Reports of Judges. 73 



No. 85. (Johnson & Lund.) These teeth will bear a favorable 

 comparison with those above mentioned, in all features, except in 

 the size of the pins, whrch, the judges decide, are too small in 

 diameter to secure the greatest strength. 



No. 508. (J. Allen & Son.) Strength, durability, cleanliness, and 

 its adaptation to everj'^ conceivable i^hj-siognomical requirement, in 

 the arrangement of the teeth and the coloring of the gums. The 

 mechanical execution of the pieces on exhibition is excellent. 



DENTAL INSTEUMENTS. 



No. 399. (John D. Chevalier & Son.) Adaptability and beauty 

 of finish, which bears out the reputation which the manufacturers 

 have long borne. 



No. 727 (S. S. White), compare favorably with the above, in 

 beauty of finish and in all essential qualities. 



D. M. DAVIDSON, j 



E. C. RUSHMORE, I Judges. 

 A. 0. HAWES. j 



Department lY. 

 FIRST GROUP. 



To the Board of Managers : 



GENTLEiiEN — The Undersigned judges in Department TV, Group 

 1, respectfully report that they have careEully examined the sev- 

 eral articles referred to them. In deciding upon the comparative 

 merits of the samples entered for competition, great scrutiny has 

 been exercised in order to weigh impartially the claims of each. 

 Fully impressed with the idea that premiums should be awarded 

 only fgr articles of decided excellence, and convinced that by this 

 course alone can the objects of the Institute be attained, the judges 

 have submitted samples from each class to thorough tests, and in 

 some instances to complete analysis, in all cases taking great care 

 to fully inform themselves as to the intrinsic and conij^arative 

 merits of the substances entered. The following is the result of 

 the deliberations of the judges. Articles of the same class are 

 given in the relative order of merit, together with a brief summaiy 

 of such points of excellence in each as are deemed worthy of spe- 

 cial notice. 



