It seems that this discussion is deteriorated to the point that we are discussing how many angels are on the heads of a pin rather then whether there are angels there at all.

That the term "silver rich" is a term which is used has never been disputed. To have moved the discussion to the point that the discussion is about a term is a further indication of the need for obscurity of the actual issue which was addressed in the earlier thread. That thread stated that the "silver rich" films had a greater ability to stain with PMK developer. I or perhaps Mr. King apparently disrupted some closely held beliefs held by others. Whether the term "silver rich" has validity in the practical application of photography today is open to a lot of dispute. I stand by my original position and that is what Clay also addressed. Show those of us that have serious doubts about the validity of this term the factual basis for those claims. What is the scientific basis?

Forte makes a claim...so, is it valid? Is there factual proof that it actually has more silver in it's emulsion then XXX brand? Bergger makes the same claim about their BPF 200 and I have had the same experience that Clay has had with that material...it seriously sucks as far as building contrast. For those of you that are inclined to believe these claims about "silver rich" emulsions...I have this wonderful new "snake oil" that will provide everlasting youth, improved appearance, and increased sexual prowess...just send me the money.

I have no ego investment in attempting to prove that any term used by someone else is factually correct. I test my own materials. I am through wasting my time listening to someone who may have not done the work or to those who have a vested financial interest.

To discount the use of whatever tools available (densitometers targeted in this case) is akin to saying that "to hell with lenses". I don't think that is a reasonable position. But then what about this whole matter has been reasonable?