The type-variety system of ceramic classification has been criticized on a number of theoretical points concerning typology in general; yet it remains very popular among archaeologists. This paper adds a methodological criticism to the debate: ceramic data presented according to the highest standards of type-variety analysis simply cannot be used for independent reanalysis. An attempt to reanalyze some data presented according to the type-variety system [Formative period ceramics from the site of Barton Ramie, Belize] is described, and shortcomings of type-variety data presentation are pointed out. These findings are in direct opposition to claims made by type-variety practitioners as to the adequacy of their format of ceramic description and illustration.