Omega

I am now in the difficult decison territory... & need HELP...

Zoe found a 1967 seamaster chronograph, manual, she really liked the other day,

but i was n't sure about it's authenticity, nor its practicality as an everyday 1st watch for her 25th birthday???

So she has decided on an AT ladies automatic, mother of pearl (only ladies atuo currently). Great but..

I have been informed the new AT 8500 movement watch will be released in Australia in March 2009.

What to do?

Wait for the new watch or be happy with the old model... knowing full well the new movement is far superior,

and it appears there will be more choice with the faces, not that m.o.p. face is not good.

Does anyone know if the new AT will be released earlier anywhere else in the world?

Should I wait?

buy the current model?

Or buy the '67?

Hard... appreciate any input

James

 

From what I've seen of the new Aqua Terra, I actually prefer the look of the current one! Whilst the new dial with its vertical texture is certainly intersting, I've always loved the simplicity of the Aqua Terra and the current model is perfect in that respect.

As for 2500 vs 8500, I would definately say go for the 8500 model, HOWEVER it will almost certainly be significantly more expensive than the current 2500 model and as both feature the co-axial escapement, there is nothing wrong with the 2500. Which leads me to my next point, you speak of your concerns about 'practicality as an everyday 1st watch' which in my mind rules out the 8500 for obvious reasons.

In my opinion, the current AT with 2500 movement would serve superbly for the purpose you mention.

Dan

thanks Dan

from my understanding, which is very novice, the ladies series in AT are not coaxial movement..

i can't seem to find much about the 2500 movement in the ladies watch

for this reason i thought the new 8500 was touted as being revolutionary for a small movementbut wonder if this is just marketing and what real difference it will make?

that being said i would rather be supporting new developments

james

. . . of ladies AT didn't employ movements equipped with a co-axial escapement, James, but the new cal 8520/8521 that's fitted in the latest ladies AT are as sophisticated as the movements in the men's models, and are representative of the latest technology at Omega's disposal, including silicon hairsprings. Only you can tell if Zoë will appreciate the difference, though ;-). Incidentally, I'm having the same dilemma, and I'm holding off on a Railmaster until it's similarly updated to make a decision . . . cordially, Art

 

I was thinking of the 2500 in the gents, I had no idea that the 2520 in the ladies model was not co-axial, in which case I'd be as indecisive as you!

Tough call, but as Dr No points out, it would only be worth going for the new model, if the difference is likely to be fully appreciated.

Good luck with your decision!

I think the in house manufacture 8520/8521 to be in a league above the 2520.  I think it's worth the wait, especially if she's got the watch but like the rest of us.  I do think it will be quite a bit more expensive than the current AT, but I think it's worth it. 

Just my opinion.

Keith

its getting tougher

as i just ordered the MOP ladies 2520... at a very good price

have two days to pay or delay!

tough call

she doesn't have the bug anywhere near as bad as any of us!

but then she doesn't have a watch atm

I am REALLY torn on what to do...

wait or not??

appreciate everyone's advice though

James

I was faced with a similar dilemma... torn between going for a current Aqua Terra with the 2500 movement or wating until (sometime) in 2009 for the new model.  What swung it for me was that the 2500 movement has been in production for several years now and all the wrinkles are pretty well sorted - not to mention the long pedigree of the base calibre...

I have a Co-Axial DeVille with the grey ruthenium dial which I love, but I wanted an everyday watch that I could enjoy day in, day out, and I have to say that the steel with silver dial and rose gold hands and markers version of the AT on a bracelet (which I bought last Wednesday) comes as close to prefect in that role for me right now.

. . . the 8500 series movement was developed by the same crew that accumulated years of experience with the 2500 series, so I'm not overly concerned about developmental problems that a truly experimental movement would be prone to. I'm going to wait until my preferred vehicle (the Railmaster) is slated for the new movement before making a decision, which is not to say that it will be the axiomatic choice . . . I may still opt for the current version, depending on my assessment of value vs cost. Btw, we'd love to see pics of your new AT as well as your DeVille . . . I saw a ruthenium-dialed DeVille GMT yesterday at a dealer, which was a bit surprising as it's been discontinued for some time now. Cordially, Art

...But hopefully these will give you a flavour of the grey dialled DeVille...  sadly not the best JPEGs, but I had them handy on my C drive.

 

As for the 8500 calibre, I'm sure Omega will have tested it very thoroughly - I didn't mean to disparage their R&D department.   Concerning the price of the new AT - I was told by Omega UK just a couple of weeks ago that the new AT would be about £2450 for the steel on steel version, which compares with £1675 recommended retail in the UK for the current version, steel on steel.  Quite a price hike.

Regards,

 

Michael

. . . this series of DeVilles was tastefully understated, and very much to my liking . . . warm regards, Art

These Images are rather better, I think...

I love that grey dial - as you rightly say, so very understated.

Getting along fine together....

The colour of the rose gold is tricky to capture in a photo, but here are a few attempts.  The matt, bead-blasted silver dial has a beautiful, warm whiteness to it which I also love

A predecessor... a 1962 handwound Seamaster: you can see where some of the later models get their DNA.

Enjoy!

 

Michael

. . . and all thru the Omega forum, gifts of Omega images came from opposite ends of the world, Michael's from the UK and Andrew's from Australia. Thanks so very much, Michael . . . cordially, Art