While in his lecture Mircea Babeş placed the famous gold Dacian bracelets between legend and reality, the discussions that fallowed fell within the realm of the dilemma forgery versus authenticity. Prior to publication of systematic and detailed documentation, prior to an analyitical debate of the artifacts, discussions would be stuck in conjuncture landmarks and incertitude with a high risk of divagating into the derisory of mass-media scandals. For the time being, lacking a detailed documentation for the gold spiral bracelets, research can only ponder upon the implications of accepting one hypothesis of the other. If we consider the artifacts as fakes, then we must identify the elements betraying the forgery. It would prove a very useful aspect to future inquests and expertise, and a real gain to research. Here lies a possible challenge. Still, if we accept the artifacts as authentic, placing them within the cultural, historical and manufacturing context of the Pre-Roman Dacia would constitute both a fascinating and enticing attempt, and, in the same time, a risky one, as some of the dogmatized hypothesis would have eroded in time, and thus, the traditional view should ve revised. But risks must be assumed. The obssesion of certitude often makes us forget the subtle game of relativities.