Small wrist for 1st Pam?

[TAKUYA]

Ive searched and read here and there. so narrowed down for these 3:

Pam 111, but no date. Cheaper than another 2.
Pam 392, my AD will have one within next 2 Weeks. New 42mm
Iconic Pam 233, can only afford for a used one.

Since im having GMT master 2c for daily wear. Which should I get? Never own manual movement watch before. thanks.

[andrew79]

from those 3, take 111 or 233 as first pam.. you wont regret it...

[Polemic]

I'd go for 111.

[Psmith]

How big is your wrist?

With PAMs, 44 mm is the popular size - 40 mm is rather unloved (although the models are very nice)

The new 42 mm models are something of an unknown in terms of popularity. The 392 looks nice. Have you tried on all of the other models you mention?

[walds11]

Nothing wrong with a nice, per-owned piece. Go for the 233! You won't regret it. Its got a lot to offer and sits better on the wrist than most other 44mm models due to the thinner manual wind movement.

[WatchTimes]

233!

[TAKUYA]

Thanks! Ive tried 111 and 289 which is the same size 233? Because my AD doesnt have 233 in stock. Also I tried Pam 351, but its big since I'm only 5'6", 138lbs, and my wrist is only 6". I like how the 111 sits on my wrist, but I need the date that's why im thinking to get Pam 392. Have anyone here has 392 yet?

[Cru Jones]

Even though the 392 is 42mm, it might still wear large as it is an automatic 1950s case, so, it will be on the thick side. The 111 is the thinnest of the three, so, I'd say, between the three you've listed, it will probably fit you best. But, all three will be on the large size for you.

If you like Rads, too, you could consider one of the new 42 models. They will fit you better. Or maybe one of the 40mm Luminors?

In the end, of course, get what you like, don't worry what others may think and enjoy.

[Carlos98326194]

Would go for a 233 given the choice

[kilyung]

233 is great.

[Psmith]

If you need the date, and are unsure about manual wind, consider the 104 and 164. These use the same case as the 111, but are automatic and have the date

[TAKUYA]

when i know about pam, i also hear ppl say 40mm case is for women? i tried pam 0048 at my AD also, it fit very nice. but i like 111 more with the clear case back, you can see the movement and jewels. i used to think to trade my gmt master 2c for 233 gmt, but i looked back my rolex gmt and decided to keep it. what you think? cause they both work the same way? or i should i trade gmt 2c for 233 now and get sub c in the future?

P.s that 233 pic is awesome (should go with R8 right?), and this how gmt 2c fits on my very small wrist:

[Psmith]

I wouldn't trade a GMT II C for a 233, and besides, it looks great on your wrist

111 is a safe entry into the world of PAM - not too expensive and good resale if you decide to trade up, or even give up with the brand. If you are happy with a simple watch - manual wind, no date and does not hack - then go for it. Otherwise, take another look at all the other models mentioned. No rush if you are not certain

[TAKUYA]

Thanks a lot! and yes, no rush, but pam in my mind all the time.

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by takuya

Thanks a lot! and yes, no rush, but pam in my mind all the time.

Understood... and when you have a PAM you will be thinking about straps all of the time...

[mfer]

Have you considered 45mm rads?
210/183/292

[p_mcgee]

I'd get a preowned 111 for starters and see how you like it & how much wrist time it gets vs. the sub.

I love love the 233 but its pricey & probably a little tougher to sell if you had to.

[kilyung]

I'd keep the GMTIIc. Do you need another GMT watch? If so, then 233 (it's technically only a 12hr GMT). Otherwise I'd get a classic model like the 111.

My 6.5" wrist works fine with 40mm or 44mm.

[mrarchiegoodwin]

Originally Posted by takuya

when i know about pam, i also hear ppl say 40mm case is for women?

This subject always interests me because I think my wrist is shaped too small for Panerai--it's not just the circumference, but the shape.

Does the rule about men's women's and children's watches still apply? Women have been wearing men's watches for generations. No reason why men can't wear women's watches--especially if they provide a better fit.

I know large women who wear men's shoes. I also know smaller men who wear women's shoes and have done so for years--otherwise they would have to buy children's shoes that are not as stylish.

I doubt that Panerai created the 40 mm case for women. I think it's more for men with small wrists, like mine. The few women I know who wear Panerai prefer big cases that dwarf their wrists.

Buy the watch you like and like to see on your wrist. Some people are lucky enough to only have to please themselves. But if you are concerned that the watch should fit a certain way (such as looking too big or too tall or too small) you should bring someone with you when you try them on--it's hard to see for yourself.

Have fun with it.

RC

[kilyung]

Nothing wrong with 40mm. It's just that most prefer the traditional Panerai 44mm size.

[TAKUYA]

Yes nothing wrong with 40mm. But wanna see the clear case back since I can not see that on my Rolex. Rads looks formal to me, not my taste. Thanks for all yur time and all yur helps/beautiful pics Much appreciated that.

[mfer]

Originally Posted by takuya

Yes nothing wrong with 40mm. But wanna see the clear case back since I can not see that on my Rolex. Rads looks formal to me, not my taste. Thanks for all yur time and all yur helps/beautiful pics Much appreciated that.

Straps make all the difference. Do these look formal to you?

I have 6.5" wrist by the way.







Now, if you love the crown guard, those are nice as well but the 45mm rads wear smaller than the 44mm lums.

Good luck!

[jvo300]

Don't trade the GMTIIC. If you are itching for a Panerai then save up for the 111 to ensure you really like the size; otherwise, just bite the bullet and save up for the 233 which is the best Panerai option IMO that you mentioned.

[andrew79]

45mm rad definitely wears smaller than 44 lum... and it's not formal if you wear casual strap with it (like Mik said above).