How Can I Reveal Detail Under Cancellation?

I have a bid in on this item http://www.ebay.com/itm/401375450857?ul_noapp=true but I'm concerned because the cancellation is covering the detail which differentiates between Sc #92 and #92A. I asked the seller to examine the stamp to verify that the "Z" in COLONIZATION at the bottom of the stamp is reversed. The response was that it was inconclusive.

If I win this bid is there some way to reveal that portion of the stamp? I'm willing to take a bit of risk since a used #92 is hard to find and since it is advertised as such. I think ebay would back me up if it turns out to be #92A and I request a refund. That is, of course, if I can show the absence of the reversed "Z".

Thanks,
Terry

See this thread: https://goscf.com/t/55248#55248

Partime: I knew I had seen a post about this. Thanks for the reminder and I'll give it a shot should I win the bid.

Terry

If you cannot see the "z" with the aid of a strong magnifier or a high resolution scan, the Shotwell Viewer will not pick it out. The software cannot find what it can't see - just like the human eye.

Although not 100% conclusive, the image below showing the 'Z' does suggest that the diagonal stroke does NOT join the the foot on the left. Note that the image shows letters: I Z and A.

Additionally, there seems to be diagonal purple/red ink in the opposite direction to a 'normal Z'. Although the image looks pretty poor because of high magnification, it is more distinct in my image software (PhotoFiltre7).

This looks to me like this could be a reversed 'Z'.

Great idea, but why post such a lousy picture? A high resolution scan would do the job.

Peter

And how would I scan the opening posters image?

tlmcca
As Punya's enlargement of the seller scan almost shows a reversed z, I would think a high resolution scan as mentioned by Petert4522 would cleary show the orientation of the Z. Any chance of the seller rescanning? Looks reversed to me , but I'm not the one bidding. Good Luck! Nice looking stamp.

Thanks to everyone offering advice and special thanks to Punyu for the deep forensic dive.

I will resurrect this topic when I have the stamp assuming I win the bidding.

Terry

Punyu,sorry. I did not realize that you posted the OP's picture. In a case like this we would ask the OP to re-scan the relevant part of the stamp at a higher resolution.

Peter

Peter,

That's quite alright. It is irritating though when a seller makes little effort to help the potential buyer. Why not just send a more detailed scan as a matter of course?

If this stamp wasn't so hard to find used I would move on to another seller.

Terry

I would move on to another seller, actually.

The cancel does not have look of being genuine. I assume this is supposed to be the dial of a St. John's machine cancel which did exist around the time of the Guy issue. This doesn't look like it to me. It has the look of a typical fake, a partial cds with very fine lines overall (to look nice). The typical machine cancel is not this finely done. It has very small breaks throughout, even on the removable date and time numbers. Cancel inking doesn't produce a look like this.

There are/were plenty of no gum stamps in the total population of mint Newfoundland. The finely struck cancel just happens to cover the one key that identifies a #92. The dial also has a convenient bulge and not a smear to cover the "Z"/reversed "Z".

Last, if you can't see the important characteristic, is it of the same value as one that shows it? I would say it's worth very much less. This is not like fluorescent tagged stamps.

I realize your frustration at finding relatively nice used stamps, but the reality of this and earlier issues is to have heavy killers or pen cancels; that's the way those issues were typically cancelled.

hy-brasil: I have some of the same thoughts and have set my max bid accordingly. We'll see.

Terry