# Planet Ocean 37.5mm vs 42mm: a dilemma.



## Thegrifter1

Dear All,

I've been a big fan of Omegas since being gifted my father's Seamaster as my 18th birthday present back in 2004 (see below). I've also enjoyed reading this forum and learning from some of the many, great contributors! |>





Despite loving my watch and wearing it as much as possible, I've long lusted after a diver. Along the way i've considered a range from Sea-Dwellers (I think the PO's more attractive and prefer Omega's slightly subtler image), through to vintage Omega 300s (as much as I love them I think I might prefer a newer watch) and the 2254.5. I'm however leaning firmly towards looking for a Planet Ocean when I (hopefully) graduate from 9 years of University next year.

So, having spent too much time over summer looking at wrist shots and weighing up the 2500 vs 8500 debate I thought I'd go to the local dealers and see whether either of them would fit my puny 6.5" wrist and here's the evidence:

First the 42mm PO 8500-




And then out of desperation, the "ladies'" version, the 37.5mm PO-





As you might expect, after years wearing my 33-34mm watch, even the 37.5mm PO felt like a large watch and I was shocked at the heft of the 42mm; it really did look like a big lump of admittedly very attractive metal when I put it on.

My girlfriend felt the 42mm was too big, and there does seem to be a little overhang looking at the picture, whether this was how I'd draped the watch over my wrist, the camera angle or not I don't know, but it certainly looked far bigger on me than I'd expected at first.

I've asked about this on another of my favourite websites and, just as I expected, have had very mixed responses. Anyway, your opinions would be much appreciated. I'm not too worried about going for the "ladies'" option, but I've known a few people regret going for smaller sizes in the past and had also quite fancied the original 2500 PO (I know I should try to find one to try on) and they don't come in the 37.5mm size (without chronograph). I'm also not bothered by the weight of the PO, just the possibe lug to lug issue.

Whilst on the subject, I don't suppose anyone knows the thickness and lug to lug length of the 37.5? I mean the length from top to bottom of the watch as opposed to the 18mm bracelet size- I'm just interested to know whether there is much difference between the models as I can't find the 37.5's dimensions anywhere on the net! Also I've heard that the 2500 wears bigger than the 8500, has that been your experience or is it still worth me trying the 2500 with its 1.5mm slimmer case?

Many thanks in advance!


----------



## young dude

42mm, you'll get used to it (in fact I think it looks fine as is), but the smaller one ain't gonna "grow"


----------



## tigerpac

42 in the PO8500 all the way. It's a big clunky diver - embrace it! You have a great option when you want something smaller and slimmer already.


----------



## Vertec

The shock of moving up in size will skew your opinion. You can pull off the 42 no problem, but to reassure yourself start looking at a full length mirror with it on. 

If you are into rubber straps, putting that on the 42 will make it seem a bit smaller and hold it in place on your wrist.


----------



## SMP_DON

Whatever you feel comfortable with. I have a 7.5 inch wrist and wouldn't wear anything bigger than 43mm but that's me. Try on a SMP 41mm or AT 38.5mm whatever fits, feels and looks right. Don't buy something you don't feel good about wearing.

Don



Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## mjrchabot

It's a diver, so it should wear a little larger. I think it looks good on you, but ultimately you have to go with whatever you're comfortable with. You might want to look for at the PO 2500 in its 42mm variant, it will wear smaller than the 8500.
I opted for the classic look of the PO 2201.50 - never looked back! My Speedy will soon be for sale because of it... I wear a suit every day and it has been working out very well even with the shirt cuff.


----------



## redpill

Go 42mm.

Besides, most women aren't good at noticing things that have mechanical moving parts, so get a big one so she'll actually see your nice watch!

To paraphrase Al Pacino in Scarface....
First you get the money
Then you get the (42mm) watch
THEN you get the women!

Hah, either way enjoy, nice watches!


----------



## Deanster

Interesting. You're certainly right on the cusp of the 42 being uncomfortably large. 

I think you could very reasonably wear either watch without being obviously either 'too big', or 'too small'. The 42 will be a large watch on you, similar to a 45mm for most men - big, but not crazy. The 37.5 will be MUCH smaller, and have a more traditional fit. 

For what it's worth, I'd argue that for men with smaller wrists, the lug-to-lug size ends up being less important than how heavy the watch is, and how high it rides - the 8500-series watches are quite tall to start out with, and on a smaller or more-bony wrist end up standing very proud - perhaps enough to be unpleasant to wear, or end up smashing them into things. My tallest watches get the least wear, even on my caveman 8.5" wrists (with a nice layer of chubby guy softness for the watch to sink into). My heaviest watches also get less wear - much as I like them, they become fatiguing and unpleasant to wear eventually. 

I'd probably go for the 42mm, in large part because it's relatively easy to flip if you decide to go another direction, and because it's a truly great modern dive watch. If the height and weight work for you, the overall size looks fine to me on your wrist. 

Looking beyond the PO 8500's, I think the advice above to check out a 42mm PO 2500 (perhaps on rubber) is a good idea, or perhaps the new ceramic-bezeled Seamaster Pro line - they're considerably flatter/lighter than the PO's, and very attractive, IMHO.


----------



## tigerpac

Like many have said, it comes down to which you're most comfortable with. However ---- A lot of us on here (or at least myself) are/is saying that we've seen or experienced first-hand that larger watches seem to grow on people, and they end up being happier going larger.

I opted for the 45.5 PO 8500 over the 42 -- thought it was borderline too big for me... now I love it and am extremely happy I went big.


----------



## MrOmega

42mm. Go for it.


----------



## Torrid

SMP_DON said:


> Whatever you feel comfortable with. I have a 7.5 inch wrist and wouldn't wear anything bigger than 43mm but that's me. Try on a SMP 41mm or AT 38.5mm whatever fits, feels and looks right. Don't buy something you don't feel good about wearing.
> 
> Don
> 
> Sent via Tapatalk


I agree. The slimmer, slightly smaller 41mm SMP would be an excellent choice. I still from time to time think of picking up a 2254.50 since I sold the 2531.80 Bond a while back.


----------



## Vakane

Dunno why... But 37 looks perfect on him


----------



## Vertec

Vakane said:


> Dunno why... But 37 looks perfect on him


It does, indeed. They need to stop calling this a "ladies" watch.


----------



## tigerpac

Full disclosure --- My GF has the 37.5 and she's 5'2''... just wanted to throw that in there.


----------



## NoleenELT

Vakane said:


> Dunno why... But 37 looks perfect on him


I don't think that these pictures are a good indication at all of how it looks to him (no offense to his photography, but the angle is very hard to tell). I think that the 42 is small enough for everything but the tiniest wrists.

I wouldn't be embarrassed to wear the "ladies" watch if I were you, but I think that you'll get used to the 42 quicker than you'd think.


----------



## J.JUN

I just think that you should feel good wearing a watch. PO is a very thick watch, I've been thinking abt buying the 42mm version too but the moment I tried it on, it's off the list almost immediately coz to me, it's too thick for my 6.25-6.5 wrist.

Perhaps look at other models ie. SMP, AT, Deville. And ya may be surprised on hw other models can grow on ya!


----------



## mjrchabot

No need to fear the 42mm size... this isn't your father's Seamaster. This is a full-blown diver and as a result, it's going to wear larger. I don't think you should get the 37.5, I really think you'll regret it eventually. Owning a 42mm PO will be an awesome compliment to the dressier Seamaster you already own. 
Not sure what your wrist size is (maybe I missed it) but here's my 42mm PO 2500 on a 6.25" wrist. I love this thing and has amazing wrist presence because it's _larger_ size. It's definitely heavier and larger on the wrist compared to my Speedy Pro.


----------



## Scotland007

I have a small wrist also and opted for the PO 2500 as above after trying on the 8500. I got the rubber strap and white stitching, The rubber strap looks thinner and also the 2500 isn't as tall on the wrist as the 8500.


----------



## Quartersawn

I would listen to my girlfriend before I took the advice of a bunch of strangers on a forum. If she thinks it is too big she is probably right. I have a 7.375" wrist and don't like the PO - I think the 2500 version is too tall and ungainly. Dunno what Omega was thinking by making it even thicker...

You should try on the mid-size Seamaster. At 36.25mm it will probably fit you perfectly and make your girlfriend happy, too.

OMEGA Watches: Seamaster 300 M Chronometer - Steel on steel - 212.30.36.20.01.002

OMEGA Watches: Seamaster 300 M Chronometer - Steel on steel - 212.30.36.20.03.001


----------



## squash master

42 is the right choice. That being said - the SMP 300 41mm would be an excellent choice - it's slimmer and very wearable (I wear mine every day!).


----------



## marzen

I prefer anything under 36mm when it comes to dressy watches. PO? Def 42mm. Although mine is for sale, looking at this thread, I am beginning to wonder whether I should keep it. BTW, 2500 FTW!!!


----------



## Scotland007

My PO 2500 42mm.


----------



## Koyote

For what it's worth, I wore my old Bulova Accutron Spaceview today; it has a 34" case. It was very comfortable and looked good, I think.


----------



## camb66

Get the 42


----------



## Kev0417

I would go with the 42 because if decide to go with a rubber band, it will wear a little smaller, and you will end up looking at the 37.5 if you got it, that it might be a touch small once you get used to wearing a diver. I got the 41 SMP and so glad that I didn't get the mid size because when I first wore it, I thought it might be too big, but now it is the perfect size. I also have a hummer which is 35 mm so I have the choice of vintage and modern, with the different sizes. Definitely a great investment and the larger one will grow on you and you won't look back.


----------



## Martijnvb

Judging by what you've written (and the pictures), I'd say go with the 37.5mm version.
You seem to favor that size and I think it looks more balanced on your wrist than the 42mm.

Cheers, Martijn

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner


----------



## Thegrifter1

Guys, thanks very much for the advice so far, really good to hear your views! A few people have suggested trying other watches... I'll definitely have to try a 42mm 2500. I was really set on this model until I tried the 8500 at the dealers where it looked a very handsome watch. Pictures on the net and looking in AD windows just don't do it justice, but then perhaps the same could be said for the 2500, unfortunately I haven't seen any to try on locally.

As for the AT suggestions, it has to be a diver, that's what I've always really been after and I think an AT is too much of a modern incarnation of my father's watch to want to have both at the expense of having the diver to go with the dressier watch, the same goes for a De Ville. Both great watches nonetheless! 

Whilst I had thought about an SMP, I'm not a big fan of skeleton hands or ceramic dials, the 2254.5 seemed an obvious choice, but I'm afraid I've been bitten by the extra gloss of the PO. I did consider a mid-size Professional, but I'm already debating whether the 37.5 is too small for the chunky (but refined) diver look.

I would consider a used 40mm Submariner or preferably Sea Dweller, but there are so many around, even more fakes than genuines and the design leaves me a little cold compared to the PO, so I think I'd only be buying them for the Rolex name (which is probably a bit too flashy anyway), the fact they were the original bond movie watch (not a great justification for spending a lot of money on a watch) the residuals (but I intend this watch to be a keeper) and in the case of the SD, the depth rating (though whilst I enjoy the sea I'm no diver!).

I don't suppose anyone with a 2500 and 8500 could post comparison shots on their wrist to compare how they wear?

Also if anyone with the 37.5 (whether it's theirs or their wife's ;-)) could measure the thickness and lug to lug length I'd be very grateful! On a side note, at least Omega have started listing the 37.5mm on the men's section of the site as well as the ladies'... I can't help but think they must have lost a few small wrist sales by pushing it so heavily as a woman's watch.

ETA thanks for the pictures, some very nice POs out there.


----------



## spyderco10

get the 42. i have 6" wrists and once bought the midsize smp. it looked OK at first, but then as time went by, it got "smaller" and ended up selling it.


----------



## Deanster

With all that in mind, I'd say go for the 42mm 8500. I have the 2500 version, and while it's a great watch, it's not NEARLY as nice as the 8500 in appearance. If you were drawn to the looks of the 8500, go get one!


----------



## MrOmega

I would acknowledge that a 39mm or 40mm PO would be a better fit if they had made one. But for the PO, it really has to be 42mm or 37.5mm and 37.5mm, the latter is too small 

For your wrist size, the best size is from 39mm to 41mm though.

I would advise you to avoid rolex because it will cast aspersions on your character


----------



## jwalther

Allow me a suggestion. . .










I know you don't want a Rolex diver (a decision I would reconsider in your circumstances), but what about a GMT? Perfect size for you, plenty of WR though not a diver, and a fascinating history all its own.


----------



## sneakertinker

Right off I'm going to say if you feel more comfortable with the 37.5mm then that's the model you should get...It's your wrist and you should buy what makes you happy...

Not even sure why Omega markets the 37.5mm as a Woman's watch as they offer the 36mm SMP as a Men's...But that's neither here nor there...The 37.5mm looks perfect on your wrist while the 42 looks like it's pushing in from my perspective on the pictures you took...I can honestly say that, for me, a smaller watch is a more comfortable watch...I've owned every version of the Gen 1 PO as well as a 42mm 8500 version, three full size SMP's, and two mid size SMP's...Sold them all and the only ones I regreat getting rid of are the 36mm models...

I know it's the "it" thing to have a huge watch strapped to your wrist but in my book classic will always trump modern and maybe that's why I view the 37.5mm as the way to go for you...Connery wore a 38mm Rolex Sub as Bond, Prince William has worn a mid size SMP Quartz for going on 15 years, and VP Biden seems to wear his mid size SMP regularly...Bottom line is buy what you feel comfortable with...


----------



## Robby H

MrOmega said:


> For your wrist size, the best size is from 39mm to 41mm though.


Just for info, actually if we compare the 42mm PO vs 41mm SMP, it will looks that the SMP is a bit bigger.
and it's actually TRUE, because if we measure the diameter of the BEZEL, the SMP is 41mm correctly, while the PO's is only 40.5mm !
how come ? That's because on the PO, they measure the diameter not only from the bezel, but including the CASE (without the crown). Look at the right side beside the bezel.
Iknow that because I had both and also someone already ever mentioned it in these WUS thread long time ago.

So! My advice : buy 42mm PO !


----------



## yande

Welcome to WUSOF Thgrifter1.

You already have a wealth of info from this great forum. The choice is yours.

Sure it is going to be a big step from your vintage Omega to a new model, mostly due to size, and that is going to take a bit of getting used to.
I'd definitely check out the 42mm 2500 line as they do not sit as proud as the latest PO's. On the other hand, (same wrist actually) I see nothing wrong with going for a smaller (37.5mm) size if it is comfortable, (acutely comfortable) compared to the 42mm. You! And Rolex is will get used to the heft, and if like me, and a few fiends I know, end up enjoying the heft,- the wrist presence. I'd go for as big as you're game to wear, especially coming from such a smaller watch as the one that you have been wearing. you *will* get used to it, as long as the lugs are not overhanging your wrist.
Defenitely check out the 2501 etc, as they are slimmer.

Best of luck. And yeah, congratulations on the near completion of 9 years study, well done! Rolex for me is just too much of a statement for who I am not, and to be honest, who I do not want to be.


----------



## jot_

Hate to dredge up an old thread, but I was looking around for some information on the 37.5mm PO... Isn't the watch in the first post shown as the 42mm actually a 45mm? The positioning of the date window suggests 45mm to me, am I wrong?

I hope it's not too late for the OP to see this.


----------



## wheels

yande said:


> Welcome to WUSOF Thgrifter1.
> 
> Best of luck. And yeah, congratulations on the near completion of 9 years study, well done! Rolex for me is just too much of a statement for who I am not, and to be honest, who I do not want to be.


Sorry mate but your view on Rolex seems a little skewed. No this isn't an attempt to turn the thread into a Rolex vs Omega tirade. No I'm not a Rolex fanboy extolling the virtues of a brand at the expense of all others. I just find the statement a little, interesting, shall we say? I own exactly one Rolex, a 1968 vintage 5513 Sub. It fits in perfectly with the rest of my vintage collection. It says nothing about me apart from the fact that I collect interesting vintage pieces, nothing more. It certainly says nothing about who I do and don't want to be!
Anyone who collects vintage pieces needs to have at minimum a Speedie and a Sub in their collection. They are iconic pieces along with so many others (Navitimer Cosmonaute, Bulova Accutron, Huer Monaco, to name a couple).


----------



## Fenix84

Robby H said:


> Just for info, actually if we compare the 42mm PO vs 41mm SMP, it will looks that the SMP is a bit bigger.
> and it's actually TRUE, because if we measure the diameter of the BEZEL, the SMP is 41mm correctly, while the PO's is only 40.5mm !
> how come ? That's because on the PO, they measure the diameter not only from the bezel, but including the CASE (without the crown). Look at the right side beside the bezel.
> Iknow that because I had both and also someone already ever mentioned it in these WUS thread long time ago.
> 
> So! My advice : buy 42mm PO !


This is so true. I went to the AD to try on the 42mm PO and to my amazment it looked really small to me. Prior to this i was wearing a SMPc which supposedly measures at 41.5mm. So i guess the SMP is actually bigger and with the chronograph pushers looks even bigger than that. Sorry to be off topic


----------



## marked

I am just going to restate what many others have already said. My personal opinion is that the 37mm looks perfect on your wrist, and as long as you are not planning to sell in the near future, you should get it.

If you think you might flip the watch down the road, the 42mm will hold it's value better.

Don't worry about it being marketed as a woman's watch. I proudly where my white 42mm women's PO all the time and think it looks great:


----------



## steph86

What a beauty! Awesome photo...



marked said:


> I am just going to restate what many others have already said. My personal opinion is that the 37mm looks perfect on your wrist, and as long as you are not planning to sell in the near future, you should get it.
> 
> If you think you might flip the watch down the road, the 42mm will hold it's value better.
> 
> Don't worry about it being marketed as a woman's watch. I proudly where my white 42mm women's PO all the time and think it looks great:


----------



## Perseus

If you haven't made your decision I'd go for the smaller watch. The 42mm looks comically huge on your wrist and I can't imagine it's that comfortable.


----------



## GaryF

I've just looked at this thread and the OP's photos properly for the first time and noticed that the watches in the photos aren't, in fact, the 42mm and the 37mm but the 45mm and the 42mm. The 37mm has the 8520 in which means that the date window is moved a good distance towards the centre of the watch. See below.









Here's a shot of the white version which shows it more clearly:









The proportions of the watch are completely different. It's no wonder that the "42mm" looked big on a 6.5 inch wrist. It was 45mm.

Can't always get the staff, it seems.


----------



## darrenf

I've been following this thread and it's been bugging me that the smaller watch seems to wear pretty similar to my 42mm and my wrist is only slightly larger.

I'd agree that the watches are actually the 45 and 42, particularly now i'v seen the date window setting on the 37.5 above.

If you look at the date windows on the OP's pictures, the larger watch has a bit of space between the date window and hour marker (as per 45mm) and the smaller one has date window right up against the hour marker (as per 42mm).

On that basis, I would say to the OP - go for the 42mm ie the smaller one in the original photo's. (And maybe try another AD too)!


----------



## yessir69

Go with the 37. It's the right size for you. I'm 6'3" and 235 with a 7 inch wrist. I have a 38.5 AT and it's the perfect size. Don't worry about the labels Omega puts on it for marketing.


----------



## Robby H

yessir69 said:


> Go with the 37. It's the right size for you. I'm 6'3" and 235 with a 7 inch wrist. I have a 38.5 AT and it's the perfect size. Don't worry about the labels Omega puts on it for marketing.


Thats not the 37mm that shown on the OP pic. That is 42mm ! That means go for 42mm


----------



## Phil_P

Thegrifter1 said:


> Despite loving my watch and wearing it as much as possible, I've long lusted after a diver. Along the way i've considered a range from Sea-Dwellers (I think the PO's more attractive and prefer Omega's slightly subtler image), through to vintage Omega 300s (as much as I love them I think I might prefer a newer watch) and the 2254.5. I'm however leaning firmly towards looking for a Planet Ocean when I (hopefully) graduate from 9 years of University next year.


If you decide the 42mm PO feels too big for you then I highly recommend to take a longer look at the 2254 SMP option. I have a 7" wrist and spent a lot of time looking for a smaller slimmer diver that wears comfortably and the 2254 (or any SMP I guess) absolutely ticks the boxes in this respect. I tend to just know the moment I drape a watch onto my wrist whether or not it fits/feels comfortable, and if it's not comfortable then I just won't end up wearing it and I'm not buying an expensive watch to sit in a box and look at it. The moment I tried on a PO I knew it wasn't for me despite the fact I've always been drawn to it's great looks.


----------



## yessir69

Robby H said:


> Thats not the 37mm that shown on the OP pic. That is 42mm ! That means go for 42mm


Uh, no. That means go for the 37.


----------



## Robby H

yessir69 said:


> Uh, no. That means go for the 37.


i mean if you give the sugestion based on the OP's smaller PO pic, that is the 42mm, not the 37mm. Maybe the sales wrong giving the information.

But if your sugestion is based on your opinion that all of the PO he wear on those pictures is too big, so youll think he will be better choose the 37mm, so its my mistake. Every people had different taste / opinions.


----------



## yessir69

Robby H said:


> i mean if you give the sugestion based on the OP's smaller PO pic, that is the 42mm, not the 37mm. Maybe the sales wrong giving the information.
> 
> But if your sugestion is based on your opinion that all of the PO he wear on those pictures is too big, so youll think he will be better choose the 37mm, so its my mistake. Every people had different taste / opinions.


----------



## Robby H

yessir69 said:


>


Hahahaha....very funny.

but seriously, if its about the Pictures that OP posted, those pictures had a wrong information. Those PO he tried are the 45.5 and the 42. Check the clue of the 37mm base on that Gary posted above (gary posted around 5 hours ago)


----------



## yessir69

Robby H said:


> Hahahaha....very funny.
> 
> but seriously, if its about the Pictures that OP posted, those pictures had a wrong information. Those PO he tried are the 45.5 and the 42. Check the clue of the 37mm base on that Gary posted above (gary posted around 5 hours ago)


His wrists are even smaller than mine. I had a PO 42mm and the size and weight bugged me. I think the 37 would be perfect just like my midsize AT is perfect for me. Just my $.02.


----------



## yande

wheels said:


> Sorry mate but your view on Rolex seems a little skewed. No this isn't an attempt to turn the thread into a Rolex vs Omega tirade. No I'm not a Rolex fanboy extolling the virtues of a brand at the expense of all others. I just find the statement a little, interesting, shall we say? I own exactly one Rolex, a 1968 vintage 5513 Sub. It fits in perfectly with the rest of my vintage collection. It says nothing about me apart from the fact that I collect interesting vintage pieces, nothing more. It certainly says nothing about who I do and don't want to be!


Yeah no sweat Wheels, but I am saying for who 'I AM'. I can get away with an Omega, but if I started wearing a Rolex, those associated to me are going to think me a poser, either by thinking I am wearing a fake, and also by wearing the real thing. Omega/Heuer is a little more under the radar. Don't get me wrong, I do covet some Rolex models, but from where I have come from, where I am at the moment, it just does not sit right with me.

Each to their own. And if if you cared to note, I did speak in "I" statements. I'll stick to what I know and you may call my view skewed, but I wonder how you can as you have not seen the world through my eyes or experiences. My view may be (as you state) skewed, though perchance yours is more one eyed.. 




wheels said:


> Anyone who collects vintage pieces needs to have at minimum a Speedie and a Sub in their collection.


That's interesting. Crikey, Another WUS Rule I have not read! :-d



wheels said:


> They are iconic pieces along with so many others (Navitimer Cosmonaute, Bulova Accutron, Huer Monaco, to name a couple).


 :-s

I'm not sure where you got onto this vintage collection theme, but I buy watches because I like them. Whether they be the 3570.50 speedy, 2201.50 PO Autavia 11630MH, Geneve F300hz Chronometer, flightmaster etc.

I'm sorry wheels, I just don't like Rolex at this moment and that is MY personal choice.


----------



## wheels

No probs Mark, to each their own. I diverged onto a vintage thread because, apart from my 2254, that's what I collect. I do understand your concern with what others think, but if we lived our life caring about what other people thought, we'd live their lives, not our own. Maybe you should just get that sneaky Roller that you like and wear it at home!


----------



## yande

Thanks wheels, I like your attitude and perhaps need to apologise for mine. For yes, you are 100% correct. I'm working on that "If it feels good, do it!" attitude.
And this 1967 5513 is near exactly what I covet. Near as in the price! (Photo from Nick Hacko's great horological newsletter.)










As regards "Maybe you should just get that sneaky Roller that you like and wear it at home!" Oh man, I can imagine the situation. Wife... "You have another watch?" Can I see?" :-d


----------



## wheels

See your tastes do run to vintage! And we like the same thing! Here a photo of my 5513, a 1968 model with Meters first on the dial. a beautiful watch, that to the non WIS is quite understated and not immediately recognisable as a Rolex (no big cyclops etc).


----------



## yande

I did not state it in my post, but yes, the 5513's non cycloped crystal was a very important consideration for me for this particular Rolex to make the one and only entry onto my wish list. The one I pictured is going for about $AUD6.800- and at 40mm near (there's that word) perfect! That is a beautiful watch wheels.

OT, It is interesting the patina on yours considering that the one I pictured,

"In 1999, the watch was sent to Rolex Service Centre in Melbourne for a complete overhaul.The list of replaced components included a new middle case, correctly stamped "5513"​with a new L serial number. The original tritium maxi dial was preserved."

Others photos on the listing, the lume looks even whiter.

Hehe, thanks for sharing, a most interesting and pleasing conclusion to our discourse.​


----------



## Thegrifter1

Guys! What a surprise and what else can I say other than a massive thank you particularly to jot_, GaryF and darrenF for their eagle eyes and incredible knowledge- two things that never cease to amaze me about posters on this site. |>

Just to bring things up to speed for everyone:

Soon after starting this thread I decided to buy a Seiko SKX007 for day to day use and to tide my diver craving over until I was in a position to buy the Planet Ocean. However, I quickly realised that I was facing exactly the same problem- do I go for the full sized SKX007, or do I buy its smaller 38mm brother the SKX013.

Considering my Omega dilemma and feeling that the smaller PO had looked a better fit in the pics, I thought this would be a good opportunity to see if I could live with a sub-40mm diver, or, as many had suggested, whether I'd regret not buying the larger size.

A few days later I had the Seiko SKX013 safely through customs and waiting for collection. First off, I want to say what a great looking watch the SKX013/007 is:






















Having recently tried the Planet Oceans on I was expecting to notice a few cut corners here and there, but no, the watch was lovely to look at and felt far more solid and of better quality than I could have expected, it also had a fantastic lume.

However, before taking in what a great watch the Seiko was, the thing that initially struck me upon seeing it in the box was how small it looked! I think the combination of the black bezel and black rubber strap served to exaggerate the appearance that it sat smaller on my wrist than my father's 34mm Seamaster.

Anyway, I initially thought I could ignore this so tried it on over a couple of days, only to find I couldn't walk past a mirror without thinking that it looked like I'd strapped a bottle top to my wrist. So, with a heavy heart I decided to cut my losses and fortunately managed to practically recoup its cost with a bit of help from a well known auction site, despite a small nick in the bezel it was delivered with.

At this point I was obviously glad not to have spent an awful lot more money on an Omega, only to decide it felt too small. This left me ruling out the 37.5mm PO but still thinking that the 42mm in my original post might still be a bit too large. So, the past few months I've turned my attentions to finding a vintage diver until today when I thought I'd see if I'd had any more responses to the thread here on watchuseek.

So, needless to say I'm glad to see that the reason my wrist was dwarfed by the "42mm" Planet Ocean was that the chap in the shop had given me the 45mm and the 42mm as opposed to the 42mm and 37.5!

It's great to have my confusion lifted as I just couldn't believe that the very small seeming SKX013 was 0.5mm wider than the PO I'd tried! Also, it's great to think I can go with my initial gut feeling and get the smaller of the two watches I tried at the Omega AD (although I think I'll be going for the 2500 over the 8500), without having to ask for a woman's model or worrying that after a couple of days it would feel far too small! Cheers again to everyone who posted an oppinion, it's great to have so much knowledge at hand! 

ETA: Please stop tempting me with pictures of vintage Rolexes! It'll be a long time before I can afford to start a diver collection!!


----------



## wheels

Glad you got back to us, so many others don't!
As far as a diver collection goes, well, had you kept the Seiko and bought a PO, you've already started a collection. The vintage Rolex diver bug will bite, it's not a case of if, it's a case of when!


----------



## carlhaluss

42mm!!


----------



## nathanclarinet

I think the 42mm looks fine. You should try it on with a shirt sleeve or long sleeve to see how it looks. Cracking watch though - have one firmly in my sights, 45.5mm version ;-)


----------



## Reaper85

So OP had 45.5 and 42mm.
So a 45.5mm is a total no-go for a 6.5" wrist?
Lug to lug isn't that much, 50,57mm (there was a typo in first post):
https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/some...-spring-bar-measurments-reference-347112.html

I have a 6.5 inch wrist, and it's width is 53mm. So lug to lug would be ok if it is only 50mm.
But there is the weight problem. A wrist that size cannot hold a 222g watch. I think even a 42mm with 176g is to much for a puny wrist like that.
My heaviest watch had 130g, and altough heavy, it was wearable. But 50g more, I doubt it would be comfortable.
And biggest in diameter was 43mm (only 100g because of Titanium), which wears a lot nicer than small 37mm.

I have also ordered a homage Alpha Seamaster 41mm 180g, to see how it wears.


----------



## SubSeaWolfe

Trust me, it shrinks, go the 42


----------



## google

the 37mm looks terrible! the 42mm looks perfect for you.


----------



## borismach

I'm wearing a 45.5 PO...on my 6.7 in wrist...no problem at all...even for its weight...I'm wearing it 24-7...


----------



## clintfca

I second what another member said about trying the 42 on rubber.

I'm currently wearing a 45.5 POC on rubber on my 6 1/3" wrist and have no issues. I love it!

EDIT: now that OP's original pics are confirmed 45 and 42, I correct my statement by saying try 45 PO on rubber.


----------



## foodle

clintfca said:


> I'm currently wearing a 45.5 POC on rubber on my 6 1/3" wrist and have no issues. I love it!


9300 POC?!?! That's a beast. It looked too huge for my 7" wrist.

Can you post a wrist shot?


----------



## clintfca

foodle said:


> 9300 POC?!?! That's a beast. It looked too huge for my 7" wrist.
> 
> Can you post a wrist shot?











My other Omega is a 41mm SMP300M Chronometer and I wanted my next Omega to be bigger and sportier for every day wear. Watch case size/wrist size ratio is quite the controversial topic here on WUS I've discovered. In the end, echoing what other members have already shared, YOUR opinion on the watch is most important. I shared in another thread on "8500 PO or 9300 POC" that I fell in love with the 9300 POC when Omega first marketed it at Basel 2011. Even though I originally wanted the POC on rubber only, I purchased it with the steel bracelet and rubber deployment as per the AD's advice in case I change my mind later. I tried the watch on more times than I could count to test fit/comfort before finally pulling the trigger. The POC is now on rubber deployment and it's my daily.


----------



## Monkeydeath

Not to continue beating what is sure to be a dead horse by now, but the people arguing that the 42mm is a "better" fit for the OP shouldn't give opinions about these things ever again.


----------



## Perseus

Monkeydeath said:


> Not to continue beating what is sure to be a dead horse by now, but the people arguing that the 42mm is a "better" fit for the OP shouldn't give opinions about these things ever again.


What makes more sense...providing a opinion when asked or revisiting a thread that was started almost a year ago to tell people their opinions are not valid?


----------



## Mac

Appreciate this is an old thread....but.....:-d

I am also considering either a 42mm or 37.5mm PO 85--

I understand the case thickness is 15.7mm on the 42mm but is that the same on the 37.5mm version?

I have 6.75" wrists but although an average thickness they are not very wide across the top.

Thanks.
Mac
UK.


----------



## kimjmoon

Maybe this will help. I purchased the 42 because I thought the 45 was too big for my wrists. After purchasing a rubber dive strap for it, it actually wears smaller and I could have actually gone with the 45.

If you plan on flipping it down the line, I would say go with the 42, if its a keeper, get the 37. In my mind, a diver is supposed to wear larger.

My wrists are 7".

Hope this helps, plus its a nice dilemma to have!


----------



## Vakane

Get the 42.

The 37mm will be hard to sell


----------



## yande

And I thought this was all Georges doing!...


----------



## allaction

I have just over seven inch wrists and had a 42mm. It was the best fitting watch I ever had. I had a 'one man, one watch' cull a few years ago when I got a Sub'. Really regret selling the Omega, it just felt so right. The original PO was a brilliant looking watch and hindsight has proved it was a bargain. Think I got £1300 for it!

I did pick up a watchco 300 as a spiritual successor!


----------



## yande

allaction said:


> ......I did pick up a watchco 300 as a spiritual successor!


I still have my (modded) 2201.50, though the SMP 300 is the only other Omega I lust after. I just love that era.. Be it Omega, Heuer, and so many others.


----------



## Surfrider

Definitely the 37.5 for you. The 42mm 8500 looks to big and too tall. The 42mm 2500 isn't too tall, but definitely looks slightly too big on you. To me, nothing looks worse than a watch that's too big on someone; especially if it's because the lug-to-lug length is too great. It's very immature looking, I think. It's like you're trying to hard and are desperate for people to notice your watch. For that 42mm, the lug-to-lug is too much for you and there's overhang. It's not way too big and you could definitely make it work, but the 37.5 fits you perfectly. It still looks masculine and chunky, but it fits much better lug-to-lug and just looks right. At least, that's my opinion. Sure it would be slightly more difficult to sell, but who cares. You're not buying it to sell it, you're buying it to wear. The 42mm 2500 is one I'm considering, too, but the lug-to-lug is something I'm trying to figure out if I like. The way the end pieces extend makes the lug-to-lug greater than it otherwise would be. Not sure I like that. I do have an SMP 300 41mm, and that one fits perfectly. The PO 2500 wears just a little bigger than that.


----------



## Michael81

I have a 38mm 3211.30 Speedy. It fits perfectly and my wrist is just shy of 7'. Go for the 37.5. It's a classic size.


----------



## lucretius

The original post was in Sept. 2012. Likely, the OP has already made his decision.


----------



## fskywalker

Is the model number for the 2500 PO in 42mm, black dial with orange numbers, black bezel and SS bracelet 2201.51.00?

Thanks


----------



## DocJekl

fskywalker said:


> Is the model number for the 2500 PO in 42mm, black dial with orange numbers, black bezel and SS bracelet 2201.51.00?
> 
> Thanks


Yes, that's what I own, except I swapped out the bezel and bracelet.


----------



## wazzac

Hi Guys

Sorry to bring up an old thread, however I have exactly the same question that I am hoping someone may be able to assist me with.

I have been wanting my first, and likely only, high end watch for a number of years

As it will likely be my only watch, I am looking for a daily wearer that will stand the test of time, and can hopefully be dressed down or on occasions dressed up if required ... ie a classic

I slowly narrowed it down to the Seamaster line, and then the Planet Ocean

Last week I went to an AD to look at the standard PO vs GMT model, as well as to look at the plain black vs the black with orange numerals (see photos)

I took away from that visit, that I prefer the standard PO as the GMT is too much additional expense. I also decided that I would prefer the straight black, in line with my "classic" requirements for something that is less likely to date.

It was only today when I thought about band sizing that I measured my wrist and realised that it is apparently significantly smaller than most at between 5.75 and 6 inches. No matter how many times I measure it - it does not get any bigger.

I am now questioning the size of the 42mm watch on my wrist and wondering if I should return to the AD and try on a 37.5mm

What do you guys think? I am less interested in any current fashion and mainly interested in ensuring I buy once, and get me a timeless timepiece.

Oh, and I do realise that neither of the watches in post 1 is the 37.5mm

Thankyou for any advice

Wazza


----------



## calv1n

I wouldn't go smaller than 42 if I were you. However, I think the 1st gen 2500 might be the one as it wears thinner and slightly smaller in diameter. Plus, slightly more classic for a one watch does all. Jm2p.


----------

