How does the 39.5mm Planet Ocean wear vs. the Seamaster 300?

kennethwashere
Posts
43
Likes
382
I recently acquired a Seamaster 300 midsize (36mm), but I am starting to think it looks just a bit too small on my 6.8'' wrist.

I was able to visit my local Omega boutique the other day, and while they had the standard Seamaster 300 (42mm), they did not have the 39.5mm Planet Ocean for me to try (they only had the 43.5mm).

My question is, has anyone tried both the 39.5mm PO and compared it to the Seamaster 300? I'm aware that the Seamaster 300 is still a tad thinner (13.7mm if I recall on Watchbox review on YouTube?) compared to the 39.5mm PO (14.5mm thick).

I'm finding it hard to go with one vs. the other, especially not having the chance to try on the PO size that I'm looking around for. Any help would be appreciated!

20200814_120023.jpg 20200814_120004.jpg
 
JohnLT13
Posts
6
Likes
7
https://www.flickr.com/photos/169783545@N05/shares/75tu05I had the 39 for a while. Found it to be a very strange watch. Just to fat and uncomfortable. The dimensions on that reference are strange. The Seamaster wears much nicer in my opinion. But I have finally found the ultimate comfort watch in the PO 2500. It wears very much like the SM.
Edited:
 
slwoodster
Posts
301
Likes
389
You can... as I have done... order the watch, try it on, and then not buy it. I find I just have to try it on for such high priced items. A lot of the time I need to "try it" for years at a time...
 
Meme-Dweller
Posts
2,428
Likes
3,784
Not sure how to answer your question of how the 39.5 PO wears besides with the answer of "smaller."

The 43.5mm PO practically wears identical to the 42mm Diver 300m, and actually visually looks smaller on the wrist because the bracelet tapers and the side of the case flows with the polished portion of the lyre lugs. Since the 39.5mm is thinner than the 43.5mm, and as you can see from the pic below it's barely any taller than the Diver 300m, thickness is not going to be a problem (unless you had a problem with the Diver 300m's thickness to begin with).

(pictured: 43.5mm vs 42mm)
 
20200806_144412.jpg 20200806_144506.jpg 20200806_144517.jpg
maine-iac1
Posts
94
Likes
105
I chose the 39 over the previous-gen 41mm diver. I went back and forth for several months. Ultimately, I went with the PO. I like the classic dimensions. It wore smaller, to me, than the 41mm, which was thinner.
 
Donn Chambers
Posts
2,658
Likes
3,539
Since your 36mm Seamaster Pro is the last gen version (I assume), with the glossy ceramic dial, have you considered the 41mm Seamaster Pro of the same generation? It will fit smaller than the new model and look like a larger version of the one you have now.
 
maine-iac1
Posts
94
Likes
105
This may not be super helpful but here are some photos of the 39.5 mm PO alongside the previous-gen 41mm diver
 
omega1.JPG Omega2.JPG
texasmade
Posts
2,577
Likes
2,864
The problem I had with the 39.5 PO was the fact that the actual dial was smaller than 39.5. Case size is 39.5 while the dial is slightly smaller so this makes the watch even smaller looking on the wrist.
 
Meme-Dweller
Posts
2,428
Likes
3,784
texasmade texasmade
The problem I had with the 39.5 PO was the fact that the actual dial was smaller than 39.5. Case size is 39.5 while the dial is slightly smaller so this makes the watch even smaller looking on the wrist.
lol literally every watch has a dial smaller than the diameter of the entire watch
 
texasmade
Posts
2,577
Likes
2,864
My AP RO and FOIS don’t have that problem. My Seamaster pro has that but it’s not 14.5mm thick so it looks proportional. The FOIS and 39.5mm PO should wear almost the same but the PO looks a lot smaller on the wrist while being just as chunky. YMMV but that’s why I never got the PO.
 
maine-iac1
Posts
94
Likes
105
Yes, the dial size made the PO feel smaller than the diver, to me, and that's why I went with the PO. Virtually all dive watches are on the chunky side. I find the proportions of the 39.5 to be fine on my wrist. The OP should definitely try one on. And let us know the outcome! cheers
 
PizGloria
Posts
57
Likes
37
Here you go...

Omega Seamaster 300m 36.25mm and Omega Planet Ocean 600m 39.5mm on my 6.8 inch wrist.

I own both now, but these images were taken in an AD in 2019 when I was making up my mind.
014F2BA5-5B88-4CC9-9262-12F1E6374CB3.jpeg 8D6D27DE-00F5-4B71-8CC2-AE9A69CB55B9.jpeg
 
PizGloria
Posts
57
Likes
37
cjoedaniel cjoedaniel
The PO is just a large watch.

The 39.5mm Planet Ocean is an odd dive watch in the sense that in some angles it appears large and other angles it looks small.

As I’ve said on another thread, my only complaint with the watch itself is the lug-to-lug distance is small at 45mm. It should have been 46mm or 47mm really.
 
PizGloria
Posts
57
Likes
37
《007》 《007》
Large and Beautiful!

Don’t see many of the Skyfall Planet Ocean’s about. I like the combination with the Spectre NATO strap. I have on of those too.
 
《007》
Posts
80
Likes
36
PizGloria PizGloria
Don’t see many of the Skyfall Planet Ocean’s about. I like the combination with the Spectre NATO strap. I have on of those too.

mine skyfall is with spectre 007 nato. just an exact fit and looks super nice. and i feel with nato 22m , makes the watch not huge on wrist.
 
PizGloria
Posts
57
Likes
37
《007》 《007》
mine skyfall is with spectre 007 nato. just an exact fit and looks super nice. and i feel with nato 22m , makes the watch not huge on wrist.

Oh okay, so you’ve got the 21mm-22mm sized NATO strap on yours? I thought the lug-width on the Planet Ocean 42mm 8500’s was 20mm? Does that fit okay?
 
《007》
Posts
80
Likes
36
PizGloria PizGloria
Oh okay, so you’ve got the 21mm-22mm sized NATO strap on yours? I thought the lug-width on the Planet Ocean 42mm 8500’s was 20mm? Does that fit okay?

yup, fits perfectly, as i dont like to see gaps between lugs, and im using curve spring so gives it a neat shape and look 😉

here it is:
 
20200410_152438.jpg
Scooterino36
Posts
897
Likes
2,813
PizGloria PizGloria
The 39.5mm Planet Ocean is an odd dive watch in the sense that in some angles it appears large and other angles it looks small.

As I’ve said on another thread, my only complaint with the watch itself is the lug-to-lug distance is small at 45mm. It should have been 46mm or 47mm really.
I need to see this model in the flesh. The lug to lug is what draws me to it, but seems that this watch wasn’t intended to be so small. The 37.5MM version is definitely disproportionate, but I’ve been hoping the 39 is the sweet spot.
 
13 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...