ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

MikeJaye · 3 January 2010, 08:57 PM

Hi,

I'm interested in a pam 312 and was wondering if the size of the case is bigger than that of a 112. I know they are both 44mm in size but does the 312 wears bigger (or smaller) than the 112. Is the case thicker?? I used to own a 112 and it's prob about the max size my wrist could take so if the 312 is bigger...or feels bigger on the wrist it might be too much for me.

thanks in advance

Mike

Psmith · 3 January 2010, 09:05 PM

Hi Mike - the 312 has the 1950 case which is taller than the 112's classic Luminor case, although they are of course both 44mm diameter. If you search around on here you may find a comparative pic of both together (or someone will be kind enough to post one in this thread).

The 312's case is brushed, with a polished bezel, whereas the 112's case (as you already know) is fully polished. Oh, and the 312's crown protector has the "reg t.m." marking.

Cheers

TswaneNguni · 3 January 2010, 09:29 PM

312 should wear slightly heavier compared to the 112.Slightly,so shouldnt be an issue.

mike · 4 January 2010, 01:14 AM

I've had the 312 on. Slightly taller, but as stated not an issue to me.

RedBaronF2001 · 4 January 2010, 02:02 AM

I own a 312, but I'll be perfectly honest with you - the 112 will be more comfortable to wear on a regular basis. While still 44mm, it is much thinner and lighter than the 312. The 312 also sits higher on the wrist making it feel a bit top heavy whereas the 111 sits tighter to the wrist.

Of course, this is my opinion. I have owned both and on my flat wrist the 000/005/111/112 are much more comfortable to wear often.

MikeJaye · 4 January 2010, 02:19 AM

Thanks for the replies. The thing I like about the 312 is the case. The 112 for me just seemed a little too plain. Does anyone know the thickness of a 112 & 312...must only be a few mm's in it. Also can anyone post comparison picks please??

Cheers
Mike

RedBaronF2001 · 4 January 2010, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeJaye

Thanks for the replies. The thing I like about the 312 is the case. The 112 for me just seemed a little too plain. Does anyone know the thickness of a 112 & 312...must only be a few mm's in it. Also can anyone post comparison picks please??

Cheers
Mike

The 312 is ~18.5mm tall vs the 000/005/111/112 case at 14mm tall

Pulpdiction · 4 January 2010, 02:23 AM

My 312 is my regular wearer, this is not top heavy at all in my67 opinion. I did try on a Rolex Deepsea a while ago, that define what top heavy really means, almost unwearable, for me.

dukerules · 4 January 2010, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedBaronF2001

The 312 is ~18.5mm tall vs the 000/005/111/112 case at 14mm tall

Wow, didn't realize it was that much thicker. It is a tough watch to fit under normal buttoned cuffs or a jacket. I've found that wearing it lower so it's essentially completely out from under the cuff works well for me though. Good for semi-formal dress, not a look that would fly with a tux, I'm afraid.

MikeJaye · 4 January 2010, 03:07 AM

Didn't realise it is 4mm diff between the two models...might be too much for me.

Pulpdiction, how did the thickness of the 312 compare with the Rolex DSSD. when I tried the DSSD on the width was fine but it was WAY too thick...it was like wearing a brick on my wrists (they prob a little under 6.5 inches)

A1000 · 4 January 2010, 03:24 AM

I was looking at the 90 vs the 312 recently and tried both on. After the first try which both felt quite bulky they became "normal" and have grown on me ever since. I had a 320 (same case as 312) and the 90 next to each other to look at the height and the 4mm really looks like nothing at all, infact when I tried on both the 312 sat better and looked slightly sleeker to the wrist. Possibly due to the shape and possibly just perception.

Either way I went for the 312 and have to say I'm really happy with it now I'm aclimatised. I have a 7" wrist and the watch has drawn many compliments. If you can try both styles on then it's worth it. There are a few ADs in London and it's worth taking a day and touring them all!

RedBaronF2001 · 4 January 2010, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1000

I was looking at the 90 vs the 312 recently and tried both on. After the first try which both felt quite bulky they became "normal" and have grown on me ever since. I had a 320 (same case as 312) and the 90 next to each other to look at the height and the 4mm really looks like nothing at all, infact when I tried on both the 312 sat better and looked slightly sleeker to the wrist. Possibly due to the shape and possibly just perception.

Either way I went for the 312 and have to say I'm really happy with it now I'm aclimatised. I have a 7" wrist and the watch has drawn many compliments. If you can try both styles on then it's worth it. There are a few ADs in London and it's worth taking a day and touring them all!

The 90 is thicker than the 000/005/111/112 though. The 312 is likely more comfy than the 90 due to the orientation and shape of the caseback and lugs.

The comparison here is 112 versus the 312.

I agree with your sentiment - go try them all on and see what you're comfortable with.

A1000 · 4 January 2010, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dukerules

Wow, didn't realize it was that much thicker. It is a tough watch to fit under normal buttoned cuffs or a jacket. I've found that wearing it lower so it's essentially completely out from under the cuff works well for me though. Good for semi-formal dress, not a look that would fly with a tux, I'm afraid.

As you say my 312 is a little tight under a normal single cuff shirt, however, is fine with a double cuff and cufflinks which is what I would normally wear with a suit or a tux. With single cuffs it wears ok if you have double buttons and leave the bottom one undone with the watch peeking out.

Alternatively, you could do what one Paneristi does and have your shirts made with one arm 1" shorter than the other

If you like the watch these issues are minor I guess

MikeJaye · 4 January 2010, 03:34 AM

I Live in London and was in Selfridges earlier today but they didn't have a 312 there for me too try. I'm a bit reluctant to try on at an AD anyway as I want to buy second had and don't really want to "use" an AD just to try on a watch...I reckon they can always tell when I go in just to try on their watches with no intention of buying them from their store :(

A1000 · 4 January 2010, 04:29 AM

Like you unless I'm in the market for watch I'll not normally ask to try on, however, if I might just buy then it's all part of the service. After going pre-owned for my sub-LV I was going pre-owned for a PAM, however, for a 312 it was cheaper to pay list price for a new one at the time (if you could find one!).

From memory I tried on a 320 in Selfridges as that was an option and they had one more 312 from their allocation remaining this year althought they didn't know when it was due in.

As you say they can probably tell the "time wasters" but equally can also tell those who they might be able to turn into a sale with the right deal ;-) I had a great day touring the ADs and having a chat with them over a coffee. I learnt a fair bit also. They understand that whilst you may not buy from them on this occassion a typical PAM/Rolex buyer is likely to buy a few watches in their lifetime.

CorruptedSanity · 4 January 2010, 04:49 AM

Go into any AD or boutiqe and try on any and all watches to your heart's content. Panerai wants you to try their watches in hopes that you buy one whether used or new.

Pulpdiction · 4 January 2010, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeJaye

Pulpdiction, how did the thickness of the 312 compare with the Rolex DSSD. when I tried the DSSD on the width was fine but it was WAY too thick...it was like wearing a brick on my wrists (they prob a little under 6.5 inches)

Hi, I think they are fairly similar at about 18mm, but the SDDS seems to have a smaller surface area on the back which is in contact with the wrist, so its sits proud with only aqbout 75% of the diameter of the watch in contact with your wrist, whereas the 312 is more like 90%, add this to the fact the the strap is 24mm on the 312 and only about 18mm, then the whole balance seemed off on my wrist and it just seemed to want to fall off to the side, which made it uncomfortable. This is just how it felt when I trtied it on and you would need to see for yourself but I found the 312 perfect.

I much prefer the larger size to the 40mm Seadweller 4000 and the Milguass I have.

A1000 · 4 January 2010, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pulpdiction

the SDDS seems to have a smaller surface area on the back which is in contact with the wrist, so its sits proud with only aqbout 75% of the diameter of the watch in contact with your wrist, whereas the 312 is more like 90%, add this to the fact the the strap is 24mm on the 312 and only about 18mm, then the whole balance seemed off on my wrist and it just seemed to want to fall off to the side, which made it uncomfortable.

x2 You've possibly just managed to articulate how the SDDS felt to me when I tried it on vs the PAM 1950 cased watches. In addition the aesthetics of the bezel and dial may also have a factor as the simple bezel and face make the 312 appear smaller than its size IMHO, whereas a sports watch such as the SDDS with a contrasting bezel with numbers on it has the effect of accetuating the size.

3 January 2010, 08:57 PM	#1
MikeJaye Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London Posts: 675	112 v 312 size Hi, I'm interested in a pam 312 and was wondering if the size of the case is bigger than that of a 112. I know they are both 44mm in size but does the 312 wears bigger (or smaller) than the 112. Is the case thicker?? I used to own a 112 and it's prob about the max size my wrist could take so if the 312 is bigger...or feels bigger on the wrist it might be too much for me. thanks in advance Mike

3 January 2010, 09:05 PM	#2
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	Hi Mike - the 312 has the 1950 case which is taller than the 112's classic Luminor case, although they are of course both 44mm diameter. If you search around on here you may find a comparative pic of both together (or someone will be kind enough to post one in this thread). The 312's case is brushed, with a polished bezel, whereas the 112's case (as you already know) is fully polished. Oh, and the 312's crown protector has the "reg t.m." marking. Cheers __________________

4 January 2010, 03:07 AM	#10
MikeJaye Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London Posts: 675	Ditto Didn't realise it is 4mm diff between the two models...might be too much for me. Pulpdiction, how did the thickness of the 312 compare with the Rolex DSSD. when I tried the DSSD on the width was fine but it was WAY too thick...it was like wearing a brick on my wrists (they prob a little under 6.5 inches)

4 January 2010, 03:24 AM	#11
A1000 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Adrian Location: UK Posts: 953	I was looking at the 90 vs the 312 recently and tried both on. After the first try which both felt quite bulky they became "normal" and have grown on me ever since. I had a 320 (same case as 312) and the 90 next to each other to look at the height and the 4mm really looks like nothing at all, infact when I tried on both the 312 sat better and looked slightly sleeker to the wrist. Possibly due to the shape and possibly just perception. Either way I went for the 312 and have to say I'm really happy with it now I'm aclimatised. I have a 7" wrist and the watch has drawn many compliments. If you can try both styles on then it's worth it. There are a few ADs in London and it's worth taking a day and touring them all! __________________ Rolex 16610LV (2007) PAM 312K (2009) PAM 292K (2009)

4 January 2010, 04:29 AM	#15
A1000 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Adrian Location: UK Posts: 953	Like you unless I'm in the market for watch I'll not normally ask to try on, however, if I might just buy then it's all part of the service. After going pre-owned for my sub-LV I was going pre-owned for a PAM, however, for a 312 it was cheaper to pay list price for a new one at the time (if you could find one!). From memory I tried on a 320 in Selfridges as that was an option and they had one more 312 from their allocation remaining this year althought they didn't know when it was due in. As you say they can probably tell the "time wasters" but equally can also tell those who they might be able to turn into a sale with the right deal ;-) I had a great day touring the ADs and having a chat with them over a coffee. I learnt a fair bit also. They understand that whilst you may not buy from them on this occassion a typical PAM/Rolex buyer is likely to buy a few watches in their lifetime. __________________ Rolex 16610LV (2007) PAM 312K (2009) PAM 292K (2009)

3 January 2010, 09:29 PM	#3
TswaneNguni "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: . Watch: Daytonas/Subs/GMTs Posts: 12,609	312 should wear slightly heavier compared to the 112.Slightly,so shouldnt be an issue.

4 January 2010, 01:14 AM	#4
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	I've had the 312 on. Slightly taller, but as stated not an issue to me.

4 January 2010, 02:02 AM	#5
RedBaronF2001 Member Join Date: May 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 575	I own a 312, but I'll be perfectly honest with you - the 112 will be more comfortable to wear on a regular basis. While still 44mm, it is much thinner and lighter than the 312. The 312 also sits higher on the wrist making it feel a bit top heavy whereas the 111 sits tighter to the wrist. Of course, this is my opinion. I have owned both and on my flat wrist the 000/005/111/112 are much more comfortable to wear often.

4 January 2010, 02:19 AM	#6
MikeJaye Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London Posts: 675	Thanks for the replies. The thing I like about the 312 is the case. The 112 for me just seemed a little too plain. Does anyone know the thickness of a 112 & 312...must only be a few mm's in it. Also can anyone post comparison picks please?? Cheers Mike

4 January 2010, 02:23 AM	#8
Pulpdiction "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: England Posts: 93	My 312 is my regular wearer, this is not top heavy at all in my67 opinion. I did try on a Rolex Deepsea a while ago, that define what top heavy really means, almost unwearable, for me.

4 January 2010, 03:34 AM	#14
MikeJaye Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London Posts: 675	I Live in London and was in Selfridges earlier today but they didn't have a 312 there for me too try. I'm a bit reluctant to try on at an AD anyway as I want to buy second had and don't really want to "use" an AD just to try on a watch...I reckon they can always tell when I go in just to try on their watches with no intention of buying them from their store :(

4 January 2010, 04:49 AM	#16
CorruptedSanity Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Real Name: Saif Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE Watch: AP Posts: 402	Go into any AD or boutiqe and try on any and all watches to your heart's content. Panerai wants you to try their watches in hopes that you buy one whether used or new.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)