Sherlock Holmes has one of the oldest fandoms in the world. Nearly from the inception of the character in the nineteenth century there has been avid discussion, hand-crafted publications, fan written fiction, costume creation, art in various media, parodies, knock-offs, and everything else we recognize as fannish behavior in the twenty-first century. Yet there is one unique element to Sherlock Holmes fandom; amateur scholarship. Of course other pieces of Victorian popular literature are studied and published upon; Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, Charles Dickens and many more. But they are studied in ivory towers by people wearing leather patches on their elbows and being published in places that turn up their noses at any aspiring author who lacks an alphabet soup of academic credentials after their name. Not so Holmes. Dentists and accountants, businessmen and clergymen, irregulars from all walks of life create Sherlockian scholarship and submit it to journals that lay outside the purview of traditional academia. At least, we call it scholarship. But is it? What separates a Sherlockian article from an especially nitpicky and footnoted blog post about the Marvel superhero movies? Conversely what separates a Sherlockian article from an ivy-covered reconsideration of Chaucer in a specialized literary journal? Is Sherlockian scholarship scholarly? This session will examine the results of a study of the Baker Street Journal and the results of a survey of Sherlockian scholars. We will also examine our own thoughts of the issues of scholarliness, intellectual legitimacy, and our eccentric brand of especially bookish fan behavior.