Casts mounted in the articulator should depict the patient’s clinical situation as accurately as possible. The more precise the match, the fewer functional and esthetic problems can be expected later on. Currently, a great variety of options are available on the dental market for transferring the patient’s situation into the articulator with reference to the cranium. Common methods of mounting are average value-based mounting (Bonwill) using arbitrary or localized axes, esthetic mounting using bite registration records, and digital procedures. Furthermore, different systems are found within these defined categories, which has led to uncertainty over the years as to what the advantages and disadvantages or weaknesses of the individual methods might be. Questions also arise concerning the usefulness of the application in terms of time and cost management and the improvement to be made in the functional and esthetic quality of the final result. What is established, well-founded or even scientifically verified? People like to try out ‘newer,’ more up-to-date systems and to combine the ‘advantages’ of the different systems, ie, criticism of long-established and traditional systems is being voiced. The present article is based on practical experiences in everyday life. The aim is to demonstrate whether the supposed effectiveness of cranium-related systems is still state of the art. Can cranium-related mounting systems actually reflect the anatomy of billions of patients? Can a single system represent all these conditions? These and other questions are explored, not in a theoretical, scientific manner, but on the basis of established procedures in the dental laboratory. After all, this is ultimately where the restorations for our patients come from, not from the textbook.