This is indeed huge news!

I'm happy that somebody revives the brand, but I was hoping Guillaume Laidet (Nivada and Vulcain revivals, amongst others) would take it. This would have meant affordable and pure reissues, which is what I want. And I'm pretty sure Breitling won't do that...

Since I went through the dilemma full-size / midsize, I recommend some readings below, which might not help you though since there is no definite answer.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/is-the-omega-seamaster-mid-size-too-small.109799/

https://omegaforums.net/threads/seamaster-300m-midsize-thought.107756/

https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/mid-size-vs-full-size.555150/page-2

Here are my thoughts :

I've never tried the midsize, and on paper it would fit my small wrist pretty good. But in the end it is also a matter of proportions of a dive watch with a 36mm case, which has a relatively large bezel (scalopped edge + bezel insert), thus making the dial look small at around 26mm (my guess, but you tell me).

On some photos, it looks a bit silly, like this one for instance, and it's not even worn on a huge wrist.

On others like yours, it works +/- fine.

I would also argue that the style of diver influences the proportions : on comparison, the BB54 or the 6538 have much better proportions at almost the same case size. But the "funkiness" of the scalopped bezel + sword hands + non-tapering bracelet might just work better on the full size than on the midsize.

The full size does wear smaller than the 41.5mm it announces, I would say more like a 40mm, especially thanks to the large bezel/low thickness/short lug-to-lug.

Only way to be sure would be to try one. But I admit that this conclusion is not satisfying.

That being said, I would say that what counts in the end is some kind of dial size (not case)/wrist width ratio, which is very subjective. I would fix it at a limit of ca. 17.5cm circumference wrist.

These are the three watches I'll take in my summer bag : G-shock M5610-1ER white mod / Omega 2531.80 and Serica 4512.

Great review ! I have the same watch in full size, with a 6.5" wrist or 16.5cm.

I've read a lot of threads on full size vs mid size. Even if I'm a big fan of small sized watches, on some photos the proportions of the mid size seem off, especially the balance between bezel/dial size. It looks like they shrinked the dial size but the rest if +/- the same size : hands, bezel, logo & writing, etc.

But when looking at yours it seems well more balanced and not that "off". What's your thoughts on the proportions ?

I still think that the full size is a very small "41.5" and fits the majority of wrists with a 47.5mm lug to lug and a large bezel eating up the dial space, but I'd love to try a midsize once to satisfy my curiosity.

I have also a small wrist at 16.5cm circumference and understand you. The watch head being relatively small and slim (12.7mm) + integrated bracelet + legend + sports watch type makes me it for me, but I wouldn't have minded if it was smaller. I am also between two holes and this annoys me severely.

Why don't you try to baby G ? At 42.1 × 37.9 × 11.3 mm, it should suit you well. Only downside is that it's not solar, and less legendary. But a white baby G would look sick in summertime on a tan skin.

I had the original Omega rubber that was sold with it as alternative/addition to the bracelet. I sold that ugly thing (cf below).

Check on zealand website, there is a strap which fits this watch, but it looks too modern to me.

I hope to try soon a blue tropic, this is the only combination that could do it for me.

I also take my 2531.80 for summer watch, but it has one important drawback : the lack of micro adjustment in the bracelet. My bracelet has a slightly loose fit for winter, and thus slightly too tight fit in summer, which can be unconfortable at some point.

Thus I put it on a blue bark & jack nato strap as I don't like tropic for this kind of diver (but maybe I need to try it on sometimes as it's much more practical than a nato for sand/water). But I still prefer the look of the bracelet.