Reasonable prices for great glasses

If one were to avoid the Costcos/Walmart's, and go with high-quality
local optometrists, I understand prices are going to be much higher.

Just for lenses, what can we expect for single vision lenses, at high
index (1.67) and high quality AR coatings (preferably the Alize's)? How
about for bifocal/progressives with possibly even higher index (due to
higher prescription)?

For the Crizal Alize's, is it generally going to cost over $400 just
for the lenses for single vision high index and much more for
progressives? A local optometrist charged us that much for single
vision, and I'm shopping around for progressives for my father and was
wondering what we can expect to pay for high quality lenses for him.
Given the price we paid, I imagine it would be much higher, and I just
wanted to make sure we were prepared! Also, hope to stick with good
optometrists with great service, so I understand the high premiums
involved.

Thanks very much!

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> If one were to avoid the Costcos/Walmart's, and go with high-quality
> local optometrists, I understand prices are going to be much higher.
>
> Just for lenses, what can we expect for single vision lenses, at high
> index (1.67) and high quality AR coatings (preferably the Alize's)? How
> about for bifocal/progressives with possibly even higher index (due to
> higher prescription)?
>
> For the Crizal Alize's, is it generally going to cost over $400 just
> for the lenses for single vision high index and much more for
> progressives? A local optometrist charged us that much for single
> vision, and I'm shopping around for progressives for my father and was
> wondering what we can expect to pay for high quality lenses for him.
> Given the price we paid, I imagine it would be much higher, and I just
> wanted to make sure we were prepared! Also, hope to stick with good
> optometrists with great service, so I understand the high premiums
> involved.
>
> Thanks very much!
>

Actually, both Wal-Mart and Costco carry many premium brand lenses, and the
quality of the staff that I found (sampled over 10 Wal-marts) is higher than
other chain stores and many independents. The Wal-Marts that I visited
usually had at least one very experienced optician (more than 20 years) on
duty. If you are getting progressives, this is very important (you should
always ask for the most experienced person in the store if you are getting
progressives).

Most of the other chain stores only carry mediocre quality lenses (but you
may get your glasses in an hour), and their staff is often incompetent..

"Anon E. Muss" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> [ ... ]

> Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up regretting going with
> the very best.

There is also the possibility of the most appropriate. Not everybody
needs aristocratic eye glasses. When it comes to "progressives", people
smart enough to figure out how to use them are probably smart enough to
choose a better and cheaper option. Those for whom "the best" is the
categorical answer will probably need AR-coated, low-r.i. aspherics of
the "progressive" variety, and spend quite a lot of time trying to find the
right angle to cock their heads and balance their specs on their noses to
get the best images on their retinas (retinae?).

Another thing worth mentioning is that a lot of people needing eyeglasses
are not possible to correct for absolutely perfect vision, and may not be
appreciably better off in the best of all possible glasses than they would
be in a cheaper pair. (And some, at least, people who could be corrected
for pretty good vision, do not get corrected correctly, so the best of all possible
eyeglasses would be relatively useless for them.)

Anti-reflection coatings are good if one is in some strange situation where
the backs of the eyeglasses are illuminated. However, more than 90% of the
light incident on the front of the eyeglasses passes even in uncoated eyeglasses,
and that plenty, notwithstanding that lenticular flare in uncoated eyeglasses might
be a slight problem for a bus driver or a pilot, for instance.

--
Dicky

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Anon E. Muss" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> [ ... ]
>
>> Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up
>> regretting going with the very best.

I've found this to be generally true with most any
durable goods and especially true for anything
having to do with your person. Shoes are a glowing
example.

> There is also the possibility of the most appropriate.
> Not everybody needs aristocratic eye glasses.

Sure. Someone who may need glasses once a day
for a few minutes and has a propensity to lose and
or break them.

I always get the feeling that you are not a man of
means Dicky and that you are very resentful of those
who are. Not only do you resent the supply and service
industry that you feel, without exception, is ripping you
off but you also resent the consumers of those products
and services. It's just a feeling that I get as an undertone
in all your posts.

> When it comes to "progressives", people smart
> enough to figure out how to use them are probably
> smart enough to choose a better and cheaper option.

The people who buy them are stupid. The smart people
go better and, of course, cheaper. Out of your reach?
You can placate yourself having made the "smart" choice?
I'm not saying this is the case. Just that it sort of has that
tone to it.

> Those for whom "the best" is the categorical answer
> will probably need AR-coated, low-r.i. aspherics of
> the "progressive" variety, and spend quite a lot of time
> trying to find the right angle to cock their heads and
> balance their specs on their noses to get the best
> images on their retinas (retinae?).

Yes, no end to what those silly nits will go through
to satisify their vanity of knowing they have the "best".
Why do you begrudge them that? Or is it just that
they're stupid and *need* to be enlightened by smart
people (like you).

> Another thing worth mentioning is that a lot of
> people needing eyeglasses are not possible to
> correct for absolutely perfect vision, and may not be
> appreciably better off in the best of all possible
> glasses than they would be in a cheaper pair.

Nice of you to make the judgement for them as to
what is "appreciable". Or is it that their defect is not
repairable so they should be discarded?

> (And some, at least, people who could be corrected
> for pretty good vision, do not get corrected correctly,
> so the best of all possible eyeglasses would be
> relatively useless for them.)

Ahhh, another good reason not to go with the best.
There is alway a chance you won't be treated correctly
by the (rippoff) service industry so you should not even
try and should go with the minimally (cheapest) passable
solution and minimize your (possible) losses. E-yore
from Pooh comes to mind... "o well, what's the use..."

> Anti-reflection coatings are good if one is in some
> strange situation

Like being in sunlight?

> where the backs of the eyeglasses are illuminated.

Sorry Dicky, I just never got over the home made saline
jugs in the closet.

-Quick

Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2006 23:47:38 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> 1.67 D-28 bifocals would add around $100 to the cost over single
> vision. Progressives would add about $200 to the cost over single
> vision.
>
> I haven't priced or prescribed 1.74 index lenses yet (SV and
> progressive only availabilty), but I suspect they would add around
> $100 more to the cost. They are the thinnest and most premium lenses
> available, and definitely for those who want the very best, but I
> would suspect little difference in appearance versus 1.67 lenses,
> except above +/-5.00D (this here is highly subjective -- some people
> think 1/2mm edge/center thickness is extremely obvious while others
> think 2mm edge/center thickness difference is no big deal).

Hmm, that's good to know. I think my father is no greater than a 6.00,
so 1.67's should be okay, I would think. He currently wears coke-bottle
lenses and always adjusting his glasses. It's more of a weight issue
than it is a "look" issue, for wanting to go with thin lenses.

>
> >For the Crizal Alize's, is it generally going to cost over $400 just
> >for the lenses for single vision high index and much more for
> >progressives?
>
> That is certainly NOT unreasonable, especially if you add in other
> things like polishing the edges, rimlon/rimless mounting, 1.0mm center
> thickness, etc. or the power is higher (say <-4.00 D).

Ahh, i thought price only depended on the material. So higher
prescriptions will cost more, all other things (material, index,
coating) being equal? Would astigmatism and high prescriptions
(<-6.00D) cause the price to go up a lot? Is there a way to get a
general idea of how much price goes up with prescription, or does it
always vary greatly from optometrist to optometrist?

> Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up regretting going with
> the very best. This is especially true if they were their glasses all
> the time. I have some patients who will spend $400.00 on an outfit
> they might wear 4 times a year but balk at spending $200.00 on a pair
> of glasses they were 14 hours a day, every day, for a year. It's all
> about priorities.

Absolutely agree. This is why I refuse to let my father go budget on
his glasses this time and want to buy him a great pair. However, as a
normally informed consumer, I find myself a bit uncomfortable with
shopping for glasses because it's hard to understand the pricing. Once
the optometrist gets out his calculator and starts hitting buttons, i'm
always a bit nervous!

I appreciate your responses. Thanks!

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Anon E. Muss" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > [ ... ]
>
> > Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up regretting going with
> > the very best.
>
> There is also the possibility of the most appropriate. Not everybody
> needs aristocratic eye glasses.

I used to get Pearl/Lenscrafter 2-for-1 specials. When I got a better
job, I started going to local optometrists and gotten high quality
glasses. I definitely feel like I get my money's worth. I doubt other
people notice a big difference, but I've always had problems with heavy
glasses and poor fit. I always thought regularly pushing glasses back
up was an expected part of life. I do think the added value of high
quality glasses is worth the price.

However, I still would like to have a better grasp of whether we can be
more price-conscious with eyewear, though, since the pricing method is
certainly not simple!

"Quick" <quick7135-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in message news:rXFgg.132158$(E-Mail Removed) .net...

> I always get the feeling that you are not a man of
> means Dicky ...

Well, I can usually pay off my wife's eyeglasses the
same month that she get's 'em. That should count for
something.

> > When it comes to "progressives", people smart
> > enough to figure out how to use them are probably
> > smart enough to choose a better and cheaper option.

> The people who buy them are stupid. The smart people
> go better and, of course, cheaper. Out of your reach?

I did not say or mean "stupid". But people who make choices
based on such an abstract and ill-defined trait as "quality" are
very likely ignorant of the parameters which would guide a
more rational decision.

> You can placate yourself having made the "smart" choice?
> I'm not saying this is the case. Just that it sort of has that
> tone to it.

Well if you do your buying at the high end so as to be sure of
getting "the best", you may not be able to afford "the best" of
everything. Indeed, you my find yourself subject to foreclosure
these days, particularly if you happen to have a variable-rate
mortgage, for instance.

> Yes, no end to what those silly nits will go through
> to satisfy their vanity of knowing they have the "best".
> Why do you begrudge them that? Or is it just that
> they're stupid and *need* to be enlightened by smart
> people (like you).

I don't begrudge them or wish to enlighten them, nor you.
But maybe I'd speculate on their properties when they go
up for auction.

The OP mentioned buying eyeglasses for his father, but was
talking about Crizal Alize and "progressive". I mean to convey
that I don't think an old man needs, or will be benefited by,
anti-reflection progressives. I know lots of people, and most
of them are old. The only ones I know who are wearing anti-
reflection progressives are the ladies. It is so they can find their
salad fork and their salad, and recognize the speaker at the
podium, and seem not to have lenses in their fancy frames.

> Sorry Dicky, I just never got over the home made saline
> jugs in the closet.

Wait until you hear about the fossil water that is, as we speak,
entering our water supply.

--
Dicky

It isn't fair to group the quality of eyeglasses by the vendor that
they are purchased from. Here in Illinois, for example, the person who
manufactures your eyeglasses has never had to meet any type of
standards to do their job. In Illinois your hair stylist is a licensed
professional, the person who puts chemicals on your lawn is a licensed
professional...but the person who made your eyeglasses is not required
to graduate from high school or pass a math test or take any
apprenticeship.

Therefore, the kid who made your eyeglasses might have been selling
tires the day before. This problem is not unique to Costco, WalMart or
even private doctors' offices.

When you get really poor eyeglasses, don't complain to the chain that
paid the employee a sales clerk salary...blame your state legislator
that lets the profession of opticianry go unregulated!
Mark A wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> > If one were to avoid the Costcos/Walmart's, and go with high-quality
> > local optometrists, I understand prices are going to be much higher.
> >
> > Just for lenses, what can we expect for single vision lenses, at high
> > index (1.67) and high quality AR coatings (preferably the Alize's)? How
> > about for bifocal/progressives with possibly even higher index (due to
> > higher prescription)?
> >
> > For the Crizal Alize's, is it generally going to cost over $400 just
> > for the lenses for single vision high index and much more for
> > progressives? A local optometrist charged us that much for single
> > vision, and I'm shopping around for progressives for my father and was
> > wondering what we can expect to pay for high quality lenses for him.
> > Given the price we paid, I imagine it would be much higher, and I just
> > wanted to make sure we were prepared! Also, hope to stick with good
> > optometrists with great service, so I understand the high premiums
> > involved.
> >
> > Thanks very much!
> >
>
> Actually, both Wal-Mart and Costco carry many premium brand lenses, and the
> quality of the staff that I found (sampled over 10 Wal-marts) is higher than
> other chain stores and many independents. The Wal-Marts that I visited
> usually had at least one very experienced optician (more than 20 years) on
> duty. If you are getting progressives, this is very important (you should
> always ask for the most experienced person in the store if you are getting
> progressives).
>
> Most of the other chain stores only carry mediocre quality lenses (but you
> may get your glasses in an hour), and their staff is often incompetent..

Dick Adams wrote:

> "Anon E. Muss" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up regretting going
>> with the very best.
>
> There is also the possibility of the most appropriate. Not everybody
> needs aristocratic eye glasses.

Hear hear!

> When it comes to "progressives",
> people smart enough to figure out how to use them are probably smart
> enough to choose a better and cheaper option. Those for whom "the
> best" is the categorical answer will probably need AR-coated,
> low-r.i. aspherics of the "progressive" variety, and spend quite a
> lot of time trying to find the right angle to cock their heads and
> balance their specs on their noses to get the best images on their
> retinas (retinae?).

I would find that intolerable. Bad enough to have to choose just two
angles with bifocals. I have separate +2.25 reading glasses for
reading/computer, the bifocal segment is just for emergency use.

> Anti-reflection coatings are good if one is in some strange situation
> where the backs of the eyeglasses are illuminated.

Like night driving, for instance. I would find AR coatings extremely
valuable providing I could clean them by breathing on them and wiping
them on my t-shirt tail. I don't think I can have that, though :-)

> However, more
> than 90% of the light incident on the front of the eyeglasses passes
> even in uncoated eyeglasses, and that plenty, notwithstanding that
> lenticular flare in uncoated eyeglasses might be a slight problem for
> a bus driver or a pilot, for instance.

Some people feel that the very best is only just good enough for them
just BECAUSE. They're the same people who buy L'Oreal because they're
worth it.

--
Cheers, Bev
=============================================
You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape.
If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
If it moves and shouldn't, use duct tape.

Dick Adams wrote:

> "Quick" <quick7135-(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote in message news:rXFgg.132158$(E-Mail Removed) .net...
>
>> I always get the feeling that you are not a man of
>> means Dicky ...
>
> Well, I can usually pay off my wife's eyeglasses the
> same month that she get's 'em. That should count for
> something.

Just because we can afford something doesn't mean we want to spend the
money for it. I could afford a Jaguar, but I'm not going to buy one.

>> > When it comes to "progressives", people smart
>> > enough to figure out how to use them are probably
>> > smart enough to choose a better and cheaper option.
>
>> The people who buy them are stupid. The smart people
>> go better and, of course, cheaper. Out of your reach?
>
> I did not say or mean "stupid". But people who make choices
> based on such an abstract and ill-defined trait as "quality" are
> very likely ignorant of the parameters which would guide a
> more rational decision.

Repeat: hear hear!

>> You can placate yourself having made the "smart" choice?
>> I'm not saying this is the case. Just that it sort of has that
>> tone to it.
>
> Well if you do your buying at the high end so as to be sure of
> getting "the best", you may not be able to afford "the best" of
> everything. Indeed, you my find yourself subject to foreclosure
> these days, particularly if you happen to have a variable-rate
> mortgage, for instance.

In many cases, the most expensive solution is NOT the best solution to a
problem. You can lay out thousands of dollars for granite countertops
only to find out that they stain easily and have to be babied to keep
from looking crappy. Good old ceramic tile with black grout will look
new for decades and comes in LOTS of colors and designs -- it just
doesn't match the current definition of "quality".

>> Yes, no end to what those silly nits will go through
>> to satisfy their vanity of knowing they have the "best".
>> Why do you begrudge them that? Or is it just that
>> they're stupid and *need* to be enlightened by smart
>> people (like you).
>
> I don't begrudge them or wish to enlighten them, nor you.
> But maybe I'd speculate on their properties when they go
> up for auction.
>
> The OP mentioned buying eyeglasses for his father, but was
> talking about Crizal Alize and "progressive". I mean to convey
> that I don't think an old man needs, or will be benefited by,
> anti-reflection progressives. I know lots of people, and most
> of them are old. The only ones I know who are wearing anti-
> reflection progressives are the ladies. It is so they can find their
> salad fork and their salad, and recognize the speaker at the
> podium, and seem not to have lenses in their fancy frames.
>
>> Sorry Dicky, I just never got over the home made saline
>> jugs in the closet.

Ooh, was that you? That worried me a bit. I'm cheap, but not that
cheap. Generic saline is dirt cheap anyway...

> Wait until you hear about the fossil water that is, as we speak,
> entering our water supply.

Isn't that what the midwest is sucking out of the Oglala and which seems
to be running dry?

--
Cheers, Bev
=============================================
You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape.
If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
If it moves and shouldn't, use duct tape.