chaser579
618
How does this compare to...
How does this compare to the AT8500 at 38.5mm? And, overall, how does it compare with the AT2500 at 42mm (a biggee on my wrist) and the AT2500 at 39.2mm (which I'm considering buying one to see how well the co-axial runs and keeps time, and cost, for now). The 39.2mm sounds closer to what I'm used to seeing with Seikos and Rolexes (Submariner, Datejust). Thanks!
R. =:^D
Quick impressions of the AT 8500
Art's photos of the annual calendar version of this watch inspired me to have a look at the simpler date version, which is now finally in stock. This is the smaller (38.5 mm) version of the watch, which also comes in a larger (41.5 mm) version. I'm late f...
I love the third photo . . .
. . . contrasting the vertical slats on the dial to the horizontal slats of the Venetian blinds - shoulda thought of that myself! Thanks for the comments, CF, and I'll be posting my thoughts this weekend . . . cordially, Art
a very positive review so far. very tempting
especially if it is spookily accurate and is high quality enough to put it above a datejust. i wonder how it will compare to Grand Seiko. so far just looking at the pics i've seen it compares favourably. i look forward to more detail later. Graham
An apt comparison, Graham . . .
. . . and from my perspective at least, as high a compliment one can pay to Omega . . . cordially, Art
I have the 41.5mm version of the AT8500, (7.75" wrist), and consider it
to be iconic and a superb value. I find I wear it in preference to the HV. As far as movement finishing, that is meaningless in comparison to proper design for accuracy and longevity. The only Rolex that compares in elegance is the Milgauss, which I now w...
How does this compare to...
How does this compare to the AT8500 at 38.5mm? And, overall, how does it compare with the AT2500 at 42mm (a biggee on my wrist) and the AT2500 at 39.2mm (which I'm considering buying one to see how well the co-axial runs and keeps time, and cost, for now)...