Request for PAM 392 vs SubC size comparison

[axl911]

Hi All,

I am debating between the 40mm PAM48 vs the 42mm PAM392.

Anyone has a side by side comparison of the 392 vs the submariner or Speedmaster?

Would like wrist shot and far away if possible.

Max limit of my wrist is 40mm watch. Tried on the 44mm and it's a no go. PAM48 would fit, but wondering if it is too small, or the 392 is too big.

I have a sub so the 392 vs sub would be appreciated.

thanks!!!

[Ragna]

I posted this week about the pam 48.

Some fellow member posted a pic with another model that might be of good use for you. Here it is:



Not my picture.

For more info check the thread:
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?sha...7&share_type=t

[Cru Jones]

Yes, the 392 is a 42, but it's still as thick as the 312, if that's an issue. Consider also the 1392.

[axl911]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Yes, the 392 is a 42, but it's still as thick as the 312, if that's an issue. Consider also the 1392.

Thickness is also one of my worries. About 2mm diff between the 48 and 392 right?

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by axl911

Thickness is also one of my worries. About 2mm diff between the 48 and 392 right?

Yes. And the 48 has the Bettarini style case, which, depending on your wrist, can fit better due to its shape and thinner profile compared to the 1950 Luminors. Best to try them on. When I started with Panerai, I really wanted a 312 but ended up with a model having the Bettarini case (164) due to the fit (for me).

That all being said, Panerais are supposed to be big. Unless you have a very small wrist, you might find the 48 to be small over the long-term.