WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I picked up a blue dialed aqua terra 2500 (39.2mm) the other day to complement my opaline 8500 (41.5mm) and thought it would be a good to do a comparison between the two.

First off, I find both AT's are hard to photograph and show off the details in the dials, not helped by the lack of sunlight we have had over here for the last 3 months :( and my photography is only mediocre.

I have had my AT8500 for a while now and I am very happy with it. After seeing ASRSPR's pictures on the blue faced AT 2500 (https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/othe...ua-terra-2500-pictures-i-promised-510829.html) I just had to find myself one too.



Rear view showing off the 8500 and 2500c






It is amazing how much the dial pops with some sun light




Side by side thickness comparsion shot 13.00mm vs 11.25 mm (8500 vs 2500)



The blue dialed 2500 is hard to capture its true colours. This is my attempt:



Wrist shots: the 2500 feels like the dressier of the two with a slimmer look and feel to it over the slightly bulkier 8500



I love the detailing to the dial on the AT8500 with the vertical teaking and chunky multi angular hands and markers that reflects the light in a way that the face looks very 3D, more so than any other watch I own. With the AR on both sides of the crystal the face jumps out at you under certain light conditions, which makes a very striking looking watch.
It is a very versitial watch as you all know as it dosen't look out of place when worn with a suit or jeans but I would say it is more on the side of a smart sporty watch than a dress watch.
The bracelet has a very silky smooth finish to it, it is comfortable and well made with a pin and screw link system, and has a comfortable double butterfly clasp which feels very solid.

The AT2500 is a slightly more dressier looking watch, with a more subtle thinner and flatter case.
The detailing on the dial with the changing depth of blue (depending on the light on it) with its star burst effect and the sliver markers and hands are a great contrast to each other. This is a handsome looking watch, which pulls off a smarter dressed up look than the AT8500 but like wise, dosen't pull off the sporty casual look as convincingly (my be it dose and I just haven't had enough time and/ or strap changes with it yet) as the newer AT.
The bracelet looks good and is has an all brushed finnish to it with the standard pin and tube system to hold the liks together, but it has possibly the worst clasp out of all the Omega's I have though. It is just so flimsy and cumbersome in use that I think I will have to find an alternative as this one is going to drive me mad.

I will try and do an update once I have tried some alternative straps on the AT2500, and it has had some more wrist time. Until then thanks for looking and if you have any strap suggestions please pass them on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,276 Posts
Great post thanks! I had the 2500 AT but have moved it keeping only the 38.5 mm 8500 AT. Can you tell us your wrist size and how the both of these watches fit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Great post and wonderful photos! I like both of those. I really want an AT like your 8500, I think that will be my next Omega.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
Great post thanks! I had the 2500 AT but have moved it keeping only the 38.5 mm 8500 AT. Can you tell us your wrist size and how the both of these watches fit?
I have a 7 1/4" wrist that is fairly flat on the top (if that makes sence?)
The fit... I like how both these watches sit on my wrist, but they do both sit differently. The 2500 seems to sink in to my wrist making it feel slimmer than its dimentions would suggest, where as the 8500 feels quite a bit more chunkier than the 2500, it feels more than the extra 2mm in hight, possibly due to the watch and bracelet being heavier and sturdier.
The 8500 feels indestructible compaired to light weight of the 2500 and its flimsy bracelet.

Here is a square on shot of the 41.5 AT8500 as yet I dont have a comarison shot of the AT2500. ** 2500 PICTURE ADDED**



 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,740 Posts
Very nice post/pics! I want a blue dialled 2500 in a 41.5mm so bad!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,410 Posts
the more I see the 8500 the more I like it
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,538 Posts
I picked up a blue dialed aqua terra 2500 (39.2mm) the other day to complement...
Nice! Wow, you're building up quite the collection now. It's great to see both generation ATs together like that. It's interesting to see that both "Gents Size" ATs wear pretty similar, diameter wise, as I remember them doing. Even though we know they are actually different sizes, they are proportioned similarly. IMO, Omega knows how to size their "standard" watches, well, and each design here is exactly the size it needs to be. Great photos, too! |>

Oh, and the first gen AT's bracelet will likely grow on you, as it did me. I started out disliking it, and ended up loving it. ;-)


I miss mine now! If you don't mind, here are a few more blue AT shots to add to your excellent photos (it really is super difficult to shoot!):














Very nice post/pics! I want a blue dialled 2500 in a 41.5mm so bad!
You'd be waiting a long time, as there isn't a 41.5 mm first gen AT. They came in 36.2 mm, 39.2 mm and 42.2 mm. ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Thanks for sharing the great pics! I also have the same silver AT8500 and have made similar observations as you. Even after owning for 16 months in my regular rotation, the bracelet is just as tight as the day I got it - an incredibly solid piece. I just wish the bezel was slightly more durable as it picked up one serious ding and I've had to be more careful since...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,276 Posts
I have a 7 1/4" wrist that is fairly flat on the top (if that makes sence?)
The fit... I like how both these watches sit on my wrist, but they do both sit differently. The 2500 seems to sink in to my wrist making it feel slimmer than its dimentions would suggest, where as the 8500 feels quite a bit more chunkier than the 2500, it feels more than the extra 2mm in hight, possibly due to the watch and bracelet being heavier and sturdier.
The 8500 feels indestructible compaired to light weight of the 2500 and its flimsy bracelet.

Here is a square on shot of the 41.5 AT8500 as yet I dont have a comarison shot of the AT2500.
I agree the 8500 does feel indestructible - one of the reasons I kept the 8500 and sold the 2500. I also felt more comfortable with the more substantial feel of the 8500 bracelet. IMHO the quality of the 8500 is a few steps above the 2500. What I did like about the 2500 is the more classic feel and look - I loved the way light would reflect off of the hour markers. In the end it came down to which of the 2 I wore more - almost every time I'd pick up the 8500 when choosing which watch to wear.

Congrats on owning both wonderful watches. I will continue to enjoy the 8500 but have fond memories of the 2500.

You can see how the hour markers and hands reflect light (this was taken on a rainy day)


In comparison the 8500 has a more dazzling dial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clarky and gaopa

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
Very cool comparison, thanks for posting!

cheers, martijn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I agree the 8500 does feel indestructible - one of the reasons I kept the 8500 and sold the 2500. I also felt more comfortable with the more substantial feel of the 8500 bracelet. IMHO the quality of the 8500 is a few steps above the 2500. What I did like about the 2500 is the more classic feel and look - I loved the way light would reflect off of the hour markers.
I agree with you that the 8500AT does feel a couple of steps ahead of the 2500AT in terms of quality.

I have noticed how much the 2500 reflects light off the markers and logo, so much so that you can some times see a ghost reflection of them bouncing off the inside of the crystal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Thanks for sharing the great pics! I also have the same silver AT8500 and have made similar observations as you. Even after owning for 16 months in my regular rotation, the bracelet is just as tight as the day I got it - an incredibly solid piece. I just wish the bezel was slightly more durable as it picked up one serious ding and I've had to be more careful since...
This is reassuring and backs up my feelings of a higher quality product in the 8500AT. It is great to hear it is still nice and solid ofter 16 months
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Nice! Wow, you're building up quite the collection now. It's great to see both generation ATs together like that. It's interesting to see that both "Gents Size" ATs wear pretty similar, diameter wise, as I remember them doing. Even though we know they are actually different sizes, they are proportioned similarly. IMO, Omega knows how to size their "standard" watches, well, and each design here is exactly the size it needs to be. Great photos, too! |>
Thanks Dixan.

I agree, Omega have sized both the "gents" size spot on, and they wear similarly well, although the 8500AT has more wrist presents.

Oh, and the first gen AT's bracelet will likely grow on you, as it did me. I started out disliking it, and ended up loving it. ;-)
I'm not sure if it will have enough time on mt wrist before I change it or mod it with a different clasp, but we will see.



If you don't mind, here are a few more blue AT shots to add to your excellent photos (it really is super difficult to shoot!):
Not at all, I realy enjoy your photographs and they had a part to play in a couple of my watch purchases, thanks for that ;-)b-)
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top