Aquaracer1
7871
Indeed my friend
The thickness issue is noticed less on a 42 mm PO. Especially the 2500 version, you have pictured. I’m stuck on the more recent generation AT’s. The 38 mm AT is about as thick as a Sub, clocking in at around12.5 mm. Some owners have even reported around13 mm when measuring with their own digital calipers.The proportions on an otherwise beautiful and versatile piece - Are way off unfortunately. So that keeps me away from their modern offerings. Omega have lost their way and those proportions are unnecessary in my opinion.
Apparently there is a new Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 150m with a new dial...
The New Gradient Turquoise Dial of the Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 150m ...
Interesting…
Per depth rating Omega is within 1 mm of Rolex…but I know what you’re saying…it’s much less noticeable with the wider 2500 models…same basic thickness but wider face… ...
Indeed my friend
The thickness issue is noticed less on a 42 mm PO. Especially the 2500 version, you have pictured. I’m stuck on the more recent generation AT’s. The 38 mm AT is about as thick as a Sub, clocking in at around12.5 mm. Some owners have even reported around13...
Cheers
Well I suppose some would argue the increased case thickness is to accommodate the 150 m water resistance. Since I’m a desk diver, I’ll go with the thinner watch each time. But that’s just me
A wonderful color combination that sinks to the bottom of the sea!
But the dial seems a bit large...
Stylish! . . .
. . . a pity I'm too old to be ;-) . Thanks for sharing, Charlie. Planning on making a trip to the LA Omega boutique soon to take macros of the latest AT's . . .
