The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998.
Informational Websites ChronoMaddox -- the legacy of Chuck Maddox OnTheDash -- vintage Heuer website Zowie -- Omega information
Discussion Forums ChronoMaddox Forum Heuer Forum Omega Forum
Counterfeit Watchers ChronoTools Forum ChronoTrader Forum

zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Opened July 1999, zOwie is the Internet's first and longest running discussion forum dedicated to Omega brand watches.

Feel free to discuss pricing and specific dealers. But 'for sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Full archive of all messages is accessible through options in the Search and Preferences features. Privacy, policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.

For the answer to the NUMBER #1 most frequently asked question here--for details or value of a specific older Omega watch you have--go to: Tell Me About My Omega. Learn more about How To Include Photos and HTML In Your Postings. To contact someone with a question not relevant to other readers of the forum, please click on their email address and contact them privately.

Re: I Finally Saw A Bond 2220.80 In Person...

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU JOHN! UNLESS YOU'RE THE ONE WEARING THE WEARING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO WATCHES IS UNNOTICEABLE.

: I visited a local AD today (Jared - a chain
: store) and they had one new Bond Seamaster
: 2220.80 in stock. While I saw some posts on
: other forums about them being the same
: thickness, I can tell you they're not. The
: 2220.80 is actually a bit thicker in the
: caseback area. When I held it up next to my
: 2531.80 and looked at their thicknesses, I
: could clearly tell that the 2220.80 was
: thicker. Since the co-axial 2500 movement is
: thicker than the 1120 used in model 2531.80,
: I had always suspected that the case would
: have to be a bit thicker. I should have
: asked to measure them while I was at the AD
: that I went to, but I didn't.

: My first impression of the new model was that
: it looks more elegant than the 2531.80. The
: longer hands and the applied markers and
: logo add a nice, classy touch to the watch.
: I also noticed two subtle differences that I
: had never noticed before: 1) The luminous
: dot inside the bezel's triangle is a bit
: larger on the new 2220.80. It still sits
: completely within the triangle, but the dot
: itself is definitely larger.

: 2) The bracelet on the new model was noticeably
: shinier than the one on the brand new
: 2531.80 sitting next to it in the case. At
: first I thought that my Bond bracelet was
: just more dull from wear, but this was not
: the case. Frankly, the new bracelet just
: felt different to me, and, unfortunately, I
: don't mean that in a good way. It didn't
: seem like there was as much play in the
: links. One of the things I love about my
: Bond bracelet is that it drapes over my
: wrist so perfectly. This one just felt
: tighter. Maybe it was new and needed to be
: worn a bit, but between the extra shine and
: less play in the links, I wasn't happy with
: it.

: I saw on other forums that some people had
: posted about the new model having a
: different look to its dial. I put the
: 2220.80 and 2531.80 side-by-side in the same
: lighting and they looked identical in color
: (both the bezel and the dial). Also, the red
: "Seamaster" lettering actually
: made reading the word "Seamaster"
: more difficult. White stands out better on a
: dark blue dial, so I really didn't like the
: red lettering.

: Since you have to be right on top of the
: watches to really distinguish the old one
: from the new one, I can't see any reason to
: "upgrade" to the 2220.80. Just my
: 2 cents...

Current Position
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE