WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I would love to see a photograph of the 'old bond' side-by-side with the 'new bond'.

I plan on buying one or the other over the next few weeks and it would make my decision much easier if I could view them side-by-side!

If anyone could help out I would be very grateful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
Unfortunately, I doubt you will find anyone who has a photo with both watches side-by-side, since the 2220.80 is so new and very few people with the 2531.80 will "upgrade" to the new one. However, dimensionally they are identical. Other than the differences in the movements (which you can't see), the only differences are cosmetic. The new 2220.80 has Seamaster written in RED, applied (metal encased) dial markers, longer hands, and an applied Omega logo and symbol.

The "old" 2531.80:



The new 2220.80:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
Frosty,

I finally got to see the new Bond Seamaster 2220.80 in person today, and I was partially wrong about them being the same dimensionally. The 2220.80 is actually a bit thicker in the caseback area. When I held it up next to my 2531.80 and looked at their thicknesses, I could clearly tell that the 2220.80 was thicker. Since the co-axial 2500 movement is thicker than the 1120 used in model 2531.80, I had always suspected that the case would have to be a bit thicker. I should have asked to measure them while I was at the AD that I went to, but I didn't. I realize now that if I had had my digital camera with me I could have taken a side-by-side comparison shot for you. SORRY!!! :-(

My first impression of the new model was that it looks more elegant than the 2531.80. The longer hands and the applied markers and logo add a nice, classy touch to the watch. I also noticed two subtle differences that I had never noticed before:

1) The luminous dot inside the bezel's triangle is a bit larger on the new 2220.80. It still sits completely within the triangle, but the dot itself is definitely larger.

2) The bracelet on the new model was shinier than the one on the brand new 2531.80 sitting next to it in the case. At first I thought that my Bond bracelet was just more dull from wear, but this was not the case. Frankly, the new bracelet just felt different to me, and, unfortunately, I don't mean that in a good way. It didn't seem like there was as much play in the links. One of the things I love about my Bond bracelet is that it drapes over my wrist so perfectly. This one just felt tighter. Maybe it was new and needed to be worn a bit, but between the extra shine and less play in the links, I wasn't happy with it.

Since you have to be right on top of the watches to really distinguish the old one from the new one, I can't see any reason to "upgrade" to the 2220.80. Just my 2 cents...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,532 Posts
Good stuff, John!

Thanks for the head-to-head comparison, John.

Something else I'm wondering, looking at these pics, is whether the luminous areas on the new one are smaller. It may just be that the lume is surrounded by silver instead of paint, so it gives that appearance.

What do you think?

eric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
Re: Good stuff, John!

Thanks for the head-to-head comparison, John.

Something else I'm wondering, looking at these pics, is whether the luminous areas on the new one are smaller. It may just be that the lume is surrounded by silver instead of paint, so it gives that appearance.

What do you think?

eric
You're right, Eric. The applied markers on the new model do give the illusion of being smaller because they aren't sitting on the white markers used on the 2531.80's dial. On the 2531.80 you have a circle of luminova sitting openly on a white marker (sort of like one of those Keebler cookies with the dot of chocolate in the center and cookie surrounding it). From a distance the white marker and the luminova look like one big dot. With the applied markers on the 2220.80, the metal encasing is not nearly as large as the white border created by the white marker, so they do look smaller.

Okay, now I'm hungry for some cookies....;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
One other thing I forgot to mention - I REALLY didn't like the red "Seamaster" lettering on the 2220.80's dial. It actually made reading the word "Seamaster" more difficult, since white stands out much better on a dark blue dial. I was reserving judgement on that until I could see the watch in person, and now that I have, I can honestly say that I wish they had stuck to white.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanks John. Its great to be able to get such good information from this forum.

2) The bracelet on the new model was shinier than the one on the brand new 2531.80 sitting next to it in the case. At first I thought that my Bond bracelet was just more dull from wear, but this was not the case.
I'm certain that I read in some of the advertising material that the 2220.80 is available in a either a polished or brushed steel bracelet. I suspect that the version you saw John was the polished version.

From the stock photgraphs you posted it also appears that the blue being used is slightly lighter. Can you confirm if there is any actual difference in the deepness of the blue that is used?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
Thanks John. Its great to be able to get such good information from this forum.



I'm certain that I read in some of the advertising material that the 2220.80 is available in a either a polished or brushed steel bracelet. I suspect that the version you saw John was the polished version.

From the stock photgraphs you posted it also appears that the blue being used is slightly lighter. Can you confirm if there is any actual difference in the deepness of the blue that is used?
Contrary to what I read on other forums, I could see absolutely no difference in the shade of blue on either the dial or the bezel. As I said, I put both models side by side on the counter under the same lighting, and I could see no difference at all. I think the stock photo is very misleading.

As for the bracelet, the Bond bracelet contains both brushed and polished sections, so the 2220.80 is not available with two different bracelets. If it were, Omega would give each bracelet variation a different model number (as they do with all different straps, etc.). The bracelet I looked at was simply more polished in all areas (the brushed sections weren't as deeply brushed and the polished sections were more highly polished). This gave the bracelet an overall "shinier" look to it that looked, for lack of a better term, more "blingy". Not my cup of tea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,650 Posts
Frosty,

I finally got to see the new Bond Seamaster 2220.80 in person today, and I was partially wrong about them being the same dimensionally. The 2220.80 is actually a bit thicker in the caseback area. When I held it up next to my 2531.80 and looked at their thicknesses, I could clearly tell that the 2220.80 was thicker. Since the co-axial 2500 movement is thicker than the 1120 used in model 2531.80, I had always suspected that the case would have to be a bit thicker. I should have asked to measure them while I was at the AD that I went to, but I didn't. I realize now that if I had had my digital camera with me I could have taken a side-by-side comparison shot for you. SORRY!!! :-(

My first impression of the new model was that it looks more elegant than the 2531.80. The longer hands and the applied markers and logo add a nice, classy touch to the watch. I also noticed two subtle differences that I had never noticed before:

1) The luminous dot inside the bezel's triangle is a bit larger on the new 2220.80. It still sits completely within the triangle, but the dot itself is definitely larger.

2) The bracelet on the new model was shinier than the one on the brand new 2531.80 sitting next to it in the case. At first I thought that my Bond bracelet was just more dull from wear, but this was not the case. Frankly, the new bracelet just felt different to me, and, unfortunately, I don't mean that in a good way. It didn't seem like there was as much play in the links. One of the things I love about my Bond bracelet is that it drapes over my wrist so perfectly. This one just felt tighter. Maybe it was new and needed to be worn a bit, but between the extra shine and less play in the links, I wasn't happy with it.

Since you have to be right on top of the watches to really distinguish the old one from the new one, I can't see any reason to "upgrade" to the 2220.80. Just my 2 cents...

I did wonder about the thickness because of the co-axial. I think one of the great things about the old bond and the 2254.50 is how thin the case is. I think having the thicker case to hold the co-axial will make the watch look smaller and it will lose one of its great characteristics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
hv bn through the same dilemma however with the chronograph versions 2599.80 vs 2225.80

blue was same to my eyes, so was the bracelet, the red inscription made no big difference (do agree white stands out better), but the lack of lumes at 12-3-6-9 (not applicable in case of 2531.80 vs 2220.80), and the somewhat longer hands of the latest version hd me thinking for quite a few days.

i soon got over it, and went for the latest version, just because it was the latest version and because i did like red after all...

...to no regrets till now :-! .

gd luck/bye
ir-ops
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
hv bn through the same dilemma however with the chronograph versions 2599.80 vs 2225.80

blue was same to my eyes, so was the bracelet, the red inscription made no big difference (do agree white stands out better), but the lack of lumes at 12-3-6-9 (not applicable in case of 2531.80 vs 2220.80), and the somewhat longer hands of the latest version hd me thinking for quite a few days.

i soon got over it, and went for the latest version, just because it was the latest version and because i did like red after all...

...to no regrets till now :-! .

gd luck/bye

ir-ops
I'm glad you like your Bond SMP chrono, ir-ops. :-! Both the old and the new version are great watches, so I really don't think you could have gone wrong buying either one. Since they are identical in every way except for the dial and hands, mechanically you have the same great 1164 caliber that is built like a tank. The rest is just personal preference. If you like the red Seamaster lettering, then you certainly made the right choice for yourself.

I hope you enjoy it for many years to come.

-John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
I did wonder about the thickness because of the co-axial. I think one of the great things about the old bond and the 2254.50 is how thin the case is. I think having the thicker case to hold the co-axial will make the watch look smaller and it will lose one of its great characteristics.
I agree. What was interesting to me was that I read on other forums that the case thicknesses were identical, so I believed what I read. Now that I've seen that the new 2220.80 will sit higher on the wrist because of its extended caseback, I do think the older 2531.80 looks better on the wrist. That's just my opinion, though.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top