> ...with you and Andreas after your heated replies in opposition to me labeling
> your posts as speculation. I found it quite amusing that you both objected to
> the use of that term so much

Could you please quote where I objected "to the use of that term so much"?

> this just urged me on to play more of the "Devil's Advocate" in presenting
> alternate possibilities, no matter how absurd I thought they might be.

Does that mean you think the "licensed clone" theory is absurd? And even the "unlicensed clone" theory as well?

> do we know if any of those overclocker's were using this 133 branded chip or not?

Yes, we do know that they didn't use it but instead used full 68060 Rev.6 chips.

> If they really have been available since 2002

The 2002 date code can only be assumed as being genuine in case of a licensed clone. An unlicensed clone or rebadged chip could as well have a fake/rebadged date code.

> it would be strange if no one had tried using them and over clocking them

What do you mean "over clocking them"? Attempting to run the part past 133 MHz?

> (or under clocking them) prior to now.

Huh? The NatAmi Team *does* run this chip underclocked at about 80 MHz, assuming it's a 133 MHz part.

> We might even find that there are some MC68060FE133 chips that have
> working MMU and/or FPU units and that the cheap units that the Natami
> team purchased were just rejects that were discarded because they had
> faulty MMU & FPU units. The advertising info on some sites that list suppliers
> of these chips do state that this chip has working MMU and FPU units.

Usually, the surface printing of chip designation etc. is only done *after* testing. Faulty MMU and FPU should have led to an "68EC060" designation, not "68060". That said, I'd be surprised to find independent reports (i.e. not supplier info) on "MC68060FE133" chips containing both functional MMU and functional FPU. It might be that the sites listing that chip as having working FPU/MMU just fell for the lack of "EC" or "LC" in the chip's designation.