But in March 2009, Lieven le Bruyn posted a skeptical investigation
of Atiyah and Sutcliffe's claim:

...where's the icosahedron? The fourth ball sure looks like one but only because someone added ribbons, connecting the centers of the different knobs. If this ribbon-figure is an icosahedron, the ball itself should be another dodecahedron and the ribbons illustrate the fact that icosa- and dodecahedron are dual polyhedra. Similarly for the last ball, if the ribbon-figure is an octahedron, the ball itself should be another cube, having exactly 6 knobs. Who did adorn these artifacts with ribbons, thereby multiplying the number of "found" regular solids by two (the tetrahedron is self-dual)?

Quote from Lieven le Bruyn, The Scottish Solids Hoax, from his blog neverendingbooks, March 25, 2009.