In describing the ultrastructural features of "flat" celiac mucosae as observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), we clearly demonstrated that the surface terrain, although irregular, does not reveal "atrophic" and "partially degenerate" villi as Oberhuber (1) originally suggested and based on his examinations of vertical sections alone – and, in our opinion, incorrectly. Instead, we have described mosaic plateaux; and large basin-like wells into which open numerous crypt tubes and which are surrounded by concentric arrays of enterocytes – either flat or raised up into circumferential collars. We could not, on the other hand, recognise by SEM any of the subdivisions proposed earlier. Thus we cannot obviously agree with Oberhuber that we only showed the severest Marsh III lesion (2). There was, in fact, nothing else we could have demonstrated, and that is why we produced "cartoons" in order to point out the interpretational problems arising from Oberhuber's scheme. Again, we make the comment that the IIIa,b,c sub-classification had appeared in earlier work by Rostami and others (3). We are amazed by the statement that histopathologists spend time going through multiple "serial sections" in order to characterise (? routinely, we might ask) the precise Marsh III stage. If that is the necessary requirement, and obviously so critical to proper evaluation, why then is this approach not advocated and emphasised in their original paper? We thus merely view that proviso as a last-minute retrograde attempt to uphold their disorganised approach. Moreover, why are there no measurements in their paper which would surely aid discrimination? As we stated in our recent presentation in Prague, since there was no obviously consistent agreement in two papers offered to histopathologists on the critical issue of proper classification (1, 4) we concluded that perhaps Dickson and colleagues also did not have a definitive understanding of the necessary procedures required, either. In our experience, we have never come across any histopathologists who could extravagantly use their time to survey a series of serial sections (nor a routine hospital-based lab that could process all this extra material) in order to secure the right conclusion. The majority of pathologists are overwhelmed by the demanding task of reporting a massive daily load of new biopsies. Moreover, if Oberhuber's categories and controls are so tight as he claims, as well as routinely and consistently realised, how could an inexperienced histopathologist ever get it wrong? Their statement on this matter surprises us as well. Any new research should raise additional questions. The Oberhuber scheme offers no such LETTER TO EDITOR