Whose bubble are you bursting here, fschifano? I don't think anyone was discussing digital palettes and accuracy. I certainly wasn't.
If by my mention of PhotoSIG it was somehow inferred that this is accepted as gospel as a reference for different emulsions, then it was misread. It's not a mystery that people can and do manipulate their scanned film with regularity. A photographer's time and experience with film photography can of course help parse some of what is claimed by using personal wisdom as a reference guide. Generally, though, if I go to a film category on PhotoSIG or flickr, I pay attention to the overall selection of what people have posted for an idea in a film category to learn what I might expect with a film stock I've never used before. Likewise, use manufacturer reference photos when available.
Sure, someone might dump a Photoshop filter to make something look like Velvia and then gleefully trick people on a web site, but given the scores of other people who use Velvia, it's reasonable to conclude that others are probably posting unretouched content. And for stupidly obscure emulsions for which there might not be one of those Photoshop filters (like cross-processing Ektrachrome EIR in C-41), there really isn't a ton of incentive for some poster to "fake" it.
That said, of the regular and favourite stocks I do use (Fujichrome RMS, KR64, RDPIII, HP5+), I know their characteristics very, very well. What I see on PhotoSIG under those emulsion subcategories jibes with my own results, my own reference points, and my own experiences.
Take PhotoSIG and their ilk with a grain of salt, but I find the resource to be useful in its own way. YMMV.
(Also, if it's unretouched, look for dust and dirt on the full-size scan. I can't imagine many digital fanatics wanting to manually add in image detritus, but I might very well be way off here.)