ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
5 March 2017, 11:45 AM | #1 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Rocky
Location: Australia
Watch: Grail:Bluesy
Posts: 17,711
|
Eyes Right?
Went to the Optometrist a couple of weeks ago as 3 yrs since my last Lens change.
My previous sets of lenses were done at a 'Budget' outfit and were good and cheap as well - $700. for two sets of their 'top' lens - graduated - with coatings. (one set regular glasses & the other sun-glasses) Had a lot of other stuff on my mind this month and for some reason I decided to go to the "big player" in the game for my new lenses. The 'house Optometrist' seemed very thorough, and I moved on to the spectacle-fitter' staff for the Lens part of the deal. The two sets of Lenses were very expensive - $810. per set - top material, graduated, UV etc. I made an 'on-the-spot' decision that I would go with it in spite of the cost, and told them to get the Lens made. I called in to pick them up last week and found to my shock that there was a problem - R lens somewhat blurry/unfocused. I discussed this with them and decided to give it the weekend for my eyes to 'adjust' - if that was the problem. Well it isn't of course. The R Lens is clearly not the correct prescription and remains blurry. Back Monday to see what can be done. Question: what should be done from here - I'm thinking eyes need to be re-tested. (they Bulk-bill this so shouldn't be an extra fee) Question: If the script for the R eye turns out to be incorrect (as surely it must) what degree of responsibility do I have for that, given that the eye test is based on the customer's responses to the Optometrist's "better or worse" questioning. Following from that, do I have any financial responsibility for the remaking of the R Lenses? What say you?
__________________
Cellini 4112. Sub 14060M. DJ 16233. Rotherhams 1847 Pocket-watch. Foundation Member of 'Horologists Anonymous' "Hi, I'm Rocky, and I'm a Horologist..." |
5 March 2017, 11:52 AM | #2 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: 116710 BLNR
Posts: 34,355
|
__________________
JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner |
5 March 2017, 11:59 AM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Real Name: DM
Location: USA
Watch: DD-YG/DJ/Breitling
Posts: 8,795
|
Hey there Rock... I had a similar problem here - the optometrist had my eyes rechecked and lens re-cut - not my expense and no hassle. Reputable business.
Glasses OK for now, but I have the "no-line trifocals" and need to check my eyes annually, at the very least every two years if blurring develops especially when reading newspaper, for example. Hope you get your situation resolved. Blessings, DM |
5 March 2017, 12:09 PM | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Calumet Harbor
Watch: ing da Bears
Posts: 13,568
|
Have them check the lens against your Rx first. It may have been cut wrong. Then check that they cut the optical center so that it fits over your pupil. If all that is fine, you'll need your eye re-examined.
|
5 March 2017, 01:26 PM | #5 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Rocky
Location: Australia
Watch: Grail:Bluesy
Posts: 17,711
|
Thanks Guys, I have noticed that the new lenses seem to have a very small "sweet spot" whereas the previous cheaper lenses from the 'Discount Player' had a large 'sweet spot' that minimised the need to turn the head when reading a book/newspaper. They seemed to be very 'horizontally consistent' whereas with the new ones, good focus lies only in a spot right in the middle.
I noticed this with the sunglasses also - it is necessary to actually look at the ground to avoid 'high stepping'. Another point with the sunglasses is that they seem to produce a 'reflective' effect off glass surfaces - windscreens of oncoming cars etc. None of this with the previous cheaper lenses (they were still the discount provider's 'best' lenses.)
__________________
Cellini 4112. Sub 14060M. DJ 16233. Rotherhams 1847 Pocket-watch. Foundation Member of 'Horologists Anonymous' "Hi, I'm Rocky, and I'm a Horologist..." |
5 March 2017, 02:39 PM | #6 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2013
Real Name: Bill
Location: Plymouth Meeting
Watch: 116520
Posts: 3,209
|
I always had trouble getting the right prescription. Whether it was my contacts or lens, I was never happy with them. I got LASIK at 26 and it changed my life. I would look into it if you haven't already!
|
5 March 2017, 02:48 PM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 493
|
LASIK!!! Boom!! It is the best.
|
5 March 2017, 02:52 PM | #8 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Rocky
Location: Australia
Watch: Grail:Bluesy
Posts: 17,711
|
That's a hard one, Bill. I have considered LASIK many times over about 30 years. From what I can gather it seems to work well for most people who have it but every now and then you hear of a notable failure.
I am Carer for my 102 yo Mum who has advanced Macular Degeneration and being so close to someone who is legally blind kind of focuses you on the impact of loss of vision. If I could get a 100% guarantee I would go for it. (yes, I know, there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee in life)
__________________
Cellini 4112. Sub 14060M. DJ 16233. Rotherhams 1847 Pocket-watch. Foundation Member of 'Horologists Anonymous' "Hi, I'm Rocky, and I'm a Horologist..." |
5 March 2017, 03:58 PM | #9 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Bob
Location: U.S.A.
Watch: 1655
Posts: 61,804
|
I spent a small fortune on new lenses & a couple of new frames in December....luckily I got a long time in between prescriptions.....one set had a defective lens....only wore for a day...took it back...got fixed all ok, no fuzzy vision...I hate eyeglasses...I hate getting old....bah humbug.
__________________
Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons |
5 March 2017, 05:51 PM | #10 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Rocky
Location: Australia
Watch: Grail:Bluesy
Posts: 17,711
|
Laughed at your response Bob.
Couldn't agree more, been wearing them since I was 12.(now almost 65) Had more frames and lenses than I care to remember, so when my wife says "Are you sure they are blurry..." Well, yes, I am sure.
__________________
Cellini 4112. Sub 14060M. DJ 16233. Rotherhams 1847 Pocket-watch. Foundation Member of 'Horologists Anonymous' "Hi, I'm Rocky, and I'm a Horologist..." |
5 March 2017, 08:17 PM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: California
Posts: 555
|
Your Rx change shouldn't cost you a thing, if it's a good doc. Generally most optical shops or docs offices will do one redo for you free of charge, big box sellers will do a few just to keep you happy before they say no.
If it's the progressive that you're noticing the sweet spot being smaller then it could be 1) that the corridor is indeed smaller or if it's off to the side then 2) it was measured incorrectly and your PD is off. When sitting behind the phoropter, remember to keep both eyes open and do not squint. Always blink, I can't tell patients this enough. Even if the doc is only testing your right eye, keep both open. Then have doc TRIAL FRAME your new Rx so that way you can see if the new Rx for the right eye is correct, so go look at something outside. This will save doc and you some time, and could have potentially saved doc a remake. Should be simple enough, I know what I'd do. And LASIK isn't always the answer, I say this because it was mentioned above. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
6 March 2017, 12:45 AM | #12 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 8,558
|
Hey Rocky, so there are several factors that can be causing this.
1) You need to make sure the new rx matches the rx you were prescribed. Have them check the new glasses on a lensometer. 2) If all checks out there, have a recheck of the refraction you got to determine if the new rx is right. Sometimes if you have a shift in axis, or increased astigmatism correction, that can throw you off. 3) If the rx checks out, you need to find out the PD from our old rx and compare it to the new rx. Having 2 different PD's from one pair of glasses to another can throw you off. PD= pupillary distance. 4) If that matches up, you may need to check the type of progressive bifocal you have. There are differences between bifocals, some have larger reading areas and some have smaller. There is a code on the lens a optician can read and compare it to your old rx. 5) Also switching from a "Regular" lens to a super high index lens can throw you off. Normally that causes a swimming effect, but usually involves both eyes. 6) Have them check the base curve of your old lens, and compare it to your new lens. That can throw you off. This list of things should do it. Depending on how sensitive to changes you are, you will find the problem. Normally a small tweak here or there will make a big difference. Best of luck my friend.... |
7 March 2017, 10:14 PM | #13 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 8,558
|
To OP, would kind of like to know what the outcome is???
|
7 March 2017, 10:22 PM | #14 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Brian (TBone)
Location: canada
Watch: es make me smile
Posts: 74,381
|
Quote:
|
|
13 March 2017, 07:49 PM | #15 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Rocky
Location: Australia
Watch: Grail:Bluesy
Posts: 17,711
|
Jason (Knappo) just reminded me that I have not provided an update on this matter. Thanks for your valuable advice Jason, and likewise to the other folks who did so.
I returned to the Optical store last Monday and they offered their earliest appointment to have a re-test as Wednesday. The young Optometrist got the same Rx again and called in her Senior. I had done a fair bit of 'testing' myself in the interim (using the credits that follow a movie as a good way to define exactly what I was seeing through the new lenses. I had drawn examples so was able to pass that on to the Optometrist. It seemed to help) The Senior did some testing of his own and arrived at a slightly different Rx for the R eye (which was the problem lens) He followed almost exactly the process Jason mentions above and explained to me some of the complicating factors with my case (increased oblique astigmatism in R eye) and a change in Rx that made it harder to get a good balance between long & short vision - hence the smaller 'sweet spot'. They decided to remake the lenses and I am hopeful of getting my spectacles back this week. I will post an update when that happens. Keep 'em crossed for me - I'd really like my specs back as I'm struggling with no Sunnies and an old pair of single-visions. Jason Pls see PM.
__________________
Cellini 4112. Sub 14060M. DJ 16233. Rotherhams 1847 Pocket-watch. Foundation Member of 'Horologists Anonymous' "Hi, I'm Rocky, and I'm a Horologist..." |
13 March 2017, 11:42 PM | #16 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 8,558
|
Quote:
|
|
20 March 2017, 06:30 PM | #17 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Rocky
Location: Australia
Watch: Grail:Bluesy
Posts: 17,711
|
OK - just to close this thread off properly.
Went back to the store today to collect the re-made lenses. They now seem fine. Right away they felt as though the R and L eyes were working together instead of separately. I think it may also have been a 'learning opportunity' for the junior Optometrist (who told me she was just out of University) I really appreciate all the contributions from fellow TRF Members which helped me to get my head around the issue and decide how I would approach a resolution.
__________________
Cellini 4112. Sub 14060M. DJ 16233. Rotherhams 1847 Pocket-watch. Foundation Member of 'Horologists Anonymous' "Hi, I'm Rocky, and I'm a Horologist..." |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.