# "Fatboy" Project #1



## brummie1875 (May 2, 2016)

This watch was part of an auction lot comprising of a fatboy (80) with another fatboy ( 82) and a 0552 (89) the latter of which is at the doctors atm.

None were working (hence the low price) and each will be restored to a working condition, as the back was removable with my thumb nail i thought i would take the chance to post some photo's of the (80).

Now just to crack on and get them done.


----------



## SBryantgb (Jul 2, 2015)

This looks interesting :thumbsup: . I like that case shape a lot. What is the rough age of these pieces please?


----------



## brummie1875 (May 2, 2016)

As far as i can make out the watch changed in 1982 when they incorperated an oval around the CWC logo, then again in 1983 when the movement changed and the battery hatch became offset. Then in 1984 it got slimmer, the movement changed and the battery hatch returned to the centeral position. But as for this one marked 80 it could have been made anywhere between 1979 and 1980 and in the stores until it was issued in 1980.

Regards Paul.


----------



## The Canon Man (Apr 9, 2010)

Interesting that the movement is marked up "no jewels" when the 1980 MOD specification states a minimum of 4.

I know the ETA movement used in the later CWC's have 7 jewels.

Its obviously an early Quartz movement, probably made to a pre-1980 specification.


----------



## brummie1875 (May 2, 2016)

Yes you are correct and after a lot of research i am still puzzled as to why but this movement is in both the 1980 and 1982 fatboys changing in 1983 for just one year to a

ESA 947.121 movement then in 1984 to the thinner fatboy with a ETA 555.112 movement, i am lucky to have the "80" , "82", "84" and a few after 1988 but not the 1983.


----------



## Anders_Flint (Mar 23, 2017)

Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but i have a bit of a mystery...

Brought an old CWC g10 from eBay, it was an impulse buy at less than £40, figured it'd be handy for parts or a gardening/DIY watch. It had no description except "CWC watch, needs battery, some scratches", and only one blurry photo taken front on, so i didnt really know what i was buying.

Well, it arrived today and it turns out it's an 84 "medium fatboy", apart from a few case and crystal scratches it's in reasonable condition (polywatch will solve the crystal scratches and the rest are on the caseback so not noticeable)

But the mystery is the movement, it's the same ESA/ETA one pictured a few posts up in this thread and id previously thought only found in 1980-82 "full fatboy" watches.

I have a few other G10s including an RAF 84 Precista g10 (that my dad "forgot" to return when he left the forces) and a couple of mid 90s CWC ones i picked up along the way, all use the newer ETA movement (955.112 or 955.102).

Looking at the condition of the watch, it doesn't seem that it's ever been opened or had a movt change.

So has anyone ever heard of this movement being used as late as 84??

Unfortunately I've no photos of the mysterious movement, only peeked at it through the battery hatch as i don't have a press to reattach the case back if i remove it.

But here's a couple of snaps of the watch itself, and comparison in thickness to the 84 precista...










(Cwc is top/precista bottom)









Caseback


----------



## Anders_Flint (Mar 23, 2017)

Ok, my apologies, id misidentified the movement from my brief glimpse, it is in fact an ETA 955.411 almost identical to the one in this pic... (Lord knows how i thought it was the ESA one!)









Question is, what the heck is it doing in an 84 cwc, can't find anything suggesting these were ever used, if it has had a movt swap, it must have been done very early in the life of the watch, the 955.411 was only around from 79-86.

Mystery solved.. sort of.


----------



## brummie1875 (May 2, 2016)

Anders_Flint said:


> Ok, my apologies, id misidentified the movement from my brief glimpse, it is in fact an ETA 955.411 almost identical to the one in this pic... (Lord knows how i thought it was the ESA one!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 *Maybe your early movement change theory is correct, I can't think of another reason why it would have this movement.*


----------

