# New Planet Ocean or IWC Aquatimer 200... Help in choosing!



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Hi Guys,

As the title says, i'm in the fortunate, yet very frustrating place of trying to decide between two watches. The IWC Aquatimer 2000, or the new Omega Planet Ocean. Both are roughly the same price (i'm UK based at around £3,500ish) so isn't down to cost... purely the look, build quality, timeless factor and reliability.

To set the scene, I used to have the first PO 45.5mm a few years ago when it came out. Had it for about 18months, then sold it when my wife lost her job etc etc etc. I missed it dearly and needed another watch and so bought an Oris small seconds 47mm with orange accents. I bought this as a 'cheaper' replacement and I do really like it, but it has never never given me the same pride of ownership I had with the Omega. I can't put my finger on it, but I don't particularly feel anything towards it, whereas I thought I had the Omega for life!

So, long and short of it... I want to sell my Oris and buy something which will give me that pride of ownership feeling back!

I went to try on both of the above watches at the weekend and like both and I am just totally stuck which way to go! Before anyone says 'buy both'... I will not be buying both. I want one watch, that goes with everything, that is sporty yet classy enough to look smart on occasions.

Does anyone on here have both and can they compare? Do I go with Omega again as they are a known quantity? They now have an in-house movement with 4 year warranty and a 10 year service interval, or do I go with an IWC that I have always thought was a step above Omega and less likely to feel the need to change??

My concerns are... I buy the omega (the new one does look awesome) but then see it everywhere in every jewellers and risk feeling it isn't 'exclusive' or 'high end', or do I get the IWC and then feel i've bought a 'cheap' IWC that has an ETA movement and i've just paid for the name!?? I also wonder whether the yellow on the dial of the IWC will date it over the next 5 years or so, or is that being picky!? Arrrrgggghhhh help me... i'm going insane! 

Anyway, over to you guys for help!!

Arty

p.s I will post this into the Omega forum for balanced opinions


----------



## 78finn (Nov 7, 2008)

I think the Omega is a far more classic looking watch...and a better looking watch hands down. Then again, IWC is probably my favorite watch maker...but I'm not a fan of that particular model. If you are looking for 'timeless' and 'longevity' from the watch....well the aggressive contrasting colour wheel that the IWC comes in (bright white face or black/yellow combo) will not age as well as the simple black face and clean lines of the Omega. 

I also think that you see the Omega everywhere because you are looking everywhere : ) I have never seen that watch before and I think its a fantastic looking watch...the IWC is nice......but because its an IWC, not because it blows you out of the water looks wise.

To be honest as well...IWC make some fantastic looking watches and this isn't really one of them....where the Omega is a great looking watch even compared to some of the more expensive watches in there range.

The Omega gets my vote hands down!

Besides.....James Bond wears an Omega and your English....have you even a choice to make really?

Whatever choice you make....its a fantastic choice to able to make!


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Thank you very much for your opinions. It's great to hear complimentary advice of a non IWC watch and I know then that it is impartial.

I agree, I think the Omega is the better looking and more timeless (lack of colour) between the two. It is a great looking watch and the build quality looks a step up from before... and it was great before! I have just always had a hankering for an IWC. I don't know what it is, but something just makes me perceive them as better than Omega. I'm just worried i'll get the Omega and always think... I could have bought an IWC.

I do admit though, the Omega looks simply stunning. They really have improved it in lots of subtle ways and the fact it's now an in-house movement really does give it the prestige.

The IWC on the other hand, is I guess datable in looks (though the yellow still looks nice on the last series of aquatimer), slightly smaller and slightly less chunky. But, it also has it's merits... the bezel is pretty awesome in that it's sapphire and is also lumed, I prefer the simplicity of the hands to the Omega and I do like the yellow at the moment at least. I believe the 2000m water resistance hints at the tolerances of manufacture being superior, though I could be totally wrong on this!

I think the Bond thing is the thing that puts me off the Omega y'know!  It's slightly more tacky to me that there is an association with Bond. It just makes it feel like a Bond wannabe boy's toy rather than a grown man's watch.

To be fair, the Aquatimer wasn't the first IWC I had my eyes on. I do like the pilot chrono, but it's just too small for my wrists (they're 7 3/4") and so I started to look at the Aquatimer as the bigger yet sporty alternative.

I think i'm essentially buying into the brand with the IWC, whereas I feel the Omega i'd be buying the watch. Sounds odd, but in practice it makes it very hard to choose!!

Anyway, thanks ever so much for your thoughts and advice!

Arty


----------



## jedmonds (Mar 4, 2009)

It may cost a bit more, but I would recommend the Vintage Series Aquatimer, which does have an in house movement. And IMO destroys the PO in the beauty department.


----------



## vbomega (Jan 31, 2010)

jedmonds said:


> It may cost a bit more, but I would recommend the Vintage Series Aquatimer, which does have an in house movement. And IMO destroys the PO in the beauty department.


I don't think comparing contemporary pieces with vintage-inspired is fair. Vintage Series AT can be compared to Longines Legend Diver, but not to PO, or even AT.


----------



## HR F1 (Dec 14, 2006)

Just get what _you _like and what speaks to you more when it's on your wrist. I like the PO and the Aquatimer and own both; I like the Aquatimer so much that I purchased both the white and black/yellow variant. The latest 8500 PO is not a relevant comparison as the Aquatimer is now going on three years and with the in-house movement, the 8500 PO is anywhere from $2000-$5000 more than the current Aquatimer depending on which PO variant is chosen (assuming you're not looking into the in-house Vintage Collection Aquatimer, the Deep Two, the limited editions, or the rose-gold models). However, between the 2500 PO and the current Aquatimer, I'd take the Aquatimer.

While I'm no die-hard of any particular brand as evidenced by my collection, in general, IWC is one of the brands I like quite a bit.

From experience reading these types of threads, they usually don't go anywhere and gets reduced to a bunch of mud-slinging from loyalists to each brand which is why you should base your decision on whichever watch appeals to you more as that ultimately is the most important criteria to satisfy.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Thanks very much for all the opinions so far chaps! Very much appreciated!

I must say, I did expect more opinions in favour of the IWC (especially in the IWC section), but so far, nobody has plumped for the Aquatimer over the PO!! Very surprised!

I was trying to think of it in a car analogy and I imagined IWC to be like Mercedes Benz, with the Omega being more like a BMW. The Mercedes being historically the higher grade car with fantastic build and refinement, the BMW still has great build, but is the more young and sporty of the two.

I think deep down, my heart says get an IWC as it's a bit different to the 'norm', but my head is saying the Omega is bang up to date, chunkier and has an in-house movement!! Hugely convincing towards the Omega... I just have that nagging itch for an IWC for some crazy and totally unknown reason!

Out of interest, does anyone know if IWC expect to bring out a new model any time soon??

Arty


----------



## Jim123 (Oct 13, 2009)

I would say you should look at the new blue/white bezel IWC it is not as " in your face" as the black/ yellow. I like the bigger water resistance on the AT, as a dive watch the 2000mtrs goes a long way with me. Although it is not an in house IWC the guys that own them seem to report great accuracy. For me it would be the IWC, although I do plan to get a new POC at some point in the future.


----------



## vbomega (Jan 31, 2010)

Jim123 said:


> Although it is not an in house IWC the guys that own them seem to report great accuracy.


There is an opinion out there that it is not "although" but "because". Both 7750 and 2892 are extremely accurate. IMHO, it's not always about accuracy. You don't need to drop $10,000 to get an accurate watch.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Jim123... you're the first out of everyone to go with the AT!!!

I have seen the blue, but always prefer black as it seems to go with more stuff. I like the black and yellow version the best out of the colour range. I do also like the idea of the 2000m too... seems to hint at better machining and tolerances/design. Could be very wrong on this though!!


----------



## Hasna (Jan 19, 2009)

PO 8500 is, due to the great in-house (i.e. 60 hours power reserve), better offer at the moment, no doubt about that. It is hard work to find any technical argument for the IWC except the WR. But 600 meters is ca. ten times more, than one normal man, holiday diver, could ever possibly need. So WR is sufficient, IMHO. Detailing on PO is exceptional, raised silver font on date is lovely, original rubber, my preffered option on any diver, is of a high quality. As I said, it is nearly impossible to argue for IWC on rational basis. BUT, on the other hand, IWC does not carry the bag of James Bond, metrosexual show off, guick money, young wannabe city managers in pointy shoes first choice, on its back. This hurts PO in my eyes terribly. Which is shame, because without this baggage the PO, black, silver numbers, XL, rubber would be the choice hands down. IWC not being the first and obvious choice on Canary Wharf is my favourite. Although AT with Ingenieur calliber inside would be unbeatable combo, no question about that.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Hasna, I think you have hit the nail very much on the head for how I feel about the IWC. My head says 'go with Omega'... 'you've had one before and loved it'... 'get the new improved version'... 'look at the design and finish'. My heart says... 'get the IWC'... 'don't be so obvious'... 'you're not the brash type that Omega appears to be attracting'.

Totally accept your point about dive depth... I will probably never go beneath 40m so 2000m is a mute point, but it does make you think that the design and machining must be flawless to achieve a rating this high. Meaningless yes, but it does still mean that the engineering is very very slick.


----------



## MHe225 (Jan 24, 2010)

*arty11001*, you mentioned several times what your head says and what your heart says. My advice, pretty much in line with *HR F1*'s: follow your heart (and get the IWC). Really, if you think about it, these expensive mechanical watches make no sense at all :think:. I bet that for less than 10% of the cost, you can buy a plastic / composite quartz watch that outperforms these mechanical beauties in all aspects, except looks. When purchasing watches, I do not follow my head - otherwise I would have just one that costs less than $500, maybe even less than $100 (because I don't need any depth-rating either ....)

Reading between the lines, I think you will always be looking at IWC when you decide to get the PO. Maybe it's even better to wait a little longer - at one point you will know which one to get.

Good luck - you can't go wrong with either (or both ;-)).

RonB

PS - also posted in the Omega forum


----------



## chefcook (Feb 27, 2009)

After having an old caliber 2500 Planet Ocean I was trying the new Planet Ocean but got the Aquatimer 2000 instead.

There are several reasons that make the Aquatimer the better watch for my likings:

*1. The Movement
*While Omega's cal. 8500 surely is a great movement it lacks one feature that is essential, the quick set date. I have more than one watch that I wear regularly so it is impractical and uncomfortable to have a watch without quick set date. On vintage watches one might be OK with it but on a modern watch with a brand new movement it is just not up to today's standards. After being constantly annoyed by the same movement in my PloProf I decided that I do not want another watch with the 8500. In comparison with the cal. 2500 powered Planet Ocean, a Sinn U1 or a Rolex Submariner I found the 10-18 hrs plus in power reserve a merely cosmetical advantage. In real life it was never enough to be a real advantage and the winding efficiency on the 8500 seems to be lower than on the 2500 / ETA 2892.

*2. The Case
*The Aquatimer case beats the Planet Ocean quality wise. The Aquatimer most probably has the highest feel of quality I ever experienced on a watch (it is my first IWC, so there might be others being similar ). The bezel turning is much nicer, the end link fitment with bracelet looks much more precise and the closed case back is a plus as well. A see through case back just does not belong on a dive watch.
The saphire bezel with lumed numbers is nicer and more special than a ceramic bezel with lumed pip ever could be.

*3. The Readability
*Both new and old Planet Ocean do not indicate in the dark where on the dial the 12 is. The dial markers at 3, 6, 9 and 12 are exactly the same, making it impossible to read the time at night without thinking about the exact position of the hands when not knowing if the bezel is rotated. Sounds stupid but sometimes it really makes a difference if it is clear to you that it is 3 or 6 at night.

*4. The Bracelets and Straps
*The IWC's quick change system is just awesome! From strap to bracelet within seconds, without using tools, without being feared of scratching the watch... The rubber strap is of higher quality and less stiff than the Omega rubber strap. The waffle pattern on the backside of the IWC strap is nice, too, and increases the comfort in hot and humid conditions a lot! The steel bracelet of the IWC is incredibly well made and wears much more comfortable than the Omega bracelet.
The divers extension on the Omega bracelet is pretty useless like most divers extension that are not fully adjustable like those of the Seiko Marinemaster or Rolex Deepsea, so it does not hurt that the IWC bracelet does not have one. It is so easy to change from the bracelet to a rubber or even velcro strap on the IWC that one will never miss a divers extension. Both rubber and velcro are much better for actual diving.

The price for Planet Oceans and Aquatimer 2000s are similar (at least here), so finding a decision was easy for me when considering that the advantage of having an in-house caliber vs. a modified ETA comes with a lot of disadvantages. 
Above a certain level of timing accuracy (that the IWC easily exceeds) a dive watch for me is not about the movement being in-house or not but about the quality of the case, the readability, the level of comfort when using it and in all those points the IWC is the better watch in my oppinion.


----------



## buddy13 (Sep 1, 2007)

I happen to LOVE this one...





































I've had these...




























In my most honest opinion the IWC absolutely destroys the PO. I have not handled the new 8500 PO which is presumably much better. I want to get one of those...

I think the in house 8500 movement is better movement in terms of PR and complications. Features I do not really need...I would have preferred a quick set date and a single barrel for increased reliability..also resetting the date must be a royal pain in the a**.

The Caliber 30110 is not an in house movement but do not believe for one second it is a standard 2892. It manually winds like no other watch I have had and is extremely accurate. It is also more reliable due to decreased torque.

The bezel, bracelet, finish, brushing, hand proportions, sapphire crystal and AR coating are better on the AT than the 2500 PO. As I said I can't say about the new PO as I have not handled it yet. I like almost everything about the new PO. IMHO, compared to 'old' PO it has much better hand proportions, similar undercuts on both crown and He-Valve and reliable movement, though I hate the 'dress watch' style display back. Try them on both and see which one speaks to you loudest. At this level you can't go wrong ;-)...I mean they're both VERY fine watches |>...

I feel exactly like you with IWC and Omega so I fully understand your point. I think IWC is a little more serious...they have never made ads saying 'James Bond's choice' or films stating 'Is that a Rolex...? No, Omega..', and childish things like these, but you'll be surprised how effective this strategy can be with certain kinds of people..

PS: The IWC AT is quite heavy and thick, so beware, but I hear so is the new PO...


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Chefcook, thank you so much for your reply... I was beginning to think I was way off by trying to compare the two!

I really do appreciate the time you have taken to give me feedback from an owners point of view... especially that you have owned a 2500 like me and have tried on the new version.

I think your points are very good ones and certainly makes me feel more positive about the merits of the AT2000. I particularly like your direct comparison of the casework, as I think that is where I have always imagined IWC to be stunning at. When I tried it on, it was only for a moment so I didn't really get a great look. Yes, the new PO is a solid chunk of metal, but I didn't like some aspects of the 2500 I used to have (tapping the bezel with your finger sounded really rattly and cheap... my Oris does it too) and I hoped that the IWC would be an improvement in build. I imagine the IWC to be more simple, but more meticulously made. I could be wrong, but I think that is what I read into your comments about the casework and confirms my suspicions about the finish of the IWC.

Thanks so much for some great feedback guys, I really do appreciate how honest and unbiased it has been... very much appreciated!

Arty


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Thanks Buddy!

Another great post and full of great advice from an owner of both. Thanks for the shots too!

I'm glad i'm not alone with the feeling of IWC seemingly for the more serious person. I don't like the whole Bond ambassador thing about Omega as I find it cheapens the brand. I love the history of the seamasters and speedmasters, but don't like the OO7 thing... just unnecessarily chintzy!

Can you explain further what you felt was better about the bezel, crystal, AR coating and finish on the IWC and what you find better about them compared to PO please? Just so I can compare mentally.

Thanks

Arty


----------



## Xspect (Jul 27, 2010)

I know many have chimed in already. I do own both (orange PO and B&W AT). 

Both have their own distinct vibe and look. A WIS can spot either from across a crowded room. 

I love the bezel and the strap changing system on the AT better

I love they way the both glows like a torch. - The PO last longer but the different colors on the AT are awesome.

However if I had to pick one. I would say a black bezel PO. But you already own a sub in any flavor or brand. I would go with the AT.


----------



## acdelco (Jan 15, 2008)

Here's a thought, arty. Go with your heart....not your head. I have the old PO and had the discontinued AT 3536 but sold it. ( I've mentioned this before...there is no difference in finish b/w the two. The PO actually keeps better time for me. I suspect people who say IWC is better 
( using whatever criteria) are in love with the name IWC and that obviously affects their judgment. They are both excellent brands...I simply like the looks of the PO much better. As I said, it's sharper, classier, and IMO more timeless. For me, the key factor is looks ( i.e. which affects my heart) and the looks last *way* longer than whatever you *think *is the "higher end" brand. They are both high end for most every one on this planet....


----------



## buddy13 (Sep 1, 2007)

arty11001 said:


> Thanks Buddy!
> 
> Another great post and full of great advice from an owner of both. Thanks for the shots too!
> 
> ...


No problem mate ...

It is hard to explain but let me try. The bezel clicks more nicely while the sapphire is nicer than the aluminium (IMHO). The crystal and AR is clearer. The dial is VERY well finished and the text is more finely printed, you can see it is super crisp and just pops in direct sunlight. The edges, polish and brushing is the nicest I have seen on compared to any Omega, Breitling, Rolex and other middle end brands I have owned, it's not a night and day difference but there is a light edge for IWC IMHO. The bracelet is a work of art and though that on a PO is among the top three for me the IWC is simply the best IMHO...

The IWC is also the one that feels the most 'engineered' to me...like engineering got higher priority over looks....

I suggest you handle both to see if what I feel is the same for you. Good luck! Post pics and let us know what you get!


----------



## worktolivelife (Feb 11, 2006)

"The Value Of Anything Is How It Makes You Feel" be true to your own feelings and you'll just know you choose right with that pride of ownership on your wrist

regards
Steve


----------



## worktolivelife (Feb 11, 2006)

As a side note I'm of the belief the "heart" will always give more pleasure than the "head" in life


----------



## acdelco (Jan 15, 2008)

Let's assume that you're correct on the superior qualities on the IWC, which I highly doubt as I've had the 3536 and have handled the new AT 2000. Don't you think it's a more fair comparison to compare what the OP is asking? The new PO 8500 or the IWC 2000? Or, in the alternative but less preferable given the OPs question, the two older models ( i.e. old PO vs. a discontinued IWC)? Apples vs. Apples comparisons?



buddy13 said:


> No problem mate ...
> 
> It is hard to explain but let me try. The bezel clicks more nicely while the sapphire is nicer than the aluminium (IMHO). The crystal and AR is clearer. The dial is VERY well finished and the text is more finely printed, you can see it is super crisp and just pops in direct sunlight. The edges, polish and brushing is the nicest I have seen on compared to any Omega, Breitling, Rolex and other middle end brands I have owned, it's not a night and day difference but there is a light edge for IWC IMHO. The bracelet is a work of art and though that on a PO is among the top three for me the IWC is simply the best IMHO...
> 
> ...


----------



## LFCRules (Feb 8, 2009)

I tried on the AT2000 2 weeks ago in City of London jewellers, a white dial. Gotta say, it's quite stunning in person, the 3D nature of the hour markers, and clean crisp white dial make it look amazing. One issue which just stuck with me, the bracelet, it's very thin. Divers of this size deserve a decent sized braclet, but this seemed to me anyway, a weak point of the package. 

Mate of mine at work has an 8500, a black bezel chrono, one of the first in the country. I was responsible for him getting it, good old peer pressure  The dial is classic PO, and it's a beast of a watch, substantial. But it can be worn with anything, and can just get under cuffs....loose ones ;-) And it's bracelet is more substantial, and matches the case a lot better in my opinion.

Your choice is actually one I have on my back burner also. White AT2000 against orange bezel PO non-chrono. I've got time on my hands to make the choice....or find something else which takes my fancy!


----------



## Dimer (Jun 24, 2008)

After having read all the replies there isn't much I can add really. Both watches have their strong and weak points. I'm a big IWC fan, but I have thought about this too since I really like the PO and the new one in particular. I still haven't made up my mind. What I love about the AT is the sapphire bezel, it gives the watch a very unique and chique appearance. The PO has the 8500 calibre, but on the other hand, the modified ETA in the AT is very accurate and reliable too.


----------



## buddy13 (Sep 1, 2007)

acdelco said:


> Let's assume that you're correct on the superior qualities on the IWC, which I highly doubt as I've had the 3536 and have handled the new AT 2000. Don't you think it's a more fair comparison to compare what the OP is asking? The new PO 8500 or the IWC 2000? Or, in the alternative but less preferable given the OPs question, the two older models ( i.e. old PO vs. a discontinued IWC)? Apples vs. Apples comparisons?


Yes you are right. but I never handled, much less owned a PO 8500 so I cant say anything about it yet. I should be getting a new one next month though if i like it when I see it ;-)...

I have just tried to state my honest opinion since he asked me what I deemed to be superior qualities of the IWC. I am sure that not everyone will agree and there will eventually be many who prefer the 2500 PO over the AT 2000...the world would be a boring place if we all had the same tastes right ...


----------



## Dparky (Oct 29, 2011)

Went through the same dilemma recently and was seriously looking at the new Planet Ocean (8500), IWC Aquatimer and Breitling Super Ocean 44. All fabulous watches for those of us who like this style. Nothing really to separate in relation to build quality and feel on the wrist (in my case a 7.25" wrist). I was leaning towards Omega anyway as i didn't have one in my collection, however in all honesty for my taste the Omega was the best not only due to the stunning looks, but also due to the wearability (suit/casual/sports).


----------



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

PO is your only solution.


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

I really like the look of the new PO and would be happy to have one. But here's the thing- you ( the OP ) clearly seem to have a soft spot in your heart for IWC. IMO you should scratch that particular itch. Watches in this range need to satisfy an emotional need of some sort, there is no getting around that! I too like both brands but IWC is a stronger touchstone for me. When I went through the same buying process ( AT2000 vs PO vs GO ) I had to go with the IWC because it just meant more to me on an internal level. Of course, that was before the 8500-based PO. Truth to tell, though, I think some of the 8500 benefits are offset by some potential issues, and it sure seems to cost more now too. 

In your shoes, I would include the white AT2000 in your mix of options, along with the previous-gen IWC AT2000 ref 3538 which can often be found in great or even NOS condition on ebay or whatever.


----------



## vbomega (Jan 31, 2010)

mattjmcd said:


> Truth to tell, though, I think some of the 8500 benefits are offset by some potential issues, and it sure seems to cost more now.


Just out of curiosity - what are the potential issues with 8500?


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

vbomega said:


> Just out of curiosity - what are the potential issues with 8500?


1-lack of quick-set date, as previously noted- seems like a small detail that could grow to grate on an owner after awhile

2-added complexity and feature set ( of a fairly new movement ) being used in a style of watch that is likely meant to see more intense and abusive activity than the platforms where it has been previously used= some possible potential for teething issues once the new PO hits its stride in high-volume serial production


----------



## vbomega (Jan 31, 2010)

No quick-set date would be a deal breaker for me. I didn't know that about 8500. That's a shame!


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

I don't have anything with that new movement myself, so I can't say for sure. But I have heard it said so many times that I think it must be so. Maybe not.

Come to think of it, I *think* I've heard tell that the chrono version IS available with a quick-set feature. So know I am not so sure..?


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Total noob alert... What's quick set date??

Is it that if it doesnt have it, you have to go through the hours to get to the next date??


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Thanks Matt for the tip off about the Bremont from the other forum. I have been looking at some info about the Bremont watches only tonight!! Sounded really interesting! Though really don't like the diver! I do like the MBII and the ALT-P. Lots of amazing detail about their casework... Highly impressive to be honest! Apparently their cases are hardened to higher than the Sinn cases! Highly impressive stuff! Only problem is that they just haven't built up the prestige yet. They look great, probably built very very well, but they're similar price but without the heritage.

Might take a look whilst I'm there... I think the local IWC dealers have bremont too. Just for curiosity sake of course!!


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

Bremont are worth a look, to put it mildly. I think that the case can be made for the SM500 being technically superior to the IWC. You are right about the heritage, I suppose. Still, pedigree isn't everything!


----------



## vbomega (Jan 31, 2010)

mattjmcd said:


> Come to think of it, I *think* I've heard tell that the chrono version IS available with a quick-set feature. So know I am not so sure..?


There is no chrono version of 8500. New Omega manufacture chrono is caliber 9300.


----------



## HR F1 (Dec 14, 2006)

The Bremont Supermarine 500 is another good option to consider, as stated in the Omega thread in which mattjmcd brought up Bremonts. I purchased two blue-dialed SM500s last month and while very nicely executed with a unique design, I just didn't bond with it as much as I thought I would but from a technical standpoint, I would say its got more "bells and whistles" than the IWC Aquatimer, but ultimately the Bremonts just didn't do much for me which is why I let them go. I think it had more to do with the fact that I already own quite a few divers and it seemed like more of the same. Bremont customer service is really good, though!

Lume is not lacking in any of the choices (and yes, I know mine is the 2500 PO, but I'm sure it's safe to assume the new POs lume is just as great):


































They are all great-looking divers and quite versatile:


































Looking forward to pics of your new arrival, whichever one you decide on. |>


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

vbomega said:


> There is no chrono version of 8500. New Omega manufacture chrono is caliber 9300.


Chrono version of the 8500? That'd be a neat technical trick. I meant the chrono version of the Planet Ocean. We are in agreement that there is such a thing, yes, albeit with a chrono-specific motor..?


----------



## vbomega (Jan 31, 2010)

mattjmcd said:


> Chrono version of the 8500? That'd be a neat technical trick. I meant the chrono version of the Planet Ocean. We are in agreement that there is such a thing, yes, albeit with a chrono-specific motor..?


Sorry, I misunderstood your post. You are right.

BTW, I am very interested in seeing the POC in the flesh. Sounds like 9300 is a great movement (column wheel, vertical clutch). I heard that it was ridiculously thick though.


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

I wanna see it too. It looks like the cat's ass in photos. Grail worthy, IMO.

I called my AD buddy and he clarified that the movement doesn't need to be stopped to set the date, but he is pretty sure that the hour hand must be advanced to do so, iow no quick-set.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

I can confirm that the chrono is indeed very thick! I tried it on the other week when I tried in the 8500 PO and AT2000. I must admit, if I'd got an extra couple of grand, then I'd be pretty interested! It's beefier than the previous version and that is saying something!! It is very very nice. £5.5k though is just going too far!


----------



## milanzmaj (Feb 6, 2010)

friendI a have fine watches, and I asked a lot about the mechanisms in the new Omega PO ... I think that the Increase in price and yet very new mechanisms as much as they hear the beautiful and Durable 
I think the best solution is AT.
And every day I see AT and admire him as Frodo his ring of power


----------



## chefcook (Feb 27, 2009)

arty11001 said:


> Chefcook, thank you so much for your reply... I was beginning to think I was way off by trying to compare the two!
> 
> I really do appreciate the time you have taken to give me feedback from an owners point of view... especially that you have owned a 2500 like me and have tried on the new version.
> 
> ...


Something I forgot about the bezel of the Planet Ocean: It happened to me more than once that I rotated the bezel accidentally. When using the watch as a serious dive tool that is unacceptable. The IWCs bezel is nearly impossible to rotate without wanting to, though the design is not as clever (technically) as say the one of the Seiko Sumo or the older Aquatimers.

I don't think that the build quality of the Planet Ocean improved when switching from the 2500 to the 8500. Not that it was bad but I don't feel that there are any real world improvements from the old to the new case.

The Aquatimer case may look simpler, but the love for details is just above the Omega. All engravings, brushed and polished surfaces are so much nicer executed.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Well, going to the dealers tomorrow to try the Aquatimer out against the Planet Ocean 8500! Any pointers for what to look out for to be able to establish what feels the best from a finishing point of view? I guess it will be hard to tell and will no doubt just come down to preference of looks, but would appreciate any tips on weak points of both if anyone knows of any??

Arty


----------



## ReXTless (Mar 18, 2010)

arty11001 said:


> Well, going to the dealers tomorrow to try the Aquatimer out against the Planet Ocean 8500! Any pointers for what to look out for to be able to establish what feels the best from a finishing point of view? I guess it will be hard to tell and will no doubt just come down to preference of looks, but would appreciate any tips on weak points of both if anyone knows of any??
> 
> Arty


1. Look at both crystals at an angle. The Planet Ocean will be totally clear, without any distortion. The AT crystal distorts the dial when viewing from an angle. I don't like the distortion. Check it out and see what you think.

2. The 8500 does not have a quick-set date. However, it does have a quick-set hour feature that lets you jump the hour hand (forward or backward) without stopping the movement. For me, being able to switch time zones without stopping the watch is a better feature than a quick set date. Because you can move the hour hand either direction, you'll never be more than 16 days "off" from the actual date. You can still spin through the days remarkably quickly by just adjusting the hour marker. Trust me, it's a complete non-issue. Those who object likely haven't owned a watch with this type of movement. Either that, or they're really reaching for flaws.

3. I see the AT as more of a "fun" watch. It's loud and very cool, but I would have a hard time living with it as my only watch. The PO is more subdued and can work in almost every environment. Give the 42mm size a chance. I think it has better long-term appeal. Especially so, if you are planning to wear it everywhere.

4. I'd be very surprised if you find both these watches at the same price point. If they are it means you found a stupid-awesome deal on the PO or you will be paying too much for the AT.

5. Let us know what you decide! Both are great watches.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Any reason why the PO crystal is clear and the Aquatimer crystal is so distorted? I guess the AT crystal is thicker due to depth rating, but the PO is no slouch in the depth rating, so how come?

The costs are pretty much the same in the uk. £3450 for the Aquatimer on rubber and the planet ocean is £3600 on rubber. So, that's jut the cost for them in the UK. Does this make the AT a better deal now!? 

Arty


----------



## akit110 (Jan 12, 2008)

Arty,
I am not sure if I am qualified to post on this as I have neither watch only the grandfather of the AT (3536).

What i always enjoyed about the IWC is that while it is an expensive Swiss watch, it is seldom sought out by people who wish to say they have arrived to all their peers. I work in a well-paid white collar office and I would bet only man in 20 has even heard of IWC. And that one man in 20? He is the type of guy who tends to know a lot of fine things and likely can speak knowledgeably about many topics. I enjoy that aspect about it. People pick up that it is a 'nice' watch' but it doesn't elicit thinly veiled envy or disparaging comments like "somebody gets paid too much!" 

I think my brother and I are good case studies. He wanted a nice watch that got some cred among his clients and peers but didn't want tospring for the Rolex Submariner which far more expensive for a very similar watch in his eyes. I bought an Aquatimer as I like that it seems engineered rather than a marketing driven design. I did not want watch that screamed its dollar value to my colleagues. The fact that I never see another AT in the wild and only in very few watch stores makes the watch somehow seem more personal and more of an individualistic choice. And as I love watches and do view them as one expression of my taste and personality, I like that about IWC. Celebrity endorsements and action movie tie-ins work against that as I don't like what I perceive as marketing hype - and for ME - it cheapens the watch. As much as it may increase the value of the watch to others. 

I realize all of this is quite outside the watches themselves. But in this day of cheap reliable quartz watches,both of these watches are really man jewelry. And jewelry is about personal expression. And I find the AT a better expression of my preferences.


----------



## ReXTless (Mar 18, 2010)

arty11001 said:


> Any reason why the PO crystal is clear and the Aquatimer crystal is so distorted? I guess the AT crystal is thicker due to depth rating, but the PO is no slouch in the depth rating, so how come?
> 
> The costs are pretty much the same in the uk. £3450 for the Aquatimer on rubber and the planet ocean is £3600 on rubber. So, that's jut the cost for them in the UK. Does this make the AT a better deal now!?
> 
> Arty


I don't know for sure, but I suspect it has to do with the depth rating. IWC clearly knows how to make crystals with excellent optics. This can be seen in the Mark and Pilot chrono models (and probably others too, I just know from experience about the pilot watches). The AT crystal is likely quite thick. It might be difficult to make a double-dome crystal with the ideal optical geometry to prevent distortion. My Oris 1000m is the same way. Drives me nuts. 

As for the price differential, I think you are probably subject to different market conditions in the UK, compared to the US. If the difference is only 150 pounds, I'd definitely go for the PO if it was my purchase.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love IWC watches. In this case though, I think the PO is the winner. Are you looking to buy on a rubber strap? If so, I like your taste. I prefer both watches on rubber, as compared to the bracelet.


----------



## JpoL (Jul 17, 2008)

I tried those exact two watches 2 days ago. I'm officially sold at the Omega. Personally, I think that it plays on a different league than the AT. The old planet ocean didn't appeal to me at all, but the new one seems like it is going to be my next watch. Display back, movement decoration, the movement itself, applique numbers and the awesome rubber strap won me.


----------



## Hasna (Jan 19, 2009)

Different league? The thread clearly shows, that it is in fact the same league and decisive factor here is like/not like. I would generally be more careful with "different league", "worlds appart", "hands down" kind of statements, when high end watches with nearly the same price are discussed.


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

JpoL,

He said _personally_ to qualify his statement and the gentlemen is entitled to his opinion.



Bob



JpoL said:


> I tried those exact two watches 2 days ago. I'm officially sold at the Omega. Personally, I think that it plays on a different league than the AT. The old planet ocean didn't appeal to me at all, but the new one seems like it is going to be my next watch. Display back, movement decoration, the movement itself, applique numbers and the awesome rubber strap won me.


----------



## Hasna (Jan 19, 2009)

No doubt about that. Different league it is not. My opinion.


----------



## JpoL (Jul 17, 2008)

Hasna said:


> Different league? The thread clearly shows, that it is in fact the same league and decisive factor here is like/not like. I would generally be more careful with "different league", "worlds appart", "hands down" kind of statements, when high end watches with nearly the same price are discussed.


Mr. Hasna relax, we won't be prosecuted for those statements :-d. We have different opinions, we are here to have fun, share our thoughts and maybe help someone ;-).


----------



## Hasna (Jan 19, 2009)

Maybe IWC will feel the pressure of 8500 in PO and introduce on SIHH AT with inhouse. Would be nice, imho.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

I've pulled the trigger guys!! Hopefully I've picked the right one!! I think I've picked the right one for me anyway.

Final choice was Aquatimer, Planet Ocean and Rolex sub.

Guess which one I went for????


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

The one that YOU liked best...



arty11001 said:


> I've pulled the trigger guys!! Hopefully I've picked the right one!! I think I've picked the right one for me anyway.
> 
> Final choice was Aquatimer, Planet Ocean and Rolex sub.
> 
> Guess which one I went for????


----------



## jimmer42 (Feb 18, 2011)

So.....which one????


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Well, I'll explain my decision breakdown...

Tried them all on and all had things I liked and disliked. The Rolex sub I thought was just too small. At 40mm it's just a little on the small side for me. Had it been 42-44mm I'd have said the decision would have been harder. The bezel turn of the Rolex is sublime... the best of the three I reckon. I also think it had the smoothest seconds hand of the three. One thing I just couldn't get over though, was the weight of it... Or should I say lack of it!! Now, I'm sure weight has no relation to accuracy, or build quality... But it simply feels too light for a luxury watch!! It's a shame as I like the style, but just feels a little too lifhtweight to inspire confidence. I'm sure the seadweller is much better, but the cost is too prohibitive. Anyway, the Rolex had to be a no.

The Omega and IWC was a harder decision. I sat for about 2hours going backwards and forwards between the two. Really like the Omega and really like elements of the IWC... A very tough call. Omega is a more classic and sharper look and te movement looks awesome through the back. Preferred the look of the rubber strap, but unfortunately it felt a little thin. The clasp is very nice though and much nicer than the IWC clasp. The rubber on te IWC is much thicker though. Tough call! Ultimately though, there were a few things stacked against it. I think as nice as the PO is... It's just not different enough from the previous one I had. It is very subtle an therefore doesn't feel like much more of a watch for a lot more money than the previous model. I think the bezel is nowhere near as nice feeling or sounding as the Rolex. Way off in fact. Again, might be excellently made, but doesn't sound or feel anywhere near as nice. I also don't like the grainy sheen of the dial. Just looks a bit cheap!? Hard to describe.

In the end, it left only 1 watch... The IWC aquatimer.

It's hard to describe, but it just feels more solid. Less glitz, just solid craftsmanship. The bezel is very sturdy and sounds high quality as opposed to the Omega's lightweight clickyness. It's the simple things that make the differences in a hard fought contest and the IWC just has too many simple things so... Right! Even down to the edges of the dial being black rather than a reflective silver like the PO. The quality of the brushing on the sides. On the IWC, the grain is just so perfect and smooth. The hands just so simple but clear and I just think overall it just looks a bit more unusual than the Omega.

So, not taking anything away from any of the others... It's the IWC that is the winner for my tastes. Once again, thanks to everyone who helped with my decision!!

Regards

Arty


----------



## Jez4 (Apr 20, 2010)

Great choice - congratulations! Enjoy the watch.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Thank you! I'm sure I will!!

Arty


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

The new PO or the IWC? The good thing about a choice like that is the fact that there is no wrong answer! Congrats.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Exactly!! They are both superb in all honesty! They both have bits that are great and it was a tough choice. In the end though, I just think the IWC is a little bit unusual and feels so well made!!

All great watches!

Arty


----------



## Jim123 (Oct 13, 2009)

Congratulations!!! where are the photos?


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Here's the fella!!


----------



## karmatp (Jul 8, 2007)

Great choice, huge congrats.


----------



## JpoL (Jul 17, 2008)

Arty, enjoy your superb watch!! Really liked the description of the details of your tough choise. Once again, enjoy.


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

JpoL said:


> Arty, enjoy your superb watch!! Really liked the description of the details of your tough choise. Once again, enjoy.


Thanks you very much!

Ahh, glad the description was handy and not just a rambling!! Apologies for the terrible typo's too! I did it on the phone!

It was a really tough choice indeed. The Omega is a really really nice watch too... it took a lot of comparing! I do think had I not had the first PO, I would probably have gone with that. It has a LOT going for it!

One thing I will point out, is that for the bigger of wrist, it's worth noting that the standard length rubber strap isn't very long. The one that comes with it is too short for me long term. It's on the last but one hole, which is too short for me and it doesn't even go through the second tab! So, the jewellers have ordered the XL one and should be here this week.

One thing I love already... the LUME!!! One word... AWESOME!! Never seen anything like it! I'm certainly not disappointed!

Arty


----------



## JpoL (Jul 17, 2008)

:-!


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Cool huh!??? 

It's weird, but it actually looks bigger than my 47mm Oris!! It's really deceiving how big it looks for 44mm. In daylight, the size looks absolutely perfect, on a night, it looks huuuuuuge!! Because the bezel lights up too, it makes the watch face appear massive and to be totally honest... looks absolutely sensational! I'm very very impressed with the lume in this beauty!! By morning, you can't see the difference in the colour of the lume (the mix of blue and green) and it all looks the same colour, but it's still pretty bright after 6-7 hours!

Anyway, i'm loving it so far! Just hope long-term that the yellow doesn't grate!

Arty


----------



## buddy13 (Sep 1, 2007)

Well done Arty! You've gone for a very fine watch...I'm not saying that the PO is not a nice watch but IMHO the IWC AT construction is just a notch above...

The AT is simply a VERY well built diver's watch. It is so nice and it's edges are so sharp that I actually am a bit hesistant taking it diving with me since I do not want to ruin those very fines sharp edges with dings and marks..something I never considered with my (now departed) SD and Subs..

I was considering trading my AT for a 16610 LV (a watch I've wanted along time) but I didn't do it. So far I'm not sorry at all. Enjoy that superb watch in peak health mate!


----------



## arty11001 (Oct 25, 2011)

Ahhhh thanks man!! I must say, I really do appreciate yours and everyone's help in choosing it! I feel very welcomed into the IWC owners club!

I did indeed decide against the bracelet on the day... I just wasn't that keen on the polished centre links. Your brushed version has spoiled me now I've seen it! 

Thanks again

Arty


----------

