Duplicated label = unique release?

This has probably gone down several times in the forum, but I can't find anything straight away, and things do change over time, so:

If a specific release ends up with some copies having duplicated labels, let's say the A label on both sides, as opposed to the intended B side label on B, is this not a mere Manufacturer Variation, if the content/stampers/all else is the same?
I recall this as something we simply explain in Notes; "Some copies have the A label on both sides".

Unless it can be proven that the duplication indeed is intentional, this is more likely a mere mishap when loading the labels into the machine, and not a regular Misprint, as if the "doubled" label ALSO carried different info than the Non-misprint counterpart.

The question arose as I try to merge these:

http://www.discogs.sie.com/history?release=969524#latest

Why would you wanna merge these?

Cause I never seen this common mishap render a unique release, but rather a comment in Release Notes.

It be a misprint not mispress.

Here are three threads on the subject:
http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/398798
http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/393441
http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/393636

With one comment from management:

Diognes_The_Fox
Generally, things like labels being on the wrong side are one-off mistakes in the mass manufacturing of records should not be added to the database as those would count as manufacturing errors.

If, however, a significant enough percent of a run were to have this same defect, I think there might be room for these rare occurrences to be documented as misprint type variations, preferably if cited by an official source.

http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/393441#3646888

Let me quote that in full as a very important caveat was omitted:

Diognes_The_Fox
Generally, things like labels being on the wrong side are one-off mistakes in the mass manufacturing of records should not be added to the database as those would count as manufacturing errors.

If, however, a significant enough percent of a run were to have this same defect, I think there might be room for these rare occurrences to be documented as misprint type variations, preferably if cited by an official source.

thoughts on this?

The advice is not sound and Diognes had clear reservations when he wrote that in August 2014.In October 2014 Nik advise Andy that he was fine to add it as a separate submission:

andygrayrecords
Two days ago, in a SR with Nik I was told...
Totally incorrect labels can be entered as unique releases.

http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/393441#3646881

Incidentally these are mispressed the printed material is fine but have been pressed onto the wrong side.

Regarding a citation from an official source, it;s deeply unrealistic. Companies DO NOT want to their mistakes. Let the release inform you.

Eviltoastman
Incidentally these are mispressed the printed material is fine but have been pressed onto the wrong side.

I add them as misprint, I've added a few over the years.

As I understand it, mispress is for audio errors.

andygrayrecords
I add them as misprint, I've added a few over the years.

As I understand it, mispress is for audio errors.

I have a copy of "Live At Leeds" with the side 1 label on both sides which I view as a misprint... I also have a copy of "Introducing The Beatles" with the side one tracks pressed on both sides which I view as a mispress.
I plan to enter them as unique releases if not there already since these errors would affect value if I were to sell... Is this correct?

Beatles and The 'Oo are collectable so yes, value would be affected.

The ones I have added with the exception of perhaps Slade or Lisa Stansfield aren't what I would consider "collectable".

Eviltoastman
Incidentally these are mispressed the printed material is fine but have been pressed onto the wrong side.

andygrayrecords
I add them as misprint, I've added a few over the years.

rikroc
a copy of "Live At Leeds" with the side 1 label on both sides which I view as a misprint

Interesting.... IMO they're neither. I take Misprint to mean a mistake in the printing of the labels, disc face, packaging etc. and Mispress as an error with the audio, including use of the wrong stamper. I reckon using Mispress to represent an manufacturing error (mixing up the labels) is overloading the term.

seht
Interesting.... IMO they're neither. I take Misprint to mean a mistake in the printing of the labels, disc face, packaging etc.

I've read through some of the back and forth on this issue and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus... Seems odd that a minor label variant warrants a new submission but a completely wrong label is just a footnote.

Eviltoastman
.In October 2014 Nik advise Andy that he was fine to add it as a separate submission:

andygrayrecords
Two days ago, in a SR with Nik I was told...
Totally incorrect labels can be entered as unique releases.

That was a different case where Lean On Me had a totally incorrect label on one side. A label from a totally different release.

...so the issue isn't fully addressed / solved...

Personally, I take it that a release where some copies end up with two side A labels instead of the normal A/B only warrants a comment in Notes, but if these are to considered as Unique Releases, I have no problem to comply, it just still isn't obvious what to do. :P