Help! Why can't I wear new glasses?

I really want new glasses because my current pair are "Transitions"
which have become oversensitive and go too dark on overcast days, and
the coating seems to have degraded so they're very hard to keep clean.

I've tried several times over the last few years to replace them and
can't get any I can actually tolerate looking through. The basic problem
is always the same, I have to "hunt" to be able to see clearly and feel
very aware that if I don't have my head at the right angle, so I'm
looking straight on, things are slightly out of focus. I practically
have to rest my chin on my chest to make a cup of tea or a sandwich etc.
This gives me a headache and a stiff neck. The opticians keep saying I
need to wear them for longer to get used to them, but if anything I feel
worse with time instead of better, and the longest I've managed to keep
wearing any is 5 days. Why has this problem only appeared in the last
few years when my prescription has barely changed?

Part of the problem is that ideally I want at least 1.6 thinning to
reduce the weight, but that causes more dispersion (colour fringing).
However, I had 1.6 lenses made in about 2003 and there's nothing wrong
with them. Besides, a pair I had made recently are plain plastic and
they're unwearable too, but the most noticeable fault with them is
excessive minifcation, especially in the vertical when looking up and
down. It makes people look short and fat and I feel too close to the
ground.

Could it be the frames? The frames for my "good" Transitions and the
other "bad" plain plastic pair are very similar in shape, which I'd
descibe as rectangular with rounded corners, and both have a 20mm
bridge, but the "good" ones sit more comfortably, lower down my nose.
The old, "good" 1.6 pair also have a wide bridge and sit low. The latest
2 pairs I've got (buy one get one free) are more angular and have 18mm
bridges, because that optician didn't stock any 20mm bridges at all!
They definitely feel too high up on my face.

The frame for the Transitions is sturdy and in good condition for its
age, and still fashionable enough, so perhaps I should try having that
reglazed? The thing that's put me off that is being without my best pair
for about a week.

--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

Tony Houghton wrote:

> I really want new glasses because my current pair are "Transitions"
> which have become oversensitive and go too dark on overcast days, and
> the coating seems to have degraded so they're very hard to keep clean.
>
> I've tried several times over the last few years to replace them and
> can't get any I can actually tolerate looking through. The basic
> problem is always the same, I have to "hunt" to be able to see
> clearly and feel very aware that if I don't have my head at the right
> angle, so I'm looking straight on, things are slightly out of focus.
> I practically have to rest my chin on my chest to make a cup of tea
> or a sandwich etc. This gives me a headache and a stiff neck. The
> opticians keep saying I need to wear them for longer to get used to
> them, but if anything I feel worse with time instead of better, and
> the longest I've managed to keep wearing any is 5 days. Why has this
> problem only appeared in the last few years when my prescription has
> barely changed?
>
> Part of the problem is that ideally I want at least 1.6 thinning to
> reduce the weight, but that causes more dispersion (colour fringing).
> However, I had 1.6 lenses made in about 2003 and there's nothing wrong
> with them. Besides, a pair I had made recently are plain plastic and
> they're unwearable too, but the most noticeable fault with them is
> excessive minifcation, especially in the vertical when looking up and
> down. It makes people look short and fat and I feel too close to the
> ground.
>
> Could it be the frames? The frames for my "good" Transitions and the
> other "bad" plain plastic pair are very similar in shape, which I'd
> descibe as rectangular with rounded corners, and both have a 20mm
> bridge, but the "good" ones sit more comfortably, lower down my nose.
> The old, "good" 1.6 pair also have a wide bridge and sit low. The
> latest 2 pairs I've got (buy one get one free) are more angular and
> have 18mm bridges, because that optician didn't stock any 20mm
> bridges at all! They definitely feel too high up on my face.
>
> The frame for the Transitions is sturdy and in good condition for its
> age, and still fashionable enough, so perhaps I should try having that
> reglazed? The thing that's put me off that is being without my best
> pair for about a week.

I'm not a professional, but I feel for you. I've had similar issues
recently. Do you have progressives or just single vision? My
conclusion, for what it's worth, is that the lenses I can stand are
aspheric. Someone else could say for sure, but this seems to come
automatically when you get to higher index. Something you might
consider anyway.

--

In <TffKn.40092$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Chuck <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Tony Houghton wrote:
>
>> I really want new glasses [...]
>> and
>> can't get any I can actually tolerate looking through. The basic
>> problem is always the same, I have to "hunt" to be able to see
>> clearly and feel very aware that if I don't have my head at the right
>> angle, so I'm looking straight on, things are slightly out of focus.
>
> I'm not a professional, but I feel for you. I've had similar issues
> recently. Do you have progressives or just single vision? My
> conclusion, for what it's worth, is that the lenses I can stand are
> aspheric. Someone else could say for sure, but this seems to come
> automatically when you get to higher index. Something you might
> consider anyway.

I have single vision with a prescription near -7 + astigmatism. The
glasses I've been OK with have always been plain plastic (CR39 I think)
and one pair of 1.6 plastic. As you say, aspherics tend to be offered
with the higher indexes, and the trouble with that is the higher
dispersion (colour fringing) which I'm sensitive to. Another trouble is
that I was told here that it's even more crucial that they're fitted
correctly, and what optician is going to bother with that these days?
It's cheaper to reserve the only proper optician for eye tests and offer
refunds to the few customers whose needs the "dispensers" (ie minimum
wage sales people) can't sort out.

I had to give up contact lenss about 10 years ago because of dry eyes,
and I can't afford laser surgery :-(.

--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

Tony Houghton wrote:


> they're fitted correctly, and what optician is going to bother with
> that these days? It's cheaper to reserve the only proper optician
> for eye tests and offer refunds to the few customers whose needs the
> "dispensers" (ie minimum wage sales people) can't sort out.
>


This is true. I hear talk on this forum about "fitting" and so forth,
but I've never had anyone seriously consider my prescription or visual
concerns when selecting or fitting glasses. They tell me if they look
cool or not, and they look to see if they are level on my head. That's
about it. Getting useful advice regarding lens material from an
optician has never happened either. Poly is always suggested as an
upgrade; no talk about optical quality, etc.

--

On May 23, 8:01*am, Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk> wrote:
> I really want new glasses
> I've tried several times over the last few years to replace them and
> can't get any I can actually tolerate looking through. The basic problem
> is always the same, I have to "hunt" to be able to see clearly and feel
> very aware that if I don't have my head at the right angle,

> However, I had 1.6 lenses made in about 2003 and there's nothing wrong
> with them. Besides, a pair I had made recently are plain plastic and

> 2 pairs I've got (buy one get one free)

The "buy one, get one free" places often use less expensive brands of
lenses (how else could they give away a "free" pair) compared to the
buy one, get one places. Have the optician check your old comfortable
pair to verify what brand of progressive was used, and use it again.

The frame is usually less of an issue than the accuracy of the measure
for the centres of the lenses and the quality of the adjustment of the
frame.

Dr Judy

On May 25, 12:21*pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article
> <531dae20-1361-46c1-961d-7b63bddb7...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> *Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > The "buy one, get one free" places often use less expensive brands of
> > lenses (how else could they give away a "free" pair) compared to the
> > buy one, get one places. *Have the optician check your old comfortable
> > pair to verify what brand of progressive was used, and use it again.
>
> > The frame is usually less of an issue than the accuracy of the measure
> > for the centres of the lenses and the quality of the adjustment of the
> > frame.
>
> I can understand how good personal attention and adjustment can affect
> someones satisfaction with glasses. I have more difficulty understanding
> what the defects there might be in "cheaper" lenses.

The discount places tend to use designs with more distortions, smaller
viewing areas, etc. I have seen several patients who were told they
were getting progressives who actually got a "no line" round bifocal.

Judy


Considering that
> optical precision for spectacle lenses is rather low (we are not talking
> about tenth wavelength error here) compared to what is technologically
> available, accurate lens manufacture is not a great cost factor. Bad
> design might be. But I have seen bad design or conception in some
> relatively expensive top of the line products. In particular, not an
> optical product, I remember spending a lot of money for a pair of gloves
> to keep my hands warm that were worse than not having any gloves at all.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> An old man would be better off never having been born.