Can “in” be replaced by “with”? [duplicate]

Question

Possible Duplicate:
“Covered with” vs “covered in” vs “covered by”

From J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (June 1997):

He bent down and pulled his wand out of the troll’s nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy grey glue. ‘Urgh — troll bogies.’

Or in its shamelessly bowdlerized version, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (October 1997), ‘translated’ from the original English for the American mass-market audience:

He bent down and pulled his wand out of the troll’s nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy gray glue. “Urgh — troll boogers.”

From Colin Fine’s explanation, I can picture the troll’s boogers widespread over the wand, not hiding it. In the example, can “in” be replaced by “with” keeping the same meaning in the reply?

---

Answer 1

To my ear, "covered with" suggests that it was done deliberately and beneficently. "She covered him with a blanket", "The turtle eggs were covered with sand".

"Covered in" suggests that it was an sloppy accident. "I'm covered in mud!"

Answer 2

To me the two seem pretty much synonymous. Aside from some idiomatic usages, cover with seems to be much more common in all cases.