Sorry, I didn't think you were referring to just the slight bend to form
an oval. So, yes, they certainly have been bent to that extent.
Chuck Norcutt
Marc Lawrence wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> <http://www.oyemodern.com/bracelets/wide-focus-cuff-by-re-vision/prod_145.html>
>> hasn't been bent. It was a cylinder with a section cut out. ...
>
> Are you sure? The internal dimesions show 65 x 50mm (2.5 x 2"), and that
> gap/arc missing doesn't seem enough to effect a 15mm (0.5") change in
> top to bottom diameter. This is similar to differences with others, such
> as the one I mentioned:
>
> <http://www.oyemodern.com/bracelets/aperture-cuff-by-re-vision/prod_143.html>
>
> which has internal dimensions of 65 x 45mm (2.5 x 1.75"), which actually
> a bigger difference not seeming accounted for by the gap.
>
> Aside from the one you linked to, and the one above it at the main menu
> for them, they all seem to have had similar "flattening" of their
> circles to create a more wrist-fitting shape. This is the "bend" to
> which I refer.
>
> Cheers,
> Marc
> Noosa Heads, Oz
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|