Weekly Watch Photo – Panerai PAM372 vs Audemars Piguet Royal Oak ref 5402
Some photographs need no comment and really this Weekly Watch Photo is such a photograph. It just shows the strong difference between two watches that are proposed and can be marked as lively/casual. On top is the Panerai PAM 000372, one of Panerai’s most famous models of the previous decade, and underneath is my own Audemars Piguet Royal Oak ref. 5402, the archetype of the current Royal Oak ref. 15202 that could well be AP’s most famous watch – it surely is the thinnest sports watch that was at any point produced is arrangement. The difference in stature/thickness is striking! Be that as it may, what’s the primary explanation behind this massive difference?
First current realities: the Panerai PAM 00372 estimates 16 mm in tallness, and the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak (this is the vintage ref. 5402) gauges precisely 7 mm. The Panerai is more than twice as thick. Presently the inquiry is, if there is a coherent clarification for the distinction in tallness. There are a few factors that have an effect on the thickness of a watch. One factor that consistently assumes a part is the thickness of the development, and another factor can be water obstruction. Let’s deconstruct the two watches, and see what causes this rather great contrast in thickness.
A physically twisted development is normally more slender then a programmed, in light of the fact that it comes up short on all the programmed winding components. In any event that goes for a programmed development with a full rotor; a programmed with a micro-rotor is often very thin. In view of this suspicion one could infer that the Panerai highlights a programmed development and the Audemars Piguet highlights a hand-wound caliber.
That might have been a conceivable end, on the off chance that it weren’t for the way that this Panerai highlights a physically wound development and inside the Audemars Piguet is a programmed development. To be explicit, the development inside PAM00372 is the in-house type P.3000 that measures 37,4 mm in width and 5,3 mm in tallness. It offers thee days (72 hours) of force hold, and shows hours and minutes, nothing more.
The development inside the AP is type 2121, which is the world’s most slender programmed development with a full rotor that is as yet in production. It measures 28,4 mm and 3,05 mm in tallness and offers 40 hours of force save when completely twisted. It demonstrates hours and minutes, and even has a date indication.
So the huge and thick Panerai has a physically wound development, while the super slender AP has a programmed development. That isn’t the explanation behind this distinction in stature. Furthermore the Panerai P.3000 type is 2,25 mm thicker than AP’s type 2121, so that can likewise not be the purpose behind the colossal distinction in thickness.
Might it be the water opposition? While making a watch that is water impervious to more noteworthy profundities, goes connected at the hip with a thicker crystal, a thicker case-back and really the whole watch must be thicker. The Panerai PAM 372 is water safe up to a profundity of 100 meters and the super flimsy Royal Oak is water impervious to a profundity of 50 meters. Indeed, that can’t be the purpose behind this gigantic distinction. Particularly not when you consider that a Rolex Submariner – water impervious to 300 meters – is 13 mm thick.
Well, it appears we won’t locate any legitimate purpose behind the distinction in tallness, so let’s simply say it’s just for design’s purpose and this has nothing to do with specialized constraints.