PAM 392 - the good, the bad, the price advice

[TexasTudorFan]

I know this thread is several years old now, but it continues to appear in Google search for watch enthusiasts looking for owner perspectives on what it's like to wear the 392. For context, I'm a 40-year watch collector that has owned everything from 1930's Rolex rose gold hooded bubblebacks, 1655 Explorers, and 5512 Submariners, to dress watches from Patek and Breguet. It doesn't mean I know everything -- but rather, I've owned/worn a lot of various watch sizes and designs on my 6.75" - 7" wrist.

Back in 2008, I purchased a PAM 233 (1950 case, 8-days GMT) which to this day is my favorite Panerai of all time due to the dial design and domed crystal. I loved the watch, but I kept feeling the 44mm was slightly too big for me. Given there weren't a lot of 42mm options in the Luminor line at the time -- I traded the watch for a Vacheron dress watch. A full 15 years later, I got the itch for another Panerai and wanted the Luminor 1950 case and a clean/classic dial that would transcend trends and look great 10 years from now.

After trying on 42mm Radiomir's and a PAM 1392 Luminor (the now current replacement for the PAM 392), they seem to feel like a lightweight fashion watch. I also didn't want the shiny/polished case. When add the movement issues that Panerai has been plagued with (such as silently removing the hacking seconds feature on the P9010), I couldn't get excited about any of these 42mm watches. The 13mm case thickness on the PAM1392 simply feels too thin (especially for a Luminor) and undermines the solid feel that a Luminor should deliver. In my opinion, the PAM 1392 is a watch that tries to be a dive watch, but is proportioned to be a dress watch (in the latter situation, just buy a Radiomir).

As I spent time on this forum (and others), there are a lot of stories of guys saying that sold their PAM 392 because it "was too thick at 17mm" or "wore heavy", etc. Compared to a PAM 312, the 392 case is still 2mm narrower and 1mm thinner. After recently buying a 2015 (last year model) PAM 392 -- I am delighted with the watch and have no idea what the 392 detractors are talking about.

The watch has all the classic design elements that a proper Luminor should have:

> Crystal: slight dome curve (not as sexy as the PAM 233 -- but nicer than the flat dial on the PAM 1392).
> Dial: classic sandwich style without blue second hand
> Case: 1950 shape, 17mm thick (downsized from 18mm on PAM 312)
> Lug width: 22mm so it's not oversized and a trim proportioned buckle
> Case back: exposition style

This watch is also far lighter than I expected, so anyone saying it "wears heavy" needs to increase their gym workouts. This watch feels lighter than my Tudor Black Bay (41mm) and my Tudor Black Bay PO1 (42mm). For those claiming they can't fit a dress shirt cuff over the watch -- stop asking a bold dive watch to do the job of a dress watch (I wear a Breguet or Black Bay Pro with cuffs). Depending on your cuff size, I think you can get a cuff over this watch.

I was nearly convinced to settle for the PAM 1392 -- but am glad I stuck to my guns and grabbed a mint condition PAM 392 before people figure out how great this watch really is. If you are looking for a classic Luminor and are "on the edge" of being able to pull off the 44mm -- I cannot recommend the PAM 392 enough.