SC 599A $1.00 Vancouver With Short $ Flaw

According to Unitrade, only the SC 600ii March 17, 1972 perforated 11.0 x 11.0 original printing of this stamp should have the "Short $ Flaw". Neither the SC 599 (Perf 12.5x12.0) nor the SC 599a (perf 13.3 x 13.3) redrawn versions of SC 600 should have this variety.

The following is a SC 599a July 1977 perforated 13.3 x 13.3 redrawn version, but with the "Short $ Flaw". This stamp has been damaged through mailing and over time.




I have other examples where the top of the $ has been worn/scrapped off, but it is obvious that they were originally with a complete $ as the indented impression of the top vertical bar is there. In my example above, there is no evidence that there was originally a top to the $ sign - eg. no residual impression in the paper.
Any comments would be appreciated.

BlackJag...here is a Scott 599a with a short $ sign..Sorry it is in bad shape but it was the only one with the short $ sign.



Also, check your Scott 599's...They have a shorter top to the $ sign the Scott 600 has a longer top.



Also check your Scott 599 and 599a..I always had a problem with the perforations..

Below is the perf 13.3 as per Unitrade.


Now look at the same stamp..Looks like 13.5..I have 3 of them with the 13.5 perfs.

All of my mint and used stamps are definitely 13.3.

By enlarging your Short $ Flaw example, there appears to be a small portion of the top bar protruding from the top of the S. There also appears to be two black smudges above that projection. That suggests that the bar has been scratched off. However, I do not see any evidence of a depression where the bar would have been situated.