The Euphronios problem is more than twenty years old: in 1893; Hartwig, in his Meisterschalen, first attributed to the painter <Ones>imos the Troïlos kylix in Perugia bearing the single signature Ἐυφρόνιος ἐποίησεν. Since then the question has been considerably extended and modified, and the moment has perhaps come for some sort of summary of results.
The attempted answer to the particular question does not profess to be a solution of the whole problem of ἔγραψεν and ἐποίησεν. Dispassionate analysis of style tends more and more to separate potter from painter in most well-known workshops. Makron was in all probability directly or indirectly responsible for the painting of all Hieron's vases, Brygos a potter solely. It is, however, impossible to generalise on the subject. In the black-figure period there is the notable exception of Exekias: there is no difference of style between the vases signed Ἐξήκιας ἐποίησεν and Ἐξήκιας ἔγραψε κἀποίησε με. Again in the strong red-figured period we have the instance of the Gotha kylix (F.R.H. iii. Abb. 7), with its inscriptions ασιαδες (retrograde) and a dubious inscription ending εσεν (left to right)—i.e. a potter's signature, The painter's name is clearly that of Pasiades, the style of the exterior unmistakeably that of his other vases; but these are signed with ἐποίησεν. Here, then, is a contemporary of Euphronios whose ἐποίησεν includes ἔγραψεν.