First PAM- 392

[HoosAir]

I absolutely love it. I have tiny wrists (6.25") so the 44mm+ PAMs look silly. I tried the 40mm 48 but it didn't do it for me- a little small, didn't like the cyclops, etc. The 392 width is perfect plus I dropped the cyclops, got a sandwich dial, clear caseback, etc.

I have two rolexes- a vintage date hand me down and a 14060M this forum helped me choose, but this watch really sings to me. I was actually about buy a dress watch, either a JLC master calendar or a Calatrava, but I like this one so much I will hold off. I intended for this to be a weekend watch but it looks pretty good with a suit, so I think I will use it as my daily wearer.

[Cru Jones]

Congrats!! Looks like a perfect fit.

There's no reason why you can't wear it daily. I happily wear my 164 with a suit (but I do tend to wear gators during the week).

[nick c]

Congrats

[Rodentman]

I have one also! It's a great piece, so congrats!!

I can happily wear PAM's in 40, 42, 44, and 47. I will say that for me the 40 works best on the old style brushed SS bracelet so it stays on that, which adds some presence to the watch.

[wingku]

Looks awesome, congrats!

[TAKUYA]

Looks perfect on you!

[mcorliss]

So far, it is actually my favorite watch. Just got it last Friday and have worn it 5 days in a row...which never happen with me. Already planning to get the new PAM 523 (same but white dial) when it comes out in coming months. Congrats and enjoy!

[B. Doggy]

Welcome!

[HoosAir]

Originally Posted by takuya

Looks perfect on you!

Thanks. I know it didn't work for you in the end, but hopefully its a keeper for me

[HoosAir]

Originally Posted by mcorliss

So far, it is actually my favorite watch. Just got it last Friday and have worn it 5 days in a row...which never happen with me. Already planning to get the new PAM 523 (same but white dial) when it comes out in coming months. Congrats and enjoy!

Oh man, I didn't know about the 523. That is sweet looking. Hopefully I can hold off. I really wanted to try some other brands before doubling up on PAMs....

[Psmith]

Congrats - looks great!

[profess1]

Looks great! This watch hadn't been on my radar until I saw mcorliss's pic a few day ago. I'm now stalking it. I think this will be the watch that brings me back to Panerai. I owned a 111 for several years but personally never adjusted to 44 mm on my barely 7-inch wrist. I think 42 mm will hit the sweet spot for me. How do you find the thickness in relation to the other dimensions? Is it top heavy?

[mcorliss]

It is truly perfect proportions. Larger than 40mm, but definitely smaller than 44mm, and the thickness is much more reasonable than most 44mm versions. As I mentioned, I was sort of "meh!" the first time I tried it on because my eyes were seeking a dial with more going on, plus cyclops on date, but in the real world it is both sporty and elegant at the same time. Pics really don't do it any justice.

Love Rolex, but this model is just so much more interesting to look at, plus has 3 Day power reserve, in-house movement, sandwich dial, and exhibition case back. Next time I have a chance I will take a better wrist shot as it looks much better on than in my initial pic.

Here is a case pic...

[HoosAir]

Originally Posted by profess1

Looks great! This watch hadn't been on my radar until I saw mcorliss's pic a few day ago. I'm now stalking it. I think this will be the watch that brings me back to Panerai. I owned a 111 for several years but personally never adjusted to 44 mm on my barely 7-inch wrist. I think 42 mm will hit the sweet spot for me. How do you find the thickness in relation to the other dimensions? Is it top heavy?

I agree with Mcorliss (obviously;)) I think the dimensions are great. It is top-heavy relative to the rolexes I am used to, but much less so than the 44mm pams I tried at least on my bird wrist. It is also less top-heavy than the 40mm PAMS (48/49) bc it is the same thickness but 2mm wider and seem to lay better on my wrist. The 1950s case rounds it out, making it less of a slab than the std 44mm luminor automatics. I really think its a beautiful watch.

You have probably seen this, but this link does a nice job showing how much thinner the 392 is than the 312:

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

[profess1]

Thanks to you both for the info. I'm sold. Meanwhile, love to see more pics of it while I'm on the hunt. Cheers.

[Z-Sub]

Love it. What a beautiful piece

[mcorliss]

Better pic of it being dressed up...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[profess1]

Beautiful watch--love it!

[Babolat]

Lovely watch - congrats !!!!

[sea-dweller]

Congrats!

[HL65]

Congrats--very nice!

[ocwatching]

Congrats! the 392 has been selling like hotcakes!

[eric23]

Nice! Congrats!

[lindstd]

That is very nice. Great choice.

[MikeJaye]

Looking good, the 392 is def on the radar for me. I've got small wrists and had 312's and a 233 in the past and they were just a tad too big. Do you know what the weight of the 392 is compared to the 312?

Cheers
Mike

[apeogre]

Damnit, you nailed it! looks excellent! Wear in good health.

[steveclocks]

Originally Posted by HoosAir

I absolutely love it. I have tiny wrists (6.25") so the 44mm+ PAMs look silly. I tried the 40mm 48 but it didn't do it for me- a little small, didn't like the cyclops, etc. The 392 width is perfect plus I dropped the cyclops, got a sandwich dial, clear caseback, etc.

I have two rolexes- a vintage date hand me down and a 14060M this forum helped me choose, but this watch really sings to me. I was actually about buy a dress watch, either a JLC master calendar or a Calatrava, but I like this one so much I will hold off. I intended for this to be a weekend watch but it looks pretty good with a suit, so I think I will use it as my daily wearer.

congrats man, it's the perfect watch, I know it, because i own one myself

[2106]

Looks fantastic. Perfect fit.

[alexlt730512]

congrat

[ChiefOfSmoke]

Nice one enjoy1