Abstract This paper presents a criticism of Ham's (1998) Optimality Theoretic treatment of West Germanic gemination. Ham attempts to revise Murray and Vennemann's (M & V 1983) analysis in which all cases of gemination are motivated by the sonority profile at syllable contact in accordance with the Syllable Contact Law (SCL). Although Ham accepts the relevance of SCL, he claims that two additional constrains are required. I demonstrate, however, that neither constraint can be motivated for the grammar of West Germanic. Indeed, from a diachronic perspective the only function of the additional constraints is to serve as ad hoc diacritics. Accordingly, while Ham's analysis might be OT-coherent, it fails to translate into a explanatory account of West Germanic gemination. By contrast, I demonstrate that M & V's original account was correct in identifying the sonority profile at syllable contact as the primary motivating factor. The paper also touches on the issue of reranking and phonological change. In the absence of reference to general principles, reranking does not ‘explain’ diachronic change in any interesting way.