Scott #136 Double Impression?

Hi, my name is Mateus, I'm new in the forum, welcome everyone.
Maybe a double transfer or double impression on Scott 136 with offset print on the black. Not listed in the 2013 Scott Specialized Catalogue.
What is your opinion?

lit is not imo a dt but looks like very wet paper and a worn plate. offset due to stacking wet sheets after printing. slight slippage of sheet when being removed from press along with first thought is also a likely cause.

Very worn plate. Muddy print.

I do like the multiple offsets on the back. Might be better to display the back rather than the front in your album.

An interesting stamp Mateus.

Despite the few issues with stamp, a definite keeper of a mint US 136.

No idea on the cause, but there is enough extra ink to be of interest as a variety that I would keep in my collection.

It seems a bit unusual that most all marks seem to be limited to the white space in and below lettering. Including extra mark below 'H', clipping of the top left corner of the 'R', in top part and center of the numeral 3, and almost filling the right side of the 'C'.

Maybe extra ink was used to print this run. So could even be an offset from an offset on back of a sheet stacked on top of the sheet your stamp came from?

it would be nice to see the entire stamp front. what is shown is consistent with what I and revcollector have said. I believe that all impressions from this press run with this plate would show similar effects.

"So could even be an offset from an offset on back of a sheet stacked on top of the sheet your stamp came from?"
No the setoff on the back is too weak to produce another transfer back to produce the mess seen.

I agree witheyeonwall.