I understand your point about black and white dwarfs being different objects... but, in a sense, they can be thought of as the same objects on different points of their evolutionary scales, though this does get back to the argument that a black dwarf does NOT sit on the stellar evolutionary scale simply because it is too small to ignite hydrogen. But then again, that's why I'm even asking the question in the first place, "Do you think that a BD is a star that failed, or should it be classified as a different object all together?"

It's not I who stated that a black dwarf would be visible, the argument I worte was paraphrased from the source I listed, though I do believe that an object hot enough to begin Deuterium burning (~1 million degrees) would be visible in white light, though it's absolute magnitude would be substantially positive, even at it's brightest.

You said that you feel it's a toasty, warm Jupiter, that's an element of the core argument of some astronomers (David Stevenson, California Institue of Technology, pg. 120, "Planet Quest") who believe the genesis of stars and planets to be the deciding factor. Stars start as a big gas bubble and collapse, whereas planets start as heavy elements and rock and ice and later sweep up their gasses.

But I'm not here to tell you you're wrong or right. There's not enough information, nor concensus amongst the real astronomers, to put black dwarfs into any definite classification.

Pex