Lew Hodgett writes:

He had a special pair of poker glasses made for use at the tables in
Las Vegas.

Were they tinted red? (grin)

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

OK Swing, what is it that you play?

I've always been hoping that you were a gittar man (not a bass player)

www.wildriverband.com (you figure it out)

Now that your worst fears are realized. : , actually it is was once even
worse than that - I played 5 string banjo in a working bluegrass band for
many a year, and still pick a little guitar for fun, but bass has been my
main axe for about 40 years, both upright and electric.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/25/05

"Bill Daly" wrote in message
I enjoyed that post Swingman - I know what you are going through. Thought
I
would let you know that its nothing to worry about. It will take a couple
of weeks for your head to reformat itself then all will be fine.

ROTFL ... "my head "reformatted"?? ... does that get rid of the FAT at the
same time?

..... a great concept, BTW, and thanks for the reassurance.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/25/05

"Mike Marlow"wrote in message

aren't completely natural. Just wait until you do the stairs... You
learn
real quick to look right down at the steps as you make your way down.
That's only in the beginning, but it does get your attention.

Yep ... I tried that, in the dark, this morning ... almost exciting as that
first parachute jump.

I think that after having worn them now for as long as I have, the real
big
complaint that I have is that they do force me to look square on at
everything and I can't just move my eyeballs to see what I want to see.

That is what I noticed first, and sorry to hear that it might not change
with use. I'll give them a couple of weeks and see how it goes. Sounds like
everything else in life, from a choice of wife to the color of your car ...
everyone is different.

Thanks for the perspective, Mike.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/25/05

"Bob Krecak" wrote in message

Recently I got my first pair of prescription glasses at age 49. They are
trifocals and at first I could not get used to them either. Then one day
at
dinner my mother saw me struggling to use them and said the key to their
use
is to position the object you are reading far enough away so you can read
it
by moving your eyes only, not your head. As soon as I tried this the
glasses
were far easier to use. Hope this helps,

It does .... I've moved the computer screen further back and that seems to
have helped, along with Edwin's suggestion about actual position of the
lenses in front of the eyes. I'll be glad if I can forget about them at some
point ... the older I get the less I like any kind of change.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/25/05

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:31:59 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

OK Swing, what is it that you play?

I've always been hoping that you were a gittar man (not a bass player)

www.wildriverband.com (you figure it out)

Man, I'm gonna get me one a dem CD's!

Now that your worst fears are realized. : ,

Nah, it coulda been worser - ya could been a drummer.

(BTW I'd send ya the drummer jokes but I think that you're the one who
posted them in the first place.)

actually it is was once even
worse than that - I played 5 string banjo in a working bluegrass band for
many a year

I be likin' it when it's picked proper and the onliest time I hate it
is when it's frailed by them damned Mummers, to the tune of Oh Dem
Golden Slippers.

, and still pick a little guitar for fun, but bass has been my
main axe for about 40 years, both upright and electric.

Well, I've always thought that a band could be topless but should
never be bottomless.

A couple years ago, during an eye exam, my doctor told me about double
D's that he had made for a few folks in one of the trades, cant'
remember which one. I have used them in the shop and think they're
great. What they are is a bifocal, which is like a letter D, with
another D on the top and the space between the straight parts of both
D's is for normal distance. These are large lens safety glasses. They
save a lot of crooking of the neck when trying to line things up or
setting blade/bit height.

I wouldn't put up with them for more than a week if you don't seem to be
getting used to them. My eye-doc told me some folks have trouble with them
and to come back if I had problems. I "kind of" got used to mine and wore
them for a couple of years; but the reading field was very narrow, like
yours. After a couple of years it was time for new ones I told them I
wanted to go back to regular bifocals. I was told they could grind an
adaptation of my old lens and if I didn't like them after a week or two they
would give me bi's. The new grinds are MUCH BETTER.

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

Man, I'm gonna get me one a dem CD's!

Check your real e-mail.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/25/05

One more on "progressive lenses."

I wear trifocals and am very happy with them. I tried the progressive and
found that every straight line had a bow. I learned to put up with it for
one set of glasses, but for the next one went to the "old fashioned" lined
lenses. I'm much happier with them. Age 67.

Some things I learned:

If you flood the surface with light, your pupil closes down, and the image
gets sharper because the there is greater depth of the focused field.
Remember back in the days when you SET the camera, how f2.8 (wide open)
would give you a lot of fuzzy and f16 (pretty small) would put everything in
focus? Works for the eye too. I went out a bought a lot of lights for my
shop. Frequently my focus problem was a light problem.

When I bought my glasses, I had a second set of lenses ground, for not very
much, from safety glass material, put in sturdy frames. They are not actual
safety glasses, but put more material between my eyes and whatevers
happening that shouldn't be.

I bought a set of "cheap reading glasses" for project work, where I needed
to see up close out of the TOP of the lens. They are very dizzymaking when
I walk with them, but they save a lot of neck craning.

When I taught computers, I had my trifocals made with a larger mid distance
piece, set for the distance that I was at standing behind a student. With
the regular grind, I had to get my head so close to the screen I was worried
about being sued for sexual harassment.

Walt C




"

Swingman wrote:
Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.

Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.

Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?

I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
work.



I use progressive bifocals and found it only took a couple days to get
used to them. Tried lined glasses later (wanted amber, polarized lenses
that weren't available in progressive) and fell on my face about every
fourth step. Guess it's what you're used to.

One of the most useful things is for the increasingly difficult short
distace vision. I now have to take my glasses off to see up close. I got
a flip-down magnifier that clips to the bill of a baseball cap that
works pretty well both for its intended use (tying flies on while
standing in the river) and in the shop. You can get them at fly fishing
stores. It doesn't get lost and is always handy.

Intense lighting helps a lot too.

Roger

Roger wrote in
:

I use progressive bifocals and found it only took a couple days to get
used to them. Tried lined glasses later (wanted amber, polarized
lenses that weren't available in progressive) and fell on my face
about every fourth step. Guess it's what you're used to.


I actually went the other way around. Had lined bifocals first (cause
I'm cheap). Couldn't stand the parallax distortion. Switched to
lineless, no problems since.

I'd actually asked a number of cow-orkers, and I think the split was
about 50-50 betweened lined and lineless, among folks who'd used both.
It seems like it's a real personal sort of thing, rather that what you
first use. (YMMV, of course).

Regards,

JT
(Check with your insurance; in my case, they charge for lineless;
however, when I opted for lined, I had something like 30 days, then I
could go back, and they'd re-do the lenses for only the difference in
price between the two. It made the decision really easy -- opt for cheap
first, and when that didn't work, pony up the few extra bucks for
lineless).

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:56:04 GMT, the inscrutable "David Merrill"
spake:

There is no such thing as quality in progressive lenses. They're
all 80% bad. Only the "sweet spot" has correction. The rest is a
blurred mess. BTDT, traded them in for bifocals + single-lens
reading glasses.

That's essentially what my optometrist told me a few years back when I was
having my eyes checked.

"John Thomas" wrote in message

I'd actually asked a number of cow-orkers, and I think the split was
about 50-50 betweened lined and lineless, among folks who'd used both.
It seems like it's a real personal sort of thing, rather that what you
first use. (YMMV, of course).

Anyone who would ork a cow simply can't be trusted.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/25/05

Gee guys, I can empathize even while still a young'n at 56. The next
stage is when you encounter the surely inevitable cataracts and throw
another set of artificial optics into the picture.

...."that looks good and straight!" ...no close the other eye! "nuts!
it's way out of whack! :-). You should imagine the challenges
presented in just hanging a picture or is the wallpaper straight.

Not everyone will encounter this PITA but if you do there is no
assurance that lens replacement surgery will result in perfect match for
focus let alone optics. Glasses do bring the match close enough to fool
the brain for most items ... until you are asked to straighten the pictures.

The upshot since the surgeries though is that I no longer need glasses
for the computer and really just for fine details now and get by with
fixed lenses to avoid the neck contortion.

Ed

Well I can certainly relate to the distortion problem that you
mention. I have tri-focal safety glasses and progressive glasses for
non work activities. Both have drawbacks when you are performing
precision alignment activities such as operating a hand electric
drill.

Try buying reading glasses, full size (not half glasses) with the
magnification that you require for a particular purpose. Wear one or
the other around your neck and change between the two as necessary.
You will not have the alignment issues with magnification only lenses.
Just don't forget to remove the magnifiers before you walk away and
let the floor come up and meet you.

STOVEBOLT wrote:

Try buying reading glasses, full size (not half glasses) with the
magnification that you require for a particular purpose. Wear one or
the other around your neck and change between the two as necessary.
You will not have the alignment issues with magnification only lenses.
Just don't forget to remove the magnifiers before you walk away and
let the floor come up and meet you.

I do use these for the closeups - the scattered all over syndrome - and
they do help. It's actually when I don't have any spec's that causes
the most interesting results :-(

I am becoming accustomed to the effects and am really thankful that most
of the distortion is not obvious when I do any cuts or similar with
single focus glasses.

....and to ease the fears of others it doesn't seem to affect longer
range viewing like when driving. I only see the one lane (or as
applicable) and going in the same general direction. :-)

Ed

Tue, Apr 26, 2005, 11:26am (EDT-1) (Swingman) laments:
Here lately (fast approaching 62) snip

I just dropped by to post, and this thread popped up. So, I
thought I'd see what you old guys were up to. Then I read this. Damn,
I'm 64, and I don't even consider myself middle-aged yet, let alone old.
You must be spending too much time thinking about it. Just ignore it,
it won't go away, but it won't bother you. That's what I do. But, if
you're having problems keeping track of your glasses, don't let 'em go
when you take 'em off. Hold 'em with your little finger, put 'em in
your shirt pocket, slide 'em in the gap between two buttons of your
shirt, or in the neck of your shirt. Then no prob. Or you could
choose the sissy route, and get one of those thingies that hook on your
glasses frame and loop behind your neck. I use a magnifrying (sic)
glass, or loupe, at times.



JOAT
A highbrow is a person educated beyond his intelligence.
- Brander Matthews

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:26:04 -0500, Swingman wrote in rec.woodworking:

Here lately (fast approaching 62)

Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?


Since you're approaching 62, I guess I have 5 more years of experience
than you do.

I did a lot of computer work wearing bifocals, and finally bought
glasses with my reading (bottom half) prescription all over. That works
fine with a computer screen. The difference in my two corrections is
small enough that I can also do shop work and such without too much
problem. I also have two pair of those really cheap magnifying glasses.
I can't remember the actual diopter numbers of those, but the ones I
used for working on things like circuit boards really get the ol' nose
down in there. I can't use those for more than a few seconds at a time,
and dasn't walk across the room with them. The other pair is weaker, and
can usually be found near the router table downstairs. I've gotten
pretty good at swapping glasses without losing the idle pair. Not too
often, that is...

--

One of the good things about modern times: if you die horribly on
television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained
us.

Tried them. Hate them. My optometrist says that about twenty five percent of
people can't (or won't) get used to them, including him.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses,
lay
them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.

Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
head
slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.

Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
What
do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?

I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
work.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/25/05

We discussed tri/bi/quad/ focals, how about lens coatings and treatments?

I have the type that darkens in the sun. I hesitated getting them for years
because I was afraid they would stay too dark. Now I won't go without them.
No more clip ons or second prescription sun glasses to carry and change.

Anti-glare is also good. With the self darkening lenses you can't have
anti-glare on the outside, but it helps even on the inside.
Ed

Thu, Apr 28, 2005, 5:31pm (EDT+4) (CW) says:
Tried them. Hate them. My optometrist says that about twenty five
percent of people can't (or won't) get used to them, including him.

All I's got is bifocals. Years back regular glasse worked great
for me. Then got an eye problem and two eye doctors agreed it would be
solved with bifocals. All it did was make me need bifocals.

When they first gave me bifocals, they had a little area, toward the
bottom, move your head any at all, and lost focus. Plus, had to tilt my
head waaay back to be in focus to read, resulting in sore neck. So I
had 'em put the bifocal area from the bottom up to almost the center of
the glasses. Works like a charm. When I'm reading, just look down, and
in focus. Look straight ahead for anything else. But, If I'm looking
at anything real close, 6" or so and less, do best by taking the glasses
off. Or, I can use a magnifying glass or loupe.

I'm thinking if they claimed I needed trifocals, I'd opt for an
extra pair of glasses for whatever the extra was for. But, I'm thinking
bifocals will suffice, and I'll stick with magnifiers for really close
work. Good for burning ants too.



JOAT
A highbrow is a person educated beyond his intelligence.
- Brander Matthews

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in
news:q0bce.3701$Xl.2711@trndny03:

I have the type that darkens in the sun. I hesitated getting them for
years because I was afraid they would stay too dark. Now I won't go
without them. No more clip ons or second prescription sun glasses to
carry and change.

Anti-glare is also good. With the self darkening lenses you can't
have anti-glare on the outside, but it helps even on the inside.
Ed


The first auto-darkening lense I got didn't work for crap. The last
couple have been *wonderful*. I'm not sure what the difference is/was -
the first set may have been glass, with the 'darkener' incoporated into
the lens.

I know the last two have been physical coatings on plastic. I won't have
glasses without this.

And also second the anti-glare. I just got this (it's by Zeiss) on the
latest pair, and I won't live without this, either. Much less specular
highlights from point-sources at night. Waaaaaaay better.

Caveat about the self-darkener -- won't help you in a car; however it
works, it's apparently UV activated; I think the car windhields must
have some sort of UV coating.

Regards,
JT

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:20:32 +0000 (UTC), John Thomas
wrote:

The first auto-darkening lense I got didn't work for crap. The last
couple have been *wonderful*. I'm not sure what the difference is/was -
the first set may have been glass, with the 'darkener' incoporated into
the lens.

I know the last two have been physical coatings on plastic. I won't have
glasses without this.

And also second the anti-glare. I just got this (it's by Zeiss) on the
latest pair, and I won't live without this, either. Much less specular
highlights from point-sources at night. Waaaaaaay better.

I've not been impressed with the difference with anti-glare coatings -
in fact on the last pair I got supposedly coated they left it off the
order and I never noticed until I had them back for adjusting and the
tech. commented on it. The anti-scratch coating seems more useful to
me - and they wouldn't do both.

Caveat about the self-darkener -- won't help you in a car; however it
works, it's apparently UV activated; I think the car windhields must
have some sort of UV coating.

Rumor is that there is a new type of self-darkening lens that reacts
to visible light rather than UV. (car windows are UV blockers to
reduce fading of the upholstery.) I'm going to check into that when I
get my new glasses this summer.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Tim Douglass wrote in
:

I've not been impressed with the difference with anti-glare coatings -
in fact on the last pair I got supposedly coated they left it off the
order and I never noticed until I had them back for adjusting and the
tech. commented on it. The anti-scratch coating seems more useful to
me - and they wouldn't do both.


Odd that they wouldn't do both -- my latest has them both (or at least
the optometrist *says* they've got both ;-) ).

Seriously, I can tell a difference with the anti glare. This coating is
really better than no coating. It wasn't cheap, but then nothing by
Zeiss is ...

Thanks for the info about 'light activated' self-darkening ... I'll be
looking for that.

Regards,
JT