<p>Motivated by the ‘replication crisis’ that deeply impacted the biomedical, natural, and social sciences, we conducted a case study to examine the strengths and limitations of replication in the humanities. Specifically, we replicated an art historical Rembrandt attribution study. In this article we place the methodology and outcomes of the Rembrandt replication within the broader debate on replication in the humanities, with the aim of delving deeper into the epistemological implications arising from this case study in replication: What epistemic aims did the Rembrandt replication study fulfil in comparison with ‘regular’ art historical attributions? And what does this case demonstrate about the conditions under which replication and replicability are desirable and attainable in the humanities? We show that replication can serve epistemic aims beyond those of the initial study and beyond mere corroboration of findings, such as historiographical insight and methodological refinement. Replication thus operates not only as a means of confirmation but as a generative process that can advance research. We furthermore propose that replicability, understood as a context-dependent epistemic value rather than a universal standard, can function as a forward-looking strategy supporting transparency, methodological reflexivity, and cumulative knowledge-building in the humanities as well. While replication and replicability may have practical and conceptual limitations, we should take care not to discard the valuable elements they offer. Conducting replications and striving for replicability, where feasible, can complement existing practices and thus is an epistemic opportunity that deserves further exploration across a broad spectrum of humanities studies.</p>