As research on the texts progressed, concerns about Grayson's reasoning in De Pictura arose not only in respect to the priority of the Latin version but also in regard to unusual word choices and phrase interpretations. In addition, other scholars, such as Simonelli, Gorni, Arrighi, Wittkower, and Bertolini, raised questions about several inconsistencies in Grayson's thesis.

In a 1971 paper, Maria Picchio Simonelli pointed out that Alberti, when translating from Latin to vernacular – that is, still following the notion that the vernacular was later and especially intended for painters – had also made some deletions not in accordance with the correct comprehension of the text.(1) Simonelli's observation was dismissed by Anthony Grafton, who thought her to be provocative.(2)

In 1973, in his review of Grayson's Opere volgari, Guglielmo Gorni wrote: “The facts being so, the vaguely philanthropic plan of the De pictura converted to the Tuscan language for ‘convenience of illiterates,’ as one takes delight in believing, is denied by tradition of the text which counts only three vernacular manuscripts as opposed to at least nineteen Latin ones. In this case, therefore, the antinomy consists of terms opposite to the vulgarized ones; in any case, Latin is the surer popularity vehicle and of a greater audience.”(3)