The Dive Watch Connection

craniotes wrote:If it's using the P.9000, it's gonna be a real hamburger on the wrist.

Regards,
Adam

That is true. With that movement it can't get much shorter. I wonder if that will throw off the proportions compared to the 312.

CGSshorty wrote:

craniotes wrote:If it's using the P.9000, it's gonna be a real hamburger on the wrist.

Regards,
Adam

That is true. With that movement it can't get much shorter. I wonder if that will throw off the proportions compared to the 312.

That's what I'm thinking; the 312 is already 18mm thick, which is DSSD territory.

Regards,
Adam

craniotes wrote:

CGSshorty wrote:

craniotes wrote:If it's using the P.9000, it's gonna be a real hamburger on the wrist.

Regards,
Adam

That is true. With that movement it can't get much shorter. I wonder if that will throw off the proportions compared to the 312.

That's what I'm thinking; the 312 is already 18mm thick, which is DSSD territory.

Regards,
Adam

At least it will have a full size strap and not an emaciated bracelet.

How much of the thickness is the p.9000 movement?

I love that Panerai has now made the 1950 style case in 42mm. I had a 312 and 359, sold em both because they were bit too thick and didn't sit right on my wrist. I would have loved to have seen a 372 released in 42mm. The 372 one of the nicest Pam's ever released, just shrink it and I'm all in!

I'm with you on that one.
Nice avatar.

matt.wu wrote:

aikiman44 wrote:Probably 24.
This needs a brown dial, though.

It looks more like a 24 based on the photos at least.

And I agree, Jay. It'd look great with a brown dial and gold hands, ala the 351. I'd be even happier if they took this case and did other things with it, like a 42mm 233 or 243.

Zombie thread - take a look at the new 535 and 537. 42mm GMTs.

22mm lugs.
So did Rob get that watch?

Nope; ended up with the two 42mm rads instead but I am Panerai-less for the first time in a long time so have thought about this one again. Rare to see on the forums for sale.

This thread sux: 2 years, too many numbers, no pix.

Sidheguitarist wrote:This thread sux: 2 years, too many numbers, no pix.

Thread started in 2012, revived in 2014, and now finished in 2016, with pics.