Carbon dating shroud error repair
In 2013, Giulio Fanti and some other researchers published the results of some dating tests they ran on alleged fragments of the Shroud.
All of their dating methods showed a pre-medieval date.
In that thread, Thibault Heimburger says that he's noticed some problems with Farey's article and suggests that he'll be writing a response to it.
I think Jull and Farey make some good points that significantly weaken the reweave hypothesis.
The best book I've read on the Shroud of Turin is William Meacham's The Rape Of The Turin Shroud (Lulu, 2005).
Meacham is an archeologist who's worked at the University of Hong Kong, and he's one of the scholars the Roman Catholic Church has consulted on issues related to the Shroud in recent decades.
Of these dates obtained, about 110 were considered credible, 30 were rejected as unreliable and 10 were problematic.
Most other archaeologists and geologists that I know have the same view; a few are more skeptical of its reliability. Such rogue dates are common in archaeology and geology and they are usually not subjected to any further detailed study.
The debate within the professions has been largely about its accuracy in settling fine-grained chronological questions, for example the question of whether a city was sacked in 703 B. Instead, the normal practice would be to seek more and better samples, obtain new C-14 dates and review the overall clustering pattern indicated by the dates.