In an article published in June 1999 in the Journal of Southern African Studies by one of us (Kinsey), evidence using a unique 17-year panel data set was presented in support of the idea that - contrary to much popular thinking - the experience of land reform in Zimbabwe has been generally positive. We revisit some of the key parameters employed in that article using data collected in the 1999 round of the same panel. We expand the analysis with expenditure information, and deal with the sampling bias in favour of land reform that affected the previous analysis. The evidence shows that eliminating the bias reduces the previously noted superior performance of resettlement but leaves unchanged the conclusion that land reform beneficiaries are successful in agriculture. A consideration of the available expenditure outcomes in per capita terms shows that land reform beneficiaries may not be necessarily better off and that they remain vulnerable to drought.