WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just a short post to express enjoyment of the 2220.80, which doesn't seem to get as much love as its predecessor or ceramic successors.

An update to the original "Bond" SMP, this added a co-axial movement, applied logo and markers, longer hands, and a splash of red on the dial. As someone who longed after the 2531.80 as a youngster, I ended up purchasing this one as an adult -- I think it's a bit dressier, and like the upgrades they made. In the right light, the waves disappear and give the gray-blue dial a smooth look -- but tilt your wrist ever so, and the waves really pop!
15372604


15372603

I also thought the initial ceramic update to this watch made the bezel way too thick. And I like the 2018 update as well, but there's something about the classic watch that just can't be beat.

15372605


Anyone else feel the same way about this facelift/update to a classic?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
414 Posts
Did this watch have the 2500 movement in it, like in the Planet Ocean and Aqua Terra? Is it thicker than the 2531.80? It’s a great looker, and having the earlier watch myself, I love the shared aspects of the wave dial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Did this watch have the 2500 movement in it, like in the Planet Ocean and Aqua Terra? Is it thicker than the 2531.80? It’s a great looker, and having the earlier watch myself, I love the shared aspects of the wave dial.
Yes -- 2500 movement, and marginally, yes -- I believe that the 2220.80 is about 0.7 to 1 mm thicker than the 2531.80.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
414 Posts
Yes -- 2500 movement, and marginally, yes -- I believe that the 2220.80 is about 0.7 to 1 mm thicker than the 2531.80.
The 2531.80 is so thin that it could easily afford that tiny increase! I wonder what version of the 2500 yours got.

Oddly, for myself I find that I prefer the non-applied indices, but I do enjoy seeing pictures of the 2220.80. Thanks for your post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Sure thing -- glad you enjoyed!

Mine has the 2500D, which is discernible by the difference in date wheel (seen below in the PO, photo pulled from the internet). As you can see in the photos in my original post above, the hooks in the "1" and the curved "9" make it the date wheel used in the D movement.
15374077
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
414 Posts
That’s a great movement - I had one in a 2011 Planet Ocean and it was incredibly consistent and accurate. Longer service intervals too, I believe. A definite upgrade!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
I do like the 2220.80.00, a really good looking watch. It improves on the 2531’s aesthetics while keeping what made its predecessor a great looking watch. The wave dial, that deep blue, simply superb. It also adds things I think were lacking - applied markers, for instance. So as far as the looks are concerned, it ticks a lot of boxes.

Where it loses, for me, is the movement. I’m not a fan of the 2500, having had one fail - my faith is a fickle master, that’s always going to rule the watch out for me.

However, for WUS by way of some sacrilege, it has a quartz cousin, the 2221.80 - I’d consider one of those in a heartbeat to get those aesthetics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I do like the 2220.80.00, a really good looking watch. It improves on the 2531’s aesthetics while keeping what made its predecessor a great looking watch. The wave dial, that deep blue, simply superb. It also adds things I think were lacking - applied markers, for instance. So as far as the looks are concerned, it ticks a lot of boxes.

Where it loses, for me, is the movement. I’m not a fan of the 2500, having had one fail - my faith is a fickle master, that’s always going to rule the watch out for me.

However, for WUS by way of some sacrilege, it has a quartz cousin, the 2221.80 - I’d consider one of those in a heartbeat to get those aesthetics.
Sorry to hear about your experience with a failing 2500. I've had a few that have all served very admirably. I know the earlier iterations (namely the "A") had some issues -- do you know what kind yours was? I believe that the 2220.80 was only made with the 2500C and D movements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Sorry to hear about your experience with a failing 2500. I've had a few that have all served very admirably. I know the earlier iterations (namely the "A") had some issues -- do you know what kind yours was? I believe that the 2220.80 was only made with the 2500C and D movements.
It was the movement in an early edition Planet Ocean, so I believe it to have been an ‘A’.

It kicked off a hell of a saga for me. I used the PO as a backup timer at depth and after it failed (it just stopped out of the blue - no knock or anything, stopped on my way to a barbecue!) I had trouble with trust. I sent it to be repaired, it then went back and forth to Omega, I think three times. The result was that the last time it came back to me, it had water in the case - god knows how. Omega swapped it out for an 8800 PO that was new out at the time. After that, I won’t touch a 2500 movement. They may well be ok in their later iterations, but after my experience, I won’t chance it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fskywalker

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
It was the movement in an early edition Planet Ocean, so I believe it to have been an ‘A’.

It kicked off a hell of a saga for me. I used the PO as a backup timer at depth and after it failed (it just stopped out of the blue - no knock or anything, stopped on my way to a barbecue!) I had trouble with trust. I sent it to be repaired, it then went back and forth to Omega, I think three times. The result was that the last time it came back to me, it had water in the case - god knows how. Omega swapped it out for an 8800 PO that was new out at the time. After that, I won’t touch a 2500 movement. They may well be ok in their later iterations, but after my experience, I won’t chance it.
Oof. As much as I like my 2500-series watches, I can empathize with that. Sorry to hear it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
The 2220.80 is really a classic, I think it's better than the 2531.80. Has the coaxial 2500 movement, applied markers, but retains the classic waves of the original.

FWIW, the movement in the 2220.80 is either a 2500C or 2500D, it would not have carried the 2500A or 2500B movements. The 2220.80 had the same movement as the "Casino Royale" (first generation) Planet Ocean, again, the 2500C or 2500D, depending on the model year.

The 2500D is a very reliable movement, and was used in the Seamaster Professional up until the latest generation release in 2018 (which replaced it with the 8800). There were problems reported with earlier 2500C movements, mostly the seconds hand sticking, but it affected a small percentage of movements and most of those were fixed under warranty. In any movement, no matter the manufacture, there's a chance to get a lemon. I've personally owned several 2500C movement Omegas, and still own a 2009 model year Planet Ocean that has one that has yet to be serviced, and they've all been rock solid reliable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,002 Posts
Great looking watch. I have it too since 2012.

The 2220.80 is basically still a Bond watch. Other than the big size Planet Ocean worn in the first half of the movie, Bond wore the 2220.80 in the latter half of Casino Royale....

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,218 Posts
Just a short post to express enjoyment of the 2220.80, which doesn't seem to get as much love as its predecessor or ceramic successors.

An update to the original "Bond" SMP, this added a co-axial movement, applied logo and markers, longer hands, and a splash of red on the dial. As someone who longed after the 2531.80 as a youngster, I ended up purchasing this one as an adult -- I think it's a bit dressier, and like the upgrades they made. In the right light, the waves disappear and give the gray-blue dial a smooth look -- but tilt your wrist ever so, and the waves really pop! View attachment 15372604

View attachment 15372603
I also thought the initial ceramic update to this watch made the bezel way too thick. And I like the 2018 update as well, but there's something about the classic watch that just can't be beat.

View attachment 15372605

Anyone else feel the same way about this facelift/update to a classic?
Very nice model, congrats!

Yours indeed seems to be from the latest batch they launched with the 2500D coaxial movement based on the date wheel font (serial numbers starting with 8525XXXX have been reported to have the 2500D movement)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Very nice model, congrats!

Yours indeed seems to be from the latest batch they launched with the 2500D coaxial movement based on the date wheel font (serial numbers starting with 8525XXXX have been reported to have the 2500D movement)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Thank you sir!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
950 Posts
I don’t understand why the watch isn‘t more popular either. I have seen just about about every other mechanical version of the Seamaster selling for more than this model. I have always had some version of the wave dial seamaster in my collection, and recently picked up this very lightly used preowned model.
15396571

I like the applied indices with the wave dial, it adds some depth to the dial without going over the top. I also like the hippocampus caseback. I have always been a fan of the versatility of the watch.

The thing I appreciate the most about the older Seamasters and dislike the most about the modern ones is the thickness. Here is a side shot of the 2220.80 vs an Explorer 214270.
15396574
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I don’t understand why the watch isn‘t more popular either. I have seen just about about every other mechanical version of the Seamaster selling for more than this model. I have always had some version of the wave dial seamaster in my collection, and recently picked up this very lightly used preowned model.
View attachment 15396571
I like the applied indices with the wave dial, it adds some depth to the dial without going over the top. I also like the hippocampus caseback. I have always been a fan of the versatility of the watch.

The thing I appreciate the most about the older Seamasters and dislike the most about the modern ones is the thickness. Here is a side shot of the 2220.80 vs an Explorer 214270.
View attachment 15396574
Congrats on the pickup -- love that photo in the car, and 100% agreed on the (lack of) thickness of the watch. To think that, when it came out, it was thicker than the 2531.80!
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top