Where do Medieval Italian samples from Antonio et al. 2019 come from?

It's not so difficult to understand, Torzio. Trust me. Is Villanovan R1015 at best a Gallic-Ligurian mix? You're so funny. So are you suggesting that in 900 B.C. in Veio, a well-known Etruscan city in southern Etruria, lived both Gauls and Ligurians? There is always something new to learn.


Proto-Villanovan culture is a Bronze Age culture, Villanovan is an Iron Age culture. They are called similarly because the Villanovan culture was discovered earlier than the Proto-Villanovan culture by two different archeologists. Although they have kept these names, further distinctions have been made in recent years by archaeologists, because there's a huge difference between the two. The Villanovan culture is the most ancient phase of the Etruscan civilization, while the proto-Villanovan culture is a supranational bronze culture not only ancestral to the Etruscans.

I agree the term gallic-ligurian is a bit young

it should be etruscan and or greek for Corsica at that time ..............unsure when the etruscans kicked the greeks out of corsica and took over their olive groves

using dodecad 12 only markers

and these as the source

Italy_Liguria,5.1,0.05,2.014,0.0922,37.89,23.225,0.2477,0.053,7.89,0.048,23.39,0
Italy_Emilia,6.13,0,1.15,0.1801,37.614,22.757,0.14,0.107,7.396,0.25,24.22,0.055
Italy_Romagna,6.08,0,1.87,0.13,34.66,20.98,0.1,0,8.99,0,27.19,0
Italy_Tuscany,6.12,0.049,1.21,0.139,36.889,21.811,0.157,0.055,8.206,0,25.364,0
Italy_Lazio,6.725,0,2.67,0.0525,31.7,19.8175,0.2575,0.07,9.785,0.1725,28.747,0
Italy_Marche,6.421,0.082,2.38,0.048,32.91,18.72,0.294,0.267,9.802,0,29.042,0.034
Italy_Abruzzo,7.586,0.0283,3.225,0.0383,29.12,16.1,0,0.0783,10.91,0.316,32.598,0
Italy_Campania,7.065,0.086,2.818,0.085,28.905,13.727,0.111,0.334,12.32,0.02,34.342,0.111

we find that if that sample was truly central italian and heading into southern italian .............then its a migrant , because the result is beyond 5.000

If you disagree , then dodecad numbers are also in error


Distance to:R1015_Iron_Age_____Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia
10.67138183Italy_Liguria
11.45354578Italy_Emilia
12.52109061Italy_Tuscany
15.18462380Italy_Romagna
17.92780238Italy_Marche
18.70868739Italy_Lazio
23.67064439Italy_Abruzzo
25.60013410Italy_Campania




100.0Italy_Liguria

Target: R1015_Iron_Age_____Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia
Distance: 10.6714% / 10.67138183
 
using only these

Italy_Tuscany,6.12,0.049,1.21,0.139,36.889,21.811,0.157,0.055,8.206,0,25.364,0
Italy_Lazio,6.725,0,2.67,0.0525,31.7,19.8175,0.2575,0.07,9.785,0.1725,28.747,0
Italy_Marche,6.421,0.082,2.38,0.048,32.91,18.72,0.294,0.267,9.802,0,29.042,0.034
Italy_Abruzzo,7.586,0.0283,3.225,0.0383,29.12,16.1,0,0.0783,10.91,0.316,32.598,0
Italy_Campania,7.065,0.086,2.818,0.085,28.905,13.727,0.111,0.334,12.32,0.02,34.342,0.111
Italy_Apulia,7.382,0.32,2.812,0.336,26.188,17.186,0.274,0.266,11.314,0.412,33.356,0.154
Italy_Sicily,7.313,0.482,4.594,0.101,27.216,13.451,0.249,0.653,12.095,0.047,33.163,0.635
Italy_Calabria,7.006,0.1308,4.1825,0.0759,27.005,11.44083,0.2616,0.5983,13.52416,0.22,35.4525,0.0975


Again ....although Tuscany .......a number of 12.5 is too far


Distance to:R1015_Iron_Age_____Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia
12.52109061Italy_Tuscany
17.92780238Italy_Marche
18.70868739Italy_Lazio
23.67064439Italy_Abruzzo
25.60013410Italy_Campania
26.16214227Italy_Apulia
26.41047302Italy_Sicily
28.64339688Italy_Calabria
 
and for north italy

Distance to:R1015_Iron_Age_____Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia
9.24585840Italy_Lombardy
10.47190348Swiss_Italian
10.67138183Italy_Liguria
11.32346900Italy_Piedmont
11.45354578Italy_Emilia
12.15522425Italy_Aosta_Valley
12.35516815Italy_Trentino
12.48426575Italy_Veneto
15.14121316Italy_FriuliVG
 
@Duarte

I just stopped using it,
and everyone should do the same !!!
 
If these coordinates of modern Italians included in the updated DODECAD K12b spreadsheet were produced by the “Sizzi” that writes in link below, they must be disregarded.

https://ilsizzi.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/il-dna-autosomico-europeo/

The man is a racist. This is his conclusion of the "article" contained in the referred link:

Le distanze genetiche delimitano popoli, etnie, subrazze e razze, alla faccia di chi continua a ripetere come un disco rotto che le razze non esistono. Pensate anche solo alla biodiversità italiana, dove il gruppo settentrionale è ben distinto sia da quello toscano e centrale che da quello meridionale, soprattutto. Quanto basta per poter parlare di gruppi etnici differenti. Figuratevi se dovessimo parlare di gruppi razziali.”

Racists are sick people who should not be given credibility or a platform to spread their absurd ideas.

Believing that dna gives us the ability to distinguish people of different "races" or what are now called breeding populations doesn't make you a racist, imo. That's what we're doing every day. Are we all racists then? From the little I know of him I think the term might fit, but not for that reason.

In terms of the samples, when dealing with the work product of anyone with an obvious agenda, it behooves one to be cautious because of the possibility that this bias would lead to distortion of the data. That has been the cause of my hesitancy about some of Eurogenes' results. When it's academic samples and there's some degree of transparency there's less concern.

I don't know the source of those samples, so that's one area of concern; the other concern is whether someone like this is to be trusted choosing samples, if it is indeed his work.

I'm going to go back to using the original Dodecad.

For example, these are my closest Medieval matches:
6.16793320R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
6.20598904R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
These are the closest modern populations according to the original dodecad:
Distance to:R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
3.57624104Tuscan
3.81152201TSI30
4.75531282C_Italian
6.83702421O_Italian
10.65236593N_Italian
10.91843395North_Italian
12.61605723S_Italian_Sicilian
12.63765010Sicilian
13.09491886Greek
16.62573006Ashkenazi
17.11678124Ashkenazy_Jews
20.15269461Sephardic_Jews
20.66370973Baleares
20.77912173Morocco_Jews
22.13513723Bulgarians
22.51428213Bulgarian
22.57344679Galicia
22.99541041Romanians
23.18739097Extremadura
23.21290374Murcia
23.62890391Andalucia
23.71828198Canarias
23.88277203Portuguese
25.20537443Castilla_Y_Leon
25.56972624Spaniards

Distance to:R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
4.18359893C_Italian
4.39795407TSI30
4.67375652Tuscan
6.63923188O_Italian
10.89065655N_Italian
11.33756147North_Italian
11.94195545Sicilian
12.25031428S_Italian_Sicilian
13.05106126Greek
16.05808830Ashkenazi
16.61078866Ashkenazy_Jews
19.42127699Sephardic_Jews
19.69553757Morocco_Jews
20.62295323Baleares
22.06728801Bulgarians
22.38915362Bulgarian
22.39324452Galicia
22.69921144Canarias
22.83699192Extremadura
22.95221558Murcia
22.99935216Romanians
23.42924455Portuguese
23.44488430Andalucia
24.96409822Castilla_Y_Leon
25.63061061Spaniards

These are the results using the "updated" list of K12b samples:
Distance to:R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
4.95855987France_Corsica
5.72900515Italy_Romagna
5.73295543Italy_Marche
6.52601027Italy_Tuscany
7.24070466Italy_Lazio
7.99930566Italy_Emilia
8.57943659Italy_Liguria
10.37018436Italy_Abruzzo
10.86251230Italy_Lombardy
11.76210041Italy_Campania
12.19792774Italy_Piedmont
12.42161332Italy_Veneto
12.83907707Albanian_Kosovo
12.91294962Italy_Apulia
13.07584127Italy_Sicily
13.09491886Greek
13.69630607Albanian_North
14.63272210Italy_FriuliVG
14.85030850Swiss_Italian
14.95477500Italy_Calabria
15.92765394Italy_Trentino
16.62573006Ashkenazi
17.11678124Ashkenazy_Jews
18.65887850Italy_Aosta_Valley
18.94861736Greek_Crete

Distance to:R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
4.49812139France_Corsica
4.96607873Italy_Marche
5.31727374Italy_Romagna
6.44594865Italy_Lazio
6.54767058Italy_Tuscany
8.04215637Italy_Emilia
8.47331258Italy_Liguria
9.53350878Italy_Abruzzo
11.02661950Italy_Lombardy
11.16114448Italy_Campania
12.10129167Italy_Piedmont
12.10660832Italy_Sicily
12.24339201Italy_Apulia
12.35617683Italy_Veneto
12.73767640Albanian_Kosovo
13.05106126Greek
13.52740552Albanian_North
14.22096119Italy_Calabria
14.57645828Italy_FriuliVG
14.99245018Swiss_Italian
16.04054675Italy_Trentino
16.05808830Ashkenazi
16.61078866Ashkenazy_Jews
18.48370093Greek_Crete
18.66171417Italy_Aosta_Valley

The fits aren't as good using the updated samples, and they don't make as much sense to me for samples all from Rome.

Only problem, of course, is that the original dodecad is missing samples from certain areas.
 
If these coordinates of modern Italians included in the updated DODECAD K12b spreadsheet were produced by the “Sizzi” that writes in link below, they must be disregarded.

https://ilsizzi.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/il-dna-autosomico-europeo/

The man is a racist. This is his conclusion of the "article" contained in the referred link:

Le distanze genetiche delimitano popoli, etnie, subrazze e razze, alla faccia di chi continua a ripetere come un disco rotto che le razze non esistono. Pensate anche solo alla biodiversità italiana, dove il gruppo settentrionale è ben distinto sia da quello toscano e centrale che da quello meridionale, soprattutto. Quanto basta per poter parlare di gruppi etnici differenti. Figuratevi se dovessimo parlare di gruppi razziali.”

Racists are sick people who should not be given credibility or a platform to spread their absurd ideas.


can you link me to his K12 data .................as far as I can see he only has K13 and K15
Which means the K12 we have been using has always been dodecad


Only found this
https://ilsizzi.wordpress.com/2018/04/03/a-grande-richiesta-il-breakdown-regionale-italiano/
which is k13
 
Nobody used Dodecad k12b from what I see on the net, most used is europgenes K13

Athrogenica only use G25 data from what I can see

So, unless someone shows me something else...then the dodecad data was used in this thread and results stand as is
 
Nobody used Dodecad k12b from what I see on the net, most used is europgenes K13

Athrogenica only use G25 data from what I can see

So, unless someone shows me something else...then the dodecad data was used in this thread and results stand as is

https://yourdnaportal.com/yourgeneticancestry

they do not have K12b ............they do have everything else
 
I went back and ran original Dodecad12 spreadsheet. My top 50 scores. I get similar results to the ones with the Dodecad 12B, except now my South Italian_Siclian distance is 6.18. Thus, I am closer distance wise to 21 Romans starting with R437 (Iron Age) up to Medieval Roman R1290. My closest match is Imperial Roman R131. With the Dodecad 12B Update, My Sicilian score was 4.1 and had 2 other scores of less than that I believe. So as some others have noted, the Dodecad12B update are more accurate. As an FYI, I know nothing about this Sazzi fellow and his blog. Never heard of it till it was mentioned here. But I think if he is the one who did the Dodecad 12B updated spreadsheet, it is more accurate than the original, at least in my particular case.

Distance to:PalermoTrapani
2.74320980R131__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
3.34371051R1290_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
3.96989924R52___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.16199471R56___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.28897424R836__Imperial_Era__Civitanova_Marche
4.28984848R49___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
4.75169443R969__Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
4.89823438R835__Imperial_Era__Civitanova_Marche
4.99327548R54___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.07506650R65___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.11293458R437__Iron_Age_____Palestrina_Selicata
5.11761663R117__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
5.15501697R973__Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
5.29457269R122__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
5.50790341R64___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.57297048R59___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.59843728R35___Late_Antiquity_Celio
5.77488528R58___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.87176294R118__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
6.10313034R121__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
6.12587137R107__Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
6.18146423S_Italian_Sicilian
6.46333505R113__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
6.62921564R1544_Imperial_Era__Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese
6.70280538R436__Imperial_Era__Palestrina
7.18347409R136__Imperial_Era__Marcellino_&_Pietro
7.19658252R1283_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
7.27409788R53___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
7.30593594R120__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
7.53768532R60___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
7.64537769C_Italian
7.73356321R47___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
8.48495728R50___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
8.50541004R137__Imperial_Era__Marcellino_&_Pietro
8.60780460R111__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
9.21462425R114__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
9.43943854R30___Late_Antiquity_Mausole_di_Augusto
9.50429903R970__Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
9.50891687R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
9.53776703R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
9.59932289R36___Late_Antiquity_Celio
9.80881746R125__Imperial_Era__Casale_del_Dolce
9.86738060R32___Late_Antiquity_Mausole_di_Augusto
9.96273557R51___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
10.73444922R1549_Imperial_Era__Monterotondo
10.83915587Tuscan
11.27436473R69___Imperial_Era__ANAS
11.66221677R1548_Imperial_Era__Monterotondo
11.85414274R133__Imperial_Era__Marcellino_&_Pietro
12.26351907R123__Imperial_Era__Casale_del_Dolce
 
Here is my top 50 using K12B updated spreadsheet. I included Roman sources that Jovialis provided and the Italian reference samples and ran top 50. So I still get Sicily at around 6 (surprising) but do get scores for Campania and Abruzzo < 5 (My ancestors are not from there btw, although my family name does seem to populate very heavy in Campania vs Sicilia). So I think the results are reasonably consistent but the K12B updates I think provide better estimates as the variables for the Italian populations are better samples it seems to me. Post 29 above by me is the same run using K12B original data.

Distance to:PalermoTrapani
2.74320980R131__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
3.34371051R1290_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
3.96989924R52___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.16199471R56___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.28897424R836__Imperial_Era__Civitanova_Marche
4.28984848R49___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
4.43471600Italy_Campania
4.75169443R969__Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
4.89823438R835__Imperial_Era__Civitanova_Marche
4.97427660Italy_Abruzzo
4.99327548R54___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.07506650R65___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.11293458R437__Iron_Age_____Palestrina_Selicata
5.11761663R117__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
5.15501697R973__Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
5.29457269R122__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
5.50790341R64___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.57297048R59___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.59843728R35___Late_Antiquity_Celio
5.77488528R58___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.87176294R118__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
6.06587380Italy_Sicily
6.10313034R121__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
6.12587137R107__Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
6.46333505R113__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
6.62921564R1544_Imperial_Era__Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese
6.70280538R436__Imperial_Era__Palestrina
6.82817311Italy_Apulia
7.18347409R136__Imperial_Era__Marcellino_&_Pietro
7.18656426Italy_Calabria
7.19658252R1283_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
7.27409788R53___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
7.29754740Italy_Marche
7.30593594R120__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
7.53768532R60___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
7.73356321R47___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
8.03091925Italy_Lazio
8.48495728R50___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
8.50541004R137__Imperial_Era__Marcellino_&_Pietro
8.60780460R111__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
9.21462425R114__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
9.43943854R30___Late_Antiquity_Mausole_di_Augusto
9.50429903R970__Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
9.50891687R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
9.53776703R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
9.59932289R36___Late_Antiquity_Celio
9.80881746R125__Imperial_Era__Casale_del_Dolce
9.86738060R32___Late_Antiquity_Mausole_di_Augusto
9.96273557R51___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
10.44658317Italy_Romagna
 
Last edited:
This is mine. Not so close to any of them:


Distance to:JD
9.96847531R969__Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
9.99933998R60___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
10.31137721R1283_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
10.58852209R1____Iron_Age_____Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro
10.68546209R36___Late_Antiquity_Celio
10.82951984R121__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
10.87670906R107__Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
11.09423274R120__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
11.38183201R1290_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
11.46652519R970__Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
11.64696956R59___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
11.65281940R33___Late_Antiquity_Mausole_di_Augusto
11.94868194R111__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
12.21046273R836__Imperial_Era__Civitanova_Marche
12.29796731R835__Imperial_Era__Civitanova_Marche
12.32352628R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
12.37065883R58___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
12.42960981R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
12.48480276R1549_Imperial_Era__Monterotondo
12.59679721R973__Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
12.63704475R54___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
13.50418824R49___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
13.81486156R55___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
14.10271960R57___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
14.14472340R122__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia

 
Neither me, it makes sense since how it looks so far i am the least Italian shifted Albanian.

kV14EeB.png
 
I deleted my Gedmatch. Should have probably took my coordinates before doing so lol.
 
I deleted my Gedmatch. Should have probably took my coordinates before doing so lol.

You did well. Stick with G25, it's more accurate. Gedmatch calculators like Dodecad k12b are outdated, they assign percentages and components without context.

IMO, whole genome sequencing + combination of IBD sharing will be the future of genealogical genetics.
 
You did well. Stick with G25, it's more accurate. Gedmatch calculators like Dodecad k12b are outdated, they assign percentages and components without context.

IMO, whole genome sequencing + combination of IBD sharing will be the future of genealogical genetics.

I agree. An example of how autosomal calculators can be flawed is a half Polish and Half Lebanese coming out Romanian in admixture calculators. I think this is exactly what happens in these autosomal calculators. People take the results too literally.

MyHeritage has a cool clustering feature that creates DNA match clusters, not only on who you match, but your matches also matching you and each other. I am not sure if it is as accurate as IBD but my break down was fairly accurate I thought.
 
Right, there's a good plan: let's blindly trust the program created by another, better known racist. Also, let's pretend that every method doesn't have its flaws.

For those who are humor challenged, that was sarcasm.
 
Right, there's a good plan: let's blindly trust the program created by another, better known racist. Also, let's pretend that every method doesn't have its flaws.

For those who are humor challenged, that was sarcasm.

I never said these other methods are not without flaws. Nothing is perfect. I am not privy to the personal beliefs of the guy who created the program. Can we try to judge the science and its accuracy whilst not using the creators personal beliefs to judge the efficacy of the G25 coordinates or IBD?

Is he including something in his program that somehow negates its efficacy as a tool?

I am not as vested in this as others given my schedule, however, almost everyone agrees G25 and IBD are far more useful for real relatedness.

If Gedmatch admixture calculators are more accurate can you explain why mixing a Pole with a Lebanese person would produce a "Romanian Shifted" child? Should he believe he is actually Romanian, or acknowledge the flaws in the tool being used and therefore use other tools that may accurately gauge their ancestry? If I were to listen to half of these calculators, I am Greco-Italian. Yet, IBD and autocluster was more accurate in my case.

Maybe everyone else is different based on the calculator etc.
 
Oh, please.

I suggest you start looking all these things up in Coop's new book.

All pop gen tools have their benefits and minuses. To think that IBD is the complete answer shows a complete misunderstanding of the science. All of them are subject to manipulation in numerous ways, one of which is the selective inclusion of certain samples and not others. There are many other ways.

When you get a witness on the stand, the first thing you do is test their credibility. If you can show the witness is a known liar and has a bias against the defendant, for example, he's an impeached witness whose testimony should be submitted to the strongest possible scrutiny.

Does that mean it's impossible the person's testimony is true? No, it doesn't, but it means the jury are fools if they don't take that into account.

Another huge red flag is when information for each and every sample, and the runs for each and every analysis run are not provided. Providing them is called transparency, and is why an academic paper or amateur programs which provide them are more to be trusted than those which don't.

Anyone who hasn't figured out that his tools are skewed toward East Europeans is probably in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge at a really great price.

The level of naiete out there about this and thousands of other sources of "information" floating around on the internet is truly unbelievable.
 
Distance to:Carlos
16.42307736Italy_Tuscany
22.35444828Italy_Marche
22.46340232Italy_Lazio
28.15513327Italy_Abruzzo
30.13375297Italy_Apulia
30.77117915Italy_Campania
30.89016454Italy_Sicily
33.77888164Italy_Calabria

 
R105LateAntiquityMausoleodiAugusto.jpeg


Whit MTA

R105MTAmodernpopulations.jpeg


R105pca.jpeg

R105 PCA

R105Iberian.jpeg


Comparison of my own kit (gray) with the R105 sample (white)
Green Match
kitscolors.jpeg

R105miKIT.jpeg


The result with modern populations that has been published in the sample thread R105

Perhaps now it is in a hard process and everyone puts their good intentions and after all the only thing we look for specialists and amateurs is that the results will one day have a quality of excellence.
According to MTA, it has patented its calculation system and says not to use the K calculators


At the moment between these two results of the R105 sample I am left with the MTA version
 

This thread has been viewed 19501 times.

Back
Top