Cancel On US Colombus 2$ Stamp

Hi everybody,
I would appreciate if somebody can tell whether this cancel on the 2$ Colombus stamp seems genuine. I don't know much about US cancels, but this one has a quite "modern" look.



*** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***

Here is a similar cancel from Siegel.

Looks OK. It would seem odd to fake a cancel on this stamp and lower its value.

rdavid,
I agree it appears genuine, however, we frequently see LOTS of faked cancels on stamps. The reasons are usually an attempt to hide some other fault or alteration. Sometimes an occlusion or a small tear, sometimes a crease, if the stamp has had one cancellation removed, and another applied (particularly pen cancels removed and then "new" cancel placed over it to hide the fact it was previously pen cancelled). Granted we usually see that on earlier editions, but I've seen some strange alterations on stamps that make no sense at all. (I sometimes find faked coils of very low value stamps, which I assume were used as "tests" or "practice" by stamp mechanics before trying on something higher value).
We also see cancels on proofs that have been altered, to make them appear more genuine, and detract from the fact that they may be India paper types. So just something to be aware of when considering why fake cancels may be applied.

rdavid, there can be a temptation to maked a forged cancel when you have a mint stamp, but so severely hinged that it is almost impossible to sell. Then you soak it and apply a forged cancel, and the stamp is sellable (?).

I'd worry about the originally posted item somewhat because it's a received marking. It's typical of DC receivers but it shouldn't be directly on the stamp. Of course, most existing dollar value Columbian covers are philatelically inspired.

Rodgcam's example is also odd. That's the dial from a machine cancel (one of the early DC flag cancels) and it suggests that the stamp or the cancel was at an odd angle (unusual either way). I also find it a bit disconcerting that there is no portion of a killer visible. I haven't measured against an actual example, but it is a question I'd look to answer if I had the stamp in hand.

Not my field, so take my comment with a grain of something, but I don't think we should expect to see a killer on the stamp in the OP. It is a receiving mark, which for first class mail was often applied on the back of the envelope. At two dollars one has to wonder about the sort of mail matter to which the OP stamp had been affixed. Be that as it may, the receiving mark was usually applied after the stamps had already been cancelled prior, so killers were not tandem to them. Maybe this one had been missed and a clerk on the receiving end whacked it, using the mark as a killer. Who knows?

Thank you everybody for your comments. I understand that this cancel could be a kind of philatelic CTO.