First PAM: 312 or 392 ????

[Babolat]

Hi all
I've been trying to decide which pam to get for the past 3 months...
I've considered pam88, pam104 and pam90.
But i've now decided its going to be either the 44" pam312 or the new 42" pam392 ...
Is the size difference between the 312 and 392 quite big?
I've seen pics reviews etc but still can't decide.
I've got a 6.5 " wrist so not sure whether the 312 will be too big or the 392 will be too small...?
Your thoughts and guidance would be greatly appreciated
Many thanks all

[p_mcgee]

Other may disagree but the 312 may be too bulky for a 6.5 wrist. Thickness is probably more of an issue with the 312 than diameter, so my guess is 392 with the same automatic movement will also be quite thick. As for looks & functionality, 312 is a winner & that OEM gator strap is one of my all time favorites.

I'd suggest going with a 44mm Luminor case or a manual with a thinner movement.

[TAKUYA]

here's the thread with the pics comparing 312 and 392 for you to make your decision:

http://panerai.watchprosite.com/show...898/ti-808078/

I owned pam 392 and tried 312. i'd like to keep 392 if i didn't think too much about 233 all the time. 312 is too thick and heavy for me who has 6.25 wrist. for some reason i like the clean dial on 392, and since it's same as the screensaver on my mac.

Now it's your time to make decision.

P.s i can not believe that these days ppl call a watch with 42mm case size is too small. :):):)

2mm makes a lot different.

[TAKUYA]

i forgot to say, i'm pretty sure that after you read some advices here or there and like a guy has 6.5 wrist. you will end up to think and buy 233 eventually.

[Cru Jones]

That 312 vs 392 thread is pretty great. Pretty dramatic difference, which surprised me.

For me, the 312 was too thick and didn't sit right on my wrist when I tried it on a couple of years ago. Ended up with a Luminor case 44mm automatic that fits great (164 - same as the 104 you considered). Haven't tried on the 392.

[Psmith]

As the others have said, you may find that the Luminor 1950s case sits too tall &/or uncomfortably on your wrist, be it 44 or 42 mm. I actually prefer the dial of the 392, without the '9' and with a larger seconds subdial

I do think that the 44 mm Luminors (non-1950s case) sit better on the wrist, but if you wrist is flat in profile you may not notice much difference

Try a few different models and see how you get on

[Travelller]

Originally Posted by Psmith

...you may find that the Luminor 1950s case sits too tall &/or uncomfortably on your wrist ... I do think that the 44 mm Luminors (non-1950s case) sit better on the wrist...

I've already offered up the exact stats on my 1950... can anyone return the gesture for a Bettarini case (std. Luminor) please?

Originally Posted by Travelller

Since I'm asking the 372 owners for data, here is some data back
I just measured my 233 over the center of the dome and it comes out to 17.5mm. That number is fact (I used calipers). I tried to eyeball the actual components and came up with approx. 3.5+8+3.5+2.5 (lower bezel, case, upper bezel, crystal). I also tried to get an approx. via ratios from the photo below with pshop: 3.2 7.7 3.2 3.4...



Last but not least (since we're on the topic of case thickness):
6152................ Case only, 7.4 overall, 16.8
6152/1............................ 7.2, ......... 18.7
6154............................... 5.7, ......... 14.7

[DiverAsia]

Originally Posted by Travelller

I've already offered up the exact stats on my 1950... can anyone return the gesture for a Bettarini case (std. Luminor) please?

Ohh, I had seen your request about the 372, but I don't have access to a chronometer to check the measurements. I was curious as well what they are.

[DT14]

Since I just bought takuya's 392 (big thumbs up to him,btw) and as someone with smallish wrists, I can give you some thoughts on that one. It is a great size and has very good proportions. Even though it is "only" 42mm, it still gives you a bold look. For me the 44mm is just too big, even though I'm fairly tall. On a 6.5 inch wrist I would think the 392 would look better although you will definitely get different opinions on this site.

[Babolat]

Thank you all very useful indeed
Think ill stick with 392 for now ..
Need to get to an AD to try some on and see how they feel ..
Ill keep you posted

[GermanyMatt]

I have a 312 (also my first PAM), and if I had your wrist, I'd buy the 392 - frankly there's not much difference anyway and I know the 392 is going to look more balanced on your wrist.

I for one like the weight and height of the 312 - it's a nice shift from my Rolex Sub.

[cc75]

Hello,

I just bought yesterday the 392.
I have a small wrist and it's perfect.
This my first Panerai and I am very happy with this watch.
Not too big but quite different compared to my Rolexes.

[TAKUYA]

Congrats Cedric! as small wrist person, i'd like to keep it if i didn't think to much about 233. i mean if you have small wrist and considering between 392 and 312. 392 all the way.

[maeisenberg]

I am partial to the 312, great look with an in house movement.

[Shrinkdial]

Originally Posted by Babolat

Thank you all very useful indeed
Think ill stick with 392 for now ..
Need to get to an AD to try some on and see how they feel ..
Ill keep you posted

Hi
I think that is the best idea.
I thought I liked the 351 until I tried on many at my AD and found it too light actually.
I thought I'd prefer the 321 but found it too busy- settled on 312 and v happy so far.
But a personal decision... And I have 8" wrist...

[kilyung]

I tried a 392 recently but I prefer the 312 regardless of the size/thickness. The 392 just felt too small on my 6.5" wrist for a Panerai imo.

[nauticajoe]

312 for me - I prefer the 44mm.

[nick c]

392

[Bane_of_your_life]

392... dial looks more balanced

[Travelller]

Originally Posted by kilyung

...The 392 just felt too small on my 6.5" wrist for a Panerai...

I think this is exactly the point and exactly the problem with many who are approaching Panerai for the first time. You can't compare a Panerai to your 38~40mm Rolex / dress watch. Panerais are meant to "wear large"; most should go with 47mm and only the smallest of wrist sizes should restrict themselves to 44mm.

I honestly believe that 42mm 1950s are yet another way that Richemont's trying to please the masses. While there's nothing seriously wrong with that, it is moving the PAM away from it's roots - base dial, big bold numbers on a 47mm frame

[rolex170]

Originally Posted by Travelller

I think this is exactly the point and exactly the problem with many who are approaching Panerai for the first time. You can't compare a Panerai to your 38~40mm Rolex / dress watch. Panerais are meant to "wear large"; most should go with 47mm and only the smallest of wrist sizes should restrict themselves to 44mm.

I honestly believe that 42mm 1950s are yet another way that Richemont's trying to please the masses. While there's nothing seriously wrong with that, it is moving the PAM away from it's roots - base dial, big bold numbers on a 47mm frame

+1

Btw, 312 has my vote!

[DiverAsia]

Originally Posted by Travelller

base dial, big bold numbers on a 47mm frame

and a weight you feel all the way up your arm.
for some reason, I am really turned on!

[Shrinkdial]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I tried a 392 recently but I prefer the 312 regardless of the size/thickness. The 392 just felt too small on my 6.5" wrist for a Panerai imo.

Ooh that is nice!

[DT14]

as the owner of both a 392 and 6.5 inch wrists, I really cannot imagine it looking small on your wrist. STRONGLY disagree with those above advising everyone toward 47mm and yes, I do understand that Panerai's are bold watches. A 47 will look downright silly on most people with smaller wrists, although as is often repeated on this site, you yourself will get used to it over time - problem is it still looks silly to everyone else. Good luck with your decision.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by DT14

as the owner of both a 392 and 6.5 inch wrists, I really cannot imagine it looking small on your wrist. STRONGLY disagree with those above advising everyone toward 47mm and yes, I do understand that Panerai's are bold watches. A 47 will look downright silly on most people with smaller wrists, although as is often repeated on this site, you yourself will get used to it over time - problem is it still looks silly to everyone else. Good luck with your decision.

I've got smallish 6.5" wrists and I don't think 47mm looks silly.

[Bane_of_your_life]

Think if you take a full body pic then the disproportion created by the huge watch will be more noticeable

[Rodentman]

My wrist is 7" and I'm not a small person. I have a 40mm PAM and I don't find it too small. In fact I like it. I am considering buying a base 44mm and I can enjoy that as well. I don't buy with flipping in mind. I don't get wrapped up in what Panerai DNA is, or what it "should" look like, I buy what I like.

Just my $.02. YMMV. Enjoy your watches. No intense offended to anyone's tastes.

[TAKUYA]

Originally Posted by Bane_of_your_life

Think if you take a full body pic then the disproportion created by the huge watch will be more noticeable

Agreed!

[JDN17]

I think a 40, 42, 44, or 47 can all be appropriate depending on the situation. A 40 or 42 is much easier to wear everyday underneath the cuff of a dress shirt for work, whereas a 44 or 47 can easily be worn more casually. The 312 sits taller than many 44 Panerais.

I would suggest going to a local AD and trying on both the 312 and 392. Get what you like and what feels comfortable to you. Both are cool watches and I'm sure you'll be pleased with a purchase of either.

[submariner29]

Originally Posted by takuya

i forgot to say, i'm pretty sure that after you read some advices here or there and like a guy has 6.5 wrist. you will end up to think and buy 233 eventually.

Hi Thanh, again congrats for the Pam 233. I still keep pam 392 as my first Pam and sits nicely on my small wrist. You said Pam 312 sits too high and too thick for small wrist, does Pam 233 fits better for you with 44mm size and thicker case? I don't know why I am not confidence or comfortable yet wearing 44mm Pam 1950 case.