OT: Might interest those of us who are as blind as bats
Guig
nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did iridium
prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
--
Guig
GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know.
CBFA #1
Oh for the wings of any bird, other than a battery hen.
Ace
>I was in my opticians at the weekend paying for my new glasses and spotted a
>nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did iridium
>prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
>a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
>
>Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
>iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
really are the best sunglasses in the world.
--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
GSX-R1000K3, CB400F2
BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, UKRMSPC#1, DFV#8, BOTCdV#1
Doesnotcompute
> I was in my opticians at the weekend paying for my new glasses and spotted a
> nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did iridium
> prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
> a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
>
> Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
> iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
>
Just out of interest - what sort of cost are you looking at for
prescription oakleys?
I wear glasses every waking hour, usually reactalite for convenience,
but I'd like the ability to have something a little more robust when out
mountain biking etc.
I have considered contacts and non precription shades, but last time I
tried contacts I couldn't even open my eyes! that was a few years ago mind.
--
Dnc
Guig
> Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
>
> Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
> really are the best sunglasses in the world.
Yep, I seem to get the sun right in my eyes on the way into work and on the
way back so I *REALLY* need them :) Be useful for trips to Barca as well.
darsy
<dncDEL...@ukbodyart.org> wrote:
>I wear glasses every waking hour
what, even in the shower?
--
darsy | cd200/cbr900rr1/r65ls
Ace
>Ace wrote:
>> Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
>>
>> Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
>> really are the best sunglasses in the world.
>
>Yep, I seem to get the sun right in my eyes on the way into work and on the
>way back so I *REALLY* need them :) Be useful for trips to Barca as well.
Ah, a word of caution then, if you're intending to wear them in a
normal helmet. Due to the thickness of the side bits (arms? legs?) I
don't actually use mine on the bike.
I can just about get them on inside the helmet, but they're then tight
on the lining rather than my face and as well as the discomfort they
tend to move around relative to the eyes, which is not a good thing. I
have a pair of raybans which fit much better, albeit at the expense of
looking cool.
Doesnotcompute
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 14:43:05 +0100, Doesnotcompute
> <dncDEL...@ukbodyart.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I wear glasses every waking hour
>
>
> what, even in the shower?
I don't have a shower in my gaff at the moment, so "even in the bath"
would be more appropriate and receive a response to the affirmnative.
--
Dnc (awaiting the obligatory "look, poor people" responses)
Doesnotcompute
> I
> have a pair of raybans which fit much better, albeit at the expense of
> looking cool.
>
Heh - I found my old pair of "wayfarers" in a drawer the other day -
tried them on and looked like a complete twat [1] so hell knows how we
all thought they were cool when they were. IYSWIM.
[1] as opposed to just a twat I suppose.
--
Dnc
Ace
<dncDEL...@ukbodyart.org> wrote:
>Guig wrote:
>> I was in my opticians at the weekend paying for my new glasses and spotted a
>> nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did iridium
>> prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
>> a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
>>
>> Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
>> iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
>>
>
>
>Just out of interest - what sort of cost are you looking at for
>prescription oakleys?
Mine cost about £250, IIRC (in the UK, a couple of years back), with
fairly low-prescription[1] single-vision lenses. Worth every penny -
for skiing purposes they're second to none. They took a while to make,
as the lenses had to be manufactured to order at the US factory. Dunno
if that's still the case.
>I wear glasses every waking hour, usually reactalite for convenience,
>but I'd like the ability to have something a little more robust when out
> mountain biking etc.
They do also tend to stay on the head very well.
[1] Like 1.25/.75, I think.
Andrewr At Work
news:bji11a$iu0jc$1...@ID-30778.news.uni-berlin.de
<SNIP>
> I have considered contacts and non precription shades, but last time I
> tried contacts I couldn't even open my eyes! that was a few years ago mind.
Being on the squeamish side (touching eyes, yuck!) I avoided contacts
for years, but finally held my nose, took a deep breath and tried some
monthly disposable ones.
They're great, very comfortable[1] and are fantastic for climbing and
biking.
Plus, of course, you can buy cheepo sunglasses and not cry when you sit
on them by mistake[2].
[1] Providing you wash all traces of chilli sauce, etc, off your
fingers before putting your lenses in.
[2] Unless the glass splinters and sticks in your barse.
--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Power Grainger
>I was in my opticians at the weekend paying for my new glasses and spotted a
>nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did iridium
>prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
>a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
>
>Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
>iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
I have a friend who got Oakleys made into 'real' prescription glasses
(ie not shades).
Spent about 250 quid and she looks like a fucking alien in them. Not
what I said to her face, mind (told her bloke instead, he laughed).
--
Claire Grainger
ZXR400 DFWAG#5 TWA#8 IbW#21
Hog
news:0o2plvca11husfqv0...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:52:56 +0100, "Guig" <yerawsittin@home> wrote:
>
> >Ace wrote:
> >> Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
> >>
> >> Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
> >> really are the best sunglasses in the world.
> >
> >Yep, I seem to get the sun right in my eyes on the way into work and on
the
> >way back so I *REALLY* need them :) Be useful for trips to Barca as well.
>
> Ah, a word of caution then, if you're intending to wear them in a
> normal helmet. Due to the thickness of the side bits (arms? legs?) I
> don't actually use mine on the bike.
>
> I can just about get them on inside the helmet, but they're then tight
> on the lining rather than my face and as well as the discomfort they
> tend to move around relative to the eyes, which is not a good thing. I
> have a pair of raybans which fit much better, albeit at the expense of
> looking cool.
Flexon bendy & thin titanium frames are the DB for in helmet wear.
--
Hog
hog...@ukrm.net (remove bondage to reply)
'89 R100RS '02 GSXR1000K2
BOB#5 COFF#22 BOTAFOT#122
Ginge
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:28:40 +0100, "Guig" <yerawsittin@home> wrote:
>
> >I was in my opticians at the weekend paying for my new glasses and spotted a
> >nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did iridium
> >prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
> >a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
> >
> >Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
> >iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
>
> Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
>
> Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
> really are the best sunglasses in the world.
Do they do prescriptions for astigmatism though, or just standard
lenses?
--
ginge [at] stopthevoices.org.uk :: Kawasaki ZRX1200R, Yamaha SZR660
Ace
<dncDEL...@ukbodyart.org> wrote:
>Ace wrote:
> > I
>> have a pair of raybans which fit much better, albeit at the expense of
>> looking cool.
>>
>
>Heh - I found my old pair of "wayfarers" in a drawer the other day -
>tried them on and looked like a complete twat [1] so hell knows how we
>all thought they were cool when they were. IYSWIM.
Heh.
They're what I wear on the bike.
Doesnotcompute
>>>I
>>>have a pair of raybans which fit much better, albeit at the expense of
>>>looking cool.
>>>
>>
>>Heh - I found my old pair of "wayfarers" in a drawer the other day -
>>tried them on and looked like a complete twat [1] so hell knows how we
>>all thought they were cool when they were. IYSWIM.
>
>
> Heh.
>
> They're what I wear on the bike.
>
Lol - could be worse, could be "Aviators".
<fx: digs a bit further>
--
Dnc
Ace
>In article <id1plvgs6tmd4n1oi...@4ax.com>, Ace wrote...
>> Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
>Do they do prescriptions for astigmatism though, or just standard
>lenses?
Yes they do. I'm slightly astigmatic as well as slightly
short-sighted.
Power Grainger
>tried contacts I couldn't even open my eyes! that was a few years ago mind.
Wuss. It's character builing, all that crying...
simonk
> Spent about 250 quid and she looks like a fucking alien in them. Not
> what I said to her face, mind (told her bloke instead, he laughed).
A mate of mine had these - seems they couldn't do cool iridium prescription
lenses, so he ended up with distinctly untrendy brown. Looked lame as fuck
--
simonk | rsv-mille
Doesnotcompute
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 14:43:05 +0100, Doesnotcompute
> <dncDEL...@ukbodyart.org> wrote:
>
>>I have considered contacts and non precription shades, but last time I
>>tried contacts I couldn't even open my eyes! that was a few years ago mind.
>
>
> Wuss. It's character builing, all that crying...
>
Heh - try getting your septum pierced with a 3mm needle and no
anaesthetic [1] - then you'll know about involuntary eye leakage.
[1] or any desire for it.
--
Dnc
Ginge
wrote...
Mine had rampack-wobble, but computers with rubber keys were great.
Power Grainger
>
>I'm getting some of these soon:
>
>http://x.oakley.com/catalog/display/gateway/eyewear/opthalmic/o7/light_clear
>
>Not remotely alien :-)
Shit, it must be her head then! Better warn the bloke... ;o)
I think they were A-Wires, but with clear lenses. I never knew Oakleys
could look so bad.
Wik
> Flexon bendy & thin titanium frames are the DB for in helmet wear.
My regular specs have these. Had them for <thinks> eek! about eight
years, now.
They were also (like prescription Oakleys) major-league expensive when I
bought them (~£600 all in, as I recall[1]).
They're a bit shabby looking, now and the lenses /really/ could do with
changing (mainly 'cause of surface damage) but they've been utterly
brilliant and I've managed to "convert" several friends and relatives
'cause they are so tough.
I notice they're quite standard fare, now; Suze got new specs a while back
and her frames are Flexon copies.
[1] Genuine Flexon with Zeiss lenses
--
| Wik -UKRMHRC#10- 2000 ZX12R-A1 -DC#1 -'FOT#0 'FOF #39 - BOD#12 BOB#12
|# You don't believe me | "Experience is the worst teacher.
|That the scenery | It always gives the test first
|Could be a cold-blooded killer. | and the instruction afterward."
Wik
[snip contact lens related comfort]
> Providing you wash all traces of chilli sauce, etc, off your fingers
> before putting your lenses in.
<waves>
Wik
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:52:56 +0100, "Guig" <yerawsittin@home> wrote:
>
>>Ace wrote:
>>> Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
>>>
>>> Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
>>> really are the best sunglasses in the world.
>>
>>Yep, I seem to get the sun right in my eyes on the way into work and on
>>the way back so I *REALLY* need them :) Be useful for trips to Barca as
>>well.
>
> Ah, a word of caution then, if you're intending to wear them in a normal
> helmet. Due to the thickness of the side bits (arms? legs?) I don't
> actually use mine on the bike.
Depends which model, dunnit?
Mine are the "old" Straight-Jackets and I've no bother at all under either
my current Roof Diversion or my (now retired) Lazer Revolution.
In fact, come to think of it, they fitted me under my last Shoei XV, too.
> I can just about get them on inside the helmet, but they're then tight
> on the lining rather than my face and as well as the discomfort they
> tend to move around relative to the eyes, which is not a good thing. I
> have a pair of raybans which fit much better, albeit at the expense of
> looking cool.
Hmm, interesting (or not). Mine don't move around at all so again this
could be because they're entirely different models, different profiles of
noggin, etc.
Thing to do for the OP would be to try a pair like wot 'e fancies on, with
lid before forking over for what are undoubtedly going to be
/frighteningly/ expensive shades.
Oakley have been doing prescription "Plutonite" lenses for years 'cause I
enquired about 'em before I took to wearing contact lenses -- a year's
supply of disposable contacts were about 2 times cheaper than the Oakleys!
I doubt they've come down /that/ much in price and would guess they're
going to be ~£400 for the lenses and then frames extra.
I stand to be corrected, mind...
Ace
>On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:04:54 +0200, Ace yammered:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:52:56 +0100, "Guig" <yerawsittin@home> wrote:
>>
>>>Ace wrote:
>>>> Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
>>>>
>>>> Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
>>>> really are the best sunglasses in the world.
>>>
>>>Yep, I seem to get the sun right in my eyes on the way into work and on
>>>the way back so I *REALLY* need them :) Be useful for trips to Barca as
>>>well.
>>
>> Ah, a word of caution then, if you're intending to wear them in a normal
>> helmet. Due to the thickness of the side bits (arms? legs?) I don't
>> actually use mine on the bike.
>
>Depends which model, dunnit?
Well of course, but the caution was intended to raise the question,
not provide the answer.
>Mine are the "old" Straight-Jackets and I've no bother at all under either
>my current Roof Diversion or my (now retired) Lazer Revolution.
So it also depends on the helmet and your head shape and size. Mine
are also the older 'jackets.
>In fact, come to think of it, they fitted me under my last Shoei XV, too.
So it's the head size then, as my helmet(s) is (are) Shoei too.
>> I can just about get them on inside the helmet, but they're then tight
>> on the lining rather than my face and as well as the discomfort they
>> tend to move around relative to the eyes, which is not a good thing. I
>> have a pair of raybans which fit much better, albeit at the expense of
>> looking cool.
>
>Hmm, interesting (or not). Mine don't move around at all so again this
>could be because they're entirely different models, different profiles of
>noggin, etc.
Indeed.
>Thing to do for the OP would be to try a pair like wot 'e fancies on, with
>lid before forking over for what are undoubtedly going to be
>/frighteningly/ expensive shades.
Duh...
>Oakley have been doing prescription "Plutonite" lenses for years 'cause I
>enquired about 'em before I took to wearing contact lenses -- a year's
>supply of disposable contacts were about 2 times cheaper than the Oakleys!
>
>I doubt they've come down /that/ much in price and would guess they're
>going to be ~£400 for the lenses and then frames extra.
>
>I stand to be corrected, mind...
Naah - mine were the black iridium ones in the metallised frame ("Full
Metal Jacket") and cost about £250 in total.
Guig
> Just out of interest - what sort of cost are you looking at for
> prescription oakleys?
>
a pair around £130-£150 and have the lenses added, wouldn't surprise me if I
got much change from £200.
Guig
> Do they do prescriptions for astigmatism though, or just standard
> lenses?
Better be for astigmatism coz that's what I have.
Guig
> Ah, a word of caution then, if you're intending to wear them in a
> normal helmet. Due to the thickness of the side bits (arms? legs?) I
> don't actually use mine on the bike.
>
Ta, I always try specs on with my helmet before buying them, in fact I ended
up with the OGK FF3 helmet because it was the most comfortable with my specs
on, just couldn't get them on when trying an AGV or Arai.
Bear
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:28:40 +0100, "Guig" <yerawsittin@home> wrote:
>
> >I was in my opticians at the weekend paying for my new glasses and spotted a
> >nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did iridium
> >prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
> >a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
> >
> >Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
> >iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
>
>
> Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
> really are the best sunglasses in the world.
Nice, yes, but not the best ... sir wants Armanis with B&L lenses [1]
[1] I've got a pair of Oakleys and a pair of Armanis :) [2] [3]
[2] and some £2.99 from a french army surplus store in Montpellier
jobbies that are actually very nearly as good, lens wise, as both of the
expensive pairs. Go figure
[3] the B&L lensed Armanis are sodding expensive though ... even you'd
blanch :)
--
Bear
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Bears
"I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now"
Bear's Current Paw Track: Dust Junkies: "Movin' On (Mega Bubble Dub)"
Doesnotcompute
> In article <bji797$j81v4$1...@ID-30778.news.uni-berlin.de>, Doesnotcompute
> wrote...
>
>>Power Grainger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 14:43:05 +0100, Doesnotcompute
>>><dncDEL...@ukbodyart.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have considered contacts and non precription shades, but last time I
>>>>tried contacts I couldn't even open my eyes! that was a few years ago mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wuss. It's character builing, all that crying...
>>
>>Heh - try getting your septum pierced with a 3mm needle and no
>>anaesthetic [1] - then you'll know about involuntary eye leakage.
>
>
> Mine had rampack-wobble, but computers with rubber keys were great.
>
Personally I think 63 dozen and a footprint would fit the bill better.
--
Dnc
Ace
<bastardUND...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ace wibbled ...
>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:28:40 +0100, "Guig" <yerawsittin@home> wrote:
>>
>> >I was in my opticians at the weekend paying for my new glasses and spotted a
>> >nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did iridium
>> >prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
>> >a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
>> >
>> >Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
>> >iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
>>
>> Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
>>
>> Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
>> really are the best sunglasses in the world.
>
>Nice, yes, but not the best ... sir wants Armanis with B&L lenses [1]
Nope. The oakley lenses beat raybans[1] hands down. As sunglasses,
that is, given they go as high as 92% filter, compared with the 85% or
so of Raybans. I have some of each, so feel reasonably well qualified
to judge on this matter :-)
[1] Which use the Baum & Losch lenses.
curium
"Guig" <yerawsittin@home> wrote in message
news:106302726...@damia.uk.clara.net...
> I was in my opticians at the weekend paying for my new glasses and spotted
a
> nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did
iridium
> prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
> a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
>
> Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
> iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
>
Bear
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 17:58:18 +0100, Bear
> <bastardUND...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Ace wibbled ...
> >> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:28:40 +0100, "Guig" <yerawsittin@home> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I was in my opticians at the weekend paying for my new glasses and spotted a
> >> >nice pair of Oakley iridium sunglasses and queried whether they did iridium
> >> >prescription lenses, to which the answer was yes, but only up to -4. I'm
> >> >a -5.75 in one eye. Oh well not to worry I thought.
> >> >
> >> >Got a phone call from them today saying that Oakley now do up to -7 in
> >> >iridium so I'll be popping down on Saturday to see about getting a pair.
> >>
> >> Nice. Prescription oakleys are the only way to go.
> >>
> >> Not for any fashion or style reasons, obviously, but just because they
> >> really are the best sunglasses in the world.
> >
> >Nice, yes, but not the best ... sir wants Armanis with B&L lenses [1]
>
> Nope. The oakley lenses beat raybans[1] hands down. As sunglasses,
> that is, given they go as high as 92% filter, compared with the 85% or
> so of Raybans. I have some of each, so feel reasonably well qualified
> to judge on this matter :-)
>
> [1] Which use the Baum & Losch lenses.
Sorry; I've got both and the Oakleys aren't a patch.
These are pukka B&L lenses BTW, not the cheaper shit they put in
Wayfarers and the like.
C.O.Jones
>Mine cost about £250, IIRC (in the UK, a couple of years back), with
>fairly low-prescription[1] single-vision lenses. Worth every penny -
>for skiing purposes they're second to none. They took a while to make,
>as the lenses had to be manufactured to order at the US factory. Dunno
>if that's still the case.
Ordered some today (usenet encouraging me to spend money again...).
Oakley Fives 2.0 225 GBP from local Vision Express -1.50/-1.25 sphere
four weeks lead time from the States.
ernest