Quite agree crosswhit, 'could be' on its own isn't an adequate anagrind as it does not convey a mixing up of the letters. A few sloppy clues in this week's puzzle, including Scottish prison having to bar the two of them, wearing nothing (9) Unfortunately BOTH isn't wearing O !
As BO has expanded on, 'could be' alone isn't sufficient, as we need an indication of how it could be, eg anagram indicator, container indicator, homophone indicator. After all, in every single cryptic crossword clue the definition 'could be' the wordplay. This is a relatively common error, but this setter should be experienced enough to know better !
I think the point being made is the crossword convention that when A wears B, B surrounds A, as things worn, either physically or metaphorically, are carried on the outside. In this case the setter tells us that BOTH is wearing nothing (O) whereas in actual fact the opposite is the case.
I will dig out some more examples, but in general with anagram clues there is a requirement for something that clearly indicates a disturbance or rearrangement of the letters or words in question. In this repect 'could be' would be a very poor anagram indicator.
Logophile, thanks for that. I'm not very good at dissecting clues, so the simplest option usually suits me. One meaning of 'wear' is 'consume' - so I can see Both consuming/wearing the O.
Unfortunately it's not that type of 'consume', so won't do as a containment indicator ('wear' in that sense means to 'use up'). At first sight this clue might seem OK, but an experienced setter/editor really shouldn't be slipping up so often.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.