In discussions of reconstructed instruments in early music performance, the dominant view is that they restore the authentic sound of the past. Recent critics have reacted by dismissing that view as merely naive. The author is more cautious: builders must choose among uncertain materials, tuning systems, and playing techniques documented unevenly. This evidence does not erase the conventional observation, but it changes what the observation means. The author's proposed interpretation is that reconstruction is an informed interpretation of historical possibility, not a transparent return.