Last November, Omega released the fourth-generation Planet Ocean—and paradoxically, that release is what finally got me to buy an old one. Specifically, the second-generation Planet Ocean, with the in-house 8500 caliber reference 232.30.42.21.01.001.
(Links below may be affiliate links that earn commission when you make a purchase—it’s how I am able to keep making this site. Thanks!)
If you’ve been around here a while, you know I’ve already sung the praises of the first-gen, 2500-caliber Planet Ocean reference 2201.50 (An Ode to Omega’s Modern Icon: The Planet Ocean). It’s a fantastic watch, and a big part of why I loved it is how much DNA it shares with the 165.024 Seamaster 300 of the 1960s.
But I’ve long felt the Gen 2 has the best overall dial and bezel proportions of any Planet Ocean, at least from the front. I like the handset. I like the legibility. I like how much more luxe it is, and I like the thinner inner bezel ring. The thing that always held me back was the thickness.
How the new one changed my mind (about the old one)
When the Gen 4 came out, I was horrified at first. I didn’t like the angles. I didn’t like the squareness. It just felt kind of soulless to me (I even left comments to that effect on Omega’s official Instagram). But after trying it on, it grew on me a little.
Something changed in my brain. I stopped judging the Planet Ocean by how well it resembled the 165.024 and carried that watch’s legacy, and started just letting the Planet Ocean be the Planet Ocean.
That change of mindset is what led me to order the Gen 2.
Shop the watches:
Planet Ocean 8500 Caliber reference for sale on Chrono24
Planet Ocean caliber 2500 2201.50 for sale on Chrono24
The thickness, by the numbers
On paper, the Gen 2 is “only” about a millimeter and a half thicker: roughly 15.8mm vs. 14.2mm for the Gen 1. But look at the case profile (there are plenty of videos comparing these two) and you can see how much beefier it is. A lot of that comes from how much taller the bezel stands, plus a caseback that protrudes—the extra height is spread around.
The funny part: once you’ve worn the Gen 2, putting the 2500 back on doesn’t feel thick at all. There’s almost nothing that prepares you for the Gen 2’s heft by comparison.
This is old news, though. The real question is: is it bothersome?
Two generations of the same watch that don’t feel like the same watch
The surprise, after a few weeks with the Gen 2 and two years with the Gen 1 (which I really loved), is that they feel like completely different watches. The thickness is a big part of that—but so is the design.
I almost never wore the Gen 1 on its stock bracelet. It always felt too bulbous and round to me. Instead I wore it on a Forstner Contemporary flat link with pre-2018 Seamaster end links, and it fits great—not perfectly, but basically unnoticeably in day-in, day-out use.
On that flat link (or on a NATO), the Gen 1 feels like a tried-and-true vintage diver, even though it was released in 2005. The design leans into that: the way the numerals are done, the classic Omega asymmetrical case, and a bezel that nods to 1950s Seamasters with its larger central ring.
The Gen 2, meanwhile, feels thoroughly modern. I’ve long thought it’s peak Planet Ocean design. I wish so hard they’d stuck with that exact design for Gen 3 and just thinned the case and upgraded the tech. Now with Gen 4 they’re under 14mm thick…Man, imagine if they’d done that while keeping this design all these years.
On the wrist, the Gen 2 is more buttoned up. It has shiny white gold hands and numerals. The Gen 1 has much more of that vintage appeal.
So which one is better?
Because of that difference, I honestly feel like neither is.
It reminds me of my brother’s watches. He has a Black Bay 58 (the smaller, 39mm-ish one) and a current-generation 41mm Submariner. Which is better? They’re just different watches. They’re not one-for-one, even though the Black Bay 58 is so clearly a Submariner homage. (I’m not calling either Planet Ocean an homage—just that, in the same way, these two feel different enough that they don’t read as the same watch.)
When I bought the Gen 2, my plan was to live with both for a few weeks and sell whichever I liked less. I couldn’t make a clear call. So I listed them both for sale at the same price and let the market decide.
The Gen 1 sold first.
Where the Gen 2’s thickness actually shows up
For reference, my wrist is 7″ (6¾” just below the wrist bone). I like my bracelets a little looser. From above—and especially on camera—it looks great [see around 6:30 in the video for the comparison]. The thickness really shows itself in two places:
- Dial depth. The dial sits pretty far below the top of the crystal. Tilt your wrist and the bezel and case occlude the hour markers quickly (the crystal magnifies a bit, too). At a similar angle, you can still see the 9 clearly on the 2500, while on the 8500 it’s almost entirely hidden. By comparison the Gen 1 feels so flat.
- On a NATO. On the Gen 2, the amount of mid-case visible between the lugs is enormous. The Gen 1 feels significantly smaller on a NATO, even with otherwise similar dimensions.
In terms of how it sits on the wrist, the Gen 2’s caseback does lift it a bit, but not dramatically more than the Gen 1. It’s that very tall bezel that makes up most of the extra height in profile.
My itch, and my verdict
Personally, I originally bought the Gen 1 to scratch the itch that the 165.024 Seamaster 300 created in me. I really want that watch. So I’ll probably end up biting the bullet and sourcing a WatchCo Seamaster down the road.
Which Planet Ocean is better? It depends on what you want.
- Gen 1 (2500): feels much more like a vintage diver with a mid-century, classic look and feel—especially on a Forstner flat link, NATOs and rubber straps.
- Gen 2 (8500): feels like a modern Omega—excellent fit and finish, excellent attention to detail, and very legible in the dark (the Gen 1 is too, but the Gen 2’s handset lume edges it out). Plus ceramic, the in-house movement with the jumping hour hand, and the newer tech overall. In so many ways it’s a step up in modern watchmaking advancements.
If you love the Planet Ocean for its heritage—how it fits into Omega’s catalog and evokes watches of the past—you can’t go wrong with the Gen 1. And I thousand-percent recommend putting it on a flat link bracelet with those pre-2018 end links.
Which would you pick: the vintage-leaning Gen 1 or the modern Gen 2?
