Newfoundland 186: Help Explain This One

My older Unitrade mentions some varieties with this stamp. This is a Die II (no dot in the O of TWO) and is perforated 13 1/2, making it a very normal Unitrade 186ii. But, (and there is almost always a But in my questions), I have a stamp stuck on the back. Normally, I just toss these as there is always a strong possibility of older stamps getting stuck to one another in various ways. However, the stamp on the back is actually perforated perfectly on the vertical and on the horizontal top.

It does NOT, however, have a perforation match on the bottom horizontal.

Looking from the front, you can see why I initially was going to toss this stamp. Because, obviously, there is something stuck to the back.


Now, using SharpenAI, I was able to tease out a few more interesting features. At the bottom of the front image, you can also see plate scratches, ductor blade flaws, or even ink pulls. Look at the left two, and across the bottom border.


The top of the stamp is similar, showing a very probable ink pull in the upper right, but also another plate scratch or ductor blade flaw through the crowns going horizontally.


So, does anyone know what I really have? I'm going to keep as an oddity, but attach no real value adders.

Note: Unitrade does mention 186vi, an offset image on the gum side, but this is no offset, just another stamp stuck there.

Thanks for looking.

Add: ImageSleuth was able to somewhat find the cancellation in all this mess. I read it as March 31, 1933, but others would have to help with the rest.

That is a weird one Part time.

The stamp on the back is inverted to the bottom stamp and is also the 1c codfish stamp

The bottom stamp looks like it is original gum, but on a used stamp why? or is it regummed, then both stamps got wet and stuck together

as to WHY the perforations match up? In my opinion, the "stamps" were reperforated? on image 2 the perforations are not circular but ovalish. hole 12, 13 and 14 on the left hand side.

as for the guideline and ink pulls I believe that was common on these issues.

I think someone was just testing/playing around, but still an interesting conversation piece

Trodent

I agree that is the most likely option, but just odd/weird that someone would waste so much time on an obvious cinderella.

Thanks for sharing. I have not seen something like this. I'd definitely keep it. Its priceless in my view--meaning its probably worth nothing more than the usual OR might be one of a kind and worth $$$$.

Either way, I always keep the unusual