Are high-index 1.67 lenses worth the extra money?

The Real Bev wrote:

> When I tried RGPs they were always so irritating to my eyelids that I couldn't
> stand to wear them for more than 4 hours, all of which were sheer hell. A
> friend got them from the same optician and everything worked right on the
> first shot and she loved them. Luck of the draw.

Ugh, I'm on my second day of wearing RGPs ... they're driving me crazy!
After five hours, I was ready to either gouge my eyes out or throw the
damn lenses in the toilet. :S On top of that, my vision isn't the best
right now ... I feel like there are smudges all over the lenses (that's
what it looks like). Right now I'm not sure which is worse. I hope it
gets better soon!

Quick wrote:
>
> The Real Bev wrote:
> >>
> >> [side note: Are there "bad batches" of these things? I
> >> do not think I was rough or mishandled them.
> >
> > No idea. The lenses in the 6-pack I ordered were all
> > subtly different, but none was actually torn or broken.
>
> They weren't bad "out of the box". It just seemed that
> they self destructed with a little bit of handling. Current
> pair is going on more than a week with no problem.
>
> > I was taught to just sort of dump them out of the case
> > into the palm of my hand. Then I squirt them off with
> > either saline or cleaning solution.
>
> Yea, I was doing that. Squirting them didn't unfold them.
> and if they came out flat they most often folded up when
> I did squirt them. I have the impression (from trying a pair
> of CIBAs) that the Acuvues are exceptionally thin.

I've worn <something> that was quite thick and was supposed to last at least a
year. They were OK for a few hours, but after that they clouded up something
fierce. Most recent ones (Cooper Frequency 55, nominally 1-month lenses) were
much thinner and worked better -- when they worked at all. Most recent trial
lenses are Ocular Science <something> 2-week lenses and are much thinner. The
first three trial lenses moved around a whole lot and weren't at all
comfortable, but the most recent left one is OK -- now the guy is trying to
find the right size for my right eye. I'm not happy with half the life for
the same price, but I wasn't happy with having to throw away half of the
Coopers, either. And then I find out that Cooper just bought Ocular Science
:-(

> > Yeah, like hyperopes could ever see ANY mark on
> > the damn things! If they're right side out they look
> > like a cup. If they're inside-out they look like a soup
> > plate with a rim. Try flipping one back and forth
> > (carefully, of course) and you'll see the difference.
>
> Yea... right... I read that. I looked at the pictures. Didn't
> happen. Maybe it's just the Acuvues being so thin again.
> Yes, there does seem to be a very slight difference to
> the curve of the "cup". No, the "rim" part of the "soup plate"
> isn't really there. If you had 2 of them side by side and
> one of them inside out it would be easy to see the difference
> in curvature but with one, straight out of the case, I was
> just guessing. I think that's what makes the special mark
> neccessary with these. Confirmation came when the
> doc put one in inside out on a visit to his office. I figured
> "can't be, this guy has put in thousands of these". The
> irritation was a clue. Especially when it didn't subside
> driving home. and definitely when it popped out by itself
> at the gas station...

The few times mine went inside out I knew it immediately -- they just felt
wrong and I couldn't get them out fast enough.

> > Try putting a drop of saline or cleaning solution in the
> > cup. Helps a lot.
>
> That does seem to work when I use the inserter. The inserter
> keeps it cup shaped without dimpling the bottom. When I was
> using my finger tip (which did dimple the bottom) and put
> in a drop it had a tendency to just invert onto my finger. doh.
> start over.

I didn't know there was an inserter for softies.

> > Sometimes putting wetting drops in
> > your eyes before you start helps too.
>
> I do that too. but I have to dry what runs out to get enough
> traction to pry my eye lids open.

Ultimately what works will become a ritual and you won't have to think about
it any more.

> > 1. Put lens on tip of right index finger. Drop in a drop
> > of wet stuff.
>
> lens inverts and suctions to finger tip. start over. repeat.
>
> > 3. Bend over. (I can't imagine how people do this
> > standing straight up without having the lens fall off the
> > finger.)
>
> No problem. Acuvue soaked in AMO adheres to finger tip
> quite well

Maybe because they're way thinner.

> > When I tried RGPs they were always so irritating to my
> > eyelids that I couldn't stand to wear them for more than
> > 4 hours, all of which were sheer hell. A friend got them
> > from the same optician and everything worked right on the
> > first shot and she loved them. Luck of the draw.
>
> That's where the Wavefront lenses looked intriguing. Perfect
> fit perfectly edged?

No idea who made them, when the guy noticed that I was writing down the info
on the package he stopped giving me the packages.

> I am actually enjoying myself with all the newness and
> experimentation and the relief from hassling with readers.
> Just looking forward to finding bifocal/multifocal solution
> that lets me see at a distance as well.

The multifocal RGPs that I tried provided wonderful vision -- everything clear
and sharp no matter how close or far. Unfortunately, they moved whenever I
blinked or shifted my gaze and took a long time to find the sweet spot again.
Impractical as well as painful, but damn! the vision was good!

> I do appreciate all the tips, help, etc. Especially since
> I have the impression this group isn't really intended
> for that. The spectacle lens materials thread was great.
> I'm trying to learn all the terms as they come up. I even
> learned a bunch from the Otis thread and checked out
> some of the reference summaries.
>
> One thing... I'm assuming that "plus" lenses are for
> far sightedness and "minus" lenses for near sightedness?
> The distance part of my contacts is +1.00 and +1.50. I'm
> assuming that I'm a bit far sighted?

Yes.

> Anecdotal data point: I have 3 boys. 7yr old and 2-5yr olds.
> All bottle fed and none of them looked at the bottle. They
> *very* quickly learned to handle a bottle and just do it without
> looking. They all stared/looked at while feeding whatever they
> stare/look at while not feeding. From what I could tell it was
> always something relatively far away. (It was when they started
> walking and selecting their own bottles from the fridge that
> the markings were noticed).

When my kids were old enough to get bottles from the fridge I was just mixing
up water, dry milk and ovaltine (sometimes) on demand. I envy my spawn who
never had to sterilize bottles at 3:00 am so there'd be something for their
kids to eat in the morning. In general I disapprove of disposable stuff, but
those bottle liners are something else!

--
Cheers,
Bev
************************************************** ***************
"Why does everybody always forget the eigthth dwarf? Just because
poor old Lumpy died of cancer doesn't mean he should be written
out of history." -- RMassey

This is 4-eyes thread. If you want to talk about contacts, please start a
new thread.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, The Real Bev
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:


> > It's
> > also sex-related, which Bev may not realize. When I was first shown how

> I don't wear makeup any more (since they don't make skin spackle, there's no
> point in using any of it except the occasional swipe with a lipstick tube), so
> I guess I fit the male pattern more than the female.


I realize that I'm being a little argumentative here, but I think that
this is an acquired skill that isn't lost, although it may get rusty.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
(E-Mail Removed)

> Quick wrote:

> > I'm not squeemish and I'm pretty coordinated. I do have
> > fat fingers. The skin around my eyes is not real tight (52
> > years old) but I seem to have some pretty powerful muscles
> > in my eye lids. I destroyed a few pairs (contacts) in short
> > order -- it's like pushing slime around on your hand to get
> > them to unfƒ‚¥Æ

> > 1 tore from the edge
> > towards the center about half way. 1 ended up with a small
> > square shaped chunk out of the edge. 1 looked like it had
> > developed a crack running straight (no curvature) across the
> > lens above the center (1/3 down from the top) but not reaching
> > the edges. Not more than 3 days with each. back to the doc
> > and get another.]


I had this problem a few years back. I lost a few. I asked a nurse at
the eye doctor's office, and she suggested that soft contacts are like
springy metal or plastic. You bend them over and over, and they just keep
coming back to shape. However, if you bend them too far, they get
fatigued. For metal and plastic, you can often see the marks where it
happened. I haven't seen them on soft contacts. Anyway, they don't split
right away, but with a small amount of normal use they split where they
were bent too far. This is easy to do when you are rubbing them to clean
them, especially when they are flimsy. They get bent over, and you put a
"crease" in them. I have been very careful not to do this anymore, and
haven't lost one since.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
(E-Mail Removed)

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > > It's
> > > also sex-related, which Bev may not realize. When I was first shown how
>
> > I don't wear makeup any more (since they don't make skin spackle, there's no
> > point in using any of it except the occasional swipe with a lipstick tube), so
> > I guess I fit the male pattern more than the female.
>
> I realize that I'm being a little argumentative here, but I think that
> this is an acquired skill that isn't lost, although it may get rusty.

Har. I was NEVER good at hair or makeup. How about you?

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ========
"The last thing you want is for somebody to commit suicide
before executing them."
-Gary Deland, former Utah director for corrections