<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>William asked: "<FONT face="Times New =
Roman"
size=3>Any preferences out there on using DAG vs. Using McLube 1708 on =
bridges?<BR>I've not tried 1708, but am considering it. Curious if =
there
is anything<BR>outstanding about either
product.<BR><BR>William,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>I've used both.
I prefer DAG. 1708 will accomplish the same thing, (almost), but it is =
not
cosmetically as good, IMO. The whole idea is to allow the string to =
"slide" over
the bridge(s). Does it? I think not! Many European pianos use nothing on =
their
bridge tops and they were fine. Del, said that we just got used to =
seeing it and
therefore most think less of a bridge w/o it. I agree with =
him. In
reality, it does cover "flaws" quite
nicely.<G></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Best Regards, </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joe Garrett, R.P.T.<BR>Captain, Tool
Police<BR>Squares R I</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>