Stanford (2006) has advanced a sophisticated neo-instrumentalist alternative to scientific realism. In fact, he has gone as far as to suggest that it may be a mistake to try to identify "a crucial difference" between instrumentalism and realism when it comes to the epistemic attitudes they recommend towards theories or theoretical assertions. There is, he says, at most "a local difference in the specific theories each is willing to believe on the strength of the total evidence available" (ibid., 205). Though I welcome this attempt at reconciliation, I will argue that Stanford's own way to achieve it, while keeping a distinguished instrumentalist outlook, is flawed.