Barbados "Queens Mole" Error

Has anyone ever heard of this error on Barbados 1937 (upper right stamp)? If so can you provide information on it and cat value (I don't have Scotts catalog for this country).

Another picture of just the one stamp with the Queen's mole.

Don't see anything listed in SG or Murray Payne.

First it has to be determine it wasn't added at a later date .

Second it has to be determine it wasn't just a dirty plate .

Good info so far. Background. This packet with the queens mole was part of a bulk lot I bought 10+ years ago. Not sure who made the comment on the packet or on the selvage of the stamp but it was always something that I was going to try to find out about.

I think, if someone does come forward with info on it, that is will be a "variety" like the US UX7 postal cards with "nail hole" varieties in some of the letters.

Adding 'cutesy' names like someone previously has done always makes me cringe/dubious. After all these years, it is unlikely to find a previously undiscovered plate variety. Not sure who here specializes in Barbados but perhaps someone might come forward with more plating info.
But if it is not a plating issue and short of others coming forward with examples just like the stamp shown above, in my opinion would make it a printing anomaly.
Don

Concur with previous statement. It is possible that it is not a variety and may just be a very active imagination by one person who labeled the packet/selvage.

I feel compelled to nitpick a bit here.

*Everything* is a variety of some sort. The distinction which needs to be made is whether it is a transient variety or a constant variety. And perhaps even other distinctions in other cases whether the particular variety is "progressive" (cracks getting bigger, scratches occurring, wear, etc.) or "repaired", etc., etc.

Bottom line, in my opinion, the word "variety" often needs an adjective or two accompanying it. One can even have a "normal variety"!

Never thought I would find anything. It apparently is a variety. Barbados SG245v (I don't have the catalog so cannot verify).

I found the info with Mr. Google, clicking on photos and saw a post was on a British stamp discussion. A post from nine years ago.

1d 1937 Coronation issue, mole by lip variety.

If someone has a Stanley Gibbons, can they look up the SG245v

There is no SG245v in my Gibbons .

To save time, let us just assume that I am always right. (LOL, just kidding of course.)

To me 'variety' is a stamp that shows the same issue across other stamps (i.e. plate variety). Printing anomalies are not varieties in that context nor do I see much point in assigning them as a variety. Why? Because as John posted every single stamp is unique not only in printing and cancellation, but also with perforations and even paper (i.e. minute deltas in thicknesses, grain, etc.). It is like saying that every snowflake is a 'variety', the point is lost when applied so broadly. So in my 'personal dictionary', I choose to apply the term variety only to those stamps where the issue is constant.
Don

Wow, the plot thickens. Not sure on this one. The picture they put on their SB (Stamp board) was exactly the same as mine? Maybe they made up the Stanely Gibbons number?

Anyone interested in seeing same/similar stamp (and similar discussion) can
1) google"1d 1937 Coronation issue, mole by lip variety"
2) click on first pretty red pic and that shows a small discussion. They seemed to have solved it but I guess I am mistaken if it is not listed in the SG??

Don,
If I read your reply correctly, you would not have "transient variety" in your vocabulary?

The two images (one from this thread and one from the other forum) side-by-side.
Don

Thanks Don! I was trying to figure out how to do exactly that! Still not sure about any of the specialized British catalog? It has been a fun discussion.