:::::::, Talking at cross purposes has been exactly the problem.  
 :::::::When the problem with this image being of a reproduction, late 20th century object was first made, by Pedro, a year ago, he made a couple of very sarcastic comments that should have been taken onboard.  
 :::::::But the team working on this forgot, or dismissed that. They didn't get it that the criticism was serious.  
 :::::::They talked at cross purposes fro two very lengthy discussions about whether the Sutto Hoo Helmet was representative of the period, completely forgetting (it seems, that the use of the sam had been lampooned.  
 :::::::Now, that is what I call talking at cross purposes.  
 :::::::Since then, we have been told that it is like using Al Jolson in Blackface to front up the article Negro. That was seen as being in such bad taste that it has been deleted, bt it alerts to the fact that someone else out there finds the use of a reproduction object in this context seriously problematic. 
 :::::::I am not talking at cross purpose.  I have only one purpose, and that is to get the reproduction object removed from the lead, because it makes Wikipedia look extremely unprofessional and unreliable.  
 :::::::Every time someone criticises my manners, they are on a red herring trail'. 
 :::::::Every time someone insists that we need to choose an image that is as striking, they are at cross purposes.  
 :::::::Put up any genuine object, and it will solve the problem caused by this one.  
 :::::::The problem of the unsuitability of the reproduction will not go away, even if the current complainant does. 
 :::::::