, 15 September 2013 (UTC)  

 :If you asking me, the specific that concerns me is the inappropriateness of using a picture of a replica.  
 :I would like someone to show some interest in the other proposed images. I have given reasons why a number might be suitable.  
 :As for "working with the discussions that are already on the page".... well, that has been tried and failed, hasn't it? If there was any success in working with those discussions, then, Ealdgyth, you wouldn't be feeling "hectored" about the subject being brought up again.  
 : Have the votive crowns, if you must. You are bound to be criticised for them not being sufficiently representative, but if you are prepared to argue that you like them anyway, then go with that.  
 :Just remove the reproduction images. That sarcastic unnamed editor has really shown up the inadequacies of Wikipedia, where people can actually argue for pages and endless blinking pages over whether a reproduction object ought to be used to represent an historic period, when there are a thousand other images freely available.  It makes Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia of the 21st century look just plain stupid! 
 :The moment that Pedro, way way back there, mistook it for a genuine object, was your warning that it was problematic.  
 Smec comment that it was reproduction was your second warning that it was inappropriate. 
 :Pedro followed up with a pertinent comment about using a Robin Hood image instead.  
 :At that point, you should have got the message and made the change. All this shouldn't haven't needed to be said.  
 :Having to hammer a point that should have been taken on board more than a year ago, is ridiculous! 
 :I cannot understand why you would expect anyone to be polite about it, at this point in time.  
 :I cannot comprehend why the problem wasn't fixed a year ago.  
 :Just chose any temporary solution that you like, but get rid of the misleading reproduction object. 
 :And no, stating that it is reproduction doesn't fix the problem.  
 :  15:36