Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old frames
are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription hasn't
changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I was minus
1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of astigmatism. The
astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests over the years but the
basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old specs work just as well
as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse over time but apparently
not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can still read the smallest print
on the charts despite the inevitable eye lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?
--
Dave Baker

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old
frames are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription
hasn't changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I
was minus 1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of
astigmatism. The astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests
over the years but the basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old
specs work just as well as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse
over time but apparently not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can
still read the smallest print on the charts despite the inevitable eye
lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?
--
Dave Baker

Christ, you get 20 years out of your frames? I book eye appointments when my
frames are smashed to pieces (fighting, accident at work, stood on them in
the dark etc). And are you not afraid of looking a little out of date after
20 years in those specs:-)?

My optician suggests I have my eyes tested every 24 months. I usually meet
his requirements due to smashed glasses and not through choice.

In the last 20 years my eyes have only altered to the "next level" on the
scale every 5 years. ie it was the next strongest lens.

Cheers

Adam

On 7/21/2010 2:30 PM, Owain wrote:
On 21 July, 19:06, "Dave Baker" wrote:
Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

Mine have got better. I needed glasses last year, but this year I
don't!

My distance vision has improved, but near vision has deteriorated.

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old
frames are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription
hasn't changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I
was minus 1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of
astigmatism. The astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests
over the years but the basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old
specs work just as well as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse
over time but apparently not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can
still read the smallest print on the charts despite the inevitable eye
lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?
--
Dave Baker

Unless you are only a little short sighted you would normally find yourself
needing bifocals or extra glasses for close work as you grow older. Some
may find their mild myopia no longer needs correction as the long
sightedness overtakes it as it were. I can't see anything much without my
glasses (which are very old, and most of the plating has gone) but at least
now I can take them off to read - albeit from 6"!

S

On 21/07/2010 19:06, Dave Baker wrote:
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old frames
are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription hasn't
changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I was minus
1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of astigmatism. The
astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests over the years but the
basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old specs work just as well
as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse over time but apparently
not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can still read the smallest print
on the charts despite the inevitable eye lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

I am short sighted. When I was young I could use the same glasses for
reading and for distance. About 5 years ago I found that I had to take
my glasses off for reading and got myself a pair reading glasses purely
for wearing at the computer as the screen was just that little bit too
far away for perfect focus. I am not sure I need the reading glasses any
more which is a good thing as one of the arms has broken off. I do have
trouble reading small print.

As to my normal glasses my prescription has apparently got slightly
weaker over the years. I keep my newest pair for driving and use
whichever is the most available of several old pairs from years past. I
think the oldest pair is over 15 years old but memory being what it is
it could just as easily be over 25 years old.

As I understand it eyeballs tend to lengthen with age which helps the
short sighted but not the long sighted.

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old
frames are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription
hasn't changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I
was minus 1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of
astigmatism. The astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests
over the years but the basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old
specs work just as well as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse
over time but apparently not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can
still read the smallest print on the charts despite the inevitable eye
lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

Mine have got significantly worse each time.

I start to notice that my spec aren't working as well after about 2 years,
but I'm a mean bugger so I stretch it out to three.

tim

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2010 19:06, Dave Baker wrote:
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old
frames
are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription hasn't
changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I was
minus
1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of astigmatism.
The
astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests over the years but
the
basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old specs work just as
well
as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse over time but apparently
not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can still read the smallest
print
on the charts despite the inevitable eye lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

I am short sighted. When I was young I could use the same glasses for
reading and for distance. About 5 years ago I found that I had to take my
glasses off for reading and got myself a pair reading glasses purely for
wearing at the computer as the screen was just that little bit too far
away for perfect focus. I am not sure I need the reading glasses any more
which is a good thing as one of the arms has broken off. I do have trouble
reading small print.

As to my normal glasses my prescription has apparently got slightly weaker
over the years. I keep my newest pair for driving and use whichever is the
most available of several old pairs from years past. I think the oldest
pair is over 15 years old but memory being what it is it could just as
easily be over 25 years old.

As I understand it eyeballs tend to lengthen with age which helps the
short sighted but not the long sighted.

Other way round: myopia is when eyeball is too long for lens and focus point
comes before the retina:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia

Presbyopia is the loss of visual accommodation with age and in 'normal'
persons this can make you need glasses for anything closer than a metre by
age 60. It is thought to be due to changes in the lens with age, and if you
were already short sighted your nearest accommodation moving out a little
can help: however, you may then find you can't thread a needle when you
could before. Us 4 eyes really can't win it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyopia

S

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:21:40 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Christ, you get 20 years out of your frames? I book eye appointments
when my frames are smashed to pieces (fighting, accident at work, stood
on them in the dark etc).

Think I've only broken two pairs of specs in 40+ years of wearing
them. I started wearing glasses about age 7... The only time I have
clear memory off is when they slipped of me nose in the garage and
one lens hit the corner of spade and shattered.

And are you not afraid of looking a little out of date after 20 years in
those specs:-)?

Personally I wear glasses to see, not as a fashion statement. How
anybody can wear and usefully see through the modern "fashion" of a
pair of letter boxes is beyond me.

My optician suggests I have my eyes tested every 24 months.

Same here, my main prescription hasn't changed significantly for the
last 30 years or so. I have just started wearing varifocals though as
age related lens hardening meant I could no longer focus closer than
about 18" with my glasses but without 'em focus goes by 6". A 12"
"dead band" is big enough to be a PITA.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 21/07/2010 19:06, Dave Baker wrote:
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old frames
are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription hasn't
changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I was minus
1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of astigmatism. The
astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests over the years but the
basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old specs work just as well
as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse over time but apparently
not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can still read the smallest print
on the charts despite the inevitable eye lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

I can't say. During my thirties my left eye started to elongate and I
was warned that my retina could detach. I ended up with a glasses lens
that was very thick in that eye. I then changed to hard contact lenses
until I was diagnosed with a cataract in the that eye. When the doctors
opperated I ended up with 20 20 vision in that eye (1998)

2008 I was diagnosed as having a detached retina and was told my vision
would never be the same again. It was not quite as good, but good enough
to drive without glasses.

Dave

Dave Baker :
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old frames
are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription hasn't
changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I was minus
1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of astigmatism. The
astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests over the years but the
basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old specs work just as well
as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse over time but apparently
not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can still read the smallest print
on the charts despite the inevitable eye lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

I first needed reading glasses in my mid-40s, and still need them 20
years later. My prescription has changed from +1.25 to +1.5 in that
time. (I've got through many dozen pairs due to loss, breakage, falling
apart, scratches, etc.)

In contrast SWMBO first needed them a couple of years ago and is up to
+2.0 already. She's not pleased :-(

--
Mike Barnes

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:21:40 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Christ, you get 20 years out of your frames? I book eye appointments
when my frames are smashed to pieces (fighting, accident at work, stood
on them in the dark etc).

Think I've only broken two pairs of specs in 40+ years of wearing
them. I started wearing glasses about age 7... The only time I have
clear memory off is when they slipped of me nose in the garage and
one lens hit the corner of spade and shattered.

And are you not afraid of looking a little out of date after 20 years in
those specs:-)?

Personally I wear glasses to see, not as a fashion statement. How
anybody can wear and usefully see through the modern "fashion" of a
pair of letter boxes is beyond me.

Agreed - I bought some 'trendy' glasses off one of these Chinese online
suppliers. The product was good quality, but the design is ****e. I wear
contacts most of the time - but when I do wear glasses, I stick with my 2002
model! :-)

Dave Baker wrote:
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old frames
are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription hasn't
changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I was minus
1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of astigmatism. The
astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests over the years but the
basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old specs work just as well
as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse over time but apparently
not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can still read the smallest print
on the charts despite the inevitable eye lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?
I have had a 9 - 10 dipotre correction for short sight but recently this
has come down to about 8 as age related long sight has kicked in I now
have varifocals to cope with the reading problem that this created

Malcolm

"John Whitworth" wrote in message
...


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:21:40 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Christ, you get 20 years out of your frames? I book eye appointments
when my frames are smashed to pieces (fighting, accident at work, stood
on them in the dark etc).

Think I've only broken two pairs of specs in 40+ years of wearing
them. I started wearing glasses about age 7... The only time I have
clear memory off is when they slipped of me nose in the garage and
one lens hit the corner of spade and shattered.

And are you not afraid of looking a little out of date after 20 years in
those specs:-)?

Personally I wear glasses to see, not as a fashion statement. How
anybody can wear and usefully see through the modern "fashion" of a
pair of letter boxes is beyond me.

Agreed - I bought some 'trendy' glasses off one of these Chinese online
suppliers. The product was good quality, but the design is ****e. I wear
contacts most of the time - but when I do wear glasses, I stick with my
2002 model! :-)

Last time I thought I ought to have new glasses - a long time go now - I
went through two or three shops, then had all the tests and went through
just about all the frames in the shop, not liking any of them. I let them go
ahead and talk me into new glasses to go with the contact lenses anyway, and
handed over my £200 odd quid. When I went to collect them and try them out,
I found I could see b'all through either of them and asked for my money
back. They had to have a whip round of their local branches to find the
£200! I've still got my old glasses many years later. Since they became
businesses rather than professions it's all gone to pot in my view: just
impractical fashion and expensive tat.

S

In message , Spamlet
writes

"John Whitworth" wrote in message
.. .


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:21:40 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Christ, you get 20 years out of your frames? I book eye appointments
when my frames are smashed to pieces (fighting, accident at work, stood
on them in the dark etc).

Think I've only broken two pairs of specs in 40+ years of wearing
them. I started wearing glasses about age 7... The only time I have
clear memory off is when they slipped of me nose in the garage and
one lens hit the corner of spade and shattered.

And are you not afraid of looking a little out of date after 20 years in
those specs:-)?

Personally I wear glasses to see, not as a fashion statement. How
anybody can wear and usefully see through the modern "fashion" of a
pair of letter boxes is beyond me.

Agreed - I bought some 'trendy' glasses off one of these Chinese online
suppliers. The product was good quality, but the design is ****e. I wear
contacts most of the time - but when I do wear glasses, I stick with my
2002 model! :-)

Last time I thought I ought to have new glasses - a long time go now - I
went through two or three shops, then had all the tests and went through
just about all the frames in the shop, not liking any of them. I let them go
ahead and talk me into new glasses to go with the contact lenses anyway, and
handed over my £200 odd quid. When I went to collect them and try them out,
I found I could see b'all through either of them and asked for my money
back. They had to have a whip round of their local branches to find the
£200!

Yeah, right



--
geoff

Something the aging d eye yer might like to try and report back on:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pre...ient=firefox-a

(Or just search "presbyopia surgery" if that only works for firefox.)

My partner's son has just had his eyes lasered and I'm jealous. But am I
*that* jealous...?

S

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "John Whitworth"
saying something like:



"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ill.co.uk...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:21:40 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Christ, you get 20 years out of your frames? I book eye appointments
when my frames are smashed to pieces (fighting, accident at work, stood
on them in the dark etc).

Think I've only broken two pairs of specs in 40+ years of wearing
them. I started wearing glasses about age 7... The only time I have
clear memory off is when they slipped of me nose in the garage and
one lens hit the corner of spade and shattered.

And are you not afraid of looking a little out of date after 20 years in
those specs:-)?

Personally I wear glasses to see, not as a fashion statement. How
anybody can wear and usefully see through the modern "fashion" of a
pair of letter boxes is beyond me.

Agreed - I bought some 'trendy' glasses off one of these Chinese online
suppliers. The product was good quality, but the design is ****e. I wear
contacts most of the time - but when I do wear glasses, I stick with my 2002
model! :-)

Christ onna bike, you must all look like Dennis Taylor
http://www.global-snooker.com/images/taylor-dennis.jpg

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "John Whitworth"
saying something like:



"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:21:40 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Christ, you get 20 years out of your frames? I book eye
appointments when my frames are smashed to pieces (fighting,
accident at work, stood on them in the dark etc).

Think I've only broken two pairs of specs in 40+ years of wearing
them. I started wearing glasses about age 7... The only time I have
clear memory off is when they slipped of me nose in the garage and
one lens hit the corner of spade and shattered.

And are you not afraid of looking a little out of date after 20
years in those specs:-)?

Personally I wear glasses to see, not as a fashion statement. How
anybody can wear and usefully see through the modern "fashion" of a
pair of letter boxes is beyond me.

Agreed - I bought some 'trendy' glasses off one of these Chinese
online suppliers. The product was good quality, but the design is
****e. I wear contacts most of the time - but when I do wear
glasses, I stick with my 2002 model! :-)

Christ onna bike, you must all look like Dennis Taylor
http://www.global-snooker.com/images/taylor-dennis.jpg

Turned the other way up with a slight reduction in size, that's what I've
worn for 20 odd years, with changes in prescription. Varifocal and
photochromic, they've served me well for sailing and in particular driving
so that I have good peripheral vision which I believe to be most important.

I give two fingers to "style". "Journalists" that write such utter crap.
Bloody ******s that do not do a useful job and sustain the chattering
glasses.

On 21 July, 22:36, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:21:40 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:
Christ, you get 20 years out of your frames? I book eye appointments
when my frames are smashed to pieces (fighting, accident at work, stood
on them in the dark etc).

Think I've only broken two pairs of specs in 40+ years of wearing
them. I started wearing glasses about age 7... The only time I have
clear memory off is when they slipped of me nose in the garage and
one lens hit the corner of spade and shattered.

And are you not afraid of looking a little out of date after 20 years in
those specs:-)?

Personally I wear glasses to see, not as a fashion statement. How
anybody can wear and usefully see through the modern "fashion" of a
pair of letter boxes is beyond me.

My optician suggests I have my eyes tested every 24 months.

Same here, my main prescription hasn't changed significantly for the
last 30 years or so. I have just started wearing varifocals though as
age related lens hardening meant I could no longer focus closer than
about 18" with my glasses but without 'em focus goes by 6". A 12"
"dead band" is big enough to be a PITA.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Only the insecure worry about their appearance.

"Spamlet" wrote in message
...
Something the aging d eye yer might like to try and report back on:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pre...ient=firefox-a

(Or just search "presbyopia surgery" if that only works for firefox.)

My partner's son has just had his eyes lasered and I'm jealous. But am I
*that* jealous...?

S





Ever tried wiring a ceiling rose in varifocals? Need to put them on upside
down.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

Christ onna bike, you must all look like Dennis Taylor
http://www.global-snooker.com/images/taylor-dennis.jpg


Why stop at half measures ?

http://tinyurl.com/bnd87e

for -

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west...6451-22964799/



michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

Christ onna bike, you must all look like Dennis Taylor
http://www.global-snooker.com/images/taylor-dennis.jpg


Why stop at half measures ?

http://tinyurl.com/bnd87e

for -

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west...6451-22964799/



michael adams

vbg

Adam

"harry" wrote in message
...
On 21 July, 22:36, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:21:40 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:
Christ, you get 20 years out of your frames? I book eye appointments
when my frames are smashed to pieces (fighting, accident at work, stood
on them in the dark etc).

Think I've only broken two pairs of specs in 40+ years of wearing
them. I started wearing glasses about age 7... The only time I have
clear memory off is when they slipped of me nose in the garage and
one lens hit the corner of spade and shattered.

And are you not afraid of looking a little out of date after 20 years
in
those specs:-)?

Personally I wear glasses to see, not as a fashion statement. How
anybody can wear and usefully see through the modern "fashion" of a
pair of letter boxes is beyond me.

My optician suggests I have my eyes tested every 24 months.

Same here, my main prescription hasn't changed significantly for the
last 30 years or so. I have just started wearing varifocals though as
age related lens hardening meant I could no longer focus closer than
about 18" with my glasses but without 'em focus goes by 6". A 12"
"dead band" is big enough to be a PITA.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Only the insecure worry about their appearance.

Everybody takes some care with their appearance.

Adam

On Jul 21, 8:34*pm, "tim...." wrote:
"Dave Baker" wrote in message

...

Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old
frames are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription
hasn't changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I
was minus 1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of
astigmatism. The astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests
over the years but the basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old
specs work just as well as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse
over time but apparently not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can
still read the smallest print on the charts despite the inevitable eye
lense hardening over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

Mine have got significantly worse each time.

I first required a prescription about 2 yrs ago. Since then it seems
to get worse each year. Up until now I've managed with off the shelf
reading glasses but I think I am going to need something more bespoke
this year. I get free tests every 12 months as ther is Glaucoma in the
family.

MBQ

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "michael adams"
saying something like:

Why stop at half measures ?

http://tinyurl.com/bnd87e

Holy ****!

On 7/22/2010 4:02 AM, John wrote:


Ever tried wiring a ceiling rose in varifocals? Need to put them on upside
down.


I know a car mechanic who had a pair specially made, with the lenses
installed upside down...

On Jul 22, 6:06 am, "Dave Baker" wrote:

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

Mine have got worse over the last year.
I had a test today. I wish I could understand what the prescription
means, and I wish the professionals would use a standard description.

"Opticians are not eye doctors and, therefore, are not licensed to
write an eyeglass prescription. A dispensing optician will take a
prescription written by an optometrist or ophthalmologist and order
and/or assemble the frames and lenses to then be dispensed and sold to
the patient."

"In practice, optometrists tend to use minus-cylinder notation,
whereas ophthalmologists and orthoptists tend to prescribe using plus-
cylinder notation. However, some ophthalmologists and orthoptists
(such as in Australia) are changing to using minus-cylinder notation."

I assume the "Axis" starts at 3 oclock and increases in a clockwise
direction. And that "Add" is a correction for close work.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:06:28 +0100, "Dave Baker"
wrote:

Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old frames
are broken and I need a new pair.

Your eye test is doing more than checking what prescription you might
need, it is also a valuable health check. 20yrs is too long if that
is what you are saying.

Every 2 - 3 yrs at least.


--
AnthonyL

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

Christ onna bike, you must all look like Dennis Taylor
http://www.global-snooker.com/images/taylor-dennis.jpg


Why stop at half measures ?

http://tinyurl.com/bnd87e

Shouldn't have gone to specsavers.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "ARWadsworth"
saying something like:

Only the insecure worry about their appearance.

Everybody takes some care with their appearance.

Some of us are just cool as ****.

On 22/07/2010 12:32, AnthonyL wrote:

Your eye test is doing more than checking what prescription you might
need, it is also a valuable health check. 20yrs is too long if that
is what you are saying.

Every 2 - 3 yrs at least.



I've had a couple of cataract operations which have left me with
distance sight in one eye and short-sight in the other. Surprisingly, it
works very well and I don't normally wear glasses at all. I wear a pair
of prescription glasses for driving - you should use all the help you
can get.

Another Dave

dave wrote:

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

I can't say. During my thirties my left eye started to elongate and I
was warned that my retina could detach. I ended up with a glasses lens
that was very thick in that eye. I then changed to hard contact lenses
until I was diagnosed with a cataract in the that eye. When the doctors
opperated I ended up with 20 20 vision in that eye (1998)

2008 I was diagnosed as having a detached retina and was told my vision
would never be the same again. It was not quite as good, but good enough
to drive without glasses.

I used to wear glasses for driving. Five years ago I had a detached
retina, and as a side-effect cataract operation was required . Since the
cataract operation I've found my distance vision better without glasses
even though the damaged eye alone has very poor vision at any distance.
There seems to be some cognitive process at work that extracts the good
patches from my damaged retina. On the other hand I am now too old to
read without glasses.

--
djc

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:30:37 -0700 (PDT), Matty F wrote:

I had a test today. I wish I could understand what the prescription
means, and I wish the professionals would use a standard description.

It's a simple mathematical conversion between the two systems. My
opthalmologist explained it to me a once and gave me the formula but
the details have faded, that's what google is for...

There are plenty of sites that explain an eye sight prescription out
there.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , djc
scribeth thus
dave wrote:

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

I can't say. During my thirties my left eye started to elongate and I
was warned that my retina could detach. I ended up with a glasses lens
that was very thick in that eye. I then changed to hard contact lenses
until I was diagnosed with a cataract in the that eye. When the doctors
opperated I ended up with 20 20 vision in that eye (1998)

2008 I was diagnosed as having a detached retina and was told my vision
would never be the same again. It was not quite as good, but good enough
to drive without glasses.

I used to wear glasses for driving. Five years ago I had a detached
retina, and as a side-effect cataract operation was required . Since the
cataract operation I've found my distance vision better without glasses
even though the damaged eye alone has very poor vision at any distance.
There seems to be some cognitive process at work that extracts the good
patches from my damaged retina. On the other hand I am now too old to
read without glasses.


Yes I had a similar thing as posterior vitreous detachment PVD which is
the precursor to a detached retina a lot of the time.. Had it welded
back into place by Argon Laser.

Almost shat meself when he said "come back after lunch and we'll weld it
up";!..

Been fine ever since and with glasses its as good as you need to be a
commercial passenger jet pilot...


Watch out for any sudden appearance of "Floaters" those little bits of
stuff you see in your eyes sometimes especially against a bright Sky or
PC screen, they are usually a strong indication that its starting to
detach, get it checked right away!...

That Argon laser is about the brightest thing you'll ever see. Blinds
you for a round 10 mins but totally painless. Just need to look at the
white alignment cross with the good eye, else they might miss the bit
there're welding around the rim, and put some spots on the bits that are
still useful!.

-Not good- as capt'n Hook would say....
--
Tony Sayer

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 6:06 am, "Dave Baker" wrote:

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

Mine have got worse over the last year.
I had a test today. I wish I could understand what the prescription
means, and I wish the professionals would use a standard description.


I thought that they did!

When in China I tried to take advantage of the claimed cheapness of glasses
there.

I took my prescription with me and went into the "bargain" shop.

The assistant couldn't understand my prescription and asked me to hand my
glasses to his technician to work out my script from them.

He wrote down exactly the same numbers that were on the prescription I had
presented!

tim

tony sayer wrote:
In article , djc

I used to wear glasses for driving. Five years ago I had a detached
retina, and as a side-effect cataract operation was required . Since the
cataract operation I've found my distance vision better without glasses
even though the damaged eye alone has very poor vision at any distance.
There seems to be some cognitive process at work that extracts the good
patches from my damaged retina. On the other hand I am now too old to
read without glasses.


Yes I had a similar thing as posterior vitreous detachment PVD which is
the precursor to a detached retina a lot of the time.. Had it welded
back into place by Argon Laser.

Watch out for any sudden appearance of "Floaters" those little bits of
stuff you see in your eyes sometimes especially against a bright Sky or
PC screen, they are usually a strong indication that its starting to
detach, get it checked right away!...

Yes, that's happened already. When the left eye detached it was several
days before I did something about it. So it needed the gas bubble treatment
and subsequently a cataract.
A few months ago I had a serious floater in the right eye and went straight
to Moorfields. That was just the vitreous detachment which is apparently
common enough at my age (55). Did not need any treatment and vision in the
right eye is unimpaired.



That Argon laser is about the brightest thing you'll ever see. Blinds
you for a round 10 mins but totally painless. Just need to look at the
white alignment cross with the good eye, else they might miss the bit
there're welding around the rim, and put some spots on the bits that are
still useful!.

-Not good- as capt'n Hook would say....


--
djc

On Jul 23, 4:45 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:30:37 -0700 (PDT), Matty F wrote:
I had a test today. I wish I could understand what the prescription
means, and I wish the professionals would use a standard description.

It's a simple mathematical conversion between the two systems. My
opthalmologist explained it to me a once and gave me the formula but
the details have faded, that's what google is for...

There are plenty of sites that explain an eye sight prescription out
there.

I've had a look at a few, and they don't explain what I want to know.

In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old
frames are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription
hasn't changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I
was minus 1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of
astigmatism. The astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests
over the years but the basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My
old specs work just as well as they ever did. I thought eyes might get
worse over time but apparently not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes
and can still read the smallest print on the charts despite the
inevitable eye lense hardening over the years.

The chart is nominally at infinity so natural ageing of the cornea
shouldn't make a difference. With any correction, obviously.

My prescription hasn't changed in over 40 years and I have a heavy
astigmatism. Down, I'm told, to wearing hard contact lenses. Stops the
lens changing shape.

--
*If vegetable oil comes from vegetables, where does baby oil come from? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:
Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old
frames are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription
hasn't changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977
I was minus 1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch
of astigmatism. The astigmatism moved around a bit over the various
tests over the years but the basic sphere correction has stayed the
same. My old specs work just as well as they ever did. I thought
eyes might get worse over time but apparently not. I'm still minus
1.75 in both eyes and can still read the smallest print on the
charts despite the inevitable eye lense hardening over the years.

The chart is nominally at infinity so natural ageing of the cornea
shouldn't make a difference. With any correction, obviously.

My prescription hasn't changed in over 40 years and I have a heavy
astigmatism. Down, I'm told, to wearing hard contact lenses. Stops the
lens changing shape.

Sorry to break in- so to speak. I suffer from Glaucoma and the medications I
take increase the likelihood and onset of cataracts. Now affecting me though
I was never advised that this was likely. Other sufferers and pupative
sufferers beware.

On 21 Jul,
"Dave Baker" wrote:

Went for a free eye test at Tesco in Slough today cos my 20 year old frames
are broken and I need a new pair. Surprisingly my prescription hasn't
changed much more than a jot in nearly 35 years. Back in 1977 I was minus
1.75 dioptres in both eyes (short sighted) with a touch of astigmatism. The
astigmatism moved around a bit over the various tests over the years but
the basic sphere correction has stayed the same. My old specs work just as
well as they ever did. I thought eyes might get worse over time but
apparently not. I'm still minus 1.75 in both eyes and can still read the
smallest print on the charts despite the inevitable eye lense hardening
over the years.

Do other people find the same or do eyes generally get worse over time?

I take it from that you're getting towards mid 50s. With that amount of short
sight you probably don't use your specs for reading. I'm about -4 and -4
astigmatism. one eye hasn't changed much since 1967, but the other has
reduced short sight in the last few years.

Reading is still fine with no specs but bifocals are deployed normally, and
an intermediate pair for comfortable computing.

I no longer can focus half way up my nose as I could 30 years ago, I now have
to use a magnifying glass for anything closer than 70mm.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On Jul 23, 7:01 am, "tim...." wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message

I had a test today. I wish I could understand what the prescription
means, and I wish the professionals would use a standard description.

I thought that they did!

When in China I tried to take advantage of the claimed cheapness of glasses
there.

I took my prescription with me and went into the "bargain" shop.

The assistant couldn't understand my prescription and asked me to hand my
glasses to his technician to work out my script from them.

He wrote down exactly the same numbers that were on the prescription I had
presented!

The prescription doesn't say which notation is being used.
I assume that in minus-cylinder notation, the cylinder value always
has a negative sign (but nobody will actually say that), and the
value is to be subtracted from the sphere value when on the specified
axis. Or maybe when at right angles to the specified axis. Who knows?
The axis is numbered clockwise, or maybe anticlockwise depending on
the patient's point of view or the optician's point of view. None of
the websites I have seen explains EXACTLY what the rules are.

And optometrists, ophthalmologists and orthoptists tend to use
different ways of specifying the prescription. Usually. Unless they
are Australians. What a bloody mess.
I've seen all this before - professionals using jargon to confuse
their clients so they just pay up and don't dare to argue.Why do the
pros use Latin instead of Right Eye and Left Eye?