Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 2742202, member: 27832&quot;]Not quite sure why I&#039;m sticking my head out the window in the middle of this crossfire, but:</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve been following discussions <i>here</i> about artificial toning since 2011 or so, and this is the first time I&#039;ve seen &quot;<b>Type 1 AT</b>&quot; and &quot;<b>Type 2 AT</b>&quot; presented as terms of art.</p><p><br /></p><p>Googling for various combinations of &quot;type 1&quot;, &quot;type 2&quot;, &quot;toning&quot; and &quot;artificial toning&quot; yields mostly results about Buffalo nickels, 1942 Jeffersons, and diabetes. (That last is never far from the minds of a certain collector demographic.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Googling for &quot;Type 1 artificial toning&quot; yields <b>two</b> results -- one from yourself, here, in 2010, and one for a Buffalo Nickel auction.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, I don&#039;t see evidence of a lot of discussion (at least none happening or echoed online) from <i>other</i> experts using this terminology. But if you want to keep using this as a litmus test to distinguish toning poseurs and wannabes from, well, <i>you</i>, I guess it&#039;s a good choice.[/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