Explicit knowledge is highly valued in the traditional educational system at the expense of implicit equivalents. Why is this? Are we right to so value it? To provide an answer I attempt to characterise the relation between representations and referents of implicit and explicit knowledge. Whereas explicit representations are detached from referents and so "inauthentic", implicit representations are analogous to referents and more "authentic". The notion of authenticity frames to what extent critical properties such as transferability to different contexts and conveyance between agents, which seem vital to class teaching, are met by implicit and explicit knowledge. (Contains 4 figures and 15 notes.)