# Height of Panerai cases (Luminor vs 1950 vs Radomir)



## Tim99 (Sep 28, 2012)

Hi,

I think that the standard Luminor cases are slightly lower in height than the 1950 cases, but bigger than the Radomir ones, aren't they? However, I'm very much interested in the differences. Do all standard Luminor models more or less have the same case height? If yes, which height? Same for 1950 and Radomir cases.

Unfortunately, I found lots of information about the case diameters, but very little about the case's heights. Thus, any help is greatly appreciated!


----------



## JayVeeez (Dec 30, 2007)

Luminor 1950's case is 18mm for most models; 312, 328, 329, 351, 352, & 359. They are huge.

I've seen the 233 listed between 15mm & 17.5mm thick. Keep in mind the 233 has a much more pronounced domed crystal.


----------



## Synequano (May 2, 2012)

351 is about 17-18 mm thick so I guess the P9000 1950 case have roughly the same thickness (with the exception of the 47 mm sub models (305,371,382)
Standard luminor with 6497 (111,177) is about 14-15 mm,the auto should have roughly the same thickness
However on a special luminor case like pam 92,the case is even thicker than 351 (19-20 mm?) because of the rounded antimagnetic caseback and the chunky bezel
If you want thinner case,go with either radiomir or the 47 mm '1950'(as stated in the catalog) like 372/422


----------



## kiwidj (Sep 24, 2007)

Synequano said:


> However on a special luminor case like pam 92,the case is even thicker than 351 (19-20 mm?) because of the rounded antimagnetic caseback and the chunky bezel


Yup, the Arktos is a chunky bugger...


----------



## Tim99 (Sep 28, 2012)

Thank you all so much!



JayVeeez said:


> Luminor 1950's case is 18mm for most models; 312 [...] They are huge.


I'm especially interested in 312 and 361. Both have 1950 cases. I think that the 312 has a slightly smaller crystal and may appear a bit smaller!? Unfortunately, I don't have the chance to have a closer look at a 312 in the near future. Thus, I'd be interested if 312 and 361 (1950 Flyback Chrono) have exactly the same height or if the 312 is smaller.


----------



## Tim99 (Sep 28, 2012)

Hm. I just saw that the 392 has a 1950 case with only 42mm. I didn't know that 1950s <44mm do exist... I guess the diameter has some implications on the height as well!? Is the 392 just a 312 in small?


----------



## Synequano (May 2, 2012)

Hmm,never seen 392,is it out yet? I think it is only a smaller diameter 312,the thickness is the same because of the same movements


----------



## JayVeeez (Dec 30, 2007)

Those on the Internet say it's 16.5mm thick. Nice!

http://panerai.watchprosite.com/show-forumpost/fi-717/pi-5366608/ti-799068/s--2/

And yes, they are now for sale. Looks like you also give up some water resistance as it is reduced to 100M versus the 312's 300M. In addition the 392 has a 22mm strap. Keep in mind this is from the info I've found on the net. That being said you may surely want to try one on.


----------



## stilo (Aug 11, 2009)

The 42mm Luminors look odd IMO


----------



## Travelller (Apr 24, 2012)

JayVeeez said:


> ...I've seen the 233 listed between 15mm & 17.5mm thick...


I just measured mine over the center of the dome and it comes out to *17.5mm*. That number is fact (I used calipers). I tried to _eyeball_ the actual components and came up with approx. *3.5+8+3.5+2.5* (lower bezel, case, upper bezel, crystal). I may try to get a better approx. with pshop _(not for the OP, just for my own curiosity)_
Edit: pshop values: *3.2 7.7 3.2 3.4*...


----------

