Elder, Crawford L [2000] 'Familiar Objects and the Sorites of Decomposition', American Philosophical Quarterly 37, pp. 79-89.

Familiar objects (e.g. bicycles, trees) appear to be compositionally vague-removal of a single atom leaves the object still existing. Should we conclude, via sorites reasoning, that such objects do not really exist? Or follow "epistemic" theorists of vagueness, and dispute the appearance-asserting rather that there is a precise point at which a minute removal destroys? Neither. The real reason why removing one atom does not destroy doubles as a reason why removing many does. So compositional vagueness invites no sorites. Moreover, if the epistemic position were true, it would entail, not prevent, the conclusion of non-existence.