 The discussion of abstract artifacts has been largely confined to the ontology of art. But as some of the participants have noted (e.g., Levinson 1980, 21–22), repeatable works are not confined to works of art. This is particularly clear for named artifacts such as Chanel No. 5, the Ford F-150, Campbell’s tomato soup, Earl Grey tea, the Hepplewhite chair, or the Washington quarter. It is possible to see each bottle of Chanel No. 5 or each quarter not as a distinctive artifact in its own right, but as an instance of an abstract artifact—Chanel No. 5 tout court, or the Washington quarter. Apart from marketing and branding concerns, what does the naming of such ordinary artifacts accomplish? It highlights their standardization, and often designates the entity responsible for maintaining it—Ford, in the case of the F-150, for instance. But standardization is a virtually universal feature of human artifacts, from the Acheulean handaxe to the Apple MacBook Air. There are vanishingly few artifacts that are unique in the way non-repeatable artworks like paintings are supposed to be. Failed prototypes that were never reproduced might be an example. This means that we are potentially swimming in abstract artifacts, with all the philosophical difficulties that would entail. This, in turn, highlights views opposed to the positing of abstract artifacts, which are more plausible in the case of everyday artifacts. We resist thinking of performances of Beach’s Gaelic Symphony as separate, relevantly similar artifacts because we are used to thinking of symphonies as unique, individual works. But the Washington quarter does not seem like a work in the same sense, and there is thus less reason to resist the idea that individual quarters are just relevantly similar artifacts produced by a copying process managed by the United States Mint. In this regard, we might consider that the notion of the work, functioning as a regulatory concept for the arts, is arguably neither universal nor of ancient lineage, even in the western tradition (Goehr 1993). In short, the time may be ripe for the discussion of abstract artifacts to be expanded to cover artifacts in general, perhaps with different outcomes than in its native context.