Please re-read my original comment because I have said the same thing as you!

Thats what I said!!!! Exfoliated graphene has excellent properties while epitaxial generally has mobilities an order of magnitude lower (average 1000 to 2000 cm2/Vs but reported up to 7k or 8k). New techniques with hydrogenation to passivate the buffer layer on the Si-face have resulted in higher quality (more isolated from substrate) graphene. You are mistaken about the copper CVD method. Ruhoff's group has reported that there is no C solution in the Cu, BUT there is with a Ni based CVD. The method does look promising though, I agree.

Actually you are a bit wrong here (on many counts)! Exfoliated graphene from HOPG has, actually, phenomenal electronic properties. On the other hand for example, epitaxial graphene (sublimation of Si from SiC), which I work with, is typically less pristine than exfoliated (scotch tape method) due to either a buffer layer between the graphene and SiC (when grown on the Si-face) or a difficult to control and poorly understand growth morphology (when grown on the C-face). There are other details here that I omit for sake of the "layman's summary". More and more avenues of fabrication are being investigated/discovered/perfected as the years and months go on many of which produce graphene, but none of which produce as pristine graphene as the Scotch tape method. Graphene on SiC is prepared by subliming silicon from the furnace in an inert ambient NOT chemically etching the Si away. It is highly controllable on the Si-face, less so on the C-face although progress is being made. You say that exfoliation is not used any more to fabricate graphene. In fact it is one of the most common techniques. It is certainly not scalable to production levels but is consistent in producing PRISTINE and CHEAP graphene. AFM will likely NOT be able to tell you the number of layers you have due to the exceedingly thin material. In fact, its even quite difficult to use TEM due to the highly destructive sample preparation process. There are several ways to identify layer thickness but many are contested. Some include, elipsometery, Raman spectroscopy, TEM, electrical measurements, ARPES, etc etc. You may be right that the discovery "is not graphene," I think that the discovery is "realizing the usefulness of graphene." Moreover, de Heer emphasizes that graphene was known of before 2004, but it was not realized until, he says, his work in the 90's that such a material could be used for interesting/novel/high performance electronics. I think the Nobel Prize was given to recognize Novoselov and Geim's instrumentality in realizing this utility of the material, but maybe you are correct and that it should not be in recognition of "their discovery."

I have worked with graphene for about a year now (I know, I joined the party a bit late) and have heard Walt speak a few times. It seems that Walt has always been a little bitter about this. Is his bitterness warranted? I think that he makes a strong case for himself and I am truly disappointed by the inaccuracies he has pointed out (they are substantial and valid in my estimation as novice scientist *see de Heer's letter*). There are a few things I'd like to add to the discussion. I do not doubt the merits of either Geim and Novoselov's or de Heer and Berger's work, both groups have made significant contributions regarding graphene and perform excellent work. The core conflict at hand, whether Geim and Novoselov deserve the prize, is a difficult one. And as so many others have said before, this is a process that is inherently human and susceptible to error. But should we not strive to be most scrutinizing and fair in deliberating the outcome? I know that Walt feels that he deserves just as much credit as Geim and Novoselov for his work; and I think that severely hurts his case (as others mentioned) by tainting it with a tinge of jealousy or bitterness. But the fact remains that he makes many very important observations about the inaccuracies, failures, and "hype" (for lack of better terminology) of the Sci. Bckgd. document which is (we assume) to be held to the highest standards. It is really sad to see this happen. It makes me wonder the true value of the Nobel Prize. Shouldn't our work itself, as scientists, stand alone as a testament to our efforts and value?