Interesting, this would also presumably mean that images of vampires could not be captured on film (due to silver halide in the film emulsion) or even on some electronic cameras (those that use silver-bearing solder).
Vampires didn’t originally have fangs. the illustrations for Varney show him with a mouthful of sharp teeth, not paired fangs.
IIRS, Dracula doesn’t talk about fangs, either, although the vampire leaves, as his mark, two small punctures, which certainly suggests fangs. But Nosferatu had a pair of rat-like incisors, not separated fangs, and Bela Lugosi didn’t sport paired fangs, either. I believe that, although fangs so wonderfully suggest animals and in particular bats (although vampire bats don’t bite with a pair of fangs – that’s snakes), the image of a two-fanged vampire really started being used in films in the 1950s.
Why bother with them at all? If the Vampire is a natural being, then it would have grown appropriate teeth in the first place.
If they turn humans, then it is likely they simply sharpen their teeth at some point. Alternatively, perhaps vampirism activates some sort of atavism, and vampires begin to grow additional sets of teeth, like crocodiles or sharks. The new ones are constantly pushing out the old sets. Eventually the newer shapes replace the human ones.
He’s not the only one to be a vampire, a BR and work, there’s this detective chick too… can’t recall her name. She spent some time “embedded” with the Guard - Angua was Not Happy to have her around but it was not a vampire/werewolf thing at all, just your basic jealous woman thing.
Ok, but what about the strain of vampires who live in society and have to, you know, not look freakishly disturbing.
Pop in caps over the sharpened teeth. Goes along with the contacts and sunblock make-up. 