> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:14:45 -0800 (PST), goldbanjo
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Wore a flipper for ~2.5 years for a number of reasons.
Thanks but can I find out where I an have something thinner/smaller
but strong made? I don't care about the money anymore, unless it's
really exorbitant. It will be 8 months with this flipper and if I had
known that it would be this thick, I would have done some research.
The time from treatment plan (this tooth has to come out, from OS) to
taking the impression for the flipper was overnight, I had the
extraction the next day so I just went along with what my general
dentist said. The tooth looks great, perfect match but if there's an
alternative, any information from anyone would be appreciated. If you
went through that many and still didn't wear it except in public, it
doesn't sound hopeful.
> Had about 10 or 12 of them made, some from the lab, some
> by me, some with clasps, some without, etc.... blah blah blah.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Will tell you about a singular bar where I imbibed in another missive.
new@newb.org - 31 Jan 2009 02:31 GMT
>> Wore a flipper for ~2.5 years for a number of reasons.
>Thanks but can I find out where I an have something thinner/smaller
>but strong made?
Am sorry but it's too detailed to expound here.
Ask your GP to thin the bulk.
>I don't care about the money anymore, unless it's
>really exorbitant. It will be 8 months with this flipper and if I had
>known that it would be this thick,
Anything I could tell you here would be worthless information.
It just doesn't translate on usenet, sorry.
> The tooth looks great, perfect match but if there's an
>alternative, any information from anyone would be appreciated.
Ask your dentist to thin the appliance, especially the posterior
border. Flippers do need a certain thickness for resistance to
breakage.
>If you went through that many and still didn't wear it except in public, it
>doesn't sound hopeful.
Was experimenting with design, it was educational.
Flippers are not built for function.
It's for Show, not for Go.
Kinda like a D-45
Mark & Steven Bornfeld - 31 Jan 2009 15:57 GMT
>>> Wore a flipper for ~2.5 years for a number of reasons.
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Kinda like a D-45
I'm a little guy. I cain't hardly wrap my arms around a dred.
Steve

Signature
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
New B. - 31 Jan 2009 18:44 GMT
>> Flippers are not built for function.
>> It's for Show, not for Go.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Steve
How about an acoustic tele ?
Ever given Ovation a try ?
Don't particularly like them but they are very rugged
and project well but, I don't like the lack of back
resonance/vibration.
The thin ones with a cutaway are kewl.
The pickups are also excellent and sound
good through a PA or an "acoustic" amp.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld - 31 Jan 2009 19:06 GMT
>>> Flippers are not built for function.
>>> It's for Show, not for Go.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> How about an acoustic tele ?
They made acoustic telecasters?
> Ever given Ovation a try ?
> Don't particularly like them but they are very rugged
> and project well but, I don't like the lack of back
> resonance/vibration.
I've never played one. There was a time maybe in the early '80s when
it seemed like the only acoustic guitars you heard in studio recordings
were Ovations. They had a particular sound, I guess the audio guys
liked them--not boomy. Over at the acoustic guitar newsgroup, it's
almost as taboo to speak about Ovations as it is to speak about banjos.
Taylors get ribbed pretty good too.
Steve
> The thin ones with a cutaway are kewl.
>
> The pickups are also excellent and sound
> good through a PA or an "acoustic" amp.

Signature
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001