In a message dated 12/6/2005 12:13:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, MarcatoGSD@xxxxxxx writes: For you judges out there, would you place a dog (approximate age of 5) with a missing tooth? If there is proof that said tooth was previously there, but lost due to decay or something of the like, if the rest of the bite was correct overall, would you still place that animal? It is not a disqualifying fault so why not? If a premolar, I probably wouldn't even consider it one way or the other. Evan _Asgard German Shepherds_ (http://www.asgardgsd.com/) http://www.asgardgsd.com/ Where Type Movement and Temperament come together ============================================================================ POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE PROSECUTED. For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org ============================================================================