Imperforate #65 On Cover ???

Is it common or at least known that the straddle cut separating the two panes can be as angled as it is? If the right cut is a straddle cut, it is way out of parallel with the printed image of the stamp. Another question on my mind: Are there any confirmed imperforate #65 stamps with which to compare this stamp?

Ive only seen a few imperfs that were not proofs, etc listed in auctin catalogs like Seigel- none of them were straddle copies. There is no reference to ANY of them being used or on cover, after 150 years, so much philatelic literature, I would expect to see some mention somewhere, which is the biggest reason I doubt my own cover. But I am trying to judge it on its own merits. I am trying to get some straddle copies to lay on the cover for comparison (yes, the perforated stamp is NOT on the cover, I just laid it there to compare sizes). BTW as far as scanning, my scanner will only go to 600 dpi but it does me no good as I need to reduce it to post. even these at 300 needed to be reduced twice.

A few months ago I came across this extra wide Sc #65 on a cover from occupied Nashville.

I'll throw this out there.. It's absolutely conceivable that one or two sheets did make it to a post office that didn't get perforated. However, unless it's a multiple, good luck ever getting a cert for it.

hasani, scanning at a higher than 600 dpi will give much better detail so it will actually help us and you. The higher dpi requested by members will provide greater detail if you use the "Free Image Optimizer" link on the "Reply to Topic" widow. This will reduce the dpi (up the several million) to an acceptable size without losing the details of a much higher than 600 dpi. There is no need to reduce your image size before uploading to the Free Image Optimizer. If the Optimizer reproduces an image still higher than accepted you can reduce, or increase, it even more by using the image size boxes on the lower left of the Optimizer window.