This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I've used the same independent, friend-of-a-friend optician for years. At my last appointment though, he told me I need varifocals. This is fine, but the ones he offers are knocking on £500, half of which is for the designer-frames. Also, I'm not really all that bothered about carrying two pairs of glasses around - most of the time I just need correction for short-sightedness, but if I'm reading particularly fine print, or it's getting dark, then reading glasses would be useful. So... do I switch to an alternative independent or think about a chain like SpecSaver?
In reply to FrankBooth:
I'm going to change to Asda.
My contacts are now costing me nearly £30 a month. It includes extras but the lack of Saturday appointments and 'high pressure' sales tactics on glasses is pushing me away.
I'm going to change to Asda.
My contacts are now costing me nearly £30 a month. It includes extras but the lack of Saturday appointments and 'high pressure' sales tactics on glasses is pushing me away.
In reply to FrankBooth:
That seems incredibly expensive. I have quite a complicated prescription and thin lenses are pricey but mine were still under £300.
That seems incredibly expensive. I have quite a complicated prescription and thin lenses are pricey but mine were still under £300.
1
In reply to FrankBooth:
Pay the independent optician to test your eyes and give you a prescription, then use it to buy glasses online?
(Or is that more difficult with varifocals than with simple specs.)
Pay the independent optician to test your eyes and give you a prescription, then use it to buy glasses online?
(Or is that more difficult with varifocals than with simple specs.)
In reply to FrankBooth:
I've started going to independents for eye tests because of some wrong prescriptions from Specsavers. However I normally take the prescription and shop around a few shops for some glasses - most shops have 90% of their stock being "trendy" which at the moment seems to be inch thick frames, so I have to search around for something where I don't look like a prat.
I've started going to independents for eye tests because of some wrong prescriptions from Specsavers. However I normally take the prescription and shop around a few shops for some glasses - most shops have 90% of their stock being "trendy" which at the moment seems to be inch thick frames, so I have to search around for something where I don't look like a prat.
1
In reply to FrankBooth:
AS a part owner of an independent opticians, and a long standing varifocal wearer, let me have a go at answering this.
1) Good varifocals are life changing. AS you get older you will find that you begin to rely on glasses more and more, I don't need glasses for distance particularly but when I'm working I just put my specs on 1st thing and forget about them. If ever I don't have them on, it's amazing how often you find yourself scrabbling round to be able to see something clearly.
2) Varifocal lenses do vary in quality - the better the quality the lower 'non tolerance' that we encounter, because the optics are more sophisticated. When people say 'I couldn't get on with varifocals' it is often because the either a) bought cheap ones, b) they weren't measured and fitted correctly, or c) both of the above.
3) As you are a 1st time vari wearer I agree £500 is a bit steep, - you could compromise both with the lenses and frame and maybe get a decent first pair for half that - don't choose a designer frame (though still choose a decent quality, there's no point in putting expensive lenses in a cheap frame that will lose its shape). But still go to the independent because if they are any good they will still be keen - and have the expertise and time - to take the measurements correctly, adjust the frame so that lenses are aligned with your eyes, and even do a re-test if you are sill encountering issues.
Once you become a 'presbyope' (i.e. your eyes can no longer adjust focus between distance and near), which happens to EVERYONE in their 40s, getting the right specs is less a shopping opportunity than an iterative process - there's never a perfect answer, so it's good to have a relationship with an optician. Mind you I would say that, I'm married to one!
AS a part owner of an independent opticians, and a long standing varifocal wearer, let me have a go at answering this.
1) Good varifocals are life changing. AS you get older you will find that you begin to rely on glasses more and more, I don't need glasses for distance particularly but when I'm working I just put my specs on 1st thing and forget about them. If ever I don't have them on, it's amazing how often you find yourself scrabbling round to be able to see something clearly.
2) Varifocal lenses do vary in quality - the better the quality the lower 'non tolerance' that we encounter, because the optics are more sophisticated. When people say 'I couldn't get on with varifocals' it is often because the either a) bought cheap ones, b) they weren't measured and fitted correctly, or c) both of the above.
3) As you are a 1st time vari wearer I agree £500 is a bit steep, - you could compromise both with the lenses and frame and maybe get a decent first pair for half that - don't choose a designer frame (though still choose a decent quality, there's no point in putting expensive lenses in a cheap frame that will lose its shape). But still go to the independent because if they are any good they will still be keen - and have the expertise and time - to take the measurements correctly, adjust the frame so that lenses are aligned with your eyes, and even do a re-test if you are sill encountering issues.
Once you become a 'presbyope' (i.e. your eyes can no longer adjust focus between distance and near), which happens to EVERYONE in their 40s, getting the right specs is less a shopping opportunity than an iterative process - there's never a perfect answer, so it's good to have a relationship with an optician. Mind you I would say that, I'm married to one!
5
In reply to FrankBooth:
Check out one of the online suppliers, there are plenty about. Simple frame and single vision lenses for under £20. My dad's bifocals were less than £40.
Check out one of the online suppliers, there are plenty about. Simple frame and single vision lenses for under £20. My dad's bifocals were less than £40.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Thanks Rob - that's really useful.
I'm in my late 40s at present, but have been slightly short sighted all my life, so I seem to be going through a slightly weird phase where I only need them over a certain distance, and are constantly taking them off (and then loosing them), if I'm looking at anything from about 12 - 24" away. I use to be able to focus extremely closely (a couple of inches away), and it's this ability which I'm starting to loose.
Thanks Rob - that's really useful.
I'm in my late 40s at present, but have been slightly short sighted all my life, so I seem to be going through a slightly weird phase where I only need them over a certain distance, and are constantly taking them off (and then loosing them), if I'm looking at anything from about 12 - 24" away. I use to be able to focus extremely closely (a couple of inches away), and it's this ability which I'm starting to loose.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Yes, I'm seen some of the cheaper ones around, but I think they might go a bit more towards the other end of the price spectrum for me. I'm happy to pay up to around £300, but £500 seems pretty steep.
Yes, I'm seen some of the cheaper ones around, but I think they might go a bit more towards the other end of the price spectrum for me. I'm happy to pay up to around £300, but £500 seems pretty steep.
In reply to deepsoup:
I imagine it's very difficult. For single vision you just need the distance between pupils, (which isn't on the prescription). I suspect varifocals have a few more measurements. Plus going to the optician for the test and buying the glasses online is a bit like using your local climbing shop to get advice and to try on loads of pairs of boots, then buying them online. It's a bit of a shit thing to do, and eventually your local climbing shop goes bust and you're stuffed.
As Rob said, you do need a good optician for something as complex as varifocals, and that costs. I've got some specsavers varifocals. The prescription is fine, but the glasses are crap and poorly fitted. For single vision I'd rate a £20 pair off the internet better than anything specsavers would supply. (Like boots, I do buy additional pairs online, just not the first pair). However 2 pairs of varifocals for £100, which Asda are currently doing, is bloody tempting.
> Pay the independent optician to test your eyes and give you a prescription, then use it to buy glasses online?
> (Or is that more difficult with varifocals than with simple specs.)
I imagine it's very difficult. For single vision you just need the distance between pupils, (which isn't on the prescription). I suspect varifocals have a few more measurements. Plus going to the optician for the test and buying the glasses online is a bit like using your local climbing shop to get advice and to try on loads of pairs of boots, then buying them online. It's a bit of a shit thing to do, and eventually your local climbing shop goes bust and you're stuffed.
As Rob said, you do need a good optician for something as complex as varifocals, and that costs. I've got some specsavers varifocals. The prescription is fine, but the glasses are crap and poorly fitted. For single vision I'd rate a £20 pair off the internet better than anything specsavers would supply. (Like boots, I do buy additional pairs online, just not the first pair). However 2 pairs of varifocals for £100, which Asda are currently doing, is bloody tempting.
In reply to FrankBooth:
The missus has just reviewed my contribution and suggests that multi focal contact lenses are also a possibility, but again you're going to have to compromise - we'll never be 20 again!
The missus has just reviewed my contribution and suggests that multi focal contact lenses are also a possibility, but again you're going to have to compromise - we'll never be 20 again!
In reply to Ridge: I don't quite get the '2 for 1' offer on varis. Personally I get mine at cost, but I still don't want or need >1 pair - I just want a single pair that works, with an old pair as spares (or for camping.) There again, I'm not vain...
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
You're just not good looking enough for fashion to have any discernible effect on you...
Pair for work and spare pair in the car is my thinking.
You're just not good looking enough for fashion to have any discernible effect on you...
Pair for work and spare pair in the car is my thinking.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Or if you're a cheapskate like me one contact lens in the dominant eye does the job for walking and map reading.
> The missus has just reviewed my contribution and suggests that multi focal contact lenses are also a possibility, but again you're going to have to compromise - we'll never be 20 again!
Or if you're a cheapskate like me one contact lens in the dominant eye does the job for walking and map reading.
1
In reply to Ridge: No, that works as well. Totally legit - I might even try that myself. I'm told that gets harder as you get older, so we'll see.
In reply to Ridge:
My missus does something similar: a 'long-distance' contact lens in one eye, and a 'reading' contact lens in the other. When I first heard the idea I was completely sceptical, but it works: the brain is clever enough to sort this out.
My question to Rob Exile Ward: since the above is done for contacts, why isn't it also done for glasses?
> Or if you're a cheapskate like me one contact lens in the dominant eye does the job for walking and map reading.
My missus does something similar: a 'long-distance' contact lens in one eye, and a 'reading' contact lens in the other. When I first heard the idea I was completely sceptical, but it works: the brain is clever enough to sort this out.
My question to Rob Exile Ward: since the above is done for contacts, why isn't it also done for glasses?
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I suppose they could do it if asked? When I do the one lens thing it does take a while for my brain to sort things out. It's fine for the MTB or walking/running, but I'd be dubious about driving due to essentially having defective eyesight in one eye. Opticians making similar glasses might have some liability if people drove in them.
> My question to Rob Exile Ward: since the above is done for contacts, why isn't it also done for glasses?
I suppose they could do it if asked? When I do the one lens thing it does take a while for my brain to sort things out. It's fine for the MTB or walking/running, but I'd be dubious about driving due to essentially having defective eyesight in one eye. Opticians making similar glasses might have some liability if people drove in them.
In reply to FrankBooth:
I have always been happy with the service at my local Specsavers. They sort-of are independent, anyway - they are mostly if not all franchises.
I have always been happy with the service at my local Specsavers. They sort-of are independent, anyway - they are mostly if not all franchises.
In reply to FrankBooth:
It's worth sticking with the same optician for long periods because they keep your records. You will get a much better eye test from someone with your past records in front of them than from someone who has never seen you before.
I would also go to someone who you genuinely think is bothered about your health and isn't purely concerned with flogging as many pairs of specs as they can in a day.
As for whether or not you want to spend 500 quid on varifocals, that's up to you. If you want two cheap pairs instead, I'm sure your independent will provide them. Or switch now and find someone you're happy with both clinically and with the products - some multiples are fine, some independents are crap. But once you're happy, stick with them and let them build up a complete story of what's going on with your eyes over the medium term. There are lots of things that could either get you referred when you need to be, or which will save a stressful unnecessary referral if you can compare how things are changing (or staying the same) over time.
It's worth sticking with the same optician for long periods because they keep your records. You will get a much better eye test from someone with your past records in front of them than from someone who has never seen you before.
I would also go to someone who you genuinely think is bothered about your health and isn't purely concerned with flogging as many pairs of specs as they can in a day.
As for whether or not you want to spend 500 quid on varifocals, that's up to you. If you want two cheap pairs instead, I'm sure your independent will provide them. Or switch now and find someone you're happy with both clinically and with the products - some multiples are fine, some independents are crap. But once you're happy, stick with them and let them build up a complete story of what's going on with your eyes over the medium term. There are lots of things that could either get you referred when you need to be, or which will save a stressful unnecessary referral if you can compare how things are changing (or staying the same) over time.
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Some people do, but it's a really crap solution. When you've got one eye corrected for distance and one for near, then whatever you're looking at, you've got a blurred image from the other eye. Your ability to discriminate contrast is reduced, fine depth perception out of the window. People put up with it in contacts because there are reasons to make do with the compromise (in general, multifocal contacts are a much better option but still a bit of a compromise).
With varifocal glasses, you have both eyes corrected for the correct distance in the correct position of gaze for most things. Crap if you need to look up to do close work though.
> My question to Rob Exile Ward: since the above is done for contacts, why isn't it also done for glasses?
Some people do, but it's a really crap solution. When you've got one eye corrected for distance and one for near, then whatever you're looking at, you've got a blurred image from the other eye. Your ability to discriminate contrast is reduced, fine depth perception out of the window. People put up with it in contacts because there are reasons to make do with the compromise (in general, multifocal contacts are a much better option but still a bit of a compromise).
With varifocal glasses, you have both eyes corrected for the correct distance in the correct position of gaze for most things. Crap if you need to look up to do close work though.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Go in the cupboard and try out a pair of multifocals. Can't believe you've not tried some already!
> I might even try that myself.
Go in the cupboard and try out a pair of multifocals. Can't believe you've not tried some already!
In reply to Rob Parsons:
It is.
My left eye is not worth correcting; so I have a varifocal lens in the right and nothing, or almost nothing, in the left. I'm essentially a person with one eye, using the right eye alone, except that in the area where I can't see with my right eye (to the left of my nose) I can see blurry stuff. It works fine. It would be less manageable if my left eye was any better; as it is my brain ignores it.
L
> My missus does something similar: a 'long-distance' contact lens in one eye, and a 'reading' contact lens in the other. When I first heard the idea I was completely sceptical, but it works: the brain is clever enough to sort this out.
> My question to Rob Exile Ward: since the above is done for contacts, why isn't it also done for glasses?
It is.
My left eye is not worth correcting; so I have a varifocal lens in the right and nothing, or almost nothing, in the left. I'm essentially a person with one eye, using the right eye alone, except that in the area where I can't see with my right eye (to the left of my nose) I can see blurry stuff. It works fine. It would be less manageable if my left eye was any better; as it is my brain ignores it.
L
Post edited at 23:05
In reply to Ridge:
When you spend hours trying on 80 quid climbing shoes for free, and then go home and buy them online for 75, I agree completely.
When you pay to have your eyes tested, the cheapest decent pair of specs you're offered are about 200 quid, so you use the prescription (that you have paid for) to buy specs of similar quality for about 1/4 the price? Not so much.
If it isn't practical for varifocals, well that's a different thing. I wouldn't know. I too have become a presby-wossname in my old age, but I'm shortsighted enough that peering under my regular specs will probably always be good enough for reading the small print all the way in to the end of my nose.
Asda, by the way, is flippin Walmart. Hardly comparable to your plucky little local independent climbing shop.
> Plus going to the optician for the test and buying the glasses online is a bit like using your local climbing shop to get advice and to try on loads of pairs of boots, then buying them online. It's a bit of a shit thing to do, and eventually your local climbing shop goes bust and you're stuffed.
When you spend hours trying on 80 quid climbing shoes for free, and then go home and buy them online for 75, I agree completely.
When you pay to have your eyes tested, the cheapest decent pair of specs you're offered are about 200 quid, so you use the prescription (that you have paid for) to buy specs of similar quality for about 1/4 the price? Not so much.
If it isn't practical for varifocals, well that's a different thing. I wouldn't know. I too have become a presby-wossname in my old age, but I'm shortsighted enough that peering under my regular specs will probably always be good enough for reading the small print all the way in to the end of my nose.
Asda, by the way, is flippin Walmart. Hardly comparable to your plucky little local independent climbing shop.
In reply to deepsoup:
Trouble is, you haven't actually paid for your eye test, you've paid a little contribution. Pretty much all the money that pays for the eye test comes from spec sales, not from the eye test charge. So if you go online (bad idea with varifocals, OK for single vision non-high prescriptions) what you're getting is much cheaper because they're not actually doing any of the work that a high street opticians does.
Why is it structured like that? Because we're all idiots and we like shiny things we can have and will pay hundred of pounds for them, but we won't pay taxes so that the NHS can provide a good quality eye test for everyone. We'd rather hand that responsibility over to retailers - grocers, in fact - who are only interested in one thing.
> When you pay to have your eyes tested, the cheapest decent pair of specs you're offered are about 200 quid, so you use the prescription (that you have paid for) to buy specs of similar quality for about 1/4 the price? Not so much.
Trouble is, you haven't actually paid for your eye test, you've paid a little contribution. Pretty much all the money that pays for the eye test comes from spec sales, not from the eye test charge. So if you go online (bad idea with varifocals, OK for single vision non-high prescriptions) what you're getting is much cheaper because they're not actually doing any of the work that a high street opticians does.
Why is it structured like that? Because we're all idiots and we like shiny things we can have and will pay hundred of pounds for them, but we won't pay taxes so that the NHS can provide a good quality eye test for everyone. We'd rather hand that responsibility over to retailers - grocers, in fact - who are only interested in one thing.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Lots of answers to this but the first is that it is easier to provide binocular (i.e. same in both eyes) correction, which is much better, when wearing glasses than wearing contacts. Varifocals and bifocals work because for most people they need distance vision when looking through the top part of their lenses, and reading vision looking through the lower part. (Some people need this reversed, e.g. pilots and librarians). This option is not available in contacts because you can't move the pupil to look through a specific part of the lens.
There are multifocal contact lenses available, though don't work the same way - your brain has to subconsciously adjust which of two possible images it wants to use - some people think they're great, some people just can't get it.
Lots of answers to this but the first is that it is easier to provide binocular (i.e. same in both eyes) correction, which is much better, when wearing glasses than wearing contacts. Varifocals and bifocals work because for most people they need distance vision when looking through the top part of their lenses, and reading vision looking through the lower part. (Some people need this reversed, e.g. pilots and librarians). This option is not available in contacts because you can't move the pupil to look through a specific part of the lens.
There are multifocal contact lenses available, though don't work the same way - your brain has to subconsciously adjust which of two possible images it wants to use - some people think they're great, some people just can't get it.
In reply to Neil Williams:
FWIW Specsavers are nothing like independent, they're not even like a traditional franchise. The Boss, billionaire Dame Mary Perkins, comfortably tax exiled in Guernsey, takes a fixed % of the revenue (not profit) of each Specsavers store - from memory 5%, though it could be more. In addition all 'franchisees' have to buy training, shopfits and marketing from Guernsey. That's why Speccies are always running marketing programs to sell more specs - Dame Perkins makes money whether the franchisee is making a profit or not. Nice. More indentured labour than franchise, tbh. Though some of the stores are perfectly OK, despite that.
FWIW Specsavers are nothing like independent, they're not even like a traditional franchise. The Boss, billionaire Dame Mary Perkins, comfortably tax exiled in Guernsey, takes a fixed % of the revenue (not profit) of each Specsavers store - from memory 5%, though it could be more. In addition all 'franchisees' have to buy training, shopfits and marketing from Guernsey. That's why Speccies are always running marketing programs to sell more specs - Dame Perkins makes money whether the franchisee is making a profit or not. Nice. More indentured labour than franchise, tbh. Though some of the stores are perfectly OK, despite that.
In reply to FrankBooth:
Your query reminds me that I must go to the opticians for a test (5 years since the last one) I use varifocals, and think them well worth any extra cost. I also think that an independent optician will have a relationship with an independent lab. making top-quality lenses. My frames are not "designer" - they are made by a company which designs and manufactures frames (in my case Mykita, a German firm) I was rather horrified at the time at the price (£650) but I've had them 5 years, I wear them all the time, and when I have new lenses they'll go into the same frames.I want to wear glasses that I think suit me (no-one ever notices other people's glasses in my experience) and make me feel good about myself!
I also have a pair of stronger reading glasses for more sustained work (free with the varifocals) . The choice, as always, is yours!
Your query reminds me that I must go to the opticians for a test (5 years since the last one) I use varifocals, and think them well worth any extra cost. I also think that an independent optician will have a relationship with an independent lab. making top-quality lenses. My frames are not "designer" - they are made by a company which designs and manufactures frames (in my case Mykita, a German firm) I was rather horrified at the time at the price (£650) but I've had them 5 years, I wear them all the time, and when I have new lenses they'll go into the same frames.I want to wear glasses that I think suit me (no-one ever notices other people's glasses in my experience) and make me feel good about myself!
I also have a pair of stronger reading glasses for more sustained work (free with the varifocals) . The choice, as always, is yours!
In reply to FrankBooth:
Glasses last me about 5 years so £500 is only £2 per week which for the ability to see, read and drive is great.
Glasses last me about 5 years so £500 is only £2 per week which for the ability to see, read and drive is great.
In reply to HB1:
I've also been alarmed at the cost of my glasses, but it doesn't really make logical sense - several years use is, as you say, pretty good value when averaged out (though I still can't help wondering how much making lenses actually costs).
I think the problem is that they're so small and apparently simple, compared to, say, a sofa bought in the sales for the same price.
> I was rather horrified at the time at the price (£650) but I've had them 5 years, I wear them all the time, and when I have new lenses they'll go into the same frames
I've also been alarmed at the cost of my glasses, but it doesn't really make logical sense - several years use is, as you say, pretty good value when averaged out (though I still can't help wondering how much making lenses actually costs).
I think the problem is that they're so small and apparently simple, compared to, say, a sofa bought in the sales for the same price.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Thanks for the reply; thanks also to the other people who have replied.
I need new specs (I think varifocals) but had a woeful experience last time round with Boots in Princes Street, Edinburgh: they could tell me the price of everything, but the value of nothing.
Anybody care to recommend a competent optician in Edinburgh?
> Lots of answers to this ...
Thanks for the reply; thanks also to the other people who have replied.
I need new specs (I think varifocals) but had a woeful experience last time round with Boots in Princes Street, Edinburgh: they could tell me the price of everything, but the value of nothing.
Anybody care to recommend a competent optician in Edinburgh?
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I use 20 20. They have several branches in Edinburgh and Glasgow. They are a little more expensive than Boots/Specsavers etc but I have always been very pleased with their service.
> Anybody care to recommend a competent optician in Edinburgh?
I use 20 20. They have several branches in Edinburgh and Glasgow. They are a little more expensive than Boots/Specsavers etc but I have always been very pleased with their service.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Can't say I'm hugely surprised by that, but if they want to make the test a loss-leader in the hope of selling me some over-priced specs that's a business decision for them. I'm still not going to accept Ridge's climbing shoe analogy and suggestion that it's somehow immoral to take my prescription and shop elsewhere.
All this reminds me, I'm well overdue for an eye-test. (Same place I've been going to for years, and they're very good. Big chain, used to be D&A, subsequently bought out by Boots.)
> Trouble is, you haven't actually paid for your eye test, you've paid a little contribution. Pretty much all the money that pays for the eye test comes from spec sales, not from the eye test charge.
Can't say I'm hugely surprised by that, but if they want to make the test a loss-leader in the hope of selling me some over-priced specs that's a business decision for them. I'm still not going to accept Ridge's climbing shoe analogy and suggestion that it's somehow immoral to take my prescription and shop elsewhere.
All this reminds me, I'm well overdue for an eye-test. (Same place I've been going to for years, and they're very good. Big chain, used to be D&A, subsequently bought out by Boots.)
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I almost posted when I read the suggestion above that they're kinda sorta local independent shops. Decided I wouldn't really have known what I'm on about and opted not to. From what I've read about them in Private Eye over the last few years they're not a chain I'd really want to shop with, for exactly the same reasons I'd prefer not to drink in a pub where the landlord is being bled dry by a horrible exploitative contract with some dodgy pub co.
But as it happens I did try my local Specsavers a while back and had already decided not to use them for wholly more selfish reasons - they were dreadful. ;O)
> FWIW Specsavers are nothing like independent, they're not even like a traditional franchise.
I almost posted when I read the suggestion above that they're kinda sorta local independent shops. Decided I wouldn't really have known what I'm on about and opted not to. From what I've read about them in Private Eye over the last few years they're not a chain I'd really want to shop with, for exactly the same reasons I'd prefer not to drink in a pub where the landlord is being bled dry by a horrible exploitative contract with some dodgy pub co.
But as it happens I did try my local Specsavers a while back and had already decided not to use them for wholly more selfish reasons - they were dreadful. ;O)
In reply to Rob Parsons:
There's a very nice lady with a startup practice called Anita Glasby, she uses my computer system so she must be good! Or Jack Brown in Elder St, ask to see Scott - the boss. He's a good chap and got some good - and qualified - dispensing opticians working with him. It's dispensing opticians that chains often economise on by just using glorified shop assistants, but a decent DO will know a lot about the different options that are available to you.
There's a very nice lady with a startup practice called Anita Glasby, she uses my computer system so she must be good! Or Jack Brown in Elder St, ask to see Scott - the boss. He's a good chap and got some good - and qualified - dispensing opticians working with him. It's dispensing opticians that chains often economise on by just using glorified shop assistants, but a decent DO will know a lot about the different options that are available to you.
In reply to FrankBooth:
Last year I accepted that my vision had changed and got varifocals. I could not believe the difference. Reading difficulties crept up and until they were rectified I hadn't realised just how bad it had got.
I have stuck with the same independent optician for 20 years or so, I have a complex prescription and various other eye difficulties yet my top of the range varifocals come out at £369.
I would get the varifocals but from someone else. (Rob's wife perhaps)
Last year I accepted that my vision had changed and got varifocals. I could not believe the difference. Reading difficulties crept up and until they were rectified I hadn't realised just how bad it had got.
I have stuck with the same independent optician for 20 years or so, I have a complex prescription and various other eye difficulties yet my top of the range varifocals come out at £369.
I would get the varifocals but from someone else. (Rob's wife perhaps)
In reply to FrankBooth:
Varies, my ex was told she needed reading glasses, optician flogged her a pair at £400. Employer gave her a form to get signed by optician saying she needed then for VDU work, optician refused on grounds she'd need them for other reading out with work.
Varies, my ex was told she needed reading glasses, optician flogged her a pair at £400. Employer gave her a form to get signed by optician saying she needed then for VDU work, optician refused on grounds she'd need them for other reading out with work.
In reply to Hyphin:
That is correct. Employers generally only pay for VDU glasses if the *only* benefit the user will derive from them is during VDU ("intermediate distance") work. Some may well pay under more circumstances, but that would technically be a taxable benefit.
I guess an optician signing the form claiming they were for VDU work only would be acting as an accessory to tax fraud, and I bet they get audited.
That is correct. Employers generally only pay for VDU glasses if the *only* benefit the user will derive from them is during VDU ("intermediate distance") work. Some may well pay under more circumstances, but that would technically be a taxable benefit.
I guess an optician signing the form claiming they were for VDU work only would be acting as an accessory to tax fraud, and I bet they get audited.
Post edited at 09:24
In reply to Neil Williams: You've explained that much better than me but you're absolutely correct.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Probably not 100% correct.
If you need them for work and life outside work the HMRC would probably have to accept a "reasonable proportion " of use and cost for tax purposes.
The monovision option (different focal length lens in each eye ) is legal for driving ( I hope ) . The wife prefers it, at least she can see the speedo. Also plenty of folk with one eye driving.
Being short sighted is at last an advantage in older age ( I'm 62). I prefer the better field of vision with standard specs, and can see down to placing a Rock 1 without trouble in good light, the RPs need looking to the side of the lens.
Also apparently your short vision improves with ageing eyes, I can almost manage without now for distance.
I had a real fight getting " intermediate" glasses, after several years the optician said " ah , you mean occupational glasses ?" Too late, I had already started using some older prescription ( weaker ) reading glasses for intermediate work.
What I really want, instead of often taking my distance glasses off, is some "Flip Frames". Never found any,apart from clip on sunglasses, in the UK. An American web site has some but I don't think they got to commercial production.
> You've explained that much better than me but you're absolutely correct.
Probably not 100% correct.
If you need them for work and life outside work the HMRC would probably have to accept a "reasonable proportion " of use and cost for tax purposes.
The monovision option (different focal length lens in each eye ) is legal for driving ( I hope ) . The wife prefers it, at least she can see the speedo. Also plenty of folk with one eye driving.
Being short sighted is at last an advantage in older age ( I'm 62). I prefer the better field of vision with standard specs, and can see down to placing a Rock 1 without trouble in good light, the RPs need looking to the side of the lens.
Also apparently your short vision improves with ageing eyes, I can almost manage without now for distance.
I had a real fight getting " intermediate" glasses, after several years the optician said " ah , you mean occupational glasses ?" Too late, I had already started using some older prescription ( weaker ) reading glasses for intermediate work.
What I really want, instead of often taking my distance glasses off, is some "Flip Frames". Never found any,apart from clip on sunglasses, in the UK. An American web site has some but I don't think they got to commercial production.
In reply to Rick Graham:
I don't know either way, but I'm not convinced it should be, as removing depth perception *does* make you a greater risk on the road. Of course those with one eye can't avoid it, but deliberately choosing it seems a poor option for road safety. Bifocals would be far safer and still allow the speedo to be seen.
> The monovision option (different focal length lens in each eye ) is legal for driving ( I hope ) .
I don't know either way, but I'm not convinced it should be, as removing depth perception *does* make you a greater risk on the road. Of course those with one eye can't avoid it, but deliberately choosing it seems a poor option for road safety. Bifocals would be far safer and still allow the speedo to be seen.
In reply to Rick Graham: There's an interesting point here. I read a well-known biography of Newton which said something like 'Newton enjoyed excellent health and could read without glasses until the end of his days.'
Apart from being a non-sequitur, actually what this means is that Newton must have been short sighted, so wouldn't ever have been able to see clearly in the distance. I wonder how much his famous incompetence at farming, his irascibility and anti-social behaviour was the result of the fact that he just couldn't see clearly?
Apart from being a non-sequitur, actually what this means is that Newton must have been short sighted, so wouldn't ever have been able to see clearly in the distance. I wonder how much his famous incompetence at farming, his irascibility and anti-social behaviour was the result of the fact that he just couldn't see clearly?
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Are you using daily disposables?
I use mine for four or five days each (obviously taking them out over night, like monthlies). I've never had any problems.
Even if you use them for just two days, you halve the cost.
> My contacts are now costing me nearly £30 a month. It includes extras but the lack of Saturday appointments and 'high pressure' sales tactics on glasses is pushing me away.
Are you using daily disposables?
I use mine for four or five days each (obviously taking them out over night, like monthlies). I've never had any problems.
Even if you use them for just two days, you halve the cost.
1
In reply to Donald82:
if you're going to take them out and store them in solution, why not use monthlies that are designed for that?
reusing dailies is a daft way to save money when you can just go to monthlies, which can be dirt cheap depending on your requirements
if you're going to take them out and store them in solution, why not use monthlies that are designed for that?
reusing dailies is a daft way to save money when you can just go to monthlies, which can be dirt cheap depending on your requirements
In reply to Neil Williams:
monovision is fine for driving, legally. The depth perception you lose is more crucial for fine, close tasks like threading a needle. The depth perception used in driving relies more on 'monocular cues' like objects occluding each other and perspective. But monovision is going to provide poorer vision than binocular correction (in specs or CLs)
> I don't know either way, but I'm not convinced it should be, as removing depth perception *does* make you a greater risk on the road.
monovision is fine for driving, legally. The depth perception you lose is more crucial for fine, close tasks like threading a needle. The depth perception used in driving relies more on 'monocular cues' like objects occluding each other and perspective. But monovision is going to provide poorer vision than binocular correction (in specs or CLs)
Post edited at 17:33
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I tend to lose the monthlies before I've a week out of them.
> if you're going to take them out and store them in solution, why not use monthlies that are designed for that?
> reusing dailies is a daft way to save money when you can just go to monthlies, which can be dirt cheap depending on your requirements
I tend to lose the monthlies before I've a week out of them.
In reply to Donald82:
oh. Just use a proper cl solution to keep them disinfected, corneal infections are really nasty
oh. Just use a proper cl solution to keep them disinfected, corneal infections are really nasty
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...