We aimed at performing a calibration and re-calibration process using six standard risk factors from Northern (NE, N = 2360) or Southern European (SE, N = 2789) middle-aged men of the Seven Countries Study, whose parameters and data were fully known, to establish whether re-calibration gave the right answer. Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino technique as modified by Demler (GNDD) in 2015 produced chi-squared statistics using 10 deciles of observed/expected CHD mortality risk, corresponding to Hosmer-Lemeshaw chi-squared employed for multiple logistic equations whereby binary data are used. Instead of the number of events, the GNDD test uses survival probabilities of observed and predicted events. The exercise applied, in five different ways, the parameters of the NE-predictive model to SE (and vice-versa) and compared the outcome of the simulated re-calibration with the real data. Good re-calibration could be obtained only when risk factor coefficients were substituted, being similar in magnitude and not significantly different between NE-SE. In all other ways, a good re-calibration could not be obtained. This is enough to praise for an overall need of re-evaluation of most investigations that, without GNDD or another proper technique for statistically assessing the potential differences, concluded that re-calibration is a fair method and might therefore be used, with no specific caution.