question about reading glasses

I recently got an updated vison prescription. It has 2 parts:
the myopic correction, ~3 in each eye; and a reading
prescription (my first), +1.


Now, my question is: can I purchase one of those
Dean Edell spectacles, off the rack, instead of
through an optometrist? Or does my myopia
preclude that, for some reason?

--
Rich

Wooly wrote:

> I've got lots more minus correction than -3 and I don't yet need
> reading glasses. Try taking off your spex to read before you commit
> to bifocals...



I am -4.5 and take my glasses off to read and eat. I have a -3.25 pair
for the computer. I have thought about bifocals but I like my way
better.

Ace wrote:
>
>
>
> I am -4.5 and take my glasses off to read and eat. I have a -3.25 pair
> for the computer. I have thought about bifocals but I like my way
> better.


Ace is retarded and should not be taken for an adult. He spams all
over the web presenting himself as an expert on all things.

serebel wrote:
> Ace wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I am -4.5 and take my glasses off to read and eat. I have a -3.25 pair
> > for the computer. I have thought about bifocals but I like my way
> > better.
>
>
> Ace is retarded and should not be taken for an adult. He spams all
> over the web presenting himself as an expert on all things.


I think people will take me more seriously than you. I offered my own 2
cents on my myopia and taking my glasses off for reading. The OP can do
the same.

Ace wrote:
>
>
> I think people will take me more seriously than you. I offered my own 2
> cents on my myopia and taking my glasses off for reading. The OP can do
> the same.


Oh yeah, your two cents are equal to your two IQ points.

Dear Rich,

Not exactly over-the-counter, but you can get your
written prescription filled on the "net":

http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php

for about $20.

Best,

Otis



RichD wrote:
> I recently got an updated vison prescription. It has 2 parts:
> the myopic correction, ~3 in each eye; and a reading
> prescription (my first), +1.
>
>
> Now, my question is: can I purchase one of those
> Dean Edell spectacles, off the rack, instead of
> through an optometrist? Or does my myopia
> preclude that, for some reason?
>
> --
> Rich

William Stacy wrote:
> Presumably your "reading" rx is expressed as an "add" as opposed to a
> standalone +1.00, which would only rarely be needed by someone with a
> -3.00 distance Rx. If so, it translates into a -2.00 for near, which is
> not generally available OTC, so your choices would be 2 pair , one -2
> and one -3, or the equivalent bifocal or progressive.

I see. How can I (or the optician) tell which is which?
Is it understood, as conventional?

Od course, I should have thought of this during the exam...


--
Rich


> >I recently got an updated vison prescription. It has 2 parts:
> >the myopic correction, ~3 in each eye; and a reading
> >prescription (my first), +1.
> >
> >
> >Now, my question is: can I purchase one of those
> >Dean Edell spectacles, off the rack, instead of
> >through an optometrist? Or does my myopia
> >preclude that, for some reason?

What I'm guessing is your Rx, written conventionally, would be

R. -3.00
L. -3.00

ADD
R. +1.00
L. +1.00

This is understood by everyone in the industry to be -3.00 at distance
and -2.00 at near (the arithmetic sum of the two).

Written as two separate Rxs, there would be no "add" and the near Rx
would simply be

R. -2.00
L. -2.00

or if you really needed a +4.00 add like your post almost suggests,

R. +1.00
L. +1.00

and the combo (multifocal) Rx would have been written as the first one
above with +4.00 in place of the +1.00s.

clear as mud?

w.stacy, o.d.


RichD wrote:

>William Stacy wrote:
>
>
>>Presumably your "reading" rx is expressed as an "add" as opposed to a
>>standalone +1.00, which would only rarely be needed by someone with a
>>-3.00 distance Rx. If so, it translates into a -2.00 for near, which is
>>not generally available OTC, so your choices would be 2 pair , one -2
>>and one -3, or the equivalent bifocal or progressive.
>>
>>
>
>I see. How can I (or the optician) tell which is which?
>Is it understood, as conventional?
>
>Od course, I should have thought of this during the exam...
>
>
>--
>Rich
>
>
>
>
>>>I recently got an updated vison prescription. It has 2 parts:
>>>the myopic correction, ~3 in each eye; and a reading
>>>prescription (my first), +1.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now, my question is: can I purchase one of those
>>>Dean Edell spectacles, off the rack, instead of
>>>through an optometrist? Or does my myopia
>>>preclude that, for some reason?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Not exactly over-the-counter, but you can get your
> written prescription filled on the "net":
>
> http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
>
> for about $20.

Thanks.
Looks playable...



> RichD wrote:
> > I recently got an updated vison prescription. It has 2 parts:
> > the myopic correction, ~3 in each eye; and a reading
> > prescription (my first), +1.
> >
> >
> > Now, my question is: can I purchase one of those
> > Dean Edell spectacles, off the rack, instead of
> > through an optometrist? Or does my myopia
> > preclude that, for some reason?

William Stacy wrote:
> What I'm guessing is your Rx, written conventionally, would be
> R. -3.00
> L. -3.00
>
> ADD
> R. +1.00
> L. +1.00
>
> This is understood by everyone in the industry to be -3.00 at distance
> and -2.00 at near (the arithmetic sum of the two).
>
> Written as two separate Rxs, there would be no "add" and the near Rx
> would simply be
>
> R. -2.00
> L. -2.00
>
> or if you really needed a +4.00 add like your post almost suggests,
> R. +1.00
> L. +1.00
> and the combo (multifocal) Rx would have been written as the first one
> above with +4.00 in place of the +1.00s.

huh?

> clear as mud?

I'm not sure. My prescription doesn't read "add",
just the +1 in the read section. So does that really
mean -2, with an implied add? Jeezus, why is this
so complicated and murky?

--
Rich


> >>Presumably your "reading" rx is expressed as an "add" as opposed to a
> >>standalone +1.00, which would only rarely be needed by someone with a
> >>-3.00 distance Rx. If so, it translates into a -2.00 for near, which is
> >>not generally available OTC, so your choices would be 2 pair , one -2
> >>and one -3, or the equivalent bifocal or progressive.
> >
> > I see. How can I (or the optician) tell which is which?
> > Is it understood, as conventional?
> >
> >>>I recently got an updated vison prescription. It has 2 parts:
> >>>the myopic correction, ~3 in each eye; and a reading
> >>>prescription (my first), +1.
> >>>
> >>>Now, my question is: can I purchase one of those
> >>>Dean Edell spectacles, off the rack, instead of
> >>>through an optometrist? Or does my myopia
> >>>preclude that, for some reason?