Old Codgers Only - SubTitle: Trifocals in the shop

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I had to go to a separate pair of reading glasses three years ago for use
> with the computer. The optometrist told me that bifocals are generally
> long
> distance vision above and reading below which wouldn't help with the
> computer, so now I travel around with two pairs of glasses.

Had the same problem. Progressive lens cured it. Worth a try. Most still
give a money back guarantee if you don't like them.

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

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

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:26:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
>them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
>can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
>down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
>Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
>rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
>slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
>is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
>turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
>Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
>do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
>I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
>work.


Swing:

I don't like mine a damned bit...but I still like them better than
having three different pair of glasses.

Had mine for the last two pair ('bout five-six years, I'd guess).

The intent was to get something like my previous trifocals: driving
strength, computer strength, tying on dryflies strength.

They do that but they give me a stiff neck from bobbing my head up and
down trying to get the right area in play.

They also give me tunnel vision so bad that people think i'm ignoring
them when I walk past them. Hell, I'm not ignoring them - I just
can't see them.

Still, I reckon they suck less than having to wear a fishing vest
everywhere, in order to have enough pockets for all your glasses.

I'm getting ready to order a pair of sunglasses and might go the way
of the trifocals again - I don't think the tunnel vision was as bad
with them.

Good luck and congratulations on reaping one of the major rewards for
living a long life. The old coots I know tell me there's plenty more
on the way!

I started wearing bifocals seventeen years ago. Regular trifocals came
six years later. If you participate in an activity that requires a non
standard focal length of middle lenses, TELL your doctor. They can
design/order a special lense. I am in a musical group where the music
is 28 inches from my eyes, this is considerably different from the
standard fifteen inch focal length of middle lense. I have never
experienced the problems mentioned in this thread. Find a good doctor
that will custom design what you need. It usually takes at least a week
for lenses to come in. You won't get these types of prescriptions with
the one hour service labs.

Bill in WNC mountains

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:31:59 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Tom Watson" wrote in message
>
>> OK Swing, what is it that you play?
>
>> I've always been hoping that you were a gittar man (not a bass player)
>
>www.wildriverband.com (you figure it out)

Man, I'm gonna get me one a dem CD's!
>
>Now that your worst fears are realized. :> ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

David, I'm fast approaching 62 as well. Same problem with "progressive"
bifocals.I see pretty good with them to drive but just can't seem to
adjust to reading with the muthrs. As well as the seeing eye problem in
the shop I also struggle through tying jigs and flies etc, for my other,
other hobby. Solution was to buy a pair of 1.75 Mag (plastic lenz)reading
glasses from the local dollar store for close up work. Works so well I
bought a bunch more of them ($1.00 a pr) and stashed them around my hobby
areas .. keep losing them but with 3 or 4 pr on each bench I can usually
find one set when I need 'em. I hang the progressive buggers around my
neck on a cord until I need them.



In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>
>

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:%cAbe.649
>>
>> Had the same problem. Progressive lens cured it. Worth a try. Most still
>> give a money back guarantee if you don't like them.
>
> But when you're reading, aren't you looking down? If so, that would make
> them not usable with a computer where you're looking ahead.

The distance from the screen to my eyes is grater than from a book to my
eyes. Just using my arm to screen, my elbow is just slightly bent.
Pivoting to where I'd hold a book, it would be below my knees. That is why
progressive is better in that the distance changes and so does the lens at
that viewing angle. Works for me, could vary with different
eyes/prescription combo.

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

I've been wearing trifocal progressives since last summer. It took me
about 10 days to mostly get used to them, and now I rarely think about
them.

Give it a month, would be my advice.

--
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

Tue, Apr 26, 2005, 11:26am (EDT-1) [email protected] (Swingman) laments:
Here lately (fast approaching 62) <snip>

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



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

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses,
lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>

OK - casting the sabers of the past aside since this is an old fart's issue
and on that we are in common. I've had progressive trifocals for almost 10
years now, after over 40 years of never needing glasses. I'm far sighted so
I need the reading prescription most and my mid and long range prescriptions
are less radical. Having said that - I do need to wear them for just about
everything now. I can drive without them as long as I don't try to read the
guages in the dash or some other equally irrelevant task.

As for getting used to them - yeah and no. I still have to turn my head to
be square on to what ever I'm looking at. You just can't look out the sides
of them. The distortion is ridiculous. Not to mention one eye seeing one
degree of correction and the other eye seeing something totally different -
or perhaps none, if that eye is looking "around" the lens. Very disturbing
and something you never get used to. When I turn my head to check for a car
before making a lane change, I actually have to close one eye and look out
of the other.

You get somewhat used to some of the distortion in that you learn over time
that the parallelogram you're seeing is really a square, but you never get
used to trying to sight down a line and seeing a curve. Substitution
becomes your friend. You learn to give up practices that used to work and
adopt new ones in their place.

The mid range prescription is both a blessing and a curse. Yeah - you need
it, but it can still get in the way for me from time to time. You do learn
how to look through the lens correctly for the distance you need, but every
once in a while you find that damned mid range and it takes seconds to get
things back in sync. You've got 10 years on me so maybe it will take you
more than just seconds...

I guess in the end, they're better than a sharp stick in the eye, but they
aren't completely natural. Just wait until you do the stairs... You learn
real quick to look right down at the steps as you make your way down.
That's only in the beginning, but it does get your attention.

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.

I've standard lined trifocals, but I never wore glasses, so can't really
comment on difference. These are all I've ever had. I have the center set
for slightly less than arm's length - computer screen, originally, and the
bottom for maybe a foot away were I used to have to solder and clamp leads
on chips and such. Optometrist says the variables are not recommended for
folks like me, only the bifocal folks. Middle distances are too sensitive,
and get into arms versus eyes conflicts. No such choices with fixed focus.

Sure do miss being able to see things under the car or tractor without
screwing around with my neck or glasses, but what I miss most is being able
to read while laying on my belly. Oh well, aging is not for sissies.

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

Great stuff
Cheers
Bill Daly, New Zealand

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses,
> lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
> head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
> What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/25/05
>
>

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses,
lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
<snipped>
I have worn glasses since 17... now 57.
Went through bi-focal, no problem adapting.
Went to tri focal a bunch of years ago, no problem adapting.
My eye guy talked me into trying progressive lenses (ultimately from two
different Mfg.s) wore each about a month... MAJOR problems!
First I had to become like a "bobble head" moving my head while reading,
etc., not just my eyes. Next it seems that style of lens induced
astigmatism, which normally is not one of my visual defects.
I finally went to the "Ray-Ban aviator" shape lens, with fixed segments for
the three distance ranges and I have zero problems (and they are
polycarbonate for safety) except the usual... sweat dripping on them while
I'm looking downward.
All said and done, I like my "lines", they provide a fixed reference point
and cause no difficulty... and in this shape and size of lens allow for
adequate latitude of horizontal and vertical range within each segment to
allow for a more normal movement of eyes only.
YMMV
Tom

"John Thomas" wrote in message

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

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

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

One more on "progressive lenses."

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

Some things I learned:

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

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

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

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

Walt C




"

I am near-sighted in one eye and far-sighted in the other, and have
astigmatism to boot. I had a pair made with the middle distance part large,
a little distance part at the top and a reading part at the bottom. They
were very good, until my eyes changed enough that I needed a new
prescription. I get mine made of polycarbonate, so they are safety glasses
too. It is still a pain in the shop, and watching TV and reading the paper
at the same time.

Getting old is better than the alternative.

Steve

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:26:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
>them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
>can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
>down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
>Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
>rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
>slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
>is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
>turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
>Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
>do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
>I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
>work.

Well like you, my upcloes vision is great. I just cant see accross the
room! ive thoughtof progressive lenses but for now i think i will just
stick to my other method which is leave the glasses in the kitchen [
so i wont forget where they are!!!!] i dont need em for woodworking
cause i see just fine at arms length. if my arms start growing im in
deeeeeeppp s@#t. :-]>

skeez

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
> head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
> What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?

When I first got progressive lenses it took a few days to get used to them.
Now I'd not be without them.

Progressive lenses are more restrictive in side to side eye movement
compared to regular lenses or bifocals. Today, they have broadened the
channel of sight compared to a few years ago. Mine are Rodenstock lenses and
I'm going back later this year from my third prescription. I'd never go
back to regular bi-focals again.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:56:04 GMT, the inscrutable "David Merrill"
<[email protected]> spake:

>The primary quality difference among makers of progressive lenses is the
>horizontal size of the 'sweet spot'. Having tried a less expensive

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


>storefront brand once I now always insist on Varilux brand lenses, the
>original and still, apparently, the best.

You mean "least bad", don't you? My trial pair was from Varilux.
Never again! (See my post from a year or two ago for details.)


>It takes awhile but, with progressive lenses, one learns to move one's whole
>head and look more directly at the object of one's attention. It eventually
>becomes automatic, like stick-shifting a car.

This is extremely anti-ergonomic on the lesser side, extremely
dangerous on the other, such as while driving. They effectively
blur your peripheral vision, making the spotting of oncoming cars or
any vision through the side mirrors impossible. No Effin' Way!
I'd rather use a cell phone while driving. It's less dangerous.
;)

Bottom line: I abhor those $400 vision-limiting MoFos.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do. Or do not. * Stylin' Web Design Services
There is no try. --Yoda * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Norman D. Crow wrote:
[snip]> Didn't we all have this conversation a few months back?
>
> Had to go to tri's when I was still driving OTR. SWMBO talked me into going
> to Varilux. +)_(*()^^&%$#$#
>
> Learned immediately that when I was trying to bend the trailer around a
> corner to get into the dock that I couldn't see a darn thing!(leaning out
> the door looking back, as trailer end is already out of mirror range) Take
> 'em off and throw 'em on the passenger seat until done!
>
> Biggest problem now is getting a crick in the neck trying to tilt head back
> far enough to see the monitor. I've been thinking about getting a pair of
> those reading glasses just to leave by the computer.
>
That's called "bifocal lock". I finally bought a pair of glasses ground
to my bifocal prescription. They work great. I leave them next to the
computer.
mahalo,
jo4hn

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

>Here lately (fast approaching 62)

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

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

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

--

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

I'm 56 and wear regular tri-focals. I tried the progressives for 2 days
and took those pieces of shit back. Didn't cost me a cent luckily.
They were terrible and drove me crazy driving and walking. My regular
trifocals took no getting used to, for me anyway and I've been wearing
them for around 8 years now. Had bi-focals before that.
Grandpa John

Swingman wrote:

> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

> OK Swing, what is it that you play?

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

www.wildriverband.com (you figure it out)

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

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

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Thanks to all of you. I'll keep trying ... it's good to know that I am
> normal, in some respects, more or less.
>
> --

Forgot one detail. The first time I had them on I did not care for them.
Went back the next day and they set them to sit 1 mm lower on my eyes and
that did the trick. The progression starts that tiny bit lower for me over
the "recommended" setting. Just something to think about and perhaps try.

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

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

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

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

"Mike Marlow"wrote in message

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the perspective, Mike.

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

Swingman wrote:
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>


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

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

Intense lighting helps a lot too.

Roger

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:26:04 -0500, Swingman wrote:
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.

Sorry in advance - I'm not an Old Coger. But I have had progressive lenses for
a long time now.

I don't know what a "progressive trifocal" is. In my case, I needed and got
the equivalent of a bifocal. Correction for my near-sightedness at the top,
and essentially no correction for close-up work at the bottom. Wouldn't a
trifocal be the same - just a range of corrections?

Anyway, I can say that it took me a LONG time to get used to using these
things. I had only single-correction lenses prior to getting these bifocals,
so I don't know what its like using "ordinary" bifocals. But I did have to
figure out what part of the lens to use for various tasks. I must have looked
pretty funny in the beginning, twisting my head all over the place to find a
spot that would focus. My neck sure hurt for a while. And walking down steps
was downright dangerous at first!

Ordinarily (reading, at the computer, etc.), these glasses are OK. In the
shop, these things are a PITA. I have fixed diopter safety glasses (cheap
plastic) that I picked up at a WW show, that are at least as useful. As I
don't need much or any correction for close work, I end up taking my glasses
off a lot of the time. Its better than cranking my head back into an unnatural
position in order to use the lower part of the lens.

--
Art Greenberg
artg AT eclipse DOT net

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

I've never been satisfied with progressives that I wear for driving.
It's hard to see images clearly in the side mirrors. I've tried
bifocals for driving and that doesn't work out either; I can't see the
dash (middle distance). My Sears bifocal safety glasses work well in
the shop EXCEPT when I momentarily freak while looking at a "curved"
edge only to remember that it's caused by the glasses. AFAIK, we're
stuck with the distortion when wearing corrective lenses.

Dave

Swingman wrote:

> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

> Forgot one detail. The first time I had them on I did not care for them.
> Went back the next day and they set them to sit 1 mm lower on my eyes and
> that did the trick. The progression starts that tiny bit lower for me
over
> the "recommended" setting. Just something to think about and perhaps try.

Son-of-a-gun, what a timely "detail"!

Acting on your suggestion about placement (mine seem to work better up
closer to my eyes than down on my nose), I've noticed that if I hold them
hard against the bridge of nose with one finger they are _much_ better and I
don't have to tilt my head nearly as far.

Many thanks for the postscript ... I think you may have saved the bacon with
that one!!

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> As for getting used to them - yeah and no. I still have to turn my head
> to
> be square on to what ever I'm looking at. You just can't look out the
> sides
> of them. The distortion is ridiculous.

> You get somewhat used to some of the distortion in that you learn over
> time
> that the parallelogram you're seeing is really a square, but you never get
> used to trying to sight down a line and seeing a curve. Substitution
> becomes your friend. You learn to give up practices that used to work and
> adopt new ones in their place.

Everyone's eye are different, but I've never had those problems. I'd be
looking for a new lab if I did because I don't have the problems you
describe. I'm nearsighted 20/800 or so and have a strong prescription.
YMMV. About 15 years ago I had a problem with my new glasses. The eye
doctor swore it was OK and would not correct them. I went to a different
ophthalmologist and he called the first one who fixed things rather than
answer to a review board.

Somebody wrote:

> Computer glasses are great. Get a single power. you may be able to
> pick a suitable pair from the local drugstore. Just be sure that you
> are checking them for the proper distance.

Years ago, my former boss developed an interest in poker.

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

Lew

The primary quality difference among makers of progressive lenses is the
horizontal size of the 'sweet spot'. Having tried a less expensive
storefront brand once I now always insist on Varilux brand lenses, the
original and still, apparently, the best. I also once tried to be clever
and chose polycarbonate lens material, on the theory that it would provide
some measure of 'safety glasses' protection. Move your head ever so
slightly and watch a red flower turn purple before your eyes, severe
chromatic aberration. Now I stick to the relatively new, 'high refractive
index' plastic lenses, hard coated for improved scratch resistance. One's
vision isn't the best place to economize.

I'm also age 62, have always been severely nearsighted, and needed
progressive (or bifocals) since age 45. I spent most of my working life at
a computer; finally figured out that sitting for many hours a day with my
head tilted back to bring the screen into focus was causing my neck and
shoulder pains. So I unpinched the coin for a pair of prescription computer
glasses and the problem went away. Having had conventional bifocal safety
glasses issued by my employer, I hated them and preferred wearing safety
goggles over my progressives.

It takes awhile but, with progressive lenses, one learns to move one's whole
head and look more directly at the object of one's attention. It eventually
becomes automatic, like stick-shifting a car.

Incidentally, I always wash my glasses under a hot water tap using
non-additive liquid soap and when rinsed, switch immediately to cold water
rinse. The sudden temperature change seems to aid in flushing away any oily
soap residues. Wipe excess water from rims, ear and nosepieces with a towel
and finally dry the lenses with lint-free tissues, if you can find them.
(Fingers wouldn't be the best choice if hands were rough from manual labor.)
I recently discovered Kimwipes EX-L "delicate task wipers' with anti-static
properties and found them vastly superior to the Kleenex tissues I had
always used. Times and products change.

You may glean further insights from the newsgroup, sci.med.vision.

David Merrill


"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5qube.5662$RD.1331@trndny02...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would
almost
> > rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
> > head
> > slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance
part
> > is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a
horny
> > turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
> >
> > Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
> > What
> > do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> When I first got progressive lenses it took a few days to get used to
them.
> Now I'd not be without them.
>
> Progressive lenses are more restrictive in side to side eye movement
> compared to regular lenses or bifocals. Today, they have broadened the
> channel of sight compared to a few years ago. Mine are Rodenstock lenses
and
> I'm going back later this year from my third prescription. I'd never go
> back to regular bi-focals again.
>
>

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

Bob
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses,
lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/25/05
>
>

David Merrill wrote:
> The primary quality difference among makers of progressive lenses is the
> horizontal size of the 'sweet spot'.

There are different lenses with different sizes of middle field of
view... I too paid the extra for the "wider field of view". It's worth
the money. Some folks might have missed that... That you can choose and
pay for what you want.

That point is worth emphasizing.

Your post is excellent.

...I often use my "computer glasses" for up close wood work.

> Having tried a less expensive
> storefront brand once I now always insist on Varilux brand lenses, the
> original and still, apparently, the best. I also once tried to be clever
> and chose polycarbonate lens material, on the theory that it would provide
> some measure of 'safety glasses' protection. Move your head ever so
> slightly and watch a red flower turn purple before your eyes, severe
> chromatic aberration. Now I stick to the relatively new, 'high refractive
> index' plastic lenses, hard coated for improved scratch resistance. One's
> vision isn't the best place to economize.
>
> I'm also age 62, have always been severely nearsighted, and needed
> progressive (or bifocals) since age 45. I spent most of my working life at
> a computer; finally figured out that sitting for many hours a day with my
> head tilted back to bring the screen into focus was causing my neck and
> shoulder pains. So I unpinched the coin for a pair of prescription computer
> glasses and the problem went away. Having had conventional bifocal safety
> glasses issued by my employer, I hated them and preferred wearing safety
> goggles over my progressives.
>
> It takes awhile but, with progressive lenses, one learns to move one's whole
> head and look more directly at the object of one's attention. It eventually
> becomes automatic, like stick-shifting a car.
>
> Incidentally, I always wash my glasses under a hot water tap using
> non-additive liquid soap and when rinsed, switch immediately to cold water
> rinse. The sudden temperature change seems to aid in flushing away any oily
> soap residues. Wipe excess water from rims, ear and nosepieces with a towel
> and finally dry the lenses with lint-free tissues, if you can find them.
> (Fingers wouldn't be the best choice if hands were rough from manual labor.)
> I recently discovered Kimwipes EX-L "delicate task wipers' with anti-static
> properties and found them vastly superior to the Kleenex tissues I had
> always used. Times and products change.
>
> You may glean further insights from the newsgroup, sci.med.vision.
>
> David Merrill
>
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:5qube.5662$RD.1331@trndny02...
>
>>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would
>
> almost
>
>>>rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
>>>head
>>>slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance
>
> part
>
>>>is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a
>
> horny
>
>>>turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>>>
>>>Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
>>>What
>>>do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>>
>>When I first got progressive lenses it took a few days to get used to
>
> them.
>
>>Now I'd not be without them.
>>
>>Progressive lenses are more restrictive in side to side eye movement
>>compared to regular lenses or bifocals. Today, they have broadened the
>>channel of sight compared to a few years ago. Mine are Rodenstock lenses
>
> and
>
>>I'm going back later this year from my third prescription. I'd never go
>>back to regular bi-focals again.
>>
>>
>
>
>


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

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

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses,
lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/25/05
>
>

<snip>
>>Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
>>What do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop
>>eyewear?
>>
>>I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for
>>shop work.
>
>
> Swing:
>
> I don't like mine a damned bit...but I still like them better than
> having three different pair of glasses.
>
<snip>

I can deal better with three different pair of glasses than I can with the
headaches that come from trying to foucs through the various distortion
zones in the 'corrective' lenses. And so I do.

What I wear for woodwork is also what I wear for use at the computer.
People in the office think I'm ignoring them, but they are just fuzzy-
looking, most of the time, beyond easy recognition if more than 30 or 40
feet away.

Good luck finding what suits you.

Patriarch

Roger <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

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

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

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

Regards,

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

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:q0bce.3701$Xl.2711@trndny03:

> I have the type that darkens in the sun. I hesitated getting them for
> years because I was afraid they would stay too dark. Now I won't go
> without them. No more clip ons or second prescription sun glasses to
> carry and change.
>
> Anti-glare is also good. With the self darkening lenses you can't
> have anti-glare on the outside, but it helps even on the inside.
> Ed
>

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

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

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

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

Regards,
JT

Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

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

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

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

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

Regards,
JT

Hi Swingman,

I had a pair of progressive safety glasses made a year ago. I had the same
parallelogram issue. It never lessened.

The issue for me, I was told, is that the lenses glass at 3 mm thick was the
cause. I then went to straight tri-focal. This eliminated the parallelogram
issue, but were in the long run hardly any better. I then went to bi-focal
with a small section at the bottom being the bi. This has worked ok for me.

My wife just got her a pair of safety glasses with her prescription in a
progressive style (as are her regular glasses) and she does not experience
the same parallelogram issue. They are a plastic safety lens, though, so I
don't know if that is the issue as they are thinner than my real glass pair
was.

The lab that made hers says that it was the grind on mine that made them
unusable. So I will be going to her optometrist and try the lab they use in
a week or so.

If you would like to have me report my findings to you in a personal email,
let me know. You will have to remove the space *@* space in my email address
for a reply directly to me. I don't look at the forum very often but can
come back here if you would prefer.

Mike



"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses,
> lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
> head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
> What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/25/05
>
>

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:26:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
>them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
>can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
>down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
>Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
>rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
>slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
>is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
>turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
>Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
>do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
>I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
>work.

Whe I first needed bifocals I tried progressive lenses. At the time I
worked at a defense plant with lots of security guards on the gates
and in the building lobby. I picked the glasses up during my lunch
hour. I drove back to the plant and when I got out of my 4X4 Suburban
I damn near fell down. I staggered into the lobby hoping like hell
that the guards did take me for someone who had a liquid lunch.

I had a "no-cost free evaluation" that I immediately took advantage
of. I wear regular bifocals that I don't often use in the shop. For
most things I don't need them and for closeup work I use an Optivisor
magnifier.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:40:49 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Wore contacts for 35 years (still do on stage when I play)

OK Swing, what is it that you play?

I'm a converted Telecaster Jockey who runs a Martin D-28 these days
(for about thirty-five years).

I brought the bottleneck with me from the Telly but don't use it as
much as I once did - except when I see that little red headed girl,
who gets me all fired up again, in several ways.

I've always been hoping that you were a gittar man (not a bass player)
and certainly hope that you are not a keyboard man or a nasty
percussionist (if you are - I have a lot of jokes to irritate you
with).

The last place that I recorded at was Sigma Sound in Philly, and the
Boardman was a gittarman, so things worked out just fine.


Of course, that was back when people still had eight tracks in their
cars.

sigh...


It'd be OK if you were a drummer - a little disappointing - but Id'a
wished that you was a real musician...



Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:56:04 GMT, the inscrutable "David Merrill"
> <[email protected]> spake:
>
> There is no such thing as quality in progressive lenses. They're
> all 80% bad. Only the "sweet spot" has correction. The rest is a
> blurred mess. BTDT, traded them in for bifocals + single-lens
> reading glasses.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
Valued Customer <[email protected]> writes:
>other hobby. Solution was to buy a pair of 1.75 Mag (plastic lenz)reading
>glasses from the local dollar store for close up work. Works so well I
>bought a bunch more of them ($1.00 a pr) and stashed them around my hobby
>areas .. keep losing them but with 3 or 4 pr on each bench I can usually
>find one set when I need 'em. I hang the progressive buggers around my
>neck on a cord until I need them.

That's too funny. My dad (about 64) did the same thing only more.
I think he bought a case or two from Costco. He's got 'em all
over the house. Can't lose all of them...

--
Chris Richmond | I don't speak for Intel & vise versa

Perhaps the group should be renamed rec.oldcodgers as there seem to be a few
in here!


"skeezics" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:26:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses,
lay
> >them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> >can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have
fallen
> >down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
> >
> >Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would
almost
> >rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
head
> >slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance
part
> >is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a
horny
> >turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
> >
> >Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
What
> >do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
> >
> >I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for
shop
> >work.
>
> Well like you, my upcloes vision is great. I just cant see accross the
> room! ive thoughtof progressive lenses but for now i think i will just
> stick to my other method which is leave the glasses in the kitchen [
> so i wont forget where they are!!!!] i dont need em for woodworking
> cause i see just fine at arms length. if my arms start growing im in
> deeeeeeppp s@#t. :-]>
>
> skeez
>

> Swingman wrote:
>> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses,
>> lay
>> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
>> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have
>> fallen
>> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>>
>> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would
>> almost
>> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your
>> head
>> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance
>> part
>> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a
>> horny
>> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>>
>> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better?
>> What
>> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>>
>> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for
>> shop
>> work.

my wife wears contacts: one lens for far, one for near. she doesn't have to
wear reading glasses anymore.

"John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perhaps the group should be renamed rec.oldcodgers as there seem to be a
> few
> in here!
>
>
> "skeezics" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

<buncha snippage>

>> Well like you, my upcloes vision is great. I just cant see accross the
>> room! ive thoughtof progressive lenses but for now i think i will just
>> stick to my other method which is leave the glasses in the kitchen [
>> so i wont forget where they are!!!!] i dont need em for woodworking
>> cause i see just fine at arms length. if my arms start growing im in
>> deeeeeeppp s@#t. :-]>
>>
>> skeez
>>
>

Didn't we all have this conversation a few months back?

Had to go to tri's when I was still driving OTR. SWMBO talked me into going
to Varilux. +)_(*()^^&%$#$#

Learned immediately that when I was trying to bend the trailer around a
corner to get into the dock that I couldn't see a darn thing!(leaning out
the door looking back, as trailer end is already out of mirror range) Take
'em off and throw 'em on the passenger seat until done!

Biggest problem now is getting a crick in the neck trying to tilt head back
far enough to see the monitor. I've been thinking about getting a pair of
those reading glasses just to leave by the computer.

--
Nahmie
The greatest headaches are those we cause ourselves.

Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> writes:

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

Were they tinted red? (grin)

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

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:

I think that you are confusing two things. There are tri-focal lenses
that are split into three zones. There are progressive lenses that have
no noticable division between the focal areas. Some people adapt to
progressive lenses and many others find them very difficult. The
progressive lenses have a continuous variation in power. The effect is
that there is a very narrow range of suitable power for any viewing
distance but there is some optimal power for every distance.

Dick


>
> OK - casting the sabers of the past aside since this is an old fart's issue
> and on that we are in common. I've had progressive trifocals for almost 10
> years now, after over 40 years of never needing glasses. I'm far sighted so
> I need the reading prescription most and my mid and long range prescriptions
> are less radical. Having said that - I do need to wear them for just about
> everything now. I can drive without them as long as I don't try to read the
> guages in the dash or some other equally irrelevant task.
>
> As for getting used to them - yeah and no. I still have to turn my head to
> be square on to what ever I'm looking at. You just can't look out the sides
> of them. The distortion is ridiculous. Not to mention one eye seeing one
> degree of correction and the other eye seeing something totally different -
> or perhaps none, if that eye is looking "around" the lens. Very disturbing
> and something you never get used to. When I turn my head to check for a car
> before making a lane change, I actually have to close one eye and look out
> of the other.
>
> You get somewhat used to some of the distortion in that you learn over time
> that the parallelogram you're seeing is really a square, but you never get
> used to trying to sight down a line and seeing a curve. Substitution
> becomes your friend. You learn to give up practices that used to work and
> adopt new ones in their place.
>
> The mid range prescription is both a blessing and a curse. Yeah - you need
> it, but it can still get in the way for me from time to time. You do learn
> how to look through the lens correctly for the distance you need, but every
> once in a while you find that damned mid range and it takes seconds to get
> things back in sync. You've got 10 years on me so maybe it will take you
> more than just seconds...
>
> I guess in the end, they're better than a sharp stick in the eye, but they
> aren't completely natural. Just wait until you do the stairs... You learn
> real quick to look right down at the steps as you make your way down.
> That's only in the beginning, but it does get your attention.
>
> I think that after having worn them now for as long as I have, the real big
> complaint that I have is that they do force me to look square on at
> everything and I can't just move my eyeballs to see what I want to see.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Norman D. Crow" <[email protected]> wrote:

Computer glasses are great. Get a single power. you may be able to
pick a suitable pair from the local drugstore. Just be sure that you
are checking them for the proper distance. I got my computer glasses
through an optomitrist as the needed power is greater than the drugstore
glasses.

Dick
>
> Biggest problem now is getting a crick in the neck trying to tilt head back
> far enough to see the monitor. I've been thinking about getting a pair of
> those reading glasses just to leave by the computer.

In article <[email protected]>,
"John" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Perhaps the group should be renamed rec.oldcodgers as there seem to be a few
> in here!

That's why I come in here...so I can feel young.

STOVEBOLT wrote:

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

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

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

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

Ed

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:%cAbe.649
>
> Had the same problem. Progressive lens cured it. Worth a try. Most still
> give a money back guarantee if you don't like them.

But when you're reading, aren't you looking down? If so, that would make
them not usable with a computer where you're looking ahead.

"skeezics" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Well like you, my upcloes vision is great. I just cant see accross the
> room! ive thoughtof progressive lenses but for now i think i will just
> stick to my other method which is leave the glasses in the kitchen [
> so i wont forget where they are!!!!] i dont need em for woodworking
> cause i see just fine at arms length. if my arms start growing im in
> deeeeeeppp s@#t. :-]>

I had to go to a separate pair of reading glasses three years ago for use
with the computer. The optometrist told me that bifocals are generally long
distance vision above and reading below which wouldn't help with the
computer, so now I travel around with two pairs of glasses.

Getting older sucks!

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

I have been wearing progressive lenses for about 15 years now. I have
had several different glasses from several different companies. For
progressive to work well they have physically fit you as they were
designed. The placement of the different parts of the lens has to be
fit to you. Work with the doctor or to get the glasses ground to fit
the way you use them. Then take the time to get them fit to you.

With my first set the doctor threatened me with multiple ground lenses
for several years. Each visit he quizzed me on how and what I did. When
I agreed to go with the progressive lenses he had them perfect, and I
was able to put them on and had no problems.

However with one set a different doctor did not understand how to fit
them and after multiple trips and regrinding of the lens they never
worked correctly.

Point being if they are not working, work with your current doctor, if
that does not work look for someone else




Swingman wrote:
> Here lately (fast approaching 62) I have to take off my regular glasses, lay
> them down somewhere in the shop to do close work, read a scale, etc. then
> can't find the damn things because they're under something, or have fallen
> down behind a tool, or I just can't see the things, ad infinitum.
>
> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication. Turn your head
> slightly and a square turns into a parallelogram, the middle distance part
> is worse than being blind, and my neck hurts from twisting it like a horny
> turkey to focus instead of just being able to move my eyeballs.
>
> Do you get used to these damn things? Are normal trifocals any better? What
> do some of you more experienced old codgers do for in-the-shop eyewear?
>
> I am about ready to throw in the towel on these expen$ive mutha's for shop
> work.
>

"Charles Spitzer" wrote in message

> my wife wears contacts: one lens for far, one for near. she doesn't have
to
> wear reading glasses anymore.

Wore contacts for 35 years (still do on stage when I play) and tried that
... it worked fine until the sun went down, or the lights were low, then I
couldn't see a damn thing. I was surprised because when I was younger and
kicking around the world I often lost one lens and had to go for months
before I could get to a part of the world where I could order a replacement,
and it never bothered me then ... AAMOF, in five years the army never
snapped to the fact that I wore contacts. I even passed the eye exam of a
flight physical in OCS, but they got me on the color blind test.

Growing old is like trying to keep an old car running ... about the time you
fix one thing something else breaks. Not bitch'in mind you, I am more or
less proud to have come this far.

Edwin's fix seem to help quite a bit. I wore these things in the shop for
about three hours this afternoon and for awhile there I forgot I had them on
... that's progress, and the master plan, IIRC.

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

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:20:32 +0000 (UTC), John Thomas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The first auto-darkening lense I got didn't work for crap. The last
>couple have been *wonderful*. I'm not sure what the difference is/was -
>the first set may have been glass, with the 'darkener' incoporated into
>the lens.
>
>I know the last two have been physical coatings on plastic. I won't have
>glasses without this.
>
>And also second the anti-glare. I just got this (it's by Zeiss) on the
>latest pair, and I won't live without this, either. Much less specular
>highlights from point-sources at night. Waaaaaaay better.

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

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

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

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

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Swingman wrote:

> Just got a pair of progressive lenses trifocals yesterday and would almost
> rather be half blind if the past two days is any indication.

Can't comment on progressive lens but have worn std tri's for several years.

Don't seem to have the problems you are experiencing; however, if this
is your first pair of tri's, they are different.

Lew

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

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

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

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

> Good luck and congratulations on reaping one of the major rewards for
> living a long life. The old coots I know tell me there's plenty more
> on the way!

Thanks to all of you. I'll keep trying ... it's good to know that I am
normal, in some respects, more or less.

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

"Bob Krecak" wrote in message

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

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


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

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

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

Check your real e-mail.

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

Sounds like you need tri-focals. I could read fine and see distances
fine but when I went into the library and was scanning the shelves I
either was right up to the books or backed up against the rear shelves.
Told the Dr on my next appt, she nodded, stuck my head in the
machinery, held up a newspaper and said "Read this." I did and she said
my intermediate vision was poor and that tri-focals would do the trick.
She was right!
Grandpa John

David wrote:

> I've never been satisfied with progressives that I wear for driving.
> It's hard to see images clearly in the side mirrors. I've tried
> bifocals for driving and that doesn't work out either; I can't see the
> dash (middle distance).

Swingman wrote:

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

Progressive lenses aren't the same thing as trifocal lenses. The latter
have three separate lenses, no gradation from one to another.
________________

> Do you get used to these damn things?

Eventually. Took me a week or two. You have to learn to move your head
up and down to get the focus at a given distance, then move *just* your
eyes side to side to see things at the same distance. It's moving your
head from side to side that screws up stuff, becomes automatic not to do
so.
________________

>Are normal trifocals any better?

Lord, NO! Tried a set when I was about your age...I always felt like I
was a doll hanging from a Chevy mirror...my head was constantly bobbing
up and down.

Dumped them and went to a set of bifocals like this...

Lens Focus range
Left near lens ___
Right near lens ___
Left far lens ___
Right far lens ___

Worked OK - infinitely preferable to trifocals - even though only one
eye is actually focused at a given distance but I eventually went to
progressives. Like them better yet.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico