Surprised by OTC Reading Glasses

Well, I was thinking I'd cheat Pearle Vision and buy OTC reading glasses.
Finally I located OTC readers with the required +2.50 correction. To my
surprise, they were totally useless. I tried strengths above and below, but
nothing worked.

So what gives? My guess is there's more to correcting vision than the +
rating. What would that be? The OTC glasses had rather small lenses to keep
down costs, I suppose. Would that play a role?

Father Mike wrote:
> Well, I was thinking I'd cheat Pearle Vision and buy OTC reading glasses.
> Finally I located OTC readers with the required +2.50 correction. To my
> surprise, they were totally useless. I tried strengths above and below, but
> nothing worked.
>
> So what gives? My guess is there's more to correcting vision than the +
> rating. What would that be? The OTC glasses had rather small lenses to keep
> down costs, I suppose. Would that play a role?

Don't be so quick to fault all over-the-counter eyeglasses. I have
found some to be comparable to my incredibly overpriced prescription
glasses. Shortcomings do include a small choice of frames, possibly
incorrect pupilary distance, and lack of coating options.

However, if you need correction for astigmatism or each eye requires a
different correction, "drugstore glasses" may not work for you.

riserman

"Father Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Well, I was thinking I'd cheat Pearle Vision and buy OTC reading glasses.
> Finally I located OTC readers with the required +2.50 correction. To my
> surprise, they were totally useless. I tried strengths above and below,
> but
> nothing worked.
>
> So what gives? My guess is there's more to correcting vision than the +
> rating. What would that be? The OTC glasses had rather small lenses to
> keep
> down costs, I suppose. Would that play a role?

Probably Astigmatism correction.

For example if your reading Rx is:

+2.50 -1.50 x75

That means you need a cylinder correction of -1.50 at 75 degrees, in
addition to the sphere correction of +2.50.

On Aug 29, 4:53 pm, Father Mike <fm...@thevat.com> wrote:
> Well, I was thinking I'd cheat Pearle Vision and buy OTC reading glasses.
> Finally I located OTC readers with the required +2.50 correction. To my
> surprise, they were totally useless. I tried strengths above and below, but
> nothing worked.
>
> So what gives? My guess is there's more to correcting vision than the +
> rating. What would that be? The OTC glasses had rather small lenses to keep
> down costs, I suppose. Would that play a role?



If you have your prescription with You
If you would like, you can copy it here.
Here are many good OD that will explain you your prescription.

Lena

On Aug 29, 5:53 pm, Father Mike <fm...@thevat.com> wrote:
> Well, I was thinking I'd cheat Pearle Vision and buy OTC reading glasses.
> Finally I located OTC readers with the required +2.50 correction. To my
> surprise, they were totally useless. I tried strengths above and below, but
> nothing worked.
>
> So what gives? My guess is there's more to correcting vision than the +
> rating. What would that be? The OTC glasses had rather small lenses to keep
> down costs, I suppose. Would that play a role?

do you normally wear distance glasses?

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:01:07 -0500, Robert Martellaro wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:47:36 -0400, "Mark A" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>"Father Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> Well, I was thinking I'd cheat Pearle Vision and buy OTC reading glasses.
>>> Finally I located OTC readers with the required +2.50 correction. To my
>>> surprise, they were totally useless. I tried strengths above and below,
>>> but
>>> nothing worked.
>>>
>>> So what gives? My guess is there's more to correcting vision than the +
>>> rating. What would that be? The OTC glasses had rather small lenses to
>>> keep
>>> down costs, I suppose. Would that play a role?
>>
>>Probably Astigmatism correction.
>>
>>For example if your reading Rx is:
>>
>>+2.50 -1.50 x75
>>
>>That means you need a cylinder correction of -1.50 at 75 degrees, in
>>addition to the sphere correction of +2.50.
>>
>
> ANother possibility is that your are misreading the Rx. The "Add for reading"
> portion of your Rx is not the Rx for reading, it's the power that needs to be
> added to the distance Rx to achieve the best focus at about 16" or 40cm. For
> example, if the distance Rx is +2.00 in both eyes with an Add of +2.50, then the
> Rx for near is +4.50. If the distance Rx is -4.00, then the near would be -1.50.

Thank you. That's exactly the problem. I was inspired to read up on what
the numbers mean and I found a good web site that explained it to me.

My Prescription:

OD -5.75 -2.00x 175
OS -5.00 -2.25x 175
Near +2.50 ADD

So I'd need spherical -3.25 and -2.50 for reading. I guess there's no such
animal in OTC reading glasses, because the ones they sell are all in the +
range. I guess anything "-" falls out of the category of reading glasses
altogether.

I guess that also explains why my single vision computer glasses, which are
around spherical -2.75, make fairly decent reading glasses, better than
these damned progressives.

Thanks again for the response.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:56:58 -0700, lena102938 wrote:

> On Aug 29, 4:53 pm, Father Mike <fm...@thevat.com> wrote:
>> Well, I was thinking I'd cheat Pearle Vision and buy OTC reading glasses.
>> Finally I located OTC readers with the required +2.50 correction. To my
>> surprise, they were totally useless. I tried strengths above and below, but
>> nothing worked.
>>
>> So what gives? My guess is there's more to correcting vision than the +
>> rating. What would that be? The OTC glasses had rather small lenses to keep
>> down costs, I suppose. Would that play a role?
>
>
>
> If you have your prescription with You
> If you would like, you can copy it here.
> Here are many good OD that will explain you your prescription.
>
> Lena

I've done that now under another post. Thanks for the response.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:30:22 -0700, michael toulch wrote:

> On Aug 29, 5:53 pm, Father Mike <fm...@thevat.com> wrote:
>> Well, I was thinking I'd cheat Pearle Vision and buy OTC reading glasses.
>> Finally I located OTC readers with the required +2.50 correction. To my
>> surprise, they were totally useless. I tried strengths above and below, but
>> nothing worked.
>>
>> So what gives? My guess is there's more to correcting vision than the +
>> rating. What would that be? The OTC glasses had rather small lenses to keep
>> down costs, I suppose. Would that play a role?
>
> do you normally wear distance glasses?

I sure do, progressives. I'm impressed how technology has improved. My
lenses are no thicker than my first pair, which I got when I was 10. (I
still have them.) These high index lenses are great. I have a pair of
prescription sunglasses from many years ago and they are like Coke bottles,
because they're glass. The surprising thing is I can still use them, except
they are so heavy and I don't much care for the tint.

On or about Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:24:02 -0500 did Father Mike
<(E-Mail Removed)> dribble thusly:

>
>Thank you. That's exactly the problem. I was inspired to read up on what
>the numbers mean and I found a good web site that explained it to me.
>
>My Prescription:
>
>OD -5.75 -2.00x 175
>OS -5.00 -2.25x 175
>Near +2.50 ADD
>
>So I'd need spherical -3.25 and -2.50 for reading. I guess there's no such
>animal in OTC reading glasses, because the ones they sell are all in the +
>range. I guess anything "-" falls out of the category of reading glasses
>altogether.
>
>I guess that also explains why my single vision computer glasses, which are
>around spherical -2.75, make fairly decent reading glasses, better than
>these damned progressives.
>
>Thanks again for the response.

Even if you could find such OTC glasses, they probably wouldn't work
too well. You have 2+ diopters of astigmatism to deal with as well,
so no spherical lens is going to look sharp.

Beyond that, if you don't like progressives, why not bi-focals? Or do
you need more than two levels of correction?
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:59:00 -0400, Mike Ruskai wrote:

>
> Even if you could find such OTC glasses, they probably wouldn't work
> too well. You have 2+ diopters of astigmatism to deal with as well,
> so no spherical lens is going to look sharp.
>
> Beyond that, if you don't like progressives, why not bi-focals? Or do
> you need more than two levels of correction?

I thought about bi-focals when I got my latest pair of progressives a
couple of months ago. If only they could mock up a pair of bifocals and I
could try them to see if they agree with me. We're supposed to get a new
prescription every two years, in my case I stretch it out longer than that.
My last pair of progressives cost $500 with discounts. I'd hate to spend a
pile of money on bifocals and find I can't live with them. That's the
trouble with all glasses, unfortunately.

I don't think I need more than two levels of correction. Progressives are
good for every day wear for a variety of tasks, but for me concentrated
tasks like computer or extended reading, I find they are a PITA.

Thanks for the response.