Some argue that non-presentist A-theories face an epistemic objection: if they were true, then we could not know whether we are present. I argue that the presentist is in no better an epistemic position than the non-presentist. In §1 I introduce the sceptical puzzle: I look at two ways in which the non-presentist could claim that our experiences give us evidence for our presentness, but find each wanting. In §2, I argue that the puzzle also faces the presentist, and that a number of potential solutions either fail or are equally available to the non-presentist. I conclude by defending one solution to the puzzle.