This piece raises far too many questions for me.
The main 3 issues I have with it:
1) The front case and crown: It does not look to be from a 20366 reference, but more likely from an 869111 reference.
(The crown and cutout in the case, curvature of the lug tips, and the "lip" on the back of the front case half are almost unique to the 869111 reference). The 20366 had no case "crown cutout", and a fat crown. Unusual to have this on a supposedly NOS watch...! The front half also looks to have been very lightly polished, but hard to tell from the photos;
2) The dial: Although looking correct for a 20366-1 reference, the serial number may not match up to the dial. The late serial dials (230xxxx onwards) of the 20366 reference all had the vertical crosshair cut through the "Universal Geneve", "Polerouter" and "Automatic" text. Early serial dials (pre-230xxxx) did not. This is a 229xxxx serial with what looks to be a 230xxxx onwards dial, though it is close in serial to what seems to be the transition point.
EDIT: the earliest serial for a late dial I have is 2299287.
3) The "full set": as mentioned, the logos on the dial, strap/buckle, and box are different. I dont see a problem in this as there were 3 logos introduced between 1960 and 1965, and straps and boxes seemed to be mixed up around here. As I understand it, watches were not supplied with specific boxes, but were sold with whatever box the dealer had sitting at the cupboard at the time. So, this is probably more indicative of when the watch was sold than anything else. HOWEVER, the box supplied is for a watch on a bracelet, rather than a strap. The papers are also not filled out. Why would a NOS watch have papers and a box with it if it was never sold? To me this usually indicates a "put together" set. Not that I think there is anything wrong with a put together set, if it is put together correctly...
Of course, this point is just speculation, but the seller should at least be able to give a plausible response to it; and
4) Movement: there are no photos supplied, to tell if it is the correct one for this reference, whether the condition is immaculate, and with all correct parts that have not been swapped in/out. The seller claims they did not want to open the watch as it is a "time capsule"... so this point could be solved by the seller supplying photos of inside the caseback and the movement itself.
There are a few other question marks, such as the seconds hand being in different condition to the H/M hands, but they are less significant than the questions raised above.
EDIT: I should also add, that I am not some oracle of polerouter truth, and the assessment is only made in comparison to the patterns I have observed from other polerouter examples combined. All of these patterns are open to debate, provided there is observable evidence to back it up!
😀
