Officine Panerai

Craig LA
888

• Show profile
• Show other posts

When did “Panerai’s DNA” cease being created and start being followed (or disregarded)?

We frequently see posts referring to "Panerai's DNA."  New models are often evaluated with reference to whether they uphold, or deviate from, "Panerai's DNA."  The 232 and 372 have been exalted as the quintessential reflections of "Panerai's DNA."  Conversely, some have suggested that other recent models have little or no connection with "Panerai’s DNA."  By way of example, the 322 engendered considerable discussion regarding whether a Ti Rad with a Minerva movement has any meaningful connection to "Panerai's DNA."  There were historical references to Panerai having had some amorphous dealings with Minerva, but no one could cite an actual vintage PAM with a Minerva movement, and therefore, some concluded that the 322 was a significant departure from "Panerai's DNA."  The use of Ceramic and Aluminum Composite case materials has evoked similar discussions (not to mention the 348). 

The frequent reference to "Panerai's DNA" got me thinking.  What models define Panerai's DNA, and what models either adhere to or deviate from that DNA?  Stated another way, when did Panerai cease producing watches that define its DNA and begin producing watches that either conform to or deviate from that DNA?

One might argue that only the vintage models created for naval applications define Panerai's DNA, and any model created since Panerai went commercial either adheres to and deviates from that established DNA.  This position has a certain logic to it.  For the first fifty years of its existence, before commercial and profit motives entered the equation, Panerai created watches for a specific purpose and application.  These watches were pure and unadulterated.  Commercial appeal and profits were of no concern.  Therefore, it is easy to conclude that these vintage watches, and only these watches, define Panerai's DNA, and once the company went commercial, the subsequent watches either adhered to or deviated from this pre-existing DNA.

There are, of course, a few problems relaying solely on vintage models to define Panerai's DNA.  By way of example, Panerai never used PVD before it went commercial and, therefore, the 202/A and 203/A arguably deviate from Panerai's DNA.  One might counter that PVD is derived from Panerai's DNA because it makes the watch and, therefore, the diver more stealthy (a legitimate goal for a navy diver).  On the other hand, the reality is that Panerai elected to apply PVD to two of its first few commercial models, even though Panerai never used PVD before, primarily as a cosmetic enhancement intended to bolster the aesthetics, commercial appeal and profits of the new brand.  Likewise, Panerai never created a 44mm Luminor before it went commercial (at least I don't think it did) and, therefore, the 201/A, 202/A, etc, arguably deviate from Panerai's DNA predicated on 47mm Luminors.  Again, one might counter that the mere 3mm difference in case size does not constitute a deviation from the established DNA.  On the other hand, Panerai almost certainly went with a 44mm Luminor, instead of the historically correct 47mm, for commercial and profit motives -- there was a perception that a 47mm Luminor, even though historically correct, was not as marketable as a 44mm Luminor.  Thus, it is undeniable that commercial and profit motives influenced even the Pre-V models (as they should - Panerai was a profit oriented business).  It is also undeniable that the outgrowth of these commercial and profit motives -- 44mm Luminors and PVD cases -- have become an integral part of Panerai's DNA.  I think most believe PVD models and 44mm Luminors are firmly entrenched in Panerai's DNA.  Otherwise, the 202/A, 203/A, 4, 9, 360, etc would arguably constitute deviations from Panerai's DNA.  Therefore, strict reliance on vintage models to define Panerai's DNA may not work.

Based on the foregoing, I think many would argue that, in addition to vintage pieces, the Pre-V models also define Panerai's DNA, rather than follow it, in order to bring both 44mm Luminors and PVD finishes within the scope of Panerai's DNA.  However, if the Pre-V models defined Panerai's DNA, didn't the A series do the same?  Isn't it rather arbitrary to state that the Pre-V models defined Panerai's DNA, but the A series did not?  As we know, the A (and B) series included many innovative developments that most would consider an integral part of Panerai's DNA, including Ti and submersible cases.  Why draw the line at Pre-V and not include A (and B).  Don't we need to include A (and B) in order to bring Ti, Subs and other developments during that era within the scope of Panerai's DNA?

Okay, so we expand the creation of Panerai's DNA to include A and B series.  Why stop there?  Again, isn't that a bit arbitrary and outcome driven?

Some will argue that "Panerai's DNA" is an evolving concept and it continues to be created even today.  While certain recent models are far afield of the notion of a utilitarian tool watch with naval applications, most of the new models, including those made out of innovative case materials, uphold the utilitarian/naval virtues that many deem at the core of Panerai's DNA.  The problem with this approach is that there is no fixed or constant DNA benchmark or reference point.  If "Panerai's DNA" is constantly evolving every year, any new model is arguably consistent with "Panerai's DNA" simply because it was manufactured by Panerai and has some tangential design similarities to past models.  Moreover, pursuant to this approach, Panerai's DNA is subject to tremendous variation and, in years to come, may bare little resemblance to the vintage models.

So what is the break point for you?  When did Panerai cease creating its DNA and begin following it (or deviating from it)?  Or, is Panerai's DNA an evolving concept that continues to be created even today?

Regards,

Craig