ocean is marketed as a ladies watch on prestigetime.com





Betterthere said:


> Usually it's the chocolate etc..not the blue or black.


As if it matters. Those who let marketers tell them what is and is not appropriate for them to wear are the ones most likely to wind up wearing a cartoonishly oversized watch, because anything less would not be "manly." :roll:


----------



## BarracksSi

andybaird22 said:


> Agree. It's even worse on a mobile phone


The funny thing about Omega's site is, it's designed to be mobile-friendly thanks to its underlying code...

... but, obviously, visuals alone don't make a site mobile-friendly. I think it's even worse on a desktop browser.

I think the current web design trend of "mobile first" is making the web browsing experience worse on every platform. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back to something more usable.

(speaking as a junior-level web developer)


----------



## cadomniel

I like what I am hearing about the new bracelet. 
The reason I sold the first 2201.50 was the bracelet was not a good fit for me. 
On my second Planet Ocean I had a custom strap made and actually thought the PO fit a lot better. I only sold it because I was consolidating the collection a bit..
This new smaller PO has definitely made it onto my wishlist.


----------



## LiangYuMa

Now I don't want the SMPc anymore after seeing this!


----------



## BobTheBuilder

I have a 6" wrist. Held out on getting a diver until I tried the new 39.5mm PO and... it was too big for me. Went with the 36mm SMPc, and it's fantastic! I won't say no regrets since I think 38mm would have been the most ideal for me...

Bob


----------



## iinsic

BobTheBuilder said:


> I have a 6" wrist. Held out on getting a diver until I tried the new 39.5mm PO and... it was too big for me. Went with the 36mm SMPc, and it's fantastic! I won't say no regrets since I think 38mm would have been the most ideal for me...
> 
> Bob


And the rumor is that the new SMP midsize will be either 38mm or 38.5mm ... perhaps as early as next Baselworld.


----------



## BobTheBuilder

iinsic said:


> And the rumor is that the new SMP midsize will be either 38mm or 38.5mm ... perhaps as early as next Baselworld.


Ahhhh, I saw this on another thread and merely chalked it up to "would be nice..." sentiments rather than a realistic possibility of that happening. That being said, I don't regret getting the 36mm because I've been enjoying the heck out of it, just "would be nice" if it was 38mm. We shall see what next year brings! If they change too much besides the size, may end up not speaking to me anyways.

Bob


----------



## iinsic

BobTheBuilder said:


> If they change too much besides the size, may end up not speaking to me anyways.


And that, as we all know, is their great failing. They can't tweak anything ... they have to screw something else up at the same time.


----------



## watchninja123

I'm glad omega is reducing their watch sizes. I hope other brands will follow.


----------



## iinsic

ninja123 said:


> I'm glad omega is reducing their watch sizes. I hope other brands will follow.


Technically, they're _increasing_ sizes. The new PO395 replaces the 37.5mm Gen2 PO. The new 38-39mm SMP will replace the 36.25mm current midsize.

One could argue that the PO435 is a reduction, if everyone previously bought the 45.5mm Gen2. But plenty of owners of Gen2 42mm POs are not happy that the watch has effectively been upsized to 43.5mm.

This would come under the heading of "A rising tide lifts all boats" ... Omega has kept increasing watch sizes so that the "ladies" models now are desirable by many men. :roll:


----------



## VicLeChic

Has anyone come down from a 45.5 PO to a 39.5 on a 6.7inch / 17cm wirst? What does it feel like ? Does it feel too small compared to 45.5 or just about the right size? I'll definetly check it out on my next visit to the boutique. 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken G

iinsic said:


> Technically, they're _increasing_ sizes.


Yeah, they're certainly not reducing the sizes across the board as a lot of folks would like to see happen. I was disappointed (just mildly) that the Deep Black line came in at 45.5. I was hoping that was going to be 43.5 _max_.

If the rumored* blue ceramic PO (Deep Blue?) materializes, it's looking unlikely that they will be anything other than 45.5...

[* not heard anything from a reliable source]


----------



## Ken G

VicLeChic said:


> Has anyone come down from a 45.5 PO to a 39.5 on a 6.7inch / 17cm wirst? What does it feel like ? Does it feel too small compared to 45.5 or just about the right size? I'll definetly check it out on my next visit to the boutique.


That's _definitely_ going to feel strange at first, but, like anything, I'm pretty sure you'd get used to it...


----------



## iinsic

VicLeChic said:


> Has anyone come down from a 45.5 PO to a 39.5 on a 6.7inch / 17cm wirst? What does it feel like ? Does it feel too small compared to 45.5 or just about the right size? I'll definetly check it out on my next visit to the boutique.


My wrist is an inch larger than yours and the 39.5mm PO is a perfect fit. I've worn my share of 44-46mm dive watches, but they just looked silly on me. I've waited years for someone to make a <40mm dive watch, and Omega finally obliged. I was set to buy yet another Submariner, but the proportions of this watch are fantastic.

However, as Ken pointed out, you'll notice a profound difference going down from 45.5mm to 39.5mm. I've had a 45.5mm PO on my wrist. I can't imagine how that would look if my wrist was an inch smaller. If you give it time, I think you'll be delighted with the change to the PO395.


----------



## watchninja123

iinsic said:


> Technically, they're _increasing_ sizes. The new PO395 replaces the 37.5mm Gen2 PO. The new 38-39mm SMP will replace the 36.25mm current midsize.
> 
> One could argue that the PO435 is a reduction, if everyone previously bought the 45.5mm Gen2. But plenty of owners of Gen2 42mm POs are not happy that the watch has effectively been upsized to 43.5mm.
> 
> This would come under the heading of "A rising tide lifts all boats" ... Omega has kept increasing watch sizes so that the "ladies" models now are desirable by many men. :roll:


Haha oh right. Can I say omega is making the smaller watches more appealing to the crown who prefer cases. I personally can wear up to 42mm but I'm pushing with my 6.75 wrist. After awhile of wearing the 42mm divers I found my 38.5mm chris ward diver more pleasing to wear. But 39.5mm planet ocean is definitely a good all round size. Not too big not too small.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk


----------



## VicLeChic

Paid a visit to the boutique today and tried the new and freshly arrived blue POs in SS. My wrist is about average size at 17,5cm/6.9inch, just measured again to make sure.

Well, I have to say I personally find the 39.5 a bit small for a sports watch. It has that dressy and sort of dainty feel I get from my dress watches. The 43.5mm on the other hand is the perfect size IMHO. I asked the sales lady which one looked better on my wrist, she was adamant the 43.5mm was the best fit. Maybe I'm not used to wearing sub 40mm sports watch. I have no problem wearing my wife's 36mm Longines Master Collection though.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## timepiece_afficanado

I tried on the new 39.5mm PO today and it's growing on me. Can't decide between the blue and the black. Only gripe I have with the design is the 19mm lug width, too bad that I won't be able to re-purpose the 20mm straps I have in my collection. Does anyone know how much the Omega natos go for?


----------



## kamonjj

Revival of an old thread. Thinking of trading my pelagos plus cash for one of these.


----------



## rts9364

kamonjj said:


> Revival of an old thread. Thinking of trading my pelagos plus cash for one of these.


Interesting. Have you decided yet? I had a 1st gen Pelagos a few years ago and actually sold it mostly due to the size/thickness. I've been through many watches since then and now would probably welcome a Pelagos, but that is to say I am very intrigued by the PO395. I need to see more pics.


----------



## iinsic

rts9364 said:


> Interesting. Have you decided yet? I had a 1st gen Pelagos a few years ago and actually sold it mostly due to the size/thickness. I've been through many watches since then and now would probably welcome a Pelagos, but that is to say I am very intrigued by the PO395. I need to see more pics.


I never actually got around to posting all of the photos I took of my PO395, except for lots of different wrist shots on WRUW threads. Perhaps I could create a thread using the photos, perhaps titled "loved-and-lost." ;-)

There were so many things I liked about the PO, but the two things I disliked - heaviness and height - proved to be fatal flaws. I replaced the PO with the new Explorer, and it is a much better fit for me, literally and figuratively. I shaved 2mm in height and 50g in weight with the switch. As nice as the PO was, I do not miss it.

Make sure you buy used, or plan to keep it forever, because you'll get killed in depreciation buying new. The current inventory glut in Omega's supply chain has led to 2016 Baselworld offerings showing up at Jomashop and other grey market resellers as early as September of last year. I remember in recent years when new Omegas weren't even in OBs until October or November following Baselworld, so something surely is amiss.

Anyway, if I decide to create a retrospective thread, I'll post the link here.


----------



## raja_3012

iinsic said:


> I never actually got around to posting all of the photos I took of my PO395, except for lots of different wrist shots on WRUW threads. Perhaps I could create a thread using the photos, perhaps titled "loved-and-lost." ;-)
> 
> There were so many things I liked about the PO, but the two things I disliked - heaviness and height - proved to be fatal flaws. I replaced the PO with the new Explorer, and it is a much better fit for me, literally and figuratively. I shaved 2mm in height and 50g in weight with the switch. As nice as the PO was, I do not miss it.
> 
> Make sure you buy used, or plan to keep it forever, because you'll get killed in depreciation buying new. The current inventory glut in Omega's supply chain has led to 2016 Baselworld offerings showing up at Jomashop and other grey market resellers as early as September of last year. I remember in recent years when new Omegas weren't even in OBs until October or November following Baselworld, so something surely is amiss.
> 
> Anyway, if I decide to create a retrospective thread, I'll post the link here.


That's sage wisdom. Much appreciated.


----------



## rts9364

iinsic said:


> I never actually got around to posting all of the photos I took of my PO395, except for lots of different wrist shots on WRUW threads. Perhaps I could create a thread using the photos, perhaps titled "loved-and-lost." ;-)
> 
> There were so many things I liked about the PO, but the two things I disliked - heaviness and height - proved to be fatal flaws. I replaced the PO with the new Explorer, and it is a much better fit for me, literally and figuratively. I shaved 2mm in height and 50g in weight with the switch. As nice as the PO was, I do not miss it.
> 
> Make sure you buy used, or plan to keep it forever, because you'll get killed in depreciation buying new. The current inventory glut in Omega's supply chain has led to 2016 Baselworld offerings showing up at Jomashop and other grey market resellers as early as September of last year. I remember in recent years when new Omegas weren't even in OBs until October or November following Baselworld, so something surely is amiss.
> 
> Anyway, if I decide to create a retrospective thread, I'll post the link here.


This is very helpful. Much obliged! I am curious, though; when you were talking about the surplus supply everywhere including, e.g., Joma, what did you mean by saying, "something surely is amiss"? Do you just mean that demand is clearly not there for the PO395, which has opened the usual supply bottlenecks? Or did you mean something else a bit more cynical? In looking around the past few days I see some evidence of the PO395 being marketed as a women's watch, and other evidence that Omega themselves can't figure out how to market it. Rolex did the same thing with the 36mm OP a few years ago, so Omega is not alone, but come on it's basically a 40mm watch.

In some ways the thickness of the 39.5 case (and the PO in general) is strangely endearing to me, like it is a defining characteristic that one knows they are getting. In a many-watch collection I could see it being a novelty in rotation, even if a 15-16mm thickness is not everyone's cup of tea for daily wear. I'm thinking along the lines of a Seiko MM300 (I own one and love it for what it is; again, my earlier comments about the Pelagos size seem silly years later). Do you have any personal experience with the PO395 vs. a 42mm 8500? I'll admit I am probably slowly leaning away from a PO for now. I've had an itch for an "old" 2254 for a long time, and if I can break free from this PO idea, this maybe the time to scratch it.

I agree with you about the depreciation. I would never buy something like this from an AD. For me it's either GM or used. There are plenty for sale in both areas, which is really what brought me here. b-)


----------



## BarracksSi

"Something is amiss" as in, Swatch Group's oversupply problem is so bad that even brand-new Omega models are being tossed onto the grey market just to get them sold and out of warehouses.

I mean, really -- the DSOTM, which so many people seemed to be ogling, can now be had for half the price it was when it first hit the market.

I agree, buying an Omega at MSRP these days is crazy, even if it's a much-desired brand-new model.


----------



## iinsic

BarracksSi said:


> "Something is amiss" as in, Swatch Group's oversupply problem is so bad that even brand-new Omega models are being tossed onto the grey market just to get them sold and out of warehouses.
> 
> I mean, really -- the DSOTM, which so many people seemed to be ogling, can now be had for half the price it was when it first hit the market.
> 
> I agree, buying an Omega at MSRP these days is crazy, even if it's a much-desired brand-new model.


^^^ THIS is what I meant by "something is amiss." I was not referring specifically to the PO395, and I do not think Omega's marketing it to women is a detraction for the watch, any more than I thought their marketing 38.5mm ATs to women was a strike against that model.


----------



## Gfxdaddy

om3ga_fan said:


> Well, I think I might be out. Seeing more photos, the dial and dashed line around the bezel aren't working for me. Now I'm reconsidering an 8500 in 42mm. Which is to say, at least for me, the 3rd gen PO has crossed over to all sport.





PhantomThief said:


> I think you're on to something there. That certainly adds to the perception of size. It's a damn shame, I was really hoping that the smaller size would be a better fit for my chicken wrists, but that's starting to turn me off. I sure hope it looks better in person. Worst case scenario, I guess I could go for the old 42mm?


I know this is an old thread, and I was going to start a separate post about my observations but I'll post here too:

I can assure all my small-wristed bretheren that the *39.5 PO 8800 is perfect and much better fit for wrists smaller than 6.5* -- it actually wears much closer to a 40/41mm due to its height AND it dresses up with a suit rather nicely. If you search my posts you'll see that I recently purchased a 42mm 8500 (orange indices) for my 40th and was initially pleased with it, but over the course of a month I realized that I could only wear it with casual attire because it was just too big for my scrawny 6.3" wrists. I'm the proud owner of a *42mm sapphire-sandwich moonphase speedmaster pro* (grail watch) and it fits my wrists just fine. However the *42mm PO 8500 wears MUCH larger* than it because of three things:

1. The bracelet extends about a millimeter or so on either side of the lugs when worn on smaller wrists. This is because of the way the bracelet fastens to the endlinks -- something which has mercifully been fixed in the newer 8900 and 8800 Master CoAx models.

2. The helium escape valve visually adds to the perceived size of the watch, making it look larger as well.

3. This is a tall watch, there's no way around that. Worn with a loose fitting blazer it's great, but wear it with a fitted jacket, blazer or shirt and it just looks visually unbalanced.

Now take all those 42mm 'cons' and apply them to the 39.5 (sans extended endlinks) and you have a 39.5mm watch that wears very slightly larger than a 40mm and wraps around smaller wrists far better than the 42mm 8500 does.

I was fortunate to meet a lovely store manager at a Goldsmiths who allowed me to try on the *8500 38mm*, and he tried on the *43mm 8900 on his 7" wrist* for me to see. The 8500 38mm is _FAR_ too small, even for my 6.3" wrist. The 43mm fit his 7" flat wrist perfectly (so did the 42mm). He kindly allowed me to swap my 42 for the 39.5 and pay the difference (£1300, ouch!) but I honestly couldn't be happier as I now have a watch that is versatile and pairs well with both casual attire and a suit. It took me a while to appreciate the blue ceramic dial as in certain light it does appear a bit plastic, but this is probably 1% of the time -- most of the time it's actually quite stunning and I've drawn looks wherever I've worn it.

In summary, **if you don't like the trending 'oversized watch' look** (and given my experience):

- If your wrists measure in at *under 6.5"*: go for the *39.5mm 8800*, you won't regret it.
- If you've got *wrists that flirt with 7"*, go for the *42mm 2500*, or *8500*.
- *7" and larger*, go for the *42mm, 43mm or 45mm*.

As originally intended I'll be posting this separately too, in the hopes it helps others who're torn on what choice to make. As always, this is purely subjective.


----------



## munichblue

Sorry @gfxdaddy I can't agree to your recommendation. I've got a 8" wrist and the 39.5mm still is the best option. I do like it how the watch wraps around my wrist rather than sitting on top.


----------



## dinexus

Tried on the 395 at _Topper's_ a few months ago, and loved everything about it - just wish it had the same movement. The 8800 movement lacks the same power reserve (ok, only five hours shorter) and the jumping hour hand of the 8900. A 3-hander at that size and capability with a jumping hour? Sub-killer without a doubt. And I love all the other new aesthetic improvements, which work far better, regardless of your wrist size.

Currently sitting on the fence to see if Omega brings any LE love to the 395 so I'll bite.


----------



## fskywalker

I guess need to schedule a trip to my local OB to try the 39.5mm PO. My wrist is 7 inch, but pretty round, so try to get away from any watch above 40mm (flipped various 41mm SMP's and AT's precisely because of that, my 42mm moon phase is the only survivor), so that size, with the slimmer case de to the 8800 movement, might be the way to go!


----------



## munichblue

fskywalker said:


> I guess need to schedule a trip to my local OB to try the 39.5mm PO. My wrist is 7 inch, but pretty round, so try to get away from any watch above 40mm (flipped various 41mm SMP's and AT's precisely because of that, my 42mm moon phase is the only survivor), so that size, with the slimmer case de to the 8800 movement, *might be the way to go!*


It is, Francisco, it is definitely the way to go! You won't regret, believe me!

I share a similar story, coming from huge watches like Panas and 45.5mm POs. Since last year I replaced some of these monsters with much smaller watches and I'm very glad. The 39.5mm PO is now one of my most beloved watches. Great technology and craftsmanship, outstanding aesthetics! Go for it!!!


----------



## fskywalker

munichblue said:


> It is, Francisco, it is definitely the way to go! You won't regret, believe me!
> 
> I share a similar story, coming from huge watches like Panas and 45.5mm POs. Since last year I replaced some of these monsters with much smaller watches and I'm very glad. The 39.5mm PO is now one of my most beloved watches. Great technology and craftsmanship, outstanding aesthetics! Go for it!!!


Thanks! I owned the SMPc in blue and flip it since disliked the light blue shade they picked on that model:



















Is the blue shade of the PO darker in comparisson? I will try to compare at the OB when I go there but colors are deceiving on artificial lighting versus on real life. I have a Rolex 16610 Submariner (black dial) so a blue dial PO would appeal to me to have a diver in an alternate color but only if the blue color shade is darker than on the blue SMPc

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## munichblue

Difficult to say, it depends on the light and then you have everything from almost black to a deep, dark blue. You have to see it on your own and don't forge to step outside the shop to see it in natural light.


----------



## fskywalker

munichblue said:


> Difficult to say, it depends on the light and then you have everything from almost black to a deep, dark blue. You have to see it on your own and don't forge to step outside the shop to see it in natural light.


Thanks. As long as the blue shade is darker than the tone shown above at any lighting condition probably would be great

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## topher

Based on pics, it appears to me that the PO has a darker shade. But I haven't seen it in person.


----------



## munichblue

fskywalker said:


> Thanks. As long as the blue shade is darker than the tone shown above at any lighting condition probably would be great
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox

That looks fantastic! I am shocked at how good the bold design complements a smaller size. Brilliant!


----------



## soaking.fused

munichblue said:


> View attachment 12067650


Looks killer!


----------



## 4236

Yes it does


----------



## fskywalker

munichblue said:


> View attachment 12337625


Just tried them at my OB; blue and black 39.5 PO's below, along with my black medium SMPc:























































The blue color did looked darker than the one on the blue SMPc. Both PO colors looked good in person; they are thicker than the SMPc but reasonable for the body size. The "flexible" end links do make a difference in giving a great comfort around the wrist. Guess I know which is going to be my next diver (replacing my SMPc), question is which color :think: (tempted to go blue as already own a black Rolex Submariner 16610)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sloopjohnb

When I had the WR of my AT tested at the Boutique today I tried on the 39.5mm PO - now I am smitten. The size is absolutely perfect for my flat 16cm (6.3") wrist. The height didn't bother me at all, and the new numerals looked better than I thought they would. I tried the black and the blue, and the blue won hands down. I would say it actually comes close to the 8500AT blue.

Now I have a serious problem: I want that watch!


----------



## munichblue

There's no problem - just buy it ... ;-)


----------



## fskywalker

Got today a blue 42mm Ti PO; blue seems darker than the one on the newest 39.5mm. For me the darker the better!



















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## munichblue

Congrats, Francisco! Such a nice watch and it fits perfectly to your wrist.


----------



## fskywalker

munichblue said:


> Congrats, Francisco! Such a nice watch and it fits perfectly to your wrist.


Thanks Mike! It is 15.7mm versus 14.16mm thick on your 39.5mm version, but the added benefit of a lower weight thanks to titanium (plus a great deal on a mint July 2016 watch) made me pull the trigger.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dinexus

munichblue said:


> View attachment 12337625


Can any of the blue owners verify the color of the date wheel? Is it black, a dark navy, or a lighter shade of blue? Seems like every angle I've seen of this watch seems to present it in a different hue...


----------



## fskywalker

dinexus said:


> Can any of the blue owners verify the color of the date wheel? Is it black, a dark navy, or a lighter shade of blue? Seems like every angle I've seen of this watch seems to present it in a different hue...


On the blue titanium PO 42mm the date wheel seems to be black:










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## munichblue

dinexus said:


> Can any of the blue owners verify the color of the date wheel? Is it black, a dark navy, or a lighter shade of blue? Seems like every angle I've seen of this watch seems to present it in a different hue...


It's black on the 39.5 as well. But it's not too striking because the dial changes the colour from almost black to dark blue. Wish it would be in the colour of the dial, but standardisation (I guess they have only black and white date wheels available) is obviously above everything else these days ... (unfortunately)


----------

