# PAM 392 vs. PAM 512



## wheeler004 (Mar 27, 2014)

Hello Folks! I have been considering making my first venture into Panerai ownership and have narrowed down the selection to the PAM 392 and PAM 512. I'm really hoping to hear from those who have experience wearing either of these. Both are 42mm with sandwich dials. Pros for the 392: iconic 1950's case; date complication; classic crown guard makes it instantly recognizable. Cons for the 392: I have heard that it sits disproportionately tall for its width and is a bit bulky; perhaps a bit too much "flash." Pros for the 512: elegant and understated case; vintage hued lume; non-wire lugs; I've always had a soft spot for Radiomor Panerai watches. Cons for the 512: no date complication, doesn't have a look

The 392 is Caliber P.9000 Automatic with a 3 day power reserve. The 512 is a Caliber P.999 Manual with 60 hour power reserve. The power reserve difference is not a huge deal to me. An automatic movement would be nice so I could pop it in the winder when not in use, but manual is not a deal breaker. Both have an exhibition case back, and the movement in the 512 is decidedly more interesting to look at. That said, most of the time when I'm looking at my watch, I'm looking at the front not the back. The 392 has a brushed steel bezel, which along with the crown guard gives it a sportier look than the 512 in my opinion.

So each watch seems to occupy its own niche. The 392 with its bold, sporty swagger and the 512 with its subdued elegance. Both are looks which I could go for, so the question for me comes down to which watch pulls off its own look best. My big concern with the 392 is that I have read reports that it is bulky and wears disproportionately tall compared to its relatively narrow (by Panerai standards) 42mm case. Can those who have had wrist time with the 392 comment? The only concern I have about the 512 is that it doesn't have the same "look" the 392 has. The 392 just has a more distinct look that is uniquely Panerai, but I'm worried that the "flash" effect will wear off after the honeymoon period. So I am weighing the initial flash of the 392 against the longterm wearability of the 512.

I would love to get both of these bad boys on my wrist before making a decision, but I thought it would be nice to compile as many WIS opinions on the subject as possible before I make the obligatory pilgrimage to the AD. I'm posting a couple photos from the interweb for a visual comparison. Any and all comments welcome!

PAM392








PAM 512


----------



## Trailboss (Apr 17, 2014)

I tried on the 392 when I bought my 312, but it felt too small for me. My wrists are 8" so I assume yours are smaller than that. 
I'd go for the Radiomir if it were me. Even though you don't see the back of the watch that often, knowing it is there is nice, and that counts in my book.


----------



## WatchNRolla (Feb 4, 2014)

I've tried both on recently. 

It really depends on what style you're after. The Lum is more casual. It's thicker and wears bigger. It has the iconic crown guard. The Rad is more dressy, it's thinner and sits flat on the wrist. If you're going to wear the watch with dress shirts, the Rad will fit nicely under. 

I agree with you about the 392. It's a beautiful watch but it's very thick, the same thickness as the 44mm version the 312. If you can pull off the 312, I'd go with that. 

I'd try them both on, along with other models. I went in thinking I'd get the 312, but I got the 510 because it just felt better on my wrist.


----------



## eamonn345 (Sep 29, 2013)

Instead of these, I'd go for the PAM312. Awesome awesome watch.


----------



## amanda (Dec 1, 2006)

The 392 is not the same thickness as the 312 as mentioned above. Ive owned both watches and found the 312 to be rather top heavy, it's a very large watch. The 392 at 42mm is not small by any means, but as a PAM yes some could call it a small Panerai.

You are comparing two very different watches. I've seen a small Asian lady at my local AD wearing a 512 and it's a small watch. Stunning watch indeed and perfect if you have a small frame and live in office attire.

Heres a very good post showing the 312 vs 392 sizing to support my statement above

http://panerai.watchprosite.com/sho...-so-now-i-have-really-rejoined-the-paneristi/

i think a trip to the AD/Boutique is your best bet - test em out. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what we think, just what you think!


----------



## WatchNRolla (Feb 4, 2014)

amanda said:


> The 392 is not the same thickness as the 312 as mentioned above. Ive owned both watches and found the 312 to be rather top heavy, it's a very large watch. The 392 at 42mm is not small by any means, but as a PAM yes some could call it a small Panerai.


yup you're right. The 392 is 17mm thick, 312 18mm thick.


----------



## wheeler004 (Mar 27, 2014)

Thanks for the replies so far. My wrist is on the small side at 6.5". Yes, they are two very different watches. I think this is the root of my dilemma—I'd like to have both! As suggested, I think my only option is to check out both and see which one suits me best. The Radiomir is probably more practical and would fill a much-needed niche in my collection, but I'm afraid it wouldn't completely fill the "Panerai void" in my life. Ultimately, the question may not be which one, but in which order to purchase them! It's great to hear about people's experiences with these two watches, so keep it coming!


----------



## eamonn345 (Sep 29, 2013)

Pams are meant to wear big I think. 312/351/359 are great models. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Emtee (Mar 23, 2013)

I have a fairly small wrist and own the 392. Tried the 312 but it was just too large. The 392 fits my wrist nicely and is my go it casual watch. In the office it is a bit chunky for most shirt cuffs but I don't mind too much as I quite like looking at it


----------



## Karolewskiej (Apr 26, 2011)

My wrist is also small and I choose 392. I love it 

512 is much much more dressy, for me too much.


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

512 for me. Love the 42mm design.


----------



## wheeler004 (Mar 27, 2014)

Emtee said:


> I have a fairly small wrist and own the 392. Tried the 312 but it was just too large. The 392 fits my wrist nicely and is my go it casual watch. In the office it is a bit chunky for most shirt cuffs but I don't mind too much as I quite like looking at it
> 
> View attachment 1560260


Great wrist shot! How big is your wrist?


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

I've owned both of these watches. Currently have 392 which I'm thinking about moving on as well, nothing seems to stick....

My take:

I bought 512 as I loved the new lug style and that it could easily go under a cuff. Ultimately, I too longed for the Pam look which this guy seemed to lack.
From my perspective this watch does NOT wear small as the bezel is smaller and watch flatter. To me, it even seemed larger! Of course, I also have a love / hate with the all polished look.

Currently have 392. This is Pam all the way, big, bulky, crown guard in your face. A true beauty. I laugh when guys on here say it's small or for a woman. It's still huge in my book, 17mm is huge fellas, you know this. Does NOT really fit nicely under the cuff. You maybe able to stuff it under but it is not comfortable to do so. I wear mine on rubber and for casual settings mostly.

I think I'd agree with the poster that picked 510 when looking at these. My older style case, models seem to fit better on me. I've owned 164 and 25 in that style. A few mm thinner and seemed to be more comfy on my wrist. Not sure I've helped here but there you have it.


















Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RolexFan33 (Jul 19, 2011)

Interestingly...I happen to own both of these watches. 

I started out with a 312 but I found I didn't wear it much after some time due to it's bulky size and heavy weight. It would annoy the hell out of me. 

Then the 512 came out. Bought one and I have to say, as a daily wearer, it's my favourite. It's a beautiful watch and I find myself staring at it constantly. 

Then I ended up trading my 312 for a 392. Why? Although i LOVE the 512, my first love was the 312 - the case, the dial, the date, the regulator. When i found out Panerai made a smaller case, I thought it was the answer. Sadly, the answer may be a no. 

The 392 is a beautiful watch. It's a bit lighter and wears nicer on my 6.5 inch wrist. But...I still find it a bit heavy for daily wear. It also does sit pretty high on the wrist. 312 vs. 392 - I think the 312 wins. Why? For some reason, the bigger size just makes the watch look better...more symmetrical. Maybe it's because I've owned both and my eyes are actually deceiving me. 

In all honesty, I love both watches but the 512 definitely gets more wrist time. Oddly, I really miss the date indication though. 

So all in all, I'd say - get the 512 if you want a watch that is elegant, easy to wear and doesn't scream LOOK AT ME.

Get the 392 if you really have to have the Panerai "look" and don't mind a bit of heft. 

Oh and if you're worried about winding it all the time...I actually find it nice to wind a watch. 

My $0.02.


----------



## Muffnbluff (Nov 15, 2011)

Obviously I'm biased given I own a 512, but I think it's proportions are just perfect at 42mm and the thin profile gives it a dressier feel. My 512 joins my Planet Ocean as a "for life" watch.


----------



## RolexFan33 (Jul 19, 2011)

I agree with Muffnbluff - my 512 will be a "for life" watch as well. It just sits perfectly and I don't see myself getting tired of the design...it's classic.


----------



## darylccc (Oct 27, 2013)

Any thoughts if the 572 will be worth the wait? .... Vs the 512


----------



## ng107 (Nov 19, 2011)

Hi, can someone kindly please confirm that the PAM 392 is 17mm thick? Also, is the PAM 48 16mm thick? Thanks!


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

I'd say about 18 to 16, a 2mm spread.


----------



## gl0w (Aug 3, 2014)

512 wins my vote, it's thinner, and IMO, the movement is prettier. You also get the pleasure of manually winding it once in a while


----------



## dainese (Dec 28, 2012)

I have the 512 in my sights. I went into an AD yesterday but they had none in stock. So I tried on the 392 and the 439.

OP may also want to consider the 337 and the 338. Both 42mm radiomir cases with wire lugs.

I think the consensus is correct on the 392, it is disproportionately taller than wider now. Still a handsome watch but the movement and display back bulge out.

I attach some pictures for your reference.























































Wrist is approximately 6.75".

Hello from Sydney!

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

I'm not sure I'm with you on the 392. I've had 359 and it clearly wears larger than 392, no surprise there. These are bulky watches no matter how you cut it. 
I see no mismatch in balance, they just shrunk it some.....not really enough if you ask me. But I love the looks so a keeper......for now. I've said this in other threads on the 512, that was very comfortable / more so than 392 but the fact that it is flatter with a difference bezel made the dial appear larger than the 392 (minus the guard) to me. I flipped that one. What a beautiful backside view though and again, very comfortable, way more so that 392.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Will3020 (Aug 28, 2012)

Xxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Will3020 (Aug 28, 2012)

darby11 said:


>


Error made on previous post. I wanted to highlight the PAM photo above. What a real beauty.


----------



## dainese (Dec 28, 2012)

darby11 said:


> I'm not sure I'm with you on the 392. I've had 359 and it clearly wears larger than 392, no surprise there. These are bulky watches no matter how you cut it.
> I see no mismatch in balance, they just shrunk it some.....not really enough if you ask me. But I love the looks so a keeper......for now. I've said this in other threads on the 512, that was very comfortable / more so than 392 but the fact that it is flatter with a difference bezel made the dial appear larger than the 392 (minus the guard) to me. I flipped that one. What a beautiful backside view though and again, very comfortable, way more so that 392.
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Sorry, probably a poor choice of words. I guess my perception was the loss of 2mm, which now made the lovely thing fit me decently but the height remained the same. Very nice and incredible presence, however you cut it! ;-)

The auto movement is quite attractive too.


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

dainese said:


> Sorry, probably a poor choice of words. I guess my perception was the loss of 2mm, which now made the lovely thing fit me decently but the height remained the same. Very nice and incredible presence, however you cut it! ;-)
> 
> The auto movement is quite attractive too.


No problem just talking watches here. Technically I thinks it's like 1-2mm less in height but super tall regardless. I need one Pam in the rotation and for now this fits the bill. Cuff buster for sure

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dainese (Dec 28, 2012)

darby11 said:


> No problem just talking watches here. Technically I thinks it's like 1-2mm less in height but super tall regardless. I need one Pam in the rotation and for now this fits the bill. Cuff buster for sure
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I need one too!

I've short listed:
Panerai 512
Zenith Tri Colour El Primero
IWC 3714

So different, I know...


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

dainese said:


> I need one too!
> 
> I've short listed:
> Panerai 512
> ...


I go Pam fwiw

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dainese (Dec 28, 2012)

In the interest of sharing, I attach the pictures that I just took at an AD in Sydney.

A remarkable presence and size. Very sleek but definitely lacks the 'Panerai presence' now, but at least it fits me now!


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

dainese said:


> In the interest of sharing, I attach the pictures that I just took at an AD in Sydney.
> 
> A remarkable presence and size. Very sleek but definitely lacks the 'Panerai presence' now, but at least it fits me now!
> 
> It makes the iwc look puny....


Wait, so it's yours? Congrats. Also, it's all dial, so I don't think it's lacking wrist presence. Just lacking a crown guard. It's very elegant and I loved the view from the rear. Who doesn't like sandwiches? I flipped mine to my co-worker. He but it on black asso strap. Looks a bit more casual and works well if you are interested. I wonder how it would look on Pam rubber?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dainese (Dec 28, 2012)

darby11 said:


> Wait, so it's yours? Congrats. Also, it's all dial, so I don't think it's lacking wrist presence. Just lacking a crown guard. It's very elegant and I loved the view from the rear. Who doesn't like sandwiches? I flipped mine to my co-worker. He but it on black asso strap. Looks a bit more casual and works well if you are interested. I wonder how it would look on Pam rubber?
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


OH no no. I went to try it on at the AD. I am not sure why but it didn't click (there must be something wrong with me!). It is a great looking thing, that's for sure. Should look good on rubber or Asso.
Yeah, it's definitely there but maybe because it sits so sleek and so well, it doesn't have the same matching flair of other Panerais. Will keep this one in mind for now.


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

dainese said:


> OH no no. I went to try it on at the AD. I am not sure why but it didn't click (there must be something wrong with me!). It is a great looking thing, that's for sure. Should look good on rubber or Asso.
> Yeah, it's definitely there but maybe because it sits so sleek and so well, it doesn't have the same matching flair of other Panerais. Will keep this one in mind for now.


Ok, never mind, too plain - next up.....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## wheeler004 (Mar 27, 2014)

Well, after much deliberation, I opted for the 512. The 392 was just a bit too bulky. I am actually surprised at how well it dresses down. The solid lugs and screw down crown give it a sportier look, especially with a brown leather strap. It still dresses up nicely and fits neatly under the cuff. A more reserved look than the 392 for sure, but it still has plenty of Panerai attitude. A perfect fit on my 6.5 inch wrist, with loads of versatility and PAM personality. Here is a wrist shot with a Daluca ammo pouch strap:


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

Awesome choice! Congratz!


----------

