Abstract

In his response to an earlier paper of ours Anton Killin takes issue with a certain aspect of our definition of an antique. He agrees with our view that the concept of an antique is an adjectival one and is at least happy to grant that those elements of the definition that relate to age are correct. But he takes issue with the idea that technical excellence is a necessary condition for being an antique. In addition to this, he also criticizes us for largely excluding art objects from our discussion. In this rejoinder we focus mainly on defending the technical excellence criterion. But we will have something to say about art objects too, and we begin with a few words about them.