42mm PAM: 'hell yes' or 'kill it with fire'

[pbj204]

Here are the specs on the 682.

42mm/14.5mm
51mm long
22m lugs
case is 106 grams
watch on OEM rubber is 132 grams
300m

It's too bad that 535 is not 14.5 thick.

The Panerai 1535 has the new smaller movement and case. (The pic is a 1535 not 535) It's only 13mm thick. I had the 42mm 392 and loved it. It had the older 16mm case but I still thought it wore great.

The 1392 and 1535 are incredibly comfortable, but unlike the DUE they still have characteristics of a regular 1950s case.

I preferred the 42mm 392 to the 44mm 233 that I owned. So much better on a 6.5 inch wrist.

I definitely want a 1535. I love the hobnail dial. The case is fully polished, which doesn't bother me. The 1392 isn't a GMT and doesn't have the hobnail, but the case is brushed.

[Panerai7]

Here are the specs on the 682.

42mm/14.5mm
51mm long
22m lugs
case is 106 grams
watch on OEM rubber is 132 grams
300m

It's too bad that 535 is not 14.5 thick.

The Panerai 1535 has the new smaller movement and case. (The pic is a 1535 not 535) It's only 13mm thick. I had the 42mm 392 and loved it. It had the older 16mm case but I still thought it wore great.

The 1392 and 1535 are incredibly comfortable, but unlike the DUE they still have characteristics of a regular 1950s case.

I preferred the 42mm 392 to the 44mm 233 that I owned. So much better on a 6.5 inch wrist.

I definitely want a 1535. I love the hobnail dial. The case is fully polished, which doesn't bother me. The 1392 isn't a GMT and doesn't have the hobnail, but the case is brushed.

That's good to know. Sorry I'm not yet familiar with 4 digit Pams (the horror on its own)
The original picture in OP was initially showing the lume shot so I didn't see the blue hand to tell that it's not 535

[jimyritz]

I like the 42MM PAMs---just have to be careful with the some of the newer 4 digit PAMs as it seems they went with less WR and snap on casebacks.

Too bad they discontinued the 512--love that watch... The 682 is awesome- just tried one on---Don't love the price but one of the few newer PAMs I'd buy.
==================================================
I have no issue with Tudor and who their ambassadors are--Beckham, Gaga, or whomever, don't really care...

Tudor has and is killing it-- the new GMT and 58 shows they have a clue and to roll out COSC in-house movements, 70 hr power reserve, 200 meters and throw in extra straps at less than $4K is a grand slam...I'm sure there is plenty to find fault with, but you don't have to break the bank to get a pretty good timepiece...

[dinexus]

I like the 42MM PAMs---just have to be careful with the some of the newer 4 digit PAMs as it seems they went with less WR and snap on casebacks.

Too bad they discontinued the 512--love that watch... The 682 is awesome- just tried one on---Don't love the price but one of the few newer PAMs I'd buy.
==================================================
I have no issue with Tudor and who their ambassadors are--Beckham, Gaga, or whomever, don't really care...

Tudor has and is killing it-- the new GMT and 58 shows they have a clue and to roll out COSC in-house movements, 70 hr power reserve, 200 meters and throw in extra straps at less than $4K is a grand slam...I'm sure there is plenty to find fault with, but you don't have to break the bank to get a pretty good timepiece...

Yeah, I've noticed that — looks like the 1392 and 1535 in which I'm most interested both have 100m wr and what appears to be a screwdown caseback. Love the jumping hour hand and the thinner profile – those two criteria are largely powering this hunt. Otherwise, I've just tried on literally zero Panerai, so I have no frame of reference.

Didn't honestly love the GMT, but the Black Bay 58 was 'top three' of the show for me. Silhouette is basically perfect, and the value proposition is, as you said, a slam dunk.