From a position of ignorance, I'm going to be bold and say yes - based on the hour sub dial. The markers look too long and the numerals look a bit off. Also, should there be radial flip on the outer ring ?
Redial. Hour sub dial looks off, the date numerals look off. Maybe the watch is rotated slightly... or maybe the right subdial is a little off-kilter in the CCW direction.
Should the minute subdial be marked like that? (3 minute long markers printed that way) Also some numbers are not well printed - 29 in calendar subdial and 27 in the minutes subdial.
Yes, the minute subdial should have those telephone pole looking marks at 3, 6, and 9... but the one on the 3 looks especially bad (the marks should not touch the numeral) As to the 29 and 27... in an old dial, it's not unusual to have random spots of paint that are missing. It usually occurs when the watchmaker removes the hands from the dial or when he cases the movement back up at the end of servicing. In a re-dial you can also get little random omissions of ink where it did not sufficiently fill the die that is used to stamp the dial. From the picture, I'm not skilled enough to say which of these two possibilities is more likely. I haven't gone and checked my references, but I'm not totally happy with the hour and minute hands. The blue is fine and the rest of the hands look correct (the calendar hand has been re-painted with a poor color match to the original), but I'd need to do some more digging to satisfy myself that those hands are original.
That's all I can find wrong with it other than, perhaps, the shape of the thicker markers on the Tachy ring. The only reference I have shows straight markers and not the ones with flared ends. If it is a redial, it's a bloody good one.
Many UG redials tend to be - that's the challenge. Like IWC, the dies appear to be widely available. I'm going with redial on this one as well, principally because of the font of the date numerals