jimly
71
What I'm thinking...
I've had my eye on a 312 for the past year or so and I'm hoping to get one sometime this year. I think they went 42mm instead of 40mm (they already have 40mm models, right?) because the 312 is for people who like the overall Panerai look but they may want an everyday, usable function like the date. I know hardcore Panerisitis prefer a completely clean face without even a seconds dial.
What I'm getting at is: Panerai probably figures the 392 will appeal to the masses and perhaps making it a bit smaller will persuade those who think 44mm is too big to pull the trigger. 42mm seems to be the sweet spot these days. Look at the new Explorer II.
Although I aspire to be in the same financial situation as many of you gentlemen here and have a vast collection of various timepieces, for now I can only go one at a time and I often need/like to know what the date is. I've never found chronographs necessary or the second time zone for that matter but for me, a date is a must for my everyday watch. Anyway, just my two cents. I'd be interested in seeing the 392 in person and very interested in the price but I figure I have to go 44mm with a Panerai and stick to my 312 plan.
More posts:
Pam 392....Luminor 1950 42mm....
ok, I confess I am not sure what difference the 2mm will make, had they made it in 40mm...I could understand more, any opinions? best Imran...
What I'm thinking...
I've had my eye on a 312 for the past year or so and I'm hoping to get one sometime this year. I think they went 42mm instead of 40mm (they already have 40mm models, right?) because the 312 is for people who like the overall Panerai look but they may want...
We'll probably begin seeing Panerai expand into the 42mm Luminor territory
It makes sense for them business-wise to expand their collection line into a new Luminor case size, especially one that is between 40mm and 44mm since there are many who feel 40mm is too small and 44mm is just a tad too large. And so, expect many new 42mm...
According to....
the OP website, the thickness of the 392 is the same as the 312. In fact, everything is the same except: The crystal on the 392 is a bit thinner (approx. a millimeter) The 392 is water resistant up to 100m versus 300m on the 312 Of course, the 392's case ...
too bad
I've always liked the 1950's case, but the thickness was always the issue. The 44mm diameter was not the issue. 44mm Rads seem small too me because of the thickness or lack of.
Not sure the info is fully reliable
While the front picture on the site states 42mm as the case size, the technical data shows 44mm. I am not sure everything is updated.
Panerai Pam 392
I just purchased the PAM 392 from a dealer in Waikiki Hi. It is a 42MM version of the Pam 312 (44mm). The retail price was set at $7500 USD. The case has been updated to reflect a more curved look, it has brushed steel rather than polished stainless
To size down the 312 (very popular contemporary model)...
4mm in one pop, could be a bit too much. There's a layer of neophytes that can't quite use a 44mm but probably "frown" on a 40mm model. A 42mm is a perfect..compromize..IMO Don't forget that, people that can't "heck it out" with a bigger watch, are willin...
