In the last volume of this Journal is an article by Professor E. A. Gardner entitled ‘The Boston Counterpart of the “Ludovisi Throne.”’ In the following pages I wish to make clear that had Professor Gardner been more familiar with the marble itself of which he wrote, and had he not based his criticism mainly upon a study of photographs and casts, he could hardly hold the very poor opinion of it which he expresses. His article is difficult to answer point by point because statements of personal feeling are largely mingled with others of fact or assumed fact; aesthetic criticism is interspersed with archaeological statement, and both, I believe it can be shown, with some misunderstanding and error. The article really refutes itself by proposing several alternative origins for the ‘Throne.’ Such a criticism is worth but little, if the criteria for detecting a forgery are so uncertain that the critic is not sure whether they prove the object Neo-Attic or modern.