Help Identifying Potential Oddities Of GB Seahorse

A few questions about these, since it's my first time delving into seahorses and they're quite wonderful.

For the first, I have two questions:
1) At the bottom of the shield there appears to be an extra line. Would this be one of the double transfer varieties?
2) When examining the WMK, there are four half circles lining the bottom. I don't believe it's a continuation of the WMK because they are a bit larger.





As per the second, there is an ink smear at the inscription at the bottom. Is it common?

Anyway I can see why this series is so popular. The design is mesmerizing. I don't know about the WMK on the first, but it reminds me of a VanDiemens Queen I had where the manufacturer's sign was partially visible, indicating the stamps location at the end of the sheet. Could this be something similar?

1: Nope.
a) The re-entries should be visible in other places as well, where they, clearly, are not.
b) The specialised catalogue does not list any re-entry for the re-engraved (bottom) stamp.

2: that is the top of "POS", being part of the marginal watermark "POSTAGE." You, also can see the top of the "T." It is a minor shift of the printing in relation to the watermark.

The ink smear looks like ink flow. It is not common to see that. Usually, the quality of the printing is quite good.

Thanks NSK! So my assumption was correct in that this stamp must have been close to the edge of the sheet.
You are right, "marginal watermark". That is the term I was looking for. Here is the VanDiemen queen with a similar thing: "AG" of POSTAGE:

About the line in shield, I'll take some pictures and zoom in. I don't know why but my scanner is lackluster right now.

The first image is what I perceived to be doubling inside the shield frame. I have no experience with these, so maybe that's how it's supposed to look?
But wow. The attention to detail in these is incredible.

In my opinion, that shield does show a minor re-entry on the right side and bottom. Interesting.

The lines are there in both stamps. In the bottom stamp, it fills up with solid colour.

On this site, it sometimes looks as if printers in Canada and the US were completely incapable of transferring a die to a plate. Re-entries are quite rare on British stamps. They are known for this stamp, but show in several parts of the design.

If you look long enough to the bottom stamps, you will find possible minor re-entries there as well. Yet, it is a riddle how you can have a re-entry that affects only a tiny part of a stamp cliché when the whole die is engraved and transferred.

I've wondered about that myself NSK. There are many US classic stamps with re-entries appearing in one area, like in the bottom-right "30" of Scott 569. I've always known "double impressions" to be the ones that have doubling over the entire design, whereas "re-entries" can happen only in certain spots.

Do you both think it's worth submitting as a re-entry, even as minor as it is?

No, you're just seeing differences in inking and plate wiping.

It has been written many times: quality is everything. Your stamp is very poor. The price of a certificate, likely, wouldbe higher than what the stamp would be worth even with such a minor re-entry.

I, however, agree with cjpalermo that this is not a re-entry.

As I wrote before, a re-entry would show in more places. The major lines such as the frame, or the lines that make up the Union Jack on the shield show not the slightest evidence of a re-entry. If you compare the stamps, you will see that the engraved lines are present on both stamps, however, they fill up on one of them.

Got it guys. My eyes are inadequately trained for this design. I appreciate your input.