Judgment affirmed. Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.

Nelson H. Turner, for appellant.

Defendant was convicted of armed robbery in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County. He appeals, raising four enumerations of error. We consider the enumerations of error seriatim. Held:

1. The victim identified defendant as the perpetrator. She testified that "he had short black hair with a distinctive marking, I wasn't sure if it was a baldness or a discoloration in his hair.

Cross-examining defendant, the assistant district attorney asked him how long he had the "balding spot" on his head. When defendant replied that he took after his father, the assistant district attorney asked defendant if his father had the "same kind of unique bald spot . . . ." Defendant replied affirmatively. Then defense counsel objected: "I don't think there is any evidence that the bald spot that Mr. Jackson has is unique." The court replied: "Well, that will be a question of [fact] for the jury to decide. All right. Y'all remember the evidence. You may proceed." Following the court's reply, the assistant district attorney changed course, asking defendant about his use of cocaine.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to sustain his objection to the assistant district attorney's characterization of his bald spot as "unique." In this regard, defendant insists that the word unique means "one of a kind" and that, by using the word "unique," the assistant district attorney improperly commented on the force and effect of the evidence during the evidentiary stage of the trial. We disagree.

The word "unique" does not simply mean one of a kind. It may also mean, colloquially speaking, "peculiar," "odd," or "queer." Webster's New Intl. Dictionary (2d ed. 1960). Thus, by referring to defendant's "bald spot" as "unique," the assistant district attorney was simply picking up on the victim's characterization of defendant's hair as "distinctive."

We fail to see how the assistant district attorney's use of the word "unique" amounted to a remark on the force or effect of the evidence. Compare Bryant v. State, 131 Ga. App. 536, 538 (7) (206 SE2d 527). See also Blair v. State, 179 Ga. App. 519 (347 SE2d 337). It was not erroneous. Defendant's final enumeration of error is without merit.

Thomas C. Lawler III, District Attorney, R. Keith Miles, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.