Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 8664023, member: 27832&quot;]Many people believe there are. There are lots of cases of artificial toning that <i>can</i> be distinguished from natural toning, even by people as clueless as me. But some people believe that <i>all</i> AT can be detected and distinguished from NT. I&#039;m deeply skeptical.</p><p><br /></p><p>Most people believe that a thin layer of silver sulfide deposited intentionally is bad and a thin layer of silver sulfide deposited <i>un</i>intentionally is good, even if the layers are physically and chemically indistinguishable. To support that belief, they have faith that they (or <i>someone</i>) can always tell the two apart.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think it&#039;s all very silly. Toning is <i>post-mint damage</i>, whether it&#039;s done accidentally over decades or intentionally in seconds. Some of it is quite beautiful, and worthy of collecting. But this religious conviction that &quot;artificial toning&quot; is and always will be inferior to &quot;natural toning&quot; is, well, silly. Atoms are atoms, and molecules are molecules, and we&#039;ve already got plenty of artificial processes that can lay down thin films more precisely and repeatably than any &quot;natural&quot; process. If people aren&#039;t already using them to make toners that &quot;pass&quot;, they soon will.[/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