# Fat Boy....?



## 55JWB (Sep 21, 2011)

from the side it looks like it to me, 1985 is that still possible??


----------



## louiswu (May 16, 2009)

Hi,

Fatboys are the '80 & '82 G10 models. From '83 to '85 they got a little smaller, and then in '87 they got smaller again.

The differences are pretty miniscule though. Here's a guide i think came originally from MWR ....

1980: First pattern. No-oval dial. 13mm thick, crystal to caseback. AS/ESA 536.121 movement, no jewels. 386 battery. Battery hatch on centre line.

1982: Second pattern. Logo has oval. Everything else same as first pattern.

1983: Third pattern, variant A. Logo has oval. 11.8mm thick, crystal to caseback. ESA 947.121 movement, seven jewels. 386 battery. Battery hatch offset.

1984, 1985: Third pattern, variant B. Same as variant A except movement is ETA 555.112 (marked Marinium), battery is 394 and battery hatch is on centre line.

1987 on: Fourth pattern. Logo has oval. 10.2mm thick, crystal to caseback. ETA/ESA 955.114 movement (and other equivalents), seven jewels. 395 battery. Battery hatch on centre line.


----------



## 55JWB (Sep 21, 2011)

Thanks, thats great as answered my "which battery" question too, I was vaguely aware that the batteries were subtly different also...

It's arriving in the week, will post up some more pics when it does...

Like a few on here I am on the look out for a 'fat navigator' having managed to pick up a thin one already I still prefer the chunkier look


----------



## louiswu (May 16, 2009)

55JWB said:


> Thanks, thats great as answered my "which battery" question too, I was vaguely aware that the batteries were subtly different also...
> 
> It's arriving in the week, will post up some more pics when it does...
> 
> Like a few on here I am on the look out for a 'fat navigator' having managed to pick up a thin one already I still prefer the chunkier look


np. look forward to seeing pics of the new arrival.

Good luck with the hunt for a fatnav. Don't see too many of those around..think they're stored along with the hen's teeth, dragon scales, and chrono second hands for Seiko 6138-3002's.

Any thoughts on why the addition of a date window turns a field watch into a navigator's watch?

What kind of thing would you have be be navigating to make the date an important factor?


----------



## 55JWB (Sep 21, 2011)

watch arrived today, I am new to all of this so can someone more experienced have a look at the photo's and comment, despite this being dated 10 years earlier than the others I have it looks and feels newer, I do not know anything about the movements used to comment or determine if this is a genuine piece??

thoughts, comments???


----------



## louiswu (May 16, 2009)

Only thing that looks odd to me is that the battery hatch is screwed in a little too far...maybe due to incorrect battery? I'd guess the 370 battery is a little lower profile than the 394. Do you see any makers markings on the movement at all?

Other than that it looks sweet to me. Nicely aged lume, conistent on hands and dial - presumably with little or no glow-juice left?

Condition could just be down to it not having seen a lot of use. I heard that if these sat around in army stores for any length of time they were coded as surplus and sold off. Maybe yours went to a more loving home than some of the others?

All pure speculation on my part of course. Happy to hear any alternative views

Nick


----------



## 55JWB (Sep 21, 2011)

according to the post above it certainly looks like the wrong battery....


----------



## louiswu (May 16, 2009)

55JWB said:


> according to the post above it certainly looks like the wrong battery....


Further research reveals the 370 battery is 2.1mm tall, and the 394 is 3.6mm tall.

Less than a quid for a new battery and you're in business :thumbsup:


----------

