The empirical evidence gathered by Tittle et al. is contained in 35 studies published between 1941 and 1977 (mostly in the United States) which use an individual indicator of class and contain 363 instances of the relation of class and crime. The data is drawn from surveys and official statistics. Tittle et al. claim that recent studies (since 1970) show no relationship and speculate that some earlier studies which indicating substantial relationship reflect an earlier class bias, now ameliorated in the law enforcement process. However, Tittle et al have misread the evidence. Among the problems in their reanalysis is the paucity of the evidence, and the lack of specification of theoretical relationships along with faulty specification and measures of 'class.' Further shortcomings are inadequate operational definitions of 'crime,' erroneous analysis of the evidence, and failure to examine all of the evidence. For example, Tittle's sources reveal only two U.S. studies of the class base of adult crime published in the last decade. Also, a number of the sources exclude analysis of the unemployed who are expected to have the highest crime rate. Furthermore, the concepts of 'class,' 'SES,' and 'status' are used interchangeably, and the studies contain no separate data on highly serious crimes (e.g. rape, burglary, assault). In addition, ecological and victimization data which support the hypothesis that class and crime are related, are not examined. Despite the paucity of clear tests and despite methodological flaws, the existing data support the hypothesis that conventional serious crimes are disproportionately produced by marginal fractions of the working class as 'crimes of accommodation.' Therefore, further research on the class basis is needed. Notes and over 40 references are included.