Anyone ever use an oven bag for turkey
notbob
just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I intend on using one
to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the legs. Anything I should
know? Does the turkey brown with a bag?
nb
Pete C.
I hope you have a large baking sheet to put everything on, since the bag
isn't going to provide support.
The turkey is not likely to brown in the bag, but if you tear open the
top near the end of cooking and crank up the oven you'll probably do ok.
The fond at the bottom of the bag will be more difficult to deglaze to
use for gravy making.
Personally I'd just hit the local grocery store for one of the large
disposable AL roasting pans.
Nancy Young
Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
anyway.
She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
wonderful gravy.
nancy
Wayne Boatwright
Yes, I use one every year. You still have to put the bag in a pan,
however. :)
Add a copy of tablespoons of flour to the bag. Cut several slits in the
top of the bag.
The skin does brown, but more of a golden brown, not deep brown. It also
will not be as crisp, but the meat will be much jucier.
If you want to brown and crisp the skin, you can slip it under the broiler
after removing from the bag, or use a blowtorch.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Thursday, 11(XI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Today is: Thanksgiving Day (U.S.)
************************************************************************
Not only am I a master of suspense, but I ...
************************************************************************
Wayne Boatwright
> notbob wrote:
>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey,
>> but she just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I
>> intend on using one to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the
>> legs. Anything I should know? Does the turkey brown with a bag?
>
> Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
> in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
> out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
> oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
> anyway.
I think it makes a great turkey, but it’s true that the skin isn’t as
crispy. I rub mine with butter, under and over the skin. That helps. You
can also brown it under the broiler after removing from the bag.
> She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
> wonderful gravy.
Yes, the drippings are great, and they do make a wonderful gravy.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Thursday, 11(XI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Today is: Thanksgiving Day (U.S.)
************************************************************************
'And then you turn the corner . . .' And the DM starts chuckling.
************************************************************************
Nancy Young
> On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:13:55a, Nancy Young told us...
>
>> notbob wrote:
>>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey,
>>> but she just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I
>>> intend on using one to prevent splatter and possible drippage off
>>> the legs. Anything I should know? Does the turkey brown with a
>>> bag?
>>
>> Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
>> in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
>> out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
>> oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
>> anyway.
>
> I think it makes a great turkey, but it’s true that the skin isn’t as
> crispy. I rub mine with butter, under and over the skin. That
> helps. You can also brown it under the broiler after removing from
> the bag.
Perfect. The skin isn't a big deal for me, but I know people like
it, plus you'd want that nice browned look.
>> She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
>> wonderful gravy.
>
> Yes, the drippings are great, and they do make a wonderful gravy.
Sounds good to me. Seems funny that you would have the
advice since maybe I'm just really confused, but I thought you
hated turkey. (laugh)
nancy
Wayne Boatwright
Heh! I do hate turkey, Nancy, but I always cook a bone-in turkey breast
because David loves turkey. I do like the gravy, however, since it’s made
primarily with chicken stock. I will eat a token slice of turkey at the
main meal, and one turkey sandwich later in the day. After that I’m *done*
with turkey for another year. :)
Having said that, I use the same technique for roasting a capon, which I
really love.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Thursday, 11(XI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Today is: Thanksgiving Day (U.S.)
************************************************************************
'The friendship that can cease has never been real.'- St. Jerome
************************************************************************
Nancy Young
> On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:22:20a, Nancy Young told us...
>> Sounds good to me. Seems funny that you would have the
>> advice since maybe I'm just really confused, but I thought you
>> hated turkey. (laugh)
> Heh! I do hate turkey, Nancy, but I always cook a bone-in turkey
> breast because David loves turkey.
That's a great compromise, and if it was up to me, I'd
never make whole turkeys even though I prefer the dark
meat.
Turkey on Thanksgiving, then leftover sandwiches, then that's
it for me. The glaring hole in that story is that I buy turkey
breast for sandwiches all year long. Love my turkey sandwiches.
Other leftovers are just a desperate attempt to get rid of the
rest of the monster.
I think I was traumatized by my childhood when we'd have
turkey leftovers for what seemed like a month. Surely
we didn't.
>I do like the gravy, however,
> since it’s made primarily with chicken stock. I will eat a token
> slice of turkey at the main meal, and one turkey sandwich later in
> the day. After that I’m *done* with turkey for another year. :)
>
> Having said that, I use the same technique for roasting a capon,
> which I really love.
I've never had one, never mind made one.
nancy
Wayne Boatwright
I would never buy any part of the turkey if it weren’t for David. Our
family tradition (on both sides) was always capon. I guess I just never
got used to the flavor of turkey. Capons, IMO, are wonderful and superior.
Since the rooster is neutered as a chick, it has no male hormones and,
consequently, grows huge breasts, and grows into a rather large rooster.
The dark meat is not as dark as turkey, no darker than regular chicken.
There’s also a nice fat layer to make the meat juicy. They’re not always
easy to find. I was quite surprised this year to find at least a dozen or
more frozen capons at my local Fry’s.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Thursday, 11(XI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Today is: Thanksgiving Day (U.S.)
************************************************************************
Have you waxed your armadillo today?
************************************************************************
Tara
My brother's mother-in-law makes the best turkey I have ever eaten by
following the directions and recipe on the oven bag package.
Tara
Sheldon
Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. Unless you
like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.
Christine Dabney
wrote:
>notbob wrote:
>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey, but she
>> just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. ?I intend on using one
>> to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the legs. ?Anything I should
>> know? ?Does the turkey brown with a bag?
>
>Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
>large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
>strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. Unless you
>like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.
He's out in the boondocks. Not many dollar stores around, if I
remember that area correctly.
Christine
notbob
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:53:51 -0800 (PST), Sheldon <PENM...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>>Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
>>large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
>>strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. Unless you
>>like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.
Mom's pan was "just" big enough, so didn't use bag. Lacked a rack so placed
bird on 3 spring tongs on bottom of pan opened and layed out like a chevron.
Worked great. Unfortunately, bird still came out a bit dry, even though I
yanked at 165 deg F. Probably shoulda yanked at 160. I may try a bag at
xmas, jes as a goof.
> He's out in the boondocks. Not many dollar stores around, if I
> remember that area correctly.
We just got brand new one. Haven't been yet, but tend to avoid them. Over
the years, I've only found one or two items worth buying in over a dozen
dollar stores. Ninety-nine point nine nine percent of the stuff is
worthless junk.
nb
Sheldon
> On 2008-11-27, Christine Dabney <artis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:53:51 -0800 (PST), Sheldon <PENMAR...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >>Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
> >>large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
> >>strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. �Unless you
> >>like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.
>
> Mom's pan was "just" big enough, so didn't use bag. �Lacked a rack so placed
> bird on 3 spring tongs on bottom of pan opened and layed out like a chevron.
> Worked great. �Unfortunately, bird still came out a bit dry, even though I
> yanked at 165 deg F. �Probably shoulda yanked at 160. �I may try a bag at
> xmas, jes as a goof.
>
> > He's out in the boondocks. �Not many dollar stores around, if I
> > remember that area correctly. �
>
> We just got brand new one. �Haven't been yet, but tend to avoid them. �Over
> the years, I've only found one or two items worth buying in over a dozen
> dollar stores. �Ninety-nine point nine nine percent of the stuff is
> worthless junk.
>
> nb
I wouldn't go out of my way but there's a Dollar store right next to
the liquor store, and some things are a very good buy... just two
weeks ago I needed black shoelaces, so since I was already there I
stopped in, they had an entire rack of laces, all kinds, all lengths.
all colors, even combo packs... I bought a pack of six pair of extra
long flat black laces for a buck. When I went into the stupidmarket
they had the exact same laces one pair for $1.29. In case anyone is
wondering the laces weren't for shoes, I really needed only part of
one lace to repair an old antique picture frame, the kind that sits on
a dresser like an easel stand, the black ribbon holding the movable
portion finally gave way. The flat black lace was perfect. I usually
stop in just to look, and usually buy some holiday decorations, cheapo
Halloween stuff was fine. Disposable aluminum pans are a bargain
there. But I agree, most of the Dollar store stuff is dreck.
notbob
> there. But I agree, most of the Dollar store stuff is dreck.
I still go in 'em and do a quick look-see. One of the rare deals I did find
in one dollar store was some lrg SS restaurant grade stock pot spoons (some
slotted), the kind the resto sply stores charge $8-10 ea for. Bought out
their entire stock and gave 'em out as gifts.
nb
Bertie Doe
"notbob" 'boondocks' wrote in message
> On 2008-11-27, Christine Dabney <wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:53:51 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >> wrote:
>
>>>Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
>>>large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
>>>strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. Unless you
>>>like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.
>
> Mom's pan was "just" big enough, so didn't use bag. Lacked a rack so
> placed
> bird on 3 spring tongs on bottom of pan opened and layed out like a
> chevron.
> Worked great. Unfortunately, bird still came out a bit dry, even though I
> yanked at 165 deg F. Probably shoulda yanked at 160. I may try a bag at
> xmas, jes as a goof.
>
>> He's out in the boondocks. Not many dollar stores around, if I
>> remember that area correctly.
>
> We just got brand new one. Haven't been yet, but tend to avoid them.
> Over
> the years, I've only found one or two items worth buying in over a dozen
> dollar stores. Ninety-nine point nine nine percent of the stuff is
> worthless junk.
>
> nb
I agree with Sheldon, try another method of trapping moisture in the turkey.
We tried a 16 lb in a bag once, ok the breast was more moist, but the bird
was swimming around in a gallon of juice and you miss the traditional roast
smell.
If we tried it again, might puncture holes in the bottom of the bag, sit it
on a wire rack, in a tray and remember to empty the tray every 30 mins.
Bertie
p.s. 'boondocks eh! your secret is safe with me :-)
blake murphy
it's called 'know the enemy.'
your pal,
blake
Lou Decruss
Reading glasses for a buck. I stop in even when I don't need them
because I destroy them pretty fast. I even found a pair of reading
sunglasses for a buck. They would have been at least $200 to have
made and they're perfect.
Lou
Greg Esres
However, they seem to screw up turkey no matter how they cook it.
Wayne Boatwright
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:22:20 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:13:55a, Nancy Young told us...
>>>
>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey,
>>>>> but she just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I
>>>>> intend on using one to prevent splatter and possible drippage off
>>>>> the legs. Anything I should know? Does the turkey brown with a
>>>>> bag?
>>>>
>>>> Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
>>>> in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
>>>> out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
>>>> oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> I think it makes a great turkey, but it┬ true that the skin isn┤ as
>>> crispy. I rub mine with butter, under and over the skin. That
>>> helps. You can also brown it under the broiler after removing from
>>> the bag.
>>
>> Perfect. The skin isn't a big deal for me, but I know people like
>> it, plus you'd want that nice browned look.
>>
>>>> She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
>>>> wonderful gravy.
>>>
>>> Yes, the drippings are great, and they do make a wonderful gravy.
>>
>> Sounds good to me. Seems funny that you would have the
>> advice since maybe I'm just really confused, but I thought you
>> hated turkey. (laugh)
>>
>> nancy
>
> it's called 'know the enemy.'
>
> your pal,
> blake
>
>
LOL! It is indeed.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Friday, 11(XI)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Today is: Day After Thanksgiving
Countdown till Christmas Day
3wks 5dys 11hrs 21mins
************************************************************************
My, don't we all look _smashing_ in red.
************************************************************************
notbob
> Reading glasses for a buck. I stop in even when I don't need them
> because I destroy them pretty fast. I even found a pair of reading
> sunglasses for a buck. They would have been at least $200 to have
> made and they're perfect.
That's a great idea, Lou. I've been getting mine at a thrift shop, but new
ones at a dollar store would probably be better. Better selection, too. I
absolutely refuse to pay the insane prices they charge in most retail
stores, usually at least $20 for cheap plastic Chinese glasses! I was gonna
buy mom a beaded eyeglasses lanyard, but those too were over $15 ...for a
string of cheap plastic beads!! Un-freakin-believable. I swear, some
markets are nothing but a coldly calculated rip-off of seniors.
nb
Lou Decruss
>On 2008-11-28, Lou Decruss <M...@notvalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Reading glasses for a buck. I stop in even when I don't need them
>> because I destroy them pretty fast. I even found a pair of reading
>> sunglasses for a buck. They would have been at least $200 to have
>> made and they're perfect.
>
>That's a great idea, Lou.
Thank you.
>I've been getting mine at a thrift shop, but new ones at a dollar store
>would probably be better.
I've looked there but you never know the script.
>Better selection, too.
Sometimes there's boxes to look through. Sometimes I walk out empty
handed. It's worth the stop anyway.
>I absolutely refuse to pay the insane prices they charge in most retail
>stores, usually at least $20 for cheap plastic Chinese glasses!
Yep. They're the same crap you can buy for a buck. Flea markets are
also a good place to look but we don't go to those much. The key is
when you find some buy a bunch. Like 10 pairs and your set for
awhile.
>I was gonna buy mom a beaded eyeglasses lanyard, but those too were over $15 ...
>for a string of cheap plastic beads!! Un-freakin-believable. I swear, some
>markets are nothing but a coldly calculated rip-off of seniors.
Mine are on and off hundreds of times during a day and I too need the
strap. The best ones for me are the ones with a plastic tube that
slides over the ear part of the glasses and has a rope between. I've
made them with automotive tubing and a shoelace for next to nothing.
Next time I need some I'm going to try shrink wrap and some string
from a fabric store. It will be permanent but for a buck who cares?
Lou
Sheldon
Sheldon
Yoose obviously don't value your eyes. Those cheap plastic
crackerjack prize so-called reading glasses are as in-optically
correct as is possible and will definitely damage your eyes... in a
pinch you are far better off reading with a quality hand held
magnifier (Bausche & Lomb has many styles at reasonable prices). It's
critical to have ones eyes examined yearly by a qualified medical
specialist (Opthalmologist), not only for a proper prescription but to
check for occular diseases too. No one need pay a bundle for glasses
unless they are into designer frames... ordinary prescription half
lenses are inexpensive but more importantly they are optically correct
and made for *your* eyes (both your eyes are different). Anyone
spending as much time at a computer screen each day as I'm sure you do
must have their eyes regularly examined by a real doctor and never
wear any lenses but those prescribed. If yoose are constantly
breaking/losing your glasses then you need to see a *different* kind
of doctor.
Andy
> If yoose are constantly
> breaking/losing your glasses then you need to see a *different* kind
> of doctor.
Yoose is not a word in the English language. You've been endeavoring to make
it one but it's not and never will be.
"Stupidmarket," Def: undefined noun: believed to be anywhere Sheldon shops.
You're every doctor's "dream" study!!! DON'T stop the ritalin.
Andy
Lou Decruss
wrote:
>notbob wrote:
>> Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>> > Reading glasses for a buck. ?I stop in even when I don't need them
>> > because I destroy them pretty fast. ?I even found a pair of reading
>> > sunglasses for a buck. ?They would have been at least $200 to have
>> > made and they're perfect. ?
>>
>> That's a great idea, Lou. ?I've been getting mine at a thrift shop, but new
>> ones at a dollar store would probably be better. ?Better selection, too. ?I
>> absolutely refuse to pay the insane prices they charge in most retail
>> stores, usually at least $20 for cheap plastic Chinese glasses! ?I was gonna
>> buy mom a beaded eyeglasses lanyard, but those too were over $15 ...for a
>> string of cheap plastic beads!! ?Un-freakin-believable. ?I swear, some
>> markets are nothing but a coldly calculated rip-off of seniors. ?
>>
>> nb
>
>Yoose obviously don't value your eyes. Those cheap plastic
>crackerjack prize so-called reading glasses are as in-optically
>correct as is possible and will definitely damage your eyes... in a
>pinch you are far better off reading with a quality hand held
>magnifier (Bausche & Lomb has many styles at reasonable prices). It's
>critical to have ones eyes examined yearly by a qualified medical
>specialist (Opthalmologist), not only for a proper prescription but to
>check for occular diseases too. No one need pay a bundle for glasses
>unless they are into designer frames... ordinary prescription half
>lenses are inexpensive but more importantly they are optically correct
>and made for *your* eyes (both your eyes are different). Anyone
>spending as much time at a computer screen each day as I'm sure you do
>must have their eyes regularly examined by a real doctor and never
>wear any lenses but those prescribed.
One of my eyes needs a 1.50 and one needs a 1.75. Either one will
work just fine for both eyes and have been doing the job just fine for
well over 10 years. Spending a couple hundred bucks on something I
can buy for a buck is pretty silly. Especially when the difference is
not noticeable.
>If yoose are constantly breaking/losing your glasses then you need to
>see a *different* kind of doctor.
That's silly Shemp.
Lou
Sheldon
> Sheldon said...
>
> > If yoose are constantly
> > breaking/losing your glasses then you need to see a *different* kind
> > of doctor.
>
> Yoose is not a word in the English language. You've been endeavoring to make
> it one but it's not and never will be.
Lissen up and lissen good... when I use a word it means just what I
choose it to mean, neither more nor less.
http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm
Dan Abel
Lou Decruss <M...@notvalid.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:00:20 -0800 (PST), Sheldon <PENM...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> >Yoose obviously don't value your eyes. Those cheap plastic
> >crackerjack prize so-called reading glasses are as in-optically
> >correct as is possible and will definitely damage your eyes... in a
> >pinch you are far better off reading with a quality hand held
> >magnifier (Bausche & Lomb has many styles at reasonable prices).
Many, many years ago, somebody figured out that if you took a magnifying
glass and attached it to a frame that stayed on your head, that it freed
up your hands, moved as you moved your head and went where you went.
You can buy reading glasses at the drugstore for US$20 or from a doctor
for US$200. My doctor tells me to get them at the drugstore. Certain
people need them from the doctor. Ask your doctor.
> It's
> >critical to have ones eyes examined yearly by a qualified medical
> >specialist (Opthalmologist), not only for a proper prescription but to
> >check for occular diseases too.
An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor. They go through medical school,
internship and residency before they learn anything about eyes. A lot
of what they learn is how to do eye surgery. An optometrist is not a
medical doctor. They go to optometry school for several years just to
learn about eyes. They are a doctor just like a dentist is. Their
training is in prescribing glasses (and contacts), and in diagnosing eye
diseases. They are just as quick as any other doctor to refer you to a
specialist if that's what you need. Most people do not need to see an
ophthalmologist anymore than they need to hire a hydraulic engineer to
fix a leaky faucet. I see an ophthalmologist twice a year. He does not
prescribe glasses nor check to see what correction I might need. He has
a nurse who does basic vision screening, and technicians to run tests.
When I need glasses I see my optometrist.
> No one need pay a bundle for glasses
> >unless they are into designer frames... ordinary prescription half
> >lenses are inexpensive but more importantly they are optically correct
> >and made for *your* eyes (both your eyes are different).
Many people spend hundreds of dollars just on the lenses. They can be
put in cheap frames or designer frames. It doesn't matter. If you need
those type of glasses, they are worth it. If you don't, they are a
waste. It is generally older people who need them, due to changes
inside the eye. Older means starting in the mid-40's. Your eye doctor
is the best person to talk to about this.
> Anyone
> >spending as much time at a computer screen each day as I'm sure you do
> >must have their eyes regularly examined by a real doctor and never
> >wear any lenses but those prescribed.
Wearing no glasses (if you need them) or the wrong ones will cause
headaches, eye fatigue and blurry vision. There is no long term harm,
as far as I know. If you can see fine with no glasses or the ones you
have (including drug store reading glasses), then continue on.
Everybody should have regular eye exams, though.
> One of my eyes needs a 1.50 and one needs a 1.75. Either one will
> work just fine for both eyes and have been doing the job just fine for
> well over 10 years. Spending a couple hundred bucks on something I
> can buy for a buck is pretty silly. Especially when the difference is
> not noticeable.
I asked my optometrist if I should get prescription reading glasses,
since my eyes are really screwed. He checked my near vision. He said I
needed +1.75 in one eye and +2.25 in the other. He recommended +2.00
drug store reading glasses. He said that he would be happy to sell me
prescription reading glasses for lots more money if I thought I was
still having problems.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
blake murphy
>
> Many people spend hundreds of dollars just on the lenses. They can be
> put in cheap frames or designer frames. It doesn't matter. If you need
> those type of glasses, they are worth it. If you don't, they are a
> waste. It is generally older people who need them, due to changes
> inside the eye. Older means starting in the mid-40's. Your eye doctor
> is the best person to talk to about this.
>
presbyopia.
origin: 1785–95; < Gk presby- (comb. form of présbys old, old man) +
-opia
heh, heh 'old man eyes.' one of my favorite words.
your pal,
blake
Sheldon
>>
> I asked my optometrist if I should get prescription reading glasses,
> since my eyes are really screwed. �He checked my near vision. �He said I
> needed +1.75 in one eye and +2.25 in the other. �He recommended +2.00
> drug store reading glasses. �He said that he would be happy to sell me
> prescription reading glasses for lots more money if I thought I was
> still having problems.
It's no wonder your eyes are "really screwed", mostly from excessive
jerking off but you ain't gonna jerk me off... you're a liar, and
very, VERY stupid... there are no Optomotrists that will recommend
those crackerjack toy glasses, you made that up to justify your cheap
bastardness.
Idiots who use that non-prescription eyewear are simply misers... one
day they'll wish they did otherwise... vision is the most precious
gift one gets, it is too important to fuck around with.
Rhonda Anderson
68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:00:20 -0800 (PST), Sheldon <PENM...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>> No one need pay a bundle for glasses
>> >unless they are into designer frames... ordinary prescription half
>> >lenses are inexpensive but more importantly they are optically correct
>> >and made for *your* eyes (both your eyes are different).
>
> Many people spend hundreds of dollars just on the lenses. They can be
> put in cheap frames or designer frames. It doesn't matter. If you need
> those type of glasses, they are worth it. If you don't, they are a
> waste. It is generally older people who need them, due to changes
> inside the eye. Older means starting in the mid-40's. Your eye doctor
> is the best person to talk to about this.
When I read Sheldon's post I did wonder if glasses were perhaps a lot
cheaper in the US than they are here. I am short sighted and have an
astigmatism (which affects focus so unfortunately the magnifying ones you
buy at the store don't work for me) and have had to wear glasses since I
was 8.
My last pair of glasses was over $700 and less than $200 of that was
frames. At my last checkup (and you've reminded me that I'm overdue for one
- thank you!) I was told that I'd probably need to get multifocals soon
(I'm 43) and they'll be even pricier I imagine.
I told the optometrist I didn't think it was fair that the advent of age
related long sightedness didn't just counteract my myopia and improve my
vision :-)
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia
Dan Abel
Rhonda Anderson <schuma...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote in news:dabel-8064AA.20194103122008@c-61-
> 68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
> > Many people spend hundreds of dollars just on the lenses. They can be
> > put in cheap frames or designer frames. It doesn't matter. If you need
> > those type of glasses, they are worth it. If you don't, they are a
> > waste. It is generally older people who need them, due to changes
> > inside the eye. Older means starting in the mid-40's. Your eye doctor
> > is the best person to talk to about this.
>
> When I read Sheldon's post I did wonder if glasses were perhaps a lot
> cheaper in the US than they are here. I am short sighted and have an
> astigmatism (which affects focus so unfortunately the magnifying ones you
> buy at the store don't work for me) and have had to wear glasses since I
> was 8.
>
> My last pair of glasses was over $700
AU or US dollars? (and no, I don't know the conversion anyway).
> and less than $200 of that was
> frames. At my last checkup (and you've reminded me that I'm overdue for one
> - thank you!) I was told that I'd probably need to get multifocals soon
> (I'm 43) and they'll be even pricier I imagine.
It sounds like the US is indeed cheaper. Hundred of dollars for lenses
would be for the very fanciest progressives, which some people find
indispensable. Single vision (not multifocal) lenses to correct
astigmatism and myopia ran US$25 each, last time I checked. Nice frames
are less than US$100.
Although good vision is very important for both eating and cooking,
we're a little off the topic here. Send me an Email (my address is
valid), preferably with full prescription, and I will give you my more
detailed amateur advice.
Mark Thorson
>
> I told the optometrist I didn't think it was fair that the advent of age
> related long sightedness didn't just counteract my myopia and improve my
> vision :-)
As I understand it, the vision problem that arises
in middle age is caused by reduced ability of the
muscles in the eye to accommodate for focus.
Gregory Morrow
Mark Thorson wrote:
One thing I've noticed as of late is this new fad of light - colored print
on a white background, I've been gifted with several nice books lately that
are virtually unreadable, much of the pages consist of light orange or
yellow or pink print on white background pages...
It's hassle enough to sometimes read, but this makes it all the much more
difficult...
--
Best
Greg
zxcvbob
> In article <pgddj4p1dm0grn64k...@4ax.com>,
> Lou Decruss <M...@notvalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:00:20 -0800 (PST), Sheldon <PENM...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Yoose obviously don't value your eyes. Those cheap plastic
>>> crackerjack prize so-called reading glasses are as in-optically
>>> correct as is possible and will definitely damage your eyes... in a
>>> pinch you are far better off reading with a quality hand held
>>> magnifier (Bausche & Lomb has many styles at reasonable prices).
>
> Many, many years ago, somebody figured out that if you took a magnifying
> glass and attached it to a frame that stayed on your head, that it freed
> up your hands, moved as you moved your head and went where you went.
> You can buy reading glasses at the drugstore for US$20 or from a doctor
> for US$200. My doctor tells me to get them at the drugstore. Certain
> people need them from the doctor. Ask your doctor.
>
HTH, :-)
Bob
Mark Thorson
>
> One thing I've noticed as of late is this new fad of light - colored print
> on a white background, I've been gifted with several nice books lately that
> are virtually unreadable, much of the pages consist of light orange or
> yellow or pink print on white background pages...
>
> It's hassle enough to sometimes read, but this makes it all the much more
> difficult...
Try reading it under green or blue light.
Lin
> One thing I've noticed as of late is this new fad of light - colored print
> on a white background, I've been gifted with several nice books lately that
> are virtually unreadable, much of the pages consist of light orange or
> yellow or pink print on white background pages...
As a national award winning graphic designer, I detest the overuse of
fad-type and those "trendy" style pallets that only someone with 20/20
vision can read. Whenever I had an art student interning for me, I would
have to instruct them on the finer points of typography and designing
for their audience, and that varies by the marketing project. It never
occurs to them that most people don't have the eyes of teen. Somehow,
they think what an instructor (with no recent working experience in the
field) is the be all and end all. They also design things without
working through what it takes to get it produced. For instance, small,
thin, type reversed out of a color background -- which might look good
on a proof -- will be thinner and harder to read once it goes to the
press. The ink spreads just a bit. The paper chosen can be a big factor
in text readability.
Let's just say, they learned more with me in one semester than they did
in four years of school and were ready to successfully work in design
when they graduated. My legacy! ;-)
But, as to the OP of glasses ... I'm farsighted and I think that besides
my age, 25+ years in front of a monitor have trashed my vision. I wear
multi-focal contacts AND I still need to wear some sort of reading
glasses. My up-close vision sucks, so reading is a chore if the light
isn't right, my contacts are dry, or my eyes are tired. (When all three
of those factors are present -- I just kill the computer and
fuggetaboutit). I have an assortment of glasses to wear depending upon
where I am in the house. For instance, I have one particular pair that
stays in the kitchen for reading recipes, etc. My ophthalmologist would
love to sell me another pair of prescription glasses, but he says that
the readers I get are fine. I don't cry about it when a pair gets
destroyed or goes missing.
--Lin
Pete C.
Back in my video production days, we always had a B&W preview monitor
and/or switched the regular monitor to B&W to double check that graphics
and sets looked reasonable for the color blind folks, including one of
our directors.
Dave Smith
>
>
>
> It sounds like the US is indeed cheaper. Hundred of dollars for lenses
> would be for the very fanciest progressives, which some people find
> indispensable. Single vision (not multifocal) lenses to correct
> astigmatism and myopia ran US$25 each, last time I checked. Nice frames
> are less than US$100.
My last pair of glasses, progressive bifocals and astigmatism
correction, with nice frames (not designer) were about $450 (Cdn).
Lin
> Back in my video production days, we always had a B&W preview monitor
> and/or switched the regular monitor to B&W to double check that graphics
> and sets looked reasonable for the color blind folks, including one of
> our directors.
LOL! Video is a whole other animal! I suppose someone that is color
blind probably is better at gaging the nuances of contrast, shadow and
light than those of us that deal in color.
--Lin
Dave Smith
>
>
> Back in my video production days, we always had a B&W preview monitor
> and/or switched the regular monitor to B&W to double check that graphics
> and sets looked reasonable for the color blind folks, including one of
> our directors.
Why? Do you think colour blind people see black and white?
Pete C.
Yes, and it's also possible to have text and background in different
colors that look fine in color, but have the same luminance so they are
indistinguishable in B&W or to some colorblind folks.
Pete C.
No, but if you happen to choose text and background colors with about
the same luminance values and they happen to be the right (or wrong)
colors, they are unreadable to colorblind folks.
Wayne Boatwright
There are six well-defined categories of color blindness:
Anomalous Trichromacy - A mild shift in the sensitivity of pigments of the
cones
* Protanomaly - shades of red appear weaker in depth and brightness
* Deuteranomaly - shades of green appear weaker
* Tritanomaly - very rare case where shades of blue appear weaker
Dichromacy - Great deficiency or missing completely one of the cones
* Protanopia - shades of red are greatly reduced, if present at all, in
depth and brightness
* Deuteranopia - shades of green are greatly reduced, if present at all, in
depth and brightness
* Tritanopia - very rare case where shades of blue are greatly reduced, if
present at all, in depth and brightness
The rarest of all is the inability to see any colors, in effect, seeing
everything in shades of only black, white, and grays.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Thursday, 12(XII)/04(IV)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Countdown till Christmas Day
2wks 6dys 4hrs 47mins
************************************************************************
Sex is a conversation carried out by other means. (Peter Ustinov)
************************************************************************
Mark Thorson
There's about a dozen different types of color blindness,
although only a few are common. He couldn't really check
for all of them.
On the other hand, in my experience when you switch a monitor to
B&W mode, it's actually using the green feed alone to drive all
three color guns. It isn't averaging a B&W value from the three
color feeds. Using the green feed isn't necessarily the best way
to evalute appearance of the video to the color-blind, because the
most common form of color blindness is caused by a genetic defect
for the green photosensitive pigment.
Pete C.
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Thu 04 Dec 2008 06:47:43p, Dave Smith told us...
>
> > Pete C. wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Back in my video production days, we always had a B&W preview monitor
> >> and/or switched the regular monitor to B&W to double check that graphics
> >> and sets looked reasonable for the color blind folks, including one of
> >> our directors.
> >
> > Why? Do you think colour blind people see black and white?
> >
>
> There are six well-defined categories of color blindness:
>
> Anomalous Trichromacy - A mild shift in the sensitivity of pigments of the
> cones
>
> * Protanomaly - shades of red appear weaker in depth and brightness
> * Deuteranomaly - shades of green appear weaker
> * Tritanomaly - very rare case where shades of blue appear weaker
>
> Dichromacy - Great deficiency or missing completely one of the cones
>
> * Protanopia - shades of red are greatly reduced, if present at all, in
> depth and brightness
> * Deuteranopia - shades of green are greatly reduced, if present at all, in
> depth and brightness
> * Tritanopia - very rare case where shades of blue are greatly reduced, if
> present at all, in depth and brightness
>
> The rarest of all is the inability to see any colors, in effect, seeing
> everything in shades of only black, white, and grays.
>
Yes, it is complex. The point is/was, that for us non-colorblind
production folks, checking in B&W was the most practical way to validate
that what were were producing (the graphics primarily) would be at least
discernible to anyone who was not legally blind.
Our own colorblind producer confirmed this too. I', not sure how his
colorblindness fits your descriptions, but he had difficulty
distinguishing between reds and greens of the same luminance.
Pete C.
Our monitors were definitely not using the green channel only when in
B&W mode.
Wayne Boatwright
Probably a deficiency or absence of both the red and green cones, to the
degree that they were equal but very weak or non-existent. With the worst
red/green color blindness, both appear to be the same color, which may be a
shade of tan or gray. That’s the trouble with traffic lights. Victims
must depend on the position of the lights. Unfortunately, there are still
some areas, IIRC, where the positions are reversed.
Oddly enough, while I have very good color perception and differentiation,
on a color blindness test, I sometimes find it difficult to distinguish the
faint differences in red and green. Under normal circumstances, both red
and green are both vivid and true.
Before the advent of color television, or at least before the widespread of
color broadcasting, great pains were taken in choosing colors for sets and
clothing that worked will in black and white. Distinct shades of color
and contrast were extremely important. In effect, watching blackk and
white TV was like having total color blindness. This not only applied to
television, but to black and white film as well.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Thursday, 12(XII)/04(IV)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Countdown till Christmas Day
2wks 6dys 4hrs 31mins
************************************************************************
It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness.
************************************************************************
Mark Thorson
>
> As a national award winning graphic designer, I detest the overuse of
> fad-type and those "trendy" style pallets that only someone with 20/20
> vision can read. Whenever I had an art student interning for me, I would
> have to instruct them on the finer points of typography and designing
> for their audience, and that varies by the marketing project. It never
> occurs to them that most people don't have the eyes of teen. Somehow,
> they think what an instructor (with no recent working experience in the
> field) is the be all and end all. They also design things without
> working through what it takes to get it produced. For instance, small,
> thin, type reversed out of a color background -- which might look good
> on a proof -- will be thinner and harder to read once it goes to the
> press. The ink spreads just a bit. The paper chosen can be a big factor
> in text readability.
Also, the screen color often fails to match the printing ink.
This is a problem when text is in front of color, and the color
is darker than anticipated. That's why I always knock down the
color by a shade if there's going to be text in front of it.
The reverse happens in PowerPoint presentations. Colored
backgrounds need to be bolder when displayed by a projector.
Dave Smith
>
>> Yes, it is complex. The point is/was, that for us non-colorblind
>> production folks, checking in B&W was the most practical way to validate
>> that what were were producing (the graphics primarily) would be at least
>> discernible to anyone who was not legally blind.
>>
>> Our own colorblind producer confirmed this too. I', not sure how his
>> colorblindness fits your descriptions, but he had difficulty
>> distinguishing between reds and greens of the same luminance.
>>
>
> Probably a deficiency or absence of both the red and green cones, to the
> degree that they were equal but very weak or non-existent. With the worst
> red/green color blindness, both appear to be the same color, which may be a
> shade of tan or gray. That’s the trouble with traffic lights. Victims
> must depend on the position of the lights. Unfortunately, there are still
> some areas, IIRC, where the positions are reversed.
>
> Oddly enough, while I have very good color perception and differentiation,
> on a color blindness test, I sometimes find it difficult to distinguish the
> faint differences in red and green. Under normal circumstances, both red
> and green are both vivid and true.
>
> Before the advent of color television, or at least before the widespread of
> color broadcasting, great pains were taken in choosing colors for sets and
> clothing that worked will in black and white. Distinct shades of color
> and contrast were extremely important. In effect, watching blackk and
> white TV was like having total color blindness. This not only applied to
> television, but to black and white film as well.
It's been a long time since I tool courses on physiological psychology
and perception which covered things like colour blindness, so I am a
little rusty on it. There are a lot of factors involved. Colours are
detected by the cone receptors while the rods which respond to light
intensity. However, they are more receptive to some colours than to
others. While they do not give information on colour, they are more
likely to respond to some colours than others, and green will set them
off at lower thresholds than other colours.
It starts to get tricky when you try to match intensity of various
colours. When people see a monitor in colour they are reacting to the
specific colours and to the brightness. Switching it to B&W only shows
them the levels of light, but takes away that extra sensitivity that
they would have had to the real colour image.
Wayne Boatwright
Similarly, when taking a walk at dusk, the darker it gets, the less
perceptible colors are, fading into shades of gray.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Thursday, 12(XII)/04(IV)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Countdown till Christmas Day
2wks 6dys 2hrs 1mins
************************************************************************
Nunnery - Where nuns are hatched
************************************************************************
Nancy Young
> As a national award winning graphic designer, I detest the overuse of
> fad-type and those "trendy" style pallets that only someone with 20/20
> vision can read. Whenever I had an art student interning for me, I
> would have to instruct them on the finer points of typography and
> designing for their audience, and that varies by the marketing
> project. It never occurs to them that most people don't have the eyes
> of teen. Somehow, they think what an instructor (with no recent
> working experience in the field) is the be all and end all. They also
> design things without working through what it takes to get it
> produced. For instance, small, thin, type reversed out of a color
> background -- which might look good on a proof -- will be thinner and
> harder to read once it goes to the press. The ink spreads just a bit.
> The paper chosen can be a big factor in text readability.
How interesting about your graphics background.
How many times have I seen white print on a dark background
and something doesn't line up and the print makes you feel like
you have double vision. Don't these people read their own
magazines?
I've always had better than perfect vision so if I have trouble
reading it, I imagine a lot of people just turn the page.
nancy
Gregory Morrow
Nancy Young wrote:
One of the books I referred to in my post above is a very nice two - volume
paperbound set published by the Turner Classic Movies channel, one volume is
devoted to the male stars of the studio era (30's - 60's) and the other to
female stars. Beautifully produced, an excellent resource for auld movie
mavens such as moi...but much of the text is simply unreadable because of
what Lin mentioned. This is something too that I'd guess is aimed at an
older demographic...
--
Best
Greg
Lass Chance_2
lennses ground to their prescription, the vast majority of folks "of a
certain age" will need reading glasses, sooner or later. Since you dont
wear them EXCEPT when reading, the drugstore kind are perfectly
acceptable for MOST people.
The exception would be someone who reads many hours daily, such as an
editor, librarian, researcher....those professional readers need
specifically ground eading lenses to keep their eyes from getting worse
DUE to using a basic magnifying lens.
But a regular person who uses glasses to read the News, a recipe or two,
maybe an hour of reading a novel.... will do fine with drugstore
magnifying lenses....and would be either stupid OR have way more money
than good sense...to pay for ground lenses.
I think this poster's optometrist did a great service---telling the
truth rather than seeing an oportunity to rip somebody off for
unnecessary eyeglasses.
Go with the cheap readers and dont worry about it.
Lass
Becca
Zenni Optical is where my husband and my family buys their glasses. He
wears progressives, and he gets the ones that you can bend. They are so
inexpensive, you can afford a little variety.
Becca
Sheldon
> >> �Lou Decruss <M...@notvalid.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:00:20 -0800 (PST), Sheldon <PENMAR...@aol.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Yoose obviously don't value your eyes. �Those cheap plastic
> >>>> crackerjack prize so-called reading glasses are as in-optically
> >>>> correct as is possible and will definitely damage your eyes... in a
> >>>> pinch you are far better off reading with a quality hand held
> >>>> magnifier (Bausche & Lomb has many styles at reasonable prices).
>
> >> Many, many years ago, somebody figured out that if you took a
> >> magnifying glass and attached it to a frame that stayed on your head,
> >> that it freed up your hands, moved as you moved your head and went
There are many varieties of the same, jewelers/toolmakers all use head
mounted models, embroiderers/kniters use neck/stand mounted models...
but if one wears corrective lenses they still need to wear them with
the *magnifier*... a magnifying lens is not corrective.
You can buy reading glasses at the drugstore for
> >> US$20 or from a doctor for US$200. �My doctor tells me to get them at
> >> the drugstore. �Certain people need them from the doctor. �Ask your
> >> doctor.
Absolutely... and an optomotrist is NOT a medical doctor...
optomotrists all sell eyewear. Opthalmologists are medical doctors,
they are prohibited by law from selling any eyewear... yoose figure it
out. For anyone with medical insurance it also costs less to have
your eye exam by an Opthalmologist.
> > zennioptical.com
> Zenni Optical is where my husband and my family buys their glasses. �He
> wears progressives, and he gets the ones that you can bend. �They are so
> inexpensive, you can afford a little variety.
Anyone over 35 years old and says they only need reading half lenses
has simply never had their eyes properly examined... anyone who claims
they get by with those cheap drugstore magnifying readers past a +1
definitely needs full corrective lenses, no ifs, ands, buts about it,
they are way past training glasses. Males especially are embarrassed
to admit they need to wear corrective lenses... so many rather drive
their vehical blind... just because you can pass the DMV eye chart
test doesn't mean you see well enough to drive safely, especially at
night.
I wear progressive lenses too. I have my eyes examined by an
Opthalmologist once a year. If needed I get a new prescription and
bring it to be filled at an eyeware dispenser of my choosing, even
Walmart is good, and very inexpensive., but I use the optician right
in town. I have the same Flexon frames for 7 years now, those are
expensive but the lenses are very inexpensive. I've tried those cheap
plastic readers, they're ridiculous, and I don't believe anyone who
claims their optomotrist recommends they wear them in lieu of
prescription corrective lenses, the cheap bastards wear them.
Mark Thorson
>
> Similarly, when taking a walk at dusk, the darker it gets, the less
> perceptible colors are, fading into shades of gray.
That's because of the transition between photopic and
scotopic vision.
Cindy Hamilton
> Absolutely... and an optomotrist is NOT a medical doctor...
> optomotrists all sell eyewear. Opthalmologists are medical doctors,
> they are prohibited by law from selling any eyewear... yoose figure it
> out. For anyone with medical insurance it also costs less to have
> your eye exam by an Opthalmologist.
It depends on your insurance. Our insurance covers me, because I
have a choroidal nevus, but not my husband, whose eyes are perfect
except for a little presbyopia.
Cindy Hamilton
Wayne Boatwright
Yes, I know. It’s interesting.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Friday, 12(XII)/05(V)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Countdown till Christmas Day
2wks 5dys 10hrs 5mins
************************************************************************
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three
hundred sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals.
************************************************************************
Cindy Hamilton
Some do, although it's very rare. Red/green is much more common.
Cindy Hamilton
Becca
My eyesight is fine, but my sister has glaucoma, so I see an
ophthalmologist once a year, and so does my husband. Like someone said,
you only have one pair of eyes.
Becca
Dave Smith
> While it's true that near-sightd folks and folks with astigmatism NEED
> lennses ground to their prescription, the vast majority of folks "of a
> certain age" will need reading glasses, sooner or later. Since you dont
> wear them EXCEPT when reading, the drugstore kind are perfectly
> acceptable for MOST people.
They work fine as long as you require the same correction in both eyes.
I find it difficult to read in bed with my bifocals so I wanted some
new reader. I tried the drug store but had no luck. I could find some
that worked for my right eye and others that worked for my left eye, but
none that worked for both.
Dave Smith
That was my point. Complete colour blindness is very rare, something
like 1 in 100,000. Most people with colour blindness simply have
difficulty distinguishing particular colours.
Dan Abel
<8a644ad5-284d-4bc7...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:50 pm, Sheldon <PENMAR...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely... and an optomotrist is NOT a medical doctor...
> > optomotrists all sell eyewear.
It's true that most optometrists sell glasses, but not all. Since I
wore prescription glasses from the age of nine, I never worried about
being sold glasses that I didn't need. In fact, once one told me to
just wear drug store reading glasses (I was wearing prescription
contacts underneath them, though). I kind of like one stop shopping
anyway. I have heard too many horror stories from people who got their
prescription from an eye doctor, and their glasses from an independent
optical shop. When your glasses don't work, where do you go? Whichever
one you go to first tells you it's not their problem, and tells you to
go to the other.
> > Opthalmologists are medical doctors,
> > they are prohibited by law from selling any eyewear... yoose figure it
> > out.
Maybe in New York. They sell them here in California, I believe. Since
they generally deal with treating disease and doing surgery, not too
much of their practice involves glasses.
> >For anyone with medical insurance it also costs less to have
> > your eye exam by an Opthalmologist.
>
> It depends on your insurance. Our insurance covers me, because I
> have a choroidal nevus, but not my husband, whose eyes are perfect
> except for a little presbyopia.
Interesting. Does your ophthalmologist prescribe glasses for you (or
other patients)?
I belong to an HMO. Clerical people, opticians, ODs and
ophthalmologists all work in the same general area. Seeing an eye
doctor is a US$10 copay, whatever kind of doctor you see. You may not
see an ophthalmologist without a referral from an OD. Once you get a
referral, you don't have to go back. Still, if you ask an
ophthalmologist for glasses, you will be referred to an OD.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
George
> In article
> <8a644ad5-284d-4bc7...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 5, 12:50 pm, Sheldon <PENMAR...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely... and an optomotrist is NOT a medical doctor...
>>> optomotrists all sell eyewear.
>
> It's true that most optometrists sell glasses, but not all. Since I
> wore prescription glasses from the age of nine, I never worried about
> being sold glasses that I didn't need. In fact, once one told me to
> just wear drug store reading glasses (I was wearing prescription
> contacts underneath them, though). I kind of like one stop shopping
> anyway. I have heard too many horror stories from people who got their
> prescription from an eye doctor, and their glasses from an independent
> optical shop. When your glasses don't work, where do you go? Whichever
> one you go to first tells you it's not their problem, and tells you to
> go to the other.
>
>>> Opthalmologists are medical doctors,
>>> they are prohibited by law from selling any eyewear... yoose figure it
>>> out.
>
> Maybe in New York. They sell them here in California, I believe. Since
> they generally deal with treating disease and doing surgery, not too
> much of their practice involves glasses.
Same here in PA. They are typically involved with cases requiring
advanced treatment. It is very unusual to go to anyone except an
optometrist for a refraction. If they spot something they refer you to
an ophthalmologist.
Sheldon
> Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article
You get a more honest eye exam from an Opthalmologist because they
don't sell glasses... they give you a prescription you can have filled
anywhere you like, best to use an optician rather than an
optometrist... optometrists will resent that you didn't come to them
for the exam. When you go to an optometrist, they sell glasses so
they will invaribly tell you that you need different lenses even when
you don't... then they will prescribe so small a change that it's
really unnecesary but they'll convince you that it is. Unless they
sell glasses they don't make any money... no one can stay in business
just doing eye exams... the real money is in the frames, not so much
the lenses. Optometrists are the snake oil pushers of eyecare... they
don't do anything you can't have done better by an Opthalmologist and
and an optician.
Dave Smith
> You get a more honest eye exam from an Opthalmologist because they
> don't sell glasses... they give you a prescription you can have filled
> anywhere you like, best to use an optician rather than an
> optometrist... optometrists will resent that you didn't come to them
> for the exam. When you go to an optometrist, they sell glasses so
> they will invaribly tell you that you need different lenses even when
> you don't...
I go to an opthahologist who also sells glass. The last time I went she
noted that I my eyes had not changed. I opted for new glasses anyway
because I have insurance that allows me a new pair every two years and I
saw no point in waiting until the old lenses were so scratched that I
had to replace them anyway`.
Dan Abel
Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 8:47 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >>> Back in my video production days, we always had a B&W preview monitor
> >>> and/or switched the regular monitor to B&W to double check that graphics
> >>> and sets looked reasonable for the color blind folks, including one of
> >>> our directors.
> >> Why? Do you think colour blind people see black and white?
> That was my point. Complete colour blindness is very rare, something
> like 1 in 100,000. Most people with colour blindness simply have
> difficulty distinguishing particular colours.
But the point of the above test was to find a way that a person who is
*not* color blind can determine whether a graphic will work for every
combination of color blindness.
Arri London
Since my bad vision is medically related, my insurance covers both :) My
opthalmologist would never do a refraction, although they normally are
trained to do so. The optometrist is part of the same hospital system,
so knows my medical history in detail and conducts the examination in
accordance.
Arri London
Do what I do: non Rx readers in front of my Rx glasses. Both my
opthalmologist and my optometrist said that was fine. The readers are
straight magnification (3.5X) but the Rx lenses provide the astigmatism
correction. Basically I've got bifocals but with the larger lens area
that I need (for medical reasons). 'Real' bifocals with that lens size
would cost far more and not work any better. Since I never read while I
drive, it works for me :)
For even closer work (crafts etc), there's the nice 5x lighted
hands-free magnifier I was given as a gift. Can manage any degree of
magnification by combining the magnifier with the desired glasses. Also
have a pair of Rx reading glasses (2.5X) but those need to be swapped
out soon. They are good for the comp, but not reading printed pages
other than large print.
Just check with the relevant eye specialist to see if non Rx magnifiers
are a good solution and get the best ones available.
Arri London
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>
<major snippage>
>
>
> Before the advent of color television, or at least before the widespread of
> color broadcasting, great pains were taken in choosing colors for sets and
> clothing that worked will in black and white. Distinct shades of color
> and contrast were extremely important. In effect, watching blackk and
> white TV was like having total color blindness. This not only applied to
> television, but to black and white film as well.
>
>
That's one reason why the fad for 'colorizing' old black and white films
is so very annoying. They look much worse than the originals because the
contrast and lighting values don't work for coloured versions.
My other complaint in print is 'overprinting' text over an image,
particularly a photograph. As an editor I always reject such
combinations; people with a variety of visual problems cannot see those
things clearly, making them a waste of paper and ink. It happens on Web
pages too and are just as unreadable.
Rhonda Anderson
news:dabel-A7753F....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
> In article <Xns9B6B5FA4418A0sc...@61.9.191.5>,
> Rhonda Anderson <schuma...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> My last pair of glasses was over $700
>
> AU or US dollars? (and no, I don't know the conversion anyway).
AU
>
>
> It sounds like the US is indeed cheaper. Hundred of dollars for
> lenses would be for the very fanciest progressives, which some people
> find indispensable. Single vision (not multifocal) lenses to correct
> astigmatism and myopia ran US$25 each, last time I checked. Nice
> frames are less than US$100.
I'm sure I could get cheaper glasses - I tend to stick with where I've
always got them, there are probably cheaper choices. I could have got my
lenses cheaper by not getting high refractive index or non scratch
coating etc. but would have had much thicker, heavier lenses that a) are
uncomfortable and b) wouldn't fit in any frames I'd be seen dead in :-)
(Because I have to wear my glasses all the time - not just for reading -
I want something that looks attractive.)
I don't think I could ever get lenses that cheap - although it's hard to
compare currencies, especially when exchange rates keep changing. At
least one of my lenses is usually non stock and has to be specially
ground for me.
>
> Although good vision is very important for both eating and cooking,
> we're a little off the topic here. Send me an Email (my address is
> valid), preferably with full prescription, and I will give you my more
> detailed amateur advice.
>
Well, if I didn't have my glasses I might be able to eat but I wouldn't
be doing any cooking (or reading this - I take my glasses off and this
is just a bunch of black specks on a white background:-) Would have to
search out my prescription - thanks for the offer.
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia
Rhonda Anderson
news:3130303039303...@zetnet.co.uk:
> The message <Xns9B6B5FA4418A0sc...@61.9.191.5>
> from Rhonda Anderson <schuma...@bigpond.com> contains these words:
>
>> My last pair of glasses was over $700 and less than $200 of that was
>> frames. At my last checkup (and you've reminded me that I'm overdue
>> for one - thank you!) I was told that I'd probably need to get
>> multifocals soon (I'm 43) and they'll be even pricier I imagine.
>
> My current pair cost £400 UKP, of which £300 was for the lenses..
> varifocal, high-index refraction glass
>
Given what I think exchange rates are at the moment that could be
comparable - your lenses would be dearer but mine were not varifocal. They
were high-index - lenses are too thick otherwise. I'm overdue for new ones,
the prices have probably gone up now too.
I have private health insurance so do get some money back on them
thankfully.
Wayne Boatwright
The last I looked the exchange rate was USD $1.00 / AUD $1.58.
The last time I bought glasses was about 2-1/2 years ago. My prescription
is for hyperopia and astigmatism with lined bifocal. I also chose high
refractive index lenses with both scratch resistant and anti-reflective
coating. I chose a rimless frame. Total cost was just short of $600.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Sunday, 12(XII)/07(VII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Today is: Second Sunday of Advent
Countdown till Christmas Day
2wks 3dys 17hrs 39mins
************************************************************************
It really bothers me when people cut me o...
************************************************************************
The Cook
I have been happy with my glasses from Costco. The prices are good
and they have a 30 day guarantee. Every once in a while when we are
there shopping, I get my glasses adjusted, free.
Sheldon
I suspect you don't live in the US. In the US any Opthalmologist will
be happy to do an eye exam, that's what they do after all. An eye
exam to check basic vision for corrective lenses is part and parcel as
a first step to any further examination regarding all other occular
issues.
If an optometrist were to only examine for corrective lens
prescriptions but then not sell eyewear they could not stay in
business.... prove it to yourself... ask your optometrist to write you
a prescription so you can bring it elsewhere to have it filled,
they'll laugh at you. Actually they'll tell you they don't write
prescriptions, they don't becaue they can't, they're not qualified to
write prescriptions to dispense anything. The best (most honest)
method is to have your eyes examined by an Opthalmologist (they will
write you a prescription for corrective lenses and any and all
medications because they are MDs, but are prohibted by law from
selling eyewear) and then bring that prescription to an *optician*,
who only fills prescriptions but cannot conduct eye exams.
There is no reason that an Opthalmologist can't be your primary care
physician, and in fact many do just that. The Opthalmologist is is an
MD with the same training as any MD but with a specialty degree in
Opthalmology same as an MD has a specialty degree in Cardiology, or
any othe rmedical specialty. The Opthalmologist is the expert in
eyes, the optician is the expert in optics and eyewear, the
optometrist is expert in nothing but selling snake oil... optometrist
is only a two year degree... going to an optometrist for an eye exam
is like going to a dental hygienist for a root canal. Going to an
optometrist for an eye exam is probably more *medically* worthless
than coming to me for a breast exam, but you can bet your bipee I'd
have as good a line of charm as a real snake charmer. And that's all
optometrists do, charm you out of your dollars, they're not nearly as
interested in your eye health as they are in selling you eyewear.
Dan Abel
Rhonda Anderson <schuma...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote in
> news:dabel-A7753F....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
> > It sounds like the US is indeed cheaper. Hundred of dollars for
> > lenses would be for the very fanciest progressives, which some people
> > find indispensable. Single vision (not multifocal) lenses to correct
> > astigmatism and myopia ran US$25 each, last time I checked. Nice
> > frames are less than US$100.
>
> I'm sure I could get cheaper glasses - I tend to stick with where I've
> always got them, there are probably cheaper choices. I could have got my
> lenses cheaper by not getting high refractive index or non scratch
> coating etc. but would have had much thicker, heavier lenses that a) are
> uncomfortable and b) wouldn't fit in any frames I'd be seen dead in :-)
> (Because I have to wear my glasses all the time - not just for reading -
> I want something that looks attractive.)
> I don't think I could ever get lenses that cheap - although it's hard to
> compare currencies, especially when exchange rates keep changing. At
> least one of my lenses is usually non stock and has to be specially
> ground for me.
High index and coatings boost the price up quite a bit. My prices are
also old.
> > Although good vision is very important for both eating and cooking,
> > we're a little off the topic here. Send me an Email (my address is
> > valid), preferably with full prescription, and I will give you my more
> > detailed amateur advice.
> >
>
> Well, if I didn't have my glasses I might be able to eat but I wouldn't
> be doing any cooking (or reading this - I take my glasses off and this
> is just a bunch of black specks on a white background:-) Would have to
> search out my prescription - thanks for the offer.
--
Ed Pawlowski
"Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> High index and coatings boost the price up quite a bit. My prices are
> also old.
>
High index is much lighter when you are 20-400 and have a relatively thick
lens. Just got a price and the difference is $60. I'm willing to pay for
less weight as the glasses are on my face every waking minute.
I've been tempted to try here
http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
I can get the same thing for $145 instead of $390.
sf
wrote:
If I liked a particular frame and could find it online at a steal, I'd
buy online and then go to CostCo for my lenses.
--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.
Mae West
James Silverton
>> "Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> High index and coatings boost the price up quite a bit. My
>>> prices are also old.
>>>
>> High index is much lighter when you are 20-400 and have a
>> relatively thick lens. Just got a price and the difference
>> is $60. I'm willing to pay for less weight as the glasses
>> are on my face every waking minute.
>>
>> I've been tempted to try here
>> http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
>>
>> I can get the same thing for $145 instead of $390.
>>
> If I liked a particular frame and could find it online at a
> steal, I'd buy online and then go to CostCo for my lenses.
There's such a variety of lens shapes and sizes that I wonder if that
would work.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
sf
<not.jim....@verizon.not> wrote:
> sf wrote on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:02:29 -0800:
>
>>> "Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> High index and coatings boost the price up quite a bit. My
>>>> prices are also old.
>>>>
>>> High index is much lighter when you are 20-400 and have a
>>> relatively thick lens. Just got a price and the difference
>>> is $60. I'm willing to pay for less weight as the glasses
>>> are on my face every waking minute.
>>>
>>> I've been tempted to try here
>>> http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
>>>
>>> I can get the same thing for $145 instead of $390.
>>>
>> If I liked a particular frame and could find it online at a
>> steal, I'd buy online and then go to CostCo for my lenses.
>
>There's such a variety of lens shapes and sizes that I wonder if that
>would work.
That was a big "if", because I *have* to try on frames first. CostCo
will put lenses in frames they don't sell you, adding $18 to their
unbelievable low cost lens (high index for me with all the bells &
whistles). I just did it last month. I guess I'm easy to please -
because I found frames that were fully covered by my insurance with a
few dollars to spare.
For people with kids who need glasses, CostCo is absolutely fantastic.
Their stock changes all the time but I went in once when they had a
bazillion *titanium* frame choices in both the adult and children's
sections! Their frames rarely go much over $100, even for titanium.
Sheldon
> �sf �wrote
> >> "Dan Abel" wrote:
> >>> High index and coatings boost the price up quite a bit. �My
> >>> prices are also old.
>
> >> High index is much lighter when you are 20-400 and have a
> >> relatively thick lens. �Just got a price and the difference
> >> is $60. �I'm willing to pay for less weight as the glasses
> >> are on my face every waking minute.
>
> >> I've been tempted to try here
> >>http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
>
> >> I can get the same thing for $145 instead of $390.
>
> > If I liked a particular frame and could find it online at a
> > steal, I'd buy online and then go to CostCo for my lenses.
>
> There's such a variety of lens shapes and sizes that I wonder if that
> would work.
Of course it would. That's exactly what opticians are trained to do,
to grind lenses to fit frames. Any time one buys new glasses the lens
needs some amount of grinding to fit the frame (and to be properly
located within the frame). There are quite a few web sites where one
can choose a frame (from many brands/styles) and they will fill your
prescription and fit the the lens to whatever frame you choose.
From the prices I've seen displayed there is a big savings from buying
at the brick and mortars. Next time I change frames I will try buying
on line.
This one I looked at because it came up when I typed in the brand of
my frame <flexon>. Once you choose a frame you can upload your
prescription... seems easy enough. The prices are about half what
you'll pay at a brick and mortar. These are probably the same
wholesalers where your optometrist buys.
Dan Abel
"James Silverton" <not.jim....@verizon.not> wrote:
> sf wrote on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:02:29 -0800:
>
> >> "Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >>> High index and coatings boost the price up quite a bit. My
> >>> prices are also old.
> >>>
> >> High index is much lighter when you are 20-400 and have a
> >> relatively thick lens. Just got a price and the difference
> >> is $60. I'm willing to pay for less weight as the glasses
> >> are on my face every waking minute.
> >>
> >> I've been tempted to try here
> >> http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
> >>
> >> I can get the same thing for $145 instead of $390.
> >>
> > If I liked a particular frame and could find it online at a
> > steal, I'd buy online and then go to CostCo for my lenses.
>
> There's such a variety of lens shapes and sizes that I wonder if that
> would work.
There are shortcuts, but the traditional lens blank is a perfect circle,
about 4 inches in diameter and one inch thick. It looks a lot like a
hockey puck.
I don't know how Costco works, but it would be a good idea to check it
out first. Some places refuse to do this, some void any warranty or
guarantee and others add a fitting charge.
sf
wrote:
>"James Silverton" wrote:
>> There's such a variety of lens shapes and sizes that I wonder if that
>> would work.
>
>Of course it would. That's exactly what opticians are trained to do,
>to grind lenses to fit frames. Any time one buys new glasses the lens
>needs some amount of grinding to fit the frame (and to be properly
>located within the frame). There are quite a few web sites where one
>can choose a frame (from many brands/styles) and they will fill your
>prescription and fit the the lens to whatever frame you choose.
>From the prices I've seen displayed there is a big savings from buying
>at the brick and mortars. Next time I change frames I will try buying
>on line.
>
All lenses come round, then the optician (or whatever you call the
person who does that) shapes the round lens to fit your frame.
>This one I looked at because it came up when I typed in the brand of
>my frame <flexon>. Once you choose a frame you can upload your
>prescription... seems easy enough. The prices are about half what
>you'll pay at a brick and mortar. These are probably the same
>wholesalers where your optometrist buys.
The problem I see with ordering online is measuring the distance
between irises. I don't know how exacting the tolerance is and I
don't trust that I'd give a close enough measurement.
sf
<janet.a...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <19eoj4lluf88kmf09...@4ax.com>
>from sf <s...@geemail.com> contains these words:
>
>> If I liked a particular frame and could find it online at a steal, I'd
>> buy online and then go to CostCo for my lenses.
>
> Part of the skill of dispensing and fitting lenses , is to ensure the
>frame they go in sits properly in relation to the nasal bridge and eyes
>of the wearer. In the case of bifocal and varifocal lenses (I think
>thats what Americans call progressive lenses)
We call them progressive lens.
>it's absolutely vital,
>because the lens needs to be deep enough top to bottom to allow the
>prescribed variation and still sit in the right position for the pupils.
>Very often, when people say they can't get along with varifocals or
>bifocals it's because the frame doesn't fit or is badly positioned or is
>just unsuitable for that prescription.
>
Literally *all* the brick and mortar places I checked out looked
carefully at my prescription and my frame to discern if they were
compatible. I have no idea how it works with online prescriptions.
Maybe they figure that most people who buy online could also buy
dimestore glasses and be happy with them.
Wayne Boatwright
One of the measurements that the online shops *require* is pupilary center.
It's also a measurement that isn't usually included in the written
prescription because it's usually determined by the optical dispenser. If
you're planning on order online, be sure that you ask your optometrist or
opthamologist to include that measure on your prescription.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Sunday, 12(XII)/07(VII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Today is: Second Sunday of Advent
Countdown till Christmas Day
2wks 3dys 4hrs 49mins
************************************************************************
Cats must use mom's new leather purse as a litter box.
************************************************************************
sf
<waynebo...@geemail.com> wrote:
>One of the measurements that the online shops *require* is pupilary center.
>It's also a measurement that isn't usually included in the written
>prescription because it's usually determined by the optical dispenser. If
>you're planning on order online, be sure that you ask your optometrist or
>opthamologist to include that measure on your prescription.
>
I asked when I had my prescription done and my HMO won't do that.
Wayne Boatwright
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:13:06 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> <waynebo...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>One of the measurements that the online shops *require* is pupilary
>>center. It's also a measurement that isn't usually included in the
>>written prescription because it's usually determined by the optical
>>dispenser. If you're planning on order online, be sure that you ask
>>your optometrist or opthamologist to include that measure on your
>>prescription.
>>
> I asked when I had my prescription done and my HMO won't do that.
>
>
Then you probably won't be able to order lenses online.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Sunday, 12(XII)/07(VII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Today is: Second Sunday of Advent
Countdown till Christmas Day
2wks 3dys 3hrs 50mins
************************************************************************
Useless Invention: Particle board tent stakes.
************************************************************************
Ed Pawlowski
"Wayne Boatwright" <waynebo...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>> I asked when I had my prescription done and my HMO won't do that.
>>
>>
>
> Then you probably won't be able to order lenses online.
>
Unless you find an independent shop that will do it for you, most likely for
a charge since you are not buying there. Of course, after the new glasses
arrive you have to have them fitted too.
Wayne Boatwright
I'm contemplating ordering online and I'm due for an exam, so I'll find out
about that when the script is written. I go to an optometrist who has an
office in a shop where they dispense frames and lenses. Since I've been
going there for a while, I suspect they'll do it without charge. Fitting?
Probably true for most. I've been wearing glasses since I was 4 years old
(except for all the years I wore contacts), and I'm never satisfied with
the way the dispenser fits my frames. I always fit my own. I even have
some of the special tools.
--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************************************
Date: Sunday, 12(XII)/07(VII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************************************
Today is: Second Sunday of Advent
Countdown till Christmas Day
2wks 3dys 3hrs 18mins
************************************************************************
Sorry, I don't date outside my species.
************************************************************************
Sheldon
> "Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwri...@geemail.com> wrote in message
Most people I know have their eyes examinined by an Opthalmologist,
Then they take the prescription to an optician to have it filled, no
differently from taking a doctor's prescription for meds to a
pharmacy. I have trouble trusting optometrists, that's like going to
a pharmacist and asking them to diagnose you and prescribe
medication... doesn't anyone but me see the conflict of interest?
Sheldon
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:13:06 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>
> >One of the measurements that the online shops *require* is pupilary center. �
> >It's also a measurement that isn't usually included in the written
> >prescription because it's usually determined by the optical dispenser. �If
> >you're planning on order online, be sure that you ask your optometrist or
> >opthamologist to include that measure on your prescription.
>
> I asked when I had my prescription done and my HMO won't do that.
What are you mumbling about... HMOs can't write prescriptions... only
an MD who examines you can write a prescription. What does a
"prescription done" mean... you make zero sense.
Jinx Minx
"Sheldon" <PENM...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2da91a71-b18d-4f41...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
"James Silverton" wrote:
>> ?sf ?wrote
>> >> "Dan Abel" wrote:
>> >>> High index and coatings boost the price up quite a bit. ?My
>> >>> prices are also old.
>>
>> >> High index is much lighter when you are 20-400 and have a
>> >> is $60. ?I'm willing to pay for less weight as the glasses
>> >> are on my face every waking minute.
>>
>> >> I've been tempted to try here
>> >>http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
>>
>> >> I can get the same thing for $145 instead of $390.
>>
>> > If I liked a particular frame and could find it online at a
>> > steal, I'd buy online and then go to CostCo for my lenses.
>>
>> There's such a variety of lens shapes and sizes that I wonder if that
>> would work.
>Of course it would. That's exactly what opticians are trained to do,
>to grind lenses to fit frames. Any time one buys new glasses the lens
>needs some amount of grinding to fit the frame (and to be properly
>located within the frame). There are quite a few web sites where one
>can choose a frame (from many brands/styles) and they will fill your
>prescription and fit the the lens to whatever frame you choose.
>From the prices I've seen displayed there is a big savings from buying
>at the brick and mortars. Next time I change frames I will try buying
>on line.
>This one I looked at because it came up when I typed in the brand of
>my frame <flexon>. Once you choose a frame you can upload your
>prescription... seems easy enough. The prices are about half what
>you'll pay at a brick and mortar. These are probably the same
>wholesalers where your optometrist buys.
Last year when I needed new glasses, I ordered them online and they turned
out great. I was able to get much better quality lenses than if I had gone
to a similarly priced optical shop locally. I would have had to pay at
least double from a boutique optical shop to get comparable glasses. I have
a horribly bad prescription (-11) and astigmatism too. I got my
prescription from my opthalmologist's office, took it to a local brick and
mortar, picked out some great designer frames and then found an online
dealer selling the same frames and lenses for much, much less. Yes, you
need pupil distance, too, but I had no problems getting that measurement
from the brick and mortar. All I had to do was ask what it was. Not a big
deal. The actual lenses themselves were very high quality, high index (the
highest you can buy in the US), and they cost the same as lower quality,
lesser high index lenses than at the brick and mortar. Only a few select
boutique opticians in town sell an equivalent high index. One chain brick &
mortar I got an estimate from tried to tell me that their high index lenses
were the highest available, but that was complete bullshit and I knew better
when I asked it deliberately as a leading question. There's no way I
could ever go back to ordering non-high index lenses since regular lenses
are so thick that even with the smallest frame they'd still be too thick to
close the bows and heavy enough to break my nose (or so it seems).
Fortunately, I don't have to wear bifocals yet. I'm not sure I'd gamble
getting progressive lenses online, but I definitely would buy the bells &
whistles I need now online again. And I see absolutely no reason to not
order online if you don't need anything fancy and want to save a few bucks.
Jinx
sf
wrote:
>On Dec 7, 9:36?pm, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:13:06 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>
>> <wayneboatwri...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> >One of the measurements that the online shops *require* is pupilary center. ?
>> >It's also a measurement that isn't usually included in the written
>> >prescription because it's usually determined by the optical dispenser. ?If
>> >you're planning on order online, be sure that you ask your optometrist or
>> >opthamologist to include that measure on your prescription.
>>
>> I asked when I had my prescription done and my HMO won't do that.
>
>What are you mumbling about... HMOs can't write prescriptions... only
>an MD who examines you can write a prescription. What does a
>"prescription done" mean... you make zero sense.
That's right. I get it "done". Eat your heart out.
Cindy Hamilton
> In article
> <8a644ad5-284d-4bc7-8fbc-599ff6ff8...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5, 12:50 pm, Sheldon <PENMAR...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Absolutely... and an optomotrist is NOT a medical doctor...
> > > optomotrists all sell eyewear.
>
> wore prescription glasses from the age of nine, I never worried about
> being sold glasses that I didn't need. In fact, once one told me to
> just wear drug store reading glasses (I was wearing prescription
> contacts underneath them, though). I kind of like one stop shopping
> anyway. I have heard too many horror stories from people who got their
> prescription from an eye doctor, and their glasses from an independent
> optical shop. When your glasses don't work, where do you go? Whichever
> one you go to first tells you it's not their problem, and tells you to
> go to the other.
>
> > > Opthalmologists are medical doctors,
> > > they are prohibited by law from selling any eyewear... yoose figure it
> > > out.
>
> they generally deal with treating disease and doing surgery, not too
> much of their practice involves glasses.
>
> > >For anyone with medical insurance it also costs less to have
> > > your eye exam by an Opthalmologist.
>
> > It depends on your insurance. Our insurance covers me, because I
> > have a choroidal nevus, but not my husband, whose eyes are perfect
> > except for a little presbyopia.
>
> other patients)?
Yes, he does. (He told my husband to get some drugstore cheaters.)
I've worn glasses for more than 40 years.
> I belong to an HMO. Clerical people, opticians, ODs and
> ophthalmologists all work in the same general area. Seeing an eye
> doctor is a US$10 copay, whatever kind of doctor you see. You may not
> see an ophthalmologist without a referral from an OD. Once you get a
> referral, you don't have to go back. Still, if you ask an
> ophthalmologist for glasses, you will be referred to an OD.
I belong to an HMO, too. However, it won't pay for an opthalmologist
unless there's something "wrong". Presbyopia doesn't count, nor would
my myopia/astigmatism. Lucky I have that nevus, eh? ;)
Cindy Hamilton
Dan Abel
sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:59:22 -0800 (PST), Sheldon <PENM...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 7, 9:36?pm, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:13:06 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> >>
> >> <wayneboatwri...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> >One of the measurements that the online shops *require* is pupilary
> >> >center. ?
> >> >It's also a measurement that isn't usually included in the written
> >> >prescription because it's usually determined by the optical dispenser.
> >> >?If
> >> >you're planning on order online, be sure that you ask your optometrist or
> >> >opthamologist to include that measure on your prescription.
> >>
> >> I asked when I had my prescription done and my HMO won't do that.
> >
> >What are you mumbling about... HMOs can't write prescriptions... only
> >an MD who examines you can write a prescription. What does a
> >"prescription done" mean... you make zero sense.
>
> That's right. I get it "done". Eat your heart out.
Sheldon's in New York. Maybe they just have those "fake" HMOs back
there, the ones that have sprung up in the last few decades. The fakes
don't actually provide medical care, they are just insurance companies.
https://members.kaiserpermanente.org/kpweb/structurekp/detailpage.do?body
Container=/htmlapp/feature/123structurekp/Fast_facts_national_page3.html
blake murphy
i have thought of them before, and have read som good things about them.
but i'm hard on my glasses, and would want someone to go to when the fit
has to be adjusted.
your pal,
blake