Equinox, what a controversial concept! Since the dawn of archaeoastronomy this has arguably been the most problematic concept—perhaps together with the lunar standstills or lunistices (González García and Belmonte, Journal of Skyscape Archaeology, 5(2):178-190, 2019)—to be taken into account since it was first used in `megalithic' astronomy to explain the orientation of certain monuments such as the impressive tumulus of Knowth in Ireland or, more recently, the dolmen of Viera in Spain. The term `megalithic' equinox has been polluting the scientific literature since the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, the situation was so harsh that Clive Ruggles thought it could be adequate to ask `Whose equinox?' (Ruggles, Archaeoastronomy 28:S45-S51, 1997). A decade later, González-García and Belmonte (Archaeoastronomy, Journal for Astronomy in Culture 20:95-105, 2006) asked themselves `Which equinox?' when the date and concept of the equinox in ancient Rome at the moment of the Julian reform had to be taken into account. The Romans apparently favoured the day midway between the solstices instead of the astronomical equinox itself. Consequently, it is clear that one needs to be very cautious when studying buildings with an orientation close to due-East and claiming that they are `equinoctial'. This paper will explore different patterns—or very suggestive individual cases—of `equinoctial' orientations across time and space and will pose the question: `what equinox' were they observing? Evidence suggests that `equinoctial' alignments are as variegated as definitions of `equinox' we might imagine.