Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 14565305, member: 112&quot;]You&#039;re not missing anything. But your sentence - &quot;<i>I was getting really confused as I read some of the other definitions in this thread&quot;</i> - does a good job of touching on why I said what I did in the comment of mine that you quoted. I&#039;ve been reading about the term elevation chromatics for good long time, and I suspect you have as well. And over the years I have heard probably a dozen or more different definitions and explanations about what it means. And that&#039;s why I made the comment you quoted - because it seems to be there&#039;s one heck of a lot of people who don&#039;t know what it means. But if they used plain language to define that term, then everyone would know what it means.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t disagree with the definition provided in post #45, to the contrary I agree completely with that definition.</p><p><br /></p><p>What I strongly disagree with and I guess is my primary point, is that &quot;elevation chromatics&quot; <u>can&#039;t</u> be used to distinguish AT from NT. That&#039;s because there are millions of coins that have completely natural toning, but do not have elevation chromatics ! And by the same token there are coins out there that do have elevation chromatics that were artificially toned. Some coins that are submitted to concentrated gasses in a sealed box, sometimes end up having elevated chromatics as well. And when that is done to coins, there isn&#039;t anything else I could call them but AT !</p><p><br /></p><p>edited to correct a typo - changed can to can&#039;t[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in