I just got my new zenni order, and once again, they did great, for
cheap. Threee pairs of glasses (two progressive and one single-vision)
for $102.45 including shipping. Last time I bought locally, I paid
close to $600 for one pair.

I KNOW that my vision changes during the day, and I'm sure that my
prescription isn't as "perfect" as it could be. I'd also like to
customize my prescription for my various workstations. I know that can
be done with math and a ruler, but I'd really like to be able to zero
it in as close as possible. There was someone who posted here a while
back that they had purchased a set of trial lenses and made their own
prescriptions. I'm thinking I could do the same. Trial lens sets are
about $200 on ebay

There is this set for $225 with 158 pieces:
http://cgi.ebay.com/B-New-Trial-Lens...item4aa30012f0

and this set for $325 with 226 pieces
http://cgi.ebay.com/266-pcs-Metal-Ri...item3a5ccf1c23

my prescription falls into the lower range of diopters, so the extra
lenses wouldn't make a difference for me right now, but I wonder
whether it's penny wise and pound foolish to get the smaller set.

OR, there is this set with 232 pieces but in plastic rims for $225
http://cgi.ebay.com/B-New-Trial-Lens...item4aa3001572

So, my questions a

Is there anything wrong with using the plastic rims (remember I'm only
going to use these a few times a year), or are the metal rims way
better (that's the metal content to keep on-topic) ?

Does it make sense to buy the larger set?


If I do this for myself and for my wife a couple of times, the cost of
the lenses will be covered by what we would have paid at the eye
doctor in insurance copays. I'm thinking that with our current
prescriptions to get into the ball park, I ought to be able to dial it
in better than the doctor did. Is this a truly goofy idea, or am I
likely to be successful in getting a better prescription?

rangerssuck wrote:
I just got my new zenni order, and once again, they did great, for
cheap. Threee pairs of glasses (two progressive and one single-vision)
for $102.45 including shipping. Last time I bought locally, I paid
close to $600 for one pair.

I KNOW that my vision changes during the day, and I'm sure that my
prescription isn't as "perfect" as it could be. I'd also like to
customize my prescription for my various workstations. I know that can
be done with math and a ruler, but I'd really like to be able to zero
it in as close as possible. There was someone who posted here a while
back that they had purchased a set of trial lenses and made their own
prescriptions. I'm thinking I could do the same. Trial lens sets are
about $200 on ebay

There is this set for $225 with 158 pieces:
http://cgi.ebay.com/B-New-Trial-Lens...item4aa30012f0

and this set for $325 with 226 pieces
http://cgi.ebay.com/266-pcs-Metal-Ri...item3a5ccf1c23

my prescription falls into the lower range of diopters, so the extra
lenses wouldn't make a difference for me right now, but I wonder
whether it's penny wise and pound foolish to get the smaller set.

OR, there is this set with 232 pieces but in plastic rims for $225
http://cgi.ebay.com/B-New-Trial-Lens...item4aa3001572

So, my questions a

Is there anything wrong with using the plastic rims (remember I'm only
going to use these a few times a year), or are the metal rims way
better (that's the metal content to keep on-topic) ?

Does it make sense to buy the larger set?


If I do this for myself and for my wife a couple of times, the cost of
the lenses will be covered by what we would have paid at the eye
doctor in insurance copays. I'm thinking that with our current
prescriptions to get into the ball park, I ought to be able to dial it
in better than the doctor did. Is this a truly goofy idea, or am I
likely to be successful in getting a better prescription?

do you only get a prescription at the eye doctor? they're supposed to do a
complete eye exam, which you still would need to pay a copay for. the cost
of a glass prescription is minimal.

On Jul 21, 2:17*pm, "chaniarts" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
I just got my new zenni order, and once again, they did great, for
cheap. Threee pairs of glasses (two progressive and one single-vision)
for $102.45 including shipping. Last time I bought locally, I paid
close to $600 for one pair.

I KNOW that my vision changes during the day, and I'm sure that my
prescription isn't as "perfect" as it could be. I'd also like to
customize my prescription for my various workstations. I know that can
be done with math and a ruler, but I'd really like to be able to zero
it in as close as possible. There was someone who posted here a while
back that they had purchased a set of trial lenses and made their own
prescriptions. I'm thinking I could do the same. Trial lens sets are
about $200 on ebay

There is this set for $225 with 158 pieces:
http://cgi.ebay.com/B-New-Trial-Lens...Shiny-Rim-/320...

and this set for $325 with 226 pieces
http://cgi.ebay.com/266-pcs-Metal-Ri...al-Frame-Br-Ne...

my prescription falls into the lower range of diopters, so the extra
lenses wouldn't make a difference for me right now, but I wonder
whether it's penny wise and pound foolish to get the smaller set.

OR, there is this set with 232 pieces but in plastic rims for $225
http://cgi.ebay.com/B-New-Trial-Lens...c-Shiny-Rim-/3...

So, my questions a

Is there anything wrong with using the plastic rims (remember I'm only
going to use these a few times a year), or are the metal rims way
better (that's the metal content to keep on-topic) ?

Does it make sense to buy the larger set?

If I do this for myself and for my wife a couple of times, the cost of
the lenses will be covered by what we would have paid at the eye
doctor in insurance copays. I'm thinking that with our current
prescriptions to get into the ball park, I ought to be able to dial it
in better than the doctor did. Is this a truly goofy idea, or am I
likely to be successful in getting a better prescription?

do you only get a prescription at the eye doctor? they're supposed to do a
complete eye exam, which you still would need to pay a copay for. the cost
of a glass prescription is minimal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They do a complete exam, and the prescription is, indeed, part of
that, but my concern is that the testing is done in their office under
their lighting conditions at their time of day on their day of the
week. I know for sure that my vision changes through the day, and
varies depending on how much sleep I've had and who-knows-what other
factors. If I could check my eyes on my own schedule at my own
location, I THINK I could get a better result.

Interestingly (or really annoyingly), my previous insurance carrier
would only pay for the medical part of the examination and not the
refraction (prescription) part. I had to pay separately, about $30 for
that.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:13:05 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

I just got my new zenni order, and once again, they did great, for
cheap. Threee pairs of glasses (two progressive and one single-vision)
for $102.45 including shipping. Last time I bought locally, I paid
close to $600 for one pair.

I KNOW that my vision changes during the day, and I'm sure that my
prescription isn't as "perfect" as it could be. I'd also like to
customize my prescription for my various workstations.
snip
Try contacting Zinni customer service with your standard
prescription, and include your work station distances. They
were able to custom tailor both reading and computer glasses
that are ideal for me. Because of the price difference you
may want to avoid progressives/bifocals and simply get
multiple glasses. Another thing to consider is tint for
extensive computer use and/or if you are use fluorescent
task lighting. I find that their 50% yellow [about like
holochrome shooting glasses] is good for both reading and
computer, and their 50% pink/rose is very good for extended
computer usage [crt color monitor] under fluorescent light.
For extended or hot environment wear you may also want to
consider frames with a "saddle bridge" in place of the
regular nose pads. I find these much more comfortable. One
poster indicated that Zinni would fit a saddle bridge for
3.00$US to any of their frames, but when I asked about this
on my last order [about 6 weeks ago] only the frames with
saddle bridges show were so available.

Contact Zinni customer service by email at

Att: ZOCS: AJ

For people that feel bad about buying Chinese rather than
American products, be advised that most frames sold in the
U.S. are made in China even the high line designer frames
through the up-market chains.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...932852610.html



-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:18:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote the following:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:13:05 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

I just got my new zenni order, and once again, they did great, for
cheap. Threee pairs of glasses (two progressive and one single-vision)
for $102.45 including shipping. Last time I bought locally, I paid
close to $600 for one pair.

I got -real- lenses in my glasses, not progressives.


I KNOW that my vision changes during the day, and I'm sure that my
prescription isn't as "perfect" as it could be. I'd also like to
customize my prescription for my various workstations.
snip
Try contacting Zinni customer service with your standard
prescription, and include your work station distances. They
were able to custom tailor both reading and computer glasses
that are ideal for me. Because of the price difference you
may want to avoid progressives/bifocals and simply get
multiple glasses. Another thing to consider is tint for
extensive computer use and/or if you are use fluorescent
task lighting. I find that their 50% yellow [about like
holochrome shooting glasses] is good for both reading and
computer, and their 50% pink/rose is very good for extended
computer usage [crt color monitor] under fluorescent light.
For extended or hot environment wear you may also want to
consider frames with a "saddle bridge" in place of the
regular nose pads. I find these much more comfortable. One
poster indicated that Zinni would fit a saddle bridge for
3.00$US to any of their frames, but when I asked about this
on my last order [about 6 weeks ago] only the frames with
saddle bridges show were so available.

I just received my Zenni order having broken my always-on pair of
bifocals. I ordered a pair of bifocals with 10% gray tinting, an
extra frame ($4), the polarized clip-on sunglasses for those, and a
set of bifocals for my computer. I wanted larger frames but Zenni's
software wouldn't allow it with my 62mm PD. Other than that slight
change, I'm satisfied by Zenni for the third time. Total for the
order, delivered, was $74 and change. It took just under 2 weeks to
get them. I checked at Wallyworld and their optical department wanted
me to pay either $262 or $375 for the same setup, the higher price
being for slightly higher index lenses. GFY, Sam.

--
Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels,
throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions,
without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act
with cheerfulness. -- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711

On Jul 21, 10:21*pm, Larry Jaques wrote:

I got -real- lenses in my glasses, not progressives.

I started with progressives a kong time ago. A few years ago, I tried
regular bifocals and simply could not get used to them, Different
strokes,

After reading the discussions about bi-focals versus progressive lenses
I thought I'd try a pair of computermonitor/reading bi-focals.
Got them this week from optical4less in Hong Kong; wish I'd tried them
sooner; they're SO much better than progressives for computer use and
reading.
Thanks for the tip, guys!


--
Chris Holford

On 7/22/2010 4:41 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 21, 10:21 pm, Larry wrote:

I got -real- lenses in my glasses, not progressives.

I started with progressives a kong time ago. A few years ago, I tried
regular bifocals and simply could not get used to them, Different
strokes,

I was delighted with my Zenni glasses but I put them
in the car for backup anyway.

I didn't check the 'frame width' number and ended up
with a too narrow frame. The temples splay outward
to get around my fat noggin. I guess they have those
numbers there for a reason, huh?

Next time I shall measure one of my 'comfortable'
frames and use those numbers to select the new ones.


--Winston

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:19:58 -0700, Winston
wrote:

On 7/22/2010 4:41 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 21, 10:21 pm, Larry wrote:

I got -real- lenses in my glasses, not progressives.

I started with progressives a kong time ago. A few years ago, I tried
regular bifocals and simply could not get used to them, Different
strokes,

I was delighted with my Zenni glasses but I put them
in the car for backup anyway.

I didn't check the 'frame width' number and ended up
with a too narrow frame. The temples splay outward
to get around my fat noggin. I guess they have those
numbers there for a reason, huh?

Next time I shall measure one of my 'comfortable'
frames and use those numbers to select the new ones.


--Winston

Zenni tends to have glass frames that are fine for Ornamentals G
or women. I have a "normal" face..and found the first set to be a bit
narrow.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:19:58 -0700, Winston
wrote the following:

On 7/22/2010 4:41 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 21, 10:21 pm, Larry wrote:

I got -real- lenses in my glasses, not progressives.

I started with progressives a kong time ago. A few years ago, I tried
regular bifocals and simply could not get used to them, Different
strokes,

I was delighted with my Zenni glasses but I put them
in the car for backup anyway.

My second last pair of glasses is now in the truck as backups, as is
my pair with the broken lens. That's what gloveboxes are for, non?


I didn't check the 'frame width' number and ended up
with a too narrow frame. The temples splay outward
to get around my fat noggin. I guess they have those
numbers there for a reason, huh?

Ayup. I rectum so, sir.


Next time I shall measure one of my 'comfortable'
frames and use those numbers to select the new ones.

Go into any optical frame store and try some on. Once you find one
that looks/feels good, note the frame width, temple length, bridge
width, and lens dimensions. Ask for your PD. Some slower stores are
bored and will check it just for something to do.

--
Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels,
throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions,
without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act
with cheerfulness. -- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:20:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:19:58 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Next time I shall measure one of my 'comfortable'
frames and use those numbers to select the new ones.

Zenni tends to have glass frames that are fine for Ornamentals G

So solly!


or women. I have a "normal" face..and found the first set to be a bit
narrow.

Zenni has a much wider (double entendre intentional) selection of
frames now. I got 4190 and 4513 frames, both 142mm wide. I think that
earlier frame selections only went to 125 or 130mm. Now they go to
145.

Check 'em out, Mr. Chitlin.

--
Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels,
throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions,
without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act
with cheerfulness. -- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:14:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:20:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:19:58 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Next time I shall measure one of my 'comfortable'
frames and use those numbers to select the new ones.

Zenni tends to have glass frames that are fine for Ornamentals G

So solly!


or women. I have a "normal" face..and found the first set to be a bit
narrow.

Zenni has a much wider (double entendre intentional) selection of
frames now. I got 4190 and 4513 frames, both 142mm wide. I think that
earlier frame selections only went to 125 or 130mm. Now they go to
145.

Check 'em out, Mr. Chitlin.

Ahhhzo......I will do exactly that Good Sir.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Jul 23, 11:14*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:20:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:19:58 -0700, Winston
wrote:
Next time I shall measure one of my 'comfortable'
frames and use those numbers to select the new ones.

Zenni tends to have glass frames that are fine for Ornamentals G

So solly!

or women. I have a "normal" face..and found the first set to be a bit
narrow.

Zenni has a much wider (double entendre intentional) selection of
frames now. I got 4190 and 4513 frames, both 142mm wide. I think that
earlier frame selections only went to 125 or 130mm. Now they go to
145.

Check 'em out, Mr. Chitlin.

--
Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels,
throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions,
*without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act
with cheerfulness. *-- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711

I went with 414812 frames: 141mm wide, but with a bridge 21mm wide.
The reason for the wide bridge is that for the 15 or so years that
I've been wearing progressives, EVERY one of them sat too high on my
face. That forces me, when I want to focus all the way out, to tip my
head forward and look up through the lens. Now, with the wider bridge,
I can adjust the nose pads so that looking straight ahead points my
eyes through the longer distance part of the lens. What a difference.

On 7/23/2010 7:59 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:19:58 -0700,
wrote the following:

(...)

Next time I shall measure one of my 'comfortable'
frames and use those numbers to select the new ones.

Go into any optical frame store and try some on. Once you find one
that looks/feels good, note the frame width, temple length, bridge
width, and lens dimensions. Ask for your PD. Some slower stores are
bored and will check it just for something to do.

I've got 3 or 4 old pair around here that fit fine, so I'm covered.
I measured PD myself using my dial calipers. Ouch! No, really.

I focused on a distant street light and held the 'inside' anvils
in front of my pupils. I could dial them in until I could see both
(admittedly fuzzy) anvil edges with the street light in focus.

Quick metric conversion and I wrote the number down.
Glasses worked great!

--Winston

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:22:37 -0700, Winston
wrote the following:

On 7/23/2010 7:59 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:19:58 -0700,
wrote the following:

(...)

Next time I shall measure one of my 'comfortable'
frames and use those numbers to select the new ones.

Go into any optical frame store and try some on. Once you find one
that looks/feels good, note the frame width, temple length, bridge
width, and lens dimensions. Ask for your PD. Some slower stores are
bored and will check it just for something to do.

I've got 3 or 4 old pair around here that fit fine, so I'm covered.
I measured PD myself using my dial calipers. Ouch! No, really.

I focused on a distant street light and held the 'inside' anvils
in front of my pupils. I could dial them in until I could see both
(admittedly fuzzy) anvil edges with the street light in focus.

Quick metric conversion and I wrote the number down.
Glasses worked great!

Hayseuss Crisco, Winnie. You're as che^H^H^Hfrugal and A/R as I am.

--
Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels,
throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions,
without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act
with cheerfulness. -- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711

On 7/24/2010 3:57 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

(...)

Hayseuss Crisco, Winnie. You're as che^H^H^Hfrugal and A/R as I am.

One cannot hope for finer praise.

--Winston

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:24:59 -0700, Winston
wrote the following:

On 7/24/2010 3:57 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

(...)

Hayseuss Crisco, Winnie. You're as che^H^H^Hfrugal and A/R as I am.

One cannot hope for finer praise.

!@#$%^&*() You owe me a keyboard and monitor.

--
It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness;
poverty and wealth have both failed.
-- Kin Hubbard

On 7/25/2010 5:59 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:24:59 -0700,
wrote the following:

On 7/24/2010 3:57 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

(...)

Hayseuss Crisco, Winnie. You're as che^H^H^Hfrugal and A/R as I am.

One cannot hope for finer praise.

!@#$%^&*() You owe me a keyboard and monitor.

With your efficiency and attention to detail and my good looks
we shall go far. (If I wasn't so ugly.)

--Winston

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:24:59 -0700, Winston
wrote the following:

On 7/24/2010 3:57 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

(...)

Hayseuss Crisco, Winnie. You're as che^H^H^Hfrugal and A/R as I am.

One cannot hope for finer praise.

!@#$%^&*() You owe me a keyboard and monitor.


Come by in a big truck and I'll give you 100 of each.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Anyone wanting to run for any political office anywhere probably
shouldn't have political office, any political office, anywhere.

John Husvar wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Anyone wanting to run for any political office anywhere probably
shouldn't have political office, any political office, anywhere.


True, but the military is trained to handle hopeless situations. ;-)


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

"Michael A. Terrell" fired this volley in
m:

True, but the military is trained to handle hopeless situations. ;-)

"The impossible merely takes a bit longer."
and
"Numbah One Watchdog" and "Vigilance"
(CosDiv 11 and 13 RVN)

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" fired this volley in
m:

True, but the military is trained to handle hopeless situations. ;-)

"The impossible merely takes a bit longer."
and
"Numbah One Watchdog" and "Vigilance"
(CosDiv 11 and 13 RVN)


I worked in the 'Weathervision' section at Ft. Rucker, and as a
broadcast engineer at the radio & TV station at Ft. Greely. (USARAL) I
was slotted for the AFRTS TV facility in Vietnam in '73, but when my
orders arrived they were for the US Army Cold Weather research Facility
at Ft. Greely, Alaska. We were allowed zero downtime, yet everything
was classed as 'Depot level repair only'. In spite of that, I rebuilt
the station with whatever I could find. A lot of the equipment was
classed as factory repair only, and was so old there were no spare
parts. I grabbed junk TV sets that were on their way to the landfill to
get some of the parts I needed.

http://www.ocoarcticranger75th.com/services shows the Polar Bear patch
used by USARAL.