The reference would definitely be an issue for me in that it implies that the watch in question did not begin life as a nina.

As far as lume goes, I don't have a problem with re-luming as long as it is done conscientiously. However, I would question your statement that the lume is original. I cannot be certain that it is not original. However, it seems far too clean and smooth to be period lume. It is possible replicate the glow (short and intense) as well as tint.

@UGNewbie - Can you tell me how you determined that the lume on hands is original ?

 

It is a nos watch, with late serial, the lume is Tritium, not modern relume, and having handled and closely inspected this watch I can be sure yes. The watch from prior UG collectors (originally via Japan I believe) can be traced back almost a decade looking exactly the same and modern UV fade lume is a recent thing... Re miss match case refs they are occasionally seen on many makers watches, like on Daytona, however I agree for a purist you would prefer the same ref as dial, but I don't see it as a red flag in the same way as placing an exotic dial into a non exotic ref case to try to extract significant value uplift or as seen several times people polishing off the serials to hide. But each to their own and of course even though you have not inspected the watch you can back your own opinion, that is your right, I don’t have aspirations to change your opinion was just doing my monthly check on the UG forum and as I have actually held this watch thought it might be helpful for the guy who was asking questions to share MY opinion feel free to question away.

 

I came across that watch around 5 years ago. It was in the UK. My opinion not changed. The implications of an incorrect reference on case are very clear and do not do the watch any favors at all. Although it looks like a Nina, is well put together and could well have been around for some time, it is not a Nina as we know it ...

 

You know best

 

i know the feeling.

 

I trust Diabolic's analysis and opinions.It seems to me a watch tha this examplet was put together with original UG parts as many Rolex are. It is pretty cool, but probably not out of the factory with this set up.

 

Resurrecting this thread due to the varying U logo discussions. On IG today @livingstonatnight posted these photos of an old UG published catalogue.

Notice the wide '65 Logo skinny "U" on the catalogue page but the watch images in catalogue are the 57 logo "U". For me this muddies up the timeline shown in Sala and underscores the fact that Universal's use of their logos doesn't seem to be uniform or clearly defined as of the info we have to date.

 

The references above are 2270X-X which were produced in the late 50's and early 60's. The logos that are shown on the references, span the late 50's and up to mid 60 (64-65) just before the introduction of the newer shinny logo at the bottom of the page so are consistent with references.

I don't see any confusion or lack of consistency as It is likely that the extract shown, has been taken from a catalogue that may have been produced in the mid 60's or a little later and does not represent the date that the references within it were produced.

We could confirm this by checking when the catalogue was produced.

 

Catalogue will probably be 65-66.
This one was 1965 and has the same pattern, the "new" logo advertising watches with slightly earlier logos:
https://universalgenevepolerouter.com/accessories/vintage-catalogues/

 

The OP for the catalogue graciously said they'd post the whole catalogue so maybe we'll get a date to confirm the publication.
Still a lack of consistency in how they are using their logos though- Using different logos in marketing vs on the product is what I mean- no strict branding control..