# Prescription eyeglasses



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

On my 29th birthday I blew out my back for about a week, from picking up my son, and here I am less than a month away from my 30th, and I'm having the exact same back problem, but I also just got handed a prescription for my first pair of eyeglasses. Nobody told me getting older happened that quickly.

So here is the dilemma I have never had to wear eyeglasses, I know I need something that will flatter my round face. Does that mean going for a round frame, or something more angular? Brand suggestions? 
I tried on some brooks brothers almost octagonal shaped, and I like that. I also tried on some tortoise shell club masters and I like those as well.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

You and I have fairly similar face shapes and I've had really good luck with Anglo-American Optical models the Fitz and the Agency. They have a nice retro-preppy look to them, but they flatter a rounder face with their thin frames and soft, but angled, lens shape. You can never go wrong with tortoiseshell.

The Anglo American 406 are the ones that everyone gushes over, but I think you need a longer face to really pull them off.

The Fitz:

The Albany:









The Agency:


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

The classic "trad" style is the P3 frame style: https://www.ivy-style.com/specs-appeal-p3-the-most-properly-preppy-eyeglasses.html

Several makers offer this style and variations thereof. Do a search....there are several AAAC threads on the subject already. I personally have the Oliver Peoples Larrabee model, which is a more squared take on the classic style.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

You night take a look at Randolf Engineering's Aviator frames as a platform for housing your prescription lenses. Pair your prescription pair with Randolf Engineering clip on sunglasses and you will be fixed for any lighting conditions! That's the way I roll, these days. Good luck in your hunt!


----------



## ran23 (Dec 11, 2014)

I really miss the ladies from my last eyeglass shop, they would try 20 frames on me, this was before I was married-I trusted their judgement.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

You may want to try Lindberg.

https://lindberg.com

I've been wearing them for about 6 years. Not sure how trad they are but they are incredibly light, durable and the rimless options are modular so you can pick out the temples and then a lens shape that works for your particular face and prescription.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> You may want to try Lindberg.
> 
> https://lindberg.com
> 
> I've been wearing them for about 6 years. Not sure how trad they are but they are incredibly light, durable and the rimless options are modular so you can pick out the temples and then a lens shape that works for your particular face and prescription.


I checked out the website. Very hip, sleek, and high-tech. Kinda the anti-trad option. Cool though.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

L-feld said:


> The Anglo American 406 are the ones that everyone gushes over, but I think you need a longer face to really pull them off.





FLCracka said:


> The classic "trad" style is the P3 frame style:


The one thing that you really, really, don't want is round lens to accentuate your face shape. Really you want a wide, short shape that will make your face look longer.








Get some.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Wow, there are people with heart shaped heads?!


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Thank you for the responses. Some really great info for me here. I am thinking that a tortoise shell club master style by ray ban, or the Anglo American agency would be my best bet.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

The Ray Ban style is fine, but do whatever you can to avoid buying actual Ray-Bans or any other Luxoticca product. 
Their website is inexplicably unavailable, but I'd highly recommend contacting Shuron, makers of the original and still domestic browline frame, the Ronsir, as it is very likely to be a superior product at a lower price and in a wider array of sizes.
[email protected][I]shuron[/I].com
800-242-3636
864-288-6364


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

^Having seen their collection of frames, I'd guess their website became unavailable in the 60's.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Oliver Peo*p*les are built better than Anglo Americans, and their styles are nicer in my opinion. I have two pairs of Sheldrake frames. I paid a pretty penny, but they are lifetime frames.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> You night take a look at Randolf Engineering's Aviator frames as a platform for housing your prescription lenses. Pair your prescription pair with Randolf Engineering clip on sunglasses and you will be fixed for any lighting conditions! That's the way I roll, these days. Good luck in your hunt!


Good idea, if you like this style of frame. I should point out that American Optical offers the same thing for about half the price.

I wore these all through high school (~1980), with clip-on shades; and for sports, the more rugged plastic frames of the same shape.

However nothing says "Ivy" like horn-rimmed P3s.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> ^Having seen their collection of frames, I'd guess their website became unavailable in the 60's.


Site's up again. Shuron is the Alden of eyewear. I am quite sure they spend .01% as much on marketing as Ray-Ban does, God bless them.
Death to Luxoticca!


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I had an absolutely frustrating couple of days with trying to figure out this situation.

I went to lenscrafters yesterday and told them I wanted to see how much my lenses would be, and that I would likely be supplying my own frames.

I handed over my vision insurance card, and waited 10 minutes while they taught someone how to look up what I was looking for. They came back with "your insurance covers the cost of frames up to $130.00 After that it will be out of pocket. I told them that it was something I already knew that I just wanted to know how much the lenses would run me so I know what I am getting myself into when I purchase frames. They told me that's not how it works and suggested searching for frames that they have available.

I went back today with my wife to get opinions on frames, and did a little more looking into Shuron Ronsir to see if they could order some for me, and was told that they could only order from brands that they already have on the wall. Fair enough, except this time they told me that my vision insurance was "out of network" so in order to get 50% off lenses I would have to pay full price for frames.

I dug into Shurons website a little bit more, and found a nice little piece of information on their unable to locate our products page.


> If you must visit an optical outlet, please tell us which you prefer and we will contact them on your behalf. We will do whatever is required to get Shuron products to you.




With that they have won my business. I will be calling Shuron tomorrow and placing my order.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I went to Lenscrappers a long, long time ago, in another lifetime. Avoid. You're better off dealing with an independent, local, boutique-y brick-and-mortar store. While these places tend to be pricier, you will get better service, generally, and have better frames to choose from.

At the same time, I think the boutique optical shop is a bit of a racket. I paid a pretty penny a few years ago for not one but two Oliver Peoples frames, with the intention they will be lifetime frames. I still wear them. But whenever I go to my shop here (in a new town) to get new lenses, I get a long talk about how I need to replace my frames, and I also get sales pitches aimed at convincing me I'm getting the better deal if I buy the whole kit and caboodle instead of just replacing the lenses.

Most recently, I was told a) they can't help me if something happens to the frames while they're replacing the lenses, b) they can't help me if I need replacement parts because my frames are not made anymore, and in fact, the store does not carry those particular frames (this last was said with a wrinkled up nose, as if the young lady were getting a whiff of a bad odor, as she gingerly inspected my three-year-old OP frames). 

For a), okay, and what is the likelihood? And if this does happen, isn't this due to your carelessness and then wouldn't you risk losing me as your customer for anything after that. 

For b), actually, this is completely false. One, I looked on the Oliver Peoples web site, and lo and behold, there they are--my frames! And two, I looked on your OWN STORE SHELVES and found them! W T F, people?

I flat out told the sales associates, I don't want to replace my frames every year, or even every few years. Ideally, never. I bought frames that are classic and durable, for that reason. I like them. I don't want anything else.

They looked at me like I was from Mars. 

Buyer beware!


----------



## DenverESullivan (Aug 27, 2015)

Duvel said:


> I flat out told the sales associates, I don't want to replace my frames every year, or even every few years. Ideally, never. I bought frames that are classic and durable, for that reason. I like them. I don't want anything else.
> 
> They looked at me like I was from Mars.
> 
> Buyer beware!


I've been through this repeatedly with Lenscrafters and a couple other optical places myself. I hate to admit it, but I tend to put off going back to the eye doctor way longer than I should simply for the fact that I hate the deal with the whole 'new frames' issue.

I have yet to find a pair of glasses that I actually like myself in 

- Denver


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I hear ya. I simply make it clear up front that I don't want new frames. I have to re-state every time that I spent what is for me a lot of money on good frames--that, in fact, your store sells--and that I don't intend to do it again in the near future.

I suspect that stores make their money on the frames, not the lenses. I also suspect that's why you see mainly trendy styles and few "classic" styles on display. They want you to get tired of your frames when they're no longer fashionable.



DenverESullivan said:


> I've been through this repeatedly with Lenscrafters and a couple other optical places myself. I hate to admit it, but I tend to put off going back to the eye doctor way longer than I should simply for the fact that I hate the deal with the whole 'new frames' issue.
> 
> I have yet to find a pair of glasses that I actually like myself in
> 
> - Denver


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Re Duvel, Domontez and DenverESullivan,

I have had similar experiences and agree with Duvel, you need to find an independent place (your Lenscrafter experience is like one I had at Cohen Optical [another chain]) - the chains all push the "entire package" and I'll say it, some of their sales associates lie to get you to do it). Fortunately, I'm old enough, have been buying glasses long enough and am just tired of being pushed around enough, that I just walked out of Cohen's.

I found a local guy (unfortunately, some local guys can be rip offs as well - you have to put some effort into finding the right place - Yelp can help) and, to Duvel's point, he is more expensive, but he never pushes, is happy to use my existing frame and takes time to make sure my lenses (I get both reading and progressives) are correctly measures and designed for my face and how I use them.

I also like to buy frames for life. I have one that dates back to the late '80s, a few from the '90s and a couple from the last ten years. I don't buy new frames often, but when I do, they are high quality and (hopefully) timeless styles. I have a thin face, so I go with wireless or thin wireframes in classic styles.

And my frames are so similar, that even when I do get a new one, no one notices, which is exactly how I like it.


----------



## RT-Bone (Nov 12, 2013)

I've heard from more than one optician that Anglo American frames are crap.

Oliver Peoples has the styles that fit within the trad genre, but they are made by Lux, which can be a deal breaker for some.

I have a pair of Barton Perreira frames that are fantastic.

I also have some Moscot frames for when I'm feeling a bit more bold.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

RT-Bone said:


> Oliver Peoples has the styles that fit within the trad genre, *but they are made by Lux*, which can be a deal breaker for some.


For the life of me I still cannot figure out why this company garners so much hatred on these fora.

I don't mean to act as a troll so feel free to ignore direct replies to this in favor of PMs if it suits you.


----------



## RT-Bone (Nov 12, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> For the life of me I still cannot figure out why this company garners so much hatred on these fora.
> 
> I don't mean to act as a troll so feel free to ignore direct replies to this in favor of PMs if it suits you.


I personally don't have any issues with Lux - just noting it because I know others do.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

My experience with Oliver Peoples has been that they offer a high-quality product at full price. I own two of their frames and both are outstanding and both cost me an arm and a leg. I have no problem with that as I buy timeless frames and wear them for many years (or, in the case of the first one, for decades). 

Who is Lux (I assume Oliver Peoples parent company) and what is the reason they are disliked?


----------



## DenverESullivan (Aug 27, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> For the life of me I still cannot figure out why this company garners so much hatred on these fora.
> 
> I don't mean to act as a troll so feel free to ignore direct replies to this in favor of PMs if it suits you.


I think part of the general dislike of Luxotica is because they purchase the rights to almost every designer brand and then churn out style-after-style using the brands reputation which they then use to push them in their Lenscrafter and other stores. The quality or design the designer brand is known for is no where to be found in the equation.

The glasses a person ends up getting aren't the designer brand they're actually wanting but a Luxotica creation with a brand logo engraved on it.

Sometimes they have something that looks and is made decent and other times not so much. If anything I think they hurt the designer brand's reputation more than they help to expand the brand.

Just my two cents....

- Denver


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I have no idea who Lux is/are either, and don't really care. I care, like you, that they're great high-end frames that will last me a long time.



Fading Fast said:


> My experience with Oliver Peoples has been that they offer a high-quality product at full price. I own two of their frames and both are outstanding and both cost me an arm and a leg. I have no problem with that as I buy timeless frames and wear them for many years (or, in the case of the first one, for decades).
> 
> Who is Lux (I assume Oliver Peoples parent company) and what is the reason they are disliked?


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Fading Fast said:


> Who is Lux (I assume Oliver Peoples parent company) and what is the reason they are disliked?


Luxottica is the eyewear company owned by Leonardo del Vecchnio (Claudio's father). A lot of people dislike their business practices, which are somewhat anticompetitive. They own a lot of the major brands and own the licenses for nearly every major "fashion" brand.

The real criticism is basically the same criticism that everyone on the forum has for most fashion brands - they are overstyled and their price does not correspond to their quality. But you probably weren't planning on buying a pair of Prada frames, anyway.

As for their house brands, it's not that Oliver Peoples is poor quality. It's more like Ralph Lauren clothes - great if you get it on sale, but not worth the retail price.

In the same way that a PRL Blazer isn't (quality-wise) worth the $1300 retail, but Southwick or H. Freeman are worth the $700 retail, Oliver Peoples frames aren't quite worth $400 retail, whereas Anglo-American or Shuron frames are worth the $200 retail.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

L-feld said:


> Luxottica is the eyewear company owned by Leonardo del Vecchnio (Claudio's father). A lot of people dislike their business practices, which are somewhat anticompetitive. They own a lot of the major brands and own the licenses for nearly every major "fashion" brand.
> 
> The real criticism is basically the same criticism that everyone on the forum has for most fashion brands - they are overstyled and their price does not correspond to their quality. But you probably weren't planning on buying a pair of Prada frames, anyway.
> 
> ...


Understood and thank you for the color.

I own two OPs frames. One is from the late '80s that is still going strong without a single problem - never had to replace a screw, they never lost a lens (and I've had at least five different ones in them over the years) and their shape and general appearance has held up wonderfully. The other is a pair I bought +/- '05 and, so far, am having the same experience. That said, two (one, I'm guessing, that pre-dates Luxottica's purchasing the company) is not even laughably close to a scientific sample.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I fail to see the RL to OP comparison. I think an OP frame is high quality and well worth every penny. The difference between a $200 Anglo American and a $400 Oliver Peoples is remarkable, in style and in durability, etc.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Fading Fast said:


> Understood and thank you for the color.
> 
> I own two OPs frames. One is from the late '80s that is still going strong without a single problem - never had to replace a screw, they never lost a lens (and I've had at least five different ones in them over the years) and their shape and general appearance has held up wonderfully. The other is a pair I bought +/- '05 and, so far, am having the same experience. That said, two (one, I'm guessing, that pre-dates Luxottica's purchasing the company) is not even laughably close to a scientific sample.


Well, actually, both of them predate the Luxottica acquisition, which wasn't until 2006. I didn't start wearing glasses until law school ruined my eyes circa 2008, so I have no frame of reference for pre-acquisition OP.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

L-feld said:


> Well, actually, both of them predate the Luxottica acquisition, which wasn't until 2006. I didn't start wearing glasses until law school ruined my eyes circa 2008, so I have no frame of reference for pre-acquisition OP.


That's really interesting - I now have to check out OP to see if I see a difference. I've always used OP as an example of a luxury good being well made and worth the extra price as the quality held up over time (many luxury goods are just over-priced items only marginally nicer than their down market competitors).

Sorry about your eyes - but mine went after a few years on Wall Street from staring at the mid-'80s small green computer screens all day.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Duvel said:


> I fail to see the RL to OP comparison. I think an OP frame is high quality and well worth every penny. The difference between a $200 Anglo American and a $400 Oliver Peoples is remarkable, in style and in durability, etc.


Well, maybe as a glasses newb, I'm blind to the difference. I've found my two pairs of AA to be very durable, but I also have no idea what they will look like 20 years from now. From a comfort and durability standpoint, they are superior to the Lafont glasses that I originally had.

I can't compare durability to OP, but when I was looking for tortoise frames a while back, I tried on various OP glasses and I found that both brands made very similar styles. What do you consider to be the strengths of OP from a style standpoint?


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I should clarify: I do think OP is a bit overpriced. But to me, they also look better. I think they have a better range of styles, and styles that are more truly American-traditional, as it were. I also think OP does a better job with the coloring of the plastic. I find the plastic a little thicker, as well, in similar types of frames.

I've also had some AAs that faded a little, and discolored. I haven't had that problem with my OPs.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

L-feld said:


> Well, maybe as a glasses newb, I'm blind to the difference. I've found my two pairs of AA to be very durable, but I also have no idea what they will look like 20 years from now. From a comfort and durability standpoint, they are superior to the Lafont glasses that I originally had.
> 
> I can't compare durability to OP, but when I was looking for tortoise frames a while back, I tried on various OP glasses and I found that both brands made very similar styles. What do you consider to be the strengths of OP from a style standpoint?


I like classic - think 1920s - '40s eye ware - wireless or wire frames and OP, over the years (I haven't been in a store in years), does those styles incredibly well. So I'd say true vintage / retro is their (or was their) style strength.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Agree!



Fading Fast said:


> I like classic - think 1920s - '40s eye ware - wireless or wire frames and OP, over the years (I haven't been in a store in years), does those styles incredibly well. So* I'd say true vintage / retro is their (or was their) style strength*.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

L-feld said:


> Well, maybe as a glasses newb, I'm blind to the difference. I've found my two pairs of AA to be very durable, but I also have no idea what they will look like 20 years from now. From a comfort and durability standpoint, they are superior to the Lafont glasses that I originally had.
> 
> I can't compare durability to OP, but when I was looking for tortoise frames a while back, I tried on various OP glasses and I found that both brands made very similar styles. What do you consider to be the strengths of OP from a style standpoint?


They have a number of high profile celeb wearers of their frames, so they've got that going for them.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

By the way, if you do try to save a few bucks off retail by buying online, beware as there are definitely OP knock-offs out there. I got burned with a pair of fake OP frames bought on ebay. Ended up finding an authentic pair later, but the mistake was costly.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Fading Fast said:


> I like classic - think 1920s - '40s eye ware - wireless or wire frames and OP, over the years (I haven't been in a store in years), does those styles incredibly well. So I'd say true vintage / retro is their (or was their) style strength.


heh, that still sounds like PRL to me (but for different reasons). I should have clarified that I was talking about the "good" PRL stuff that is sold in upscale mens stores, not the department store polos that list for $90 and are perpetually "on sale" for $35.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

FLCracka said:


> They have a number of high profile celeb wearers of their frames, so they've got that going for them.


Well, but that's true of lot's of luxury/fashion brands. In many cases that's the result of marketing strategies, free samples sent to celebrities, etc.

Some luxury brands are decent, some are junk. Most are, in some way, overpriced or, differently said, charging you for branding instead of quality.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Because, of course, they _need_ handouts!



L-feld said:


> Well, but that's true of lot's of luxury/fashion brands. In many cases that's the result of marketing strategies, *free samples sent to celebrities*, etc.
> 
> Some luxury brands are decent, some are junk. Most are, in some way, overpriced or, differently said, charging you for branding instead of quality.


----------



## Tim_McD (Aug 20, 2012)

Most of what celebrities wear (on the screen and on the red carpet) is product placement; clothes and accessories being worn for a fee

As far as quality prescription eyewear is concerned; my experience is that titanium is the bees knees for frames. It is light, non-corrosive and durable - perfect for those of us that wear glasses every waking moment of everyday. 

I love the look of acetate frames, but after a year of wear the temples and arms start to get hazy. I am looking at a pair of Lindberg frames, which are titanium with a channel-set inlay of acetate. I can get that classic tortoise frame look with the durability of Ti. 

My current pair of Prodesign Ti frames are coming up on 6 yrs old and it is time to refresh my look and keep these as a real backup.


----------



## DenverESullivan (Aug 27, 2015)

I need to get new frames and lenses myself later this year so I'm open to any and all options for something durable and stylish. So if anyone finds something outstanding, please post.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

You mean like Oliver Peoples Sheldrakes?



DenverESullivan said:


> I need to get new frames and lenses myself later this year so I'm open to any and all options for something durable and stylish. So if anyone finds something outstanding, please post.


----------



## DenverESullivan (Aug 27, 2015)

Definitely... I really have no idea what I'm looking for this time. All I know is I want something 'different' but classic.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tim_McD said:


> As far as quality prescription eyewear is concerned; my experience is that titanium is the bees knees for frames. It is light, non-corrosive and durable - perfect for those of us that wear glasses every waking moment of everyday.
> 
> I love the look of acetate frames, but after a year of wear the temples and arms start to get hazy. I am looking at a pair of* Lindberg frames*, which are titanium with a channel-set inlay of acetate. I can get that classic tortoise frame look with the durability of Ti.


You won't be disappointed. They are incredibly light and durable and won't lose their shape. Again, not exactly trad but excellent frames and worth the price.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> You won't be disappointed. They are incredibly light and durable and won't lose their shape. Again, not exactly trad but excellent frames and worth the price.


I own a pair of Lindberg's - not shy in their pricing, but very good quality - and, at least the model I got, echoes trad, but not perfect trad.


----------



## DenverESullivan (Aug 27, 2015)

Fading Fast said:


> I own a pair of Lindberg's - not shy in their pricing, but very good quality - and, at least the model I got, echoes trad, but not perfect trad.


Good to know...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Fading Fast said:


> I own a pair of Lindberg's - not shy in their pricing, but very good quality - and, at least the model I got, echoes trad, but not perfect trad.


They have that great Scandinavian minimalist aesthetic which suits my face just fine.


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

I've worn Lafont from Ben Silver for the past ten years and have been pleased. Recently I changed to Francois Pinton, also from BS and like those in the round tortoise because they have a spring loaded ear pieces which flex a bit. Over the years, Ive "retired" old frames to use as sunglasses frames on a regular basis and found this to be a cost saver. My insurance covers only a limited set of locations and I forgo the $frame allowance in favor of styles that I prefer. Ive found that the round tortoise shells get lots of favorable comments from folks which is something that never happened before I began wearing that shape and color.

Just my .02$


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

RT-Bone said:


> I have a pair of Barton Perreira frames that are fantastic.
> I also have some Moscot frames for when I'm feeling a bit more bold.


It's my understanding that Barton Perriera has much of the talent of old Oliver Peoples. Last I'd heard, the Moscot frames were Chinese-made, which is a shame as they do have good shapes.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I am still having a difficult time with this. Shuron Ronsir ZYL is what I would like to purchase. I've never tried them on, so I am not even sure that I would like them enough to wear, and to keep. I've called every single optician "in my network" none of them are willing to order these for me. Shuron will send me 4 frames for $95.00 and I chose the pair I like, or send them all back. My problem is that my insurance will cover the cost of frames up to $130.00 so I am not willing to pay for frames that I could be getting for free(actually already paid for in bi-weekly payments to superior vision), also my insurance only covers plastic lenses and most of, if not everyone I spoke with doesn't even offer plastic, only polycarbonate, so lenses will be out of pocket no matter what. Shuron told me to send them a list of the opticians "in my network" and they would try and solicit the business on my behalf, but I think thats just sending them looking for fools gold.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Polycarbonate lenses, except in cases of steep correction or importance of impact resistance, is another scam upcharge. The cheap CR-39 plastic is actually optically better than polycarbonate.

I've been annoyed by the poor availability of Shuron as well, and would totally go down to where they are made to try on a bunch. As I said, the Alden of eyewear.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Tempest said:


> Polycarbonate lenses, except in cases of steep correction or importance of impact resistance, is another scam upcharge. The cheap CR-39 plastic is actually optically better than polycarbonate.
> 
> *I've been annoyed by the poor availability of Shuron as well, and would totally go down to where they are made to try on a bunch. As I said, the Alden of eyewear*.


I definitely understand that, but Alden would be a poor choice if the last doesn't fit your foot. They have a retailer in Austin about 3.5 hours north of me. I may have to be in San Antonio for work next week, so if that's the case I might just make the trip north an hour to see if I can try them on.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> They have that great Scandinavian minimalist aesthetic which suits my face just fine.


I'm the exact same. For me, I have a thin bony face that can't handle substantial frames - all my glasses are rimless or simple wire frames in a vintage-echoing style with little or no ornamentation.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

so, I found a small "boutique" optical place today, and went in. I told the girl that greeted me that it was my first time needing prescription eyeglasses, and told her I was needing some major help. I explained that I wanted Shuron Ronsir Zyl frames, she had never heard of the brand. I asked if they would be willing to order, she said we only order what we have in the store. I showed her a picture of what they looked like, and she proceeded to tell me that they cary the best frames in the world such as persol, and "ray band" I found some persol's that mimicked the Shuron frames, and I really liked the way the looked, but they were $385.00 and they don't accept ANY insurance. They did have Lindberg, and another called "makita" which were all very nice, but didn't fit my face at all. 

I have 5 pairs of Warby Parkers on the way to me, but to test fits, and styles. Still absolutely frustrated, and I just want to see how I feel like I was seeing a month ago.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

I did the WP test pack too, and was not impressed with their frames.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Good eyeglasses are not cheap. Most insurance companies will pay only for the exam, part of the cost of the lenses, and not the frames. We manage to cover most of our eyeglass expenses through a combination of insurance, health spending account funds, and out of pocket cash. 

I think you just have to be open to trying on different frames. Find the very best optical shop you can find, and go with what they have to offer.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. The suggestive power of these threads/conversations seems undeniable, at least in my experience. Several years back, the opinions of others persuaded me to go for a pair of Anglo-American Optical, model 406 frames in amber tortoise shell for my back up pair of glasses. A recent change in my eyeglass prescription provided all the reason needed to send off for a new pair of Randolph Engineering Aviator frames and the clip on sunglass attachment to replace the model 406 framed lenses (serving as my back-ups) and get back to who I really am. Just as a leopard is unable to change his spots, we are perhaps unable to substantially change our sartorial natures! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. The suggestive power of these threads/conversations seems undeniable, at least in my experience. Several years back, the opinions of others persuaded me to go for a pair of Anglo-American Optical, model 406 frames in amber tortoise shell for my back up pair of glasses. A recent change in my eyeglass prescription provided all the reason needed to send off for a new pair of Randolph Engineering Aviator frames and the clip on sunglass attachment to replace the model 406 framed lenses (serving as my back-ups) and get back to who I really am. Just as a leopard is unable to change his spots, we are perhaps unable to substantially change our sartorial natures! :icon_scratch:


Maybe there is an entire thread in this perceptive thought of yours (if I may paraphrase):* Do we have an internal sartorial gyroscope that draws us back to a basic look we like for ourselves?*

I think we do both in what I see in my behavior and in others. I'll be persuaded by this Forum or something I see elsewhere to break out of my mold - and even enjoy the "breakout" item - but rarely do I stray too far for too long. Even if I enjoyed the unconventional-for-me item, I tend not to replace it when it is worn out, or it eventually falls out of rotation and I am back to wearing what I love unconditionally.

One example (there are many): I love stone / tan / beige khakis and probably own (I don't really know as most of my clothes are in storage as we are renovating our apartment) 15 - 20 pairs of them, but I will see an add for another pair and want to buy it. But I own no other colors; although, over the years, I have owned navy, gray and olive and enjoyed wearing them, but never as much as my "true" khakis. (Don't get me started on my passion for light grey sweaters.)

One more and then I'll stop: I have five or six pairs of wireless or simple wireframe eyeglasses and one tortoise shell that I wore off and on for a few years and then just stopped without making an active decision to stop. I just feel right / feel like myself in wireless or simple wire frames and didn't in the tortoise, even though I did like them and love them on others.

I'll start this as a separate thread if others think it makes sense - thoughts?


----------



## Tx-Trad (Sep 12, 2015)

You asked what frames are "trad". Of course, meaning traditional (in the WASP sense, as in, Ivy/Preppy/Trad). There is only one correct answer: P3. And in tortoise shell (preferably light tortoise shell). The only acceptable alternative is wire p3 style frames in tortoise shell.

And not just derivative P3 frames; the details must be correct. True keyhole bridge; horn rims with diamond or dot(s); oval (not completely round) in lens shape; glass lens, not polycarbonate plastic.

That is the genuine answer to your question, accept it or not.

These are rare frames that you will virtually never see for sale in a store.

Some brands you can buy online:

Moscot Miltzen / Ben Silver / Anglo American

Some pictures that demonstrate the correct details:








[/URL][/IMG]








[/URL][/IMG]








[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

TX-Trad, welcome to the forums, from a fellow Texan.

You may want to re-read my OP. I asked the trad forum for prescription frames that would work well for my face, I never once asked what was the quintessential trad frame.

Thanks for the info though.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Tx-Trad said:


> You asked what frames are "trad".


He did??


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> Maybe there is an entire thread in this perceptive thought of yours (if I may paraphrase):* Do we have an internal sartorial gyroscope that draws us back to a basic look we like for ourselves?*
> 
> I think we do both in what I see in my behavior and in others. I'll be persuaded by this Forum or something I see elsewhere to break out of my mold - and even enjoy the "breakout" item - but rarely do I stray too far for too long. Even if I enjoyed the unconventional-for-me item, I tend not to replace it when it is worn out, or it eventually falls out of rotation and I am back to wearing what I love unconditionally.
> 
> ...


I see significant value in the thread you propose and have also experienced many of the sartorial evolutions, described above, that have taken me back to the point from which my AAAC inspired sartorial adventures began. Indeed I thought of titling a thread such as you have proposed, "Sartorial Adventurism Considered within The Context of the Flowers for Algernon Conundrum!" From the perspective of my ongoing wardrobing practices, I often feel very much like a sartorial version of the character Charlie Gordon.


----------



## Tx-Trad (Sep 12, 2015)

Hey, thanks for the warm welcome. Always a pleasure to meet another brother from the Republic.

I did misunderstand your post, my apologies. In hindsight, I think part of my response was unintentionally directed at some of the discussion and comments made after your post. 

Also, in my opinion, "trad" is less precise than Ivy style. Buddy Holly-style frames would be correct to call trad, as well as P3 frames. On the other hand (I believe) P3 frames are the *only* correct Ivy/Preppy frames.

And if I may say so, I believe P3's look great on any kind of face. The Ivy kids of old wore nothing else (...overall), irregardless of face shape. They all looked erudite and prestigious. 

I still believe P3 is the best frame for the trad man, even if it's not the only frame that is genuinely trad. Give them a try.

My 20 cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation).

Best wishes. --Michael


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Tx-Trad said:


> And if I may say so, I believe P3's look great on any kind of face.


I have a pair of retro Criss Optical Yanks on my face right now. They look good to me. These Harry Potter schoolboy glasses, to me, only look okay in phony Ralph Lauren ads. If you have a round face, they make you look comically fat, a narrow face, they contrast to make you look gaunt. Every time I'm in an optician shop, I try a pair on and I always look awful. They are perhaps the second most universally unflattering design that I know of, only following those cornball Curbusier circular frames.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> I see significant value in the thread you propose and have also experienced many of the sartorial evolutions, described above, that have taken me back to the point from which my AAAC inspired sartorial adventures began. Indeed I thought of titling a thread such as you have proposed, "Sartorial Adventurism Considered within The Context of the Flowers for Algernon Conundrum!" From the perspective of my ongoing wardrobing practices, I often feel very much like a sartorial version of the character Charlie Gordon.


You and me both. When time permits latter today - I will launch the thread. Thank you for your encouragement.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Just had my reading prescription updated (strengthened ) and the guy I buy my lenses (and once-in-a-blue-moon new frames) from knows I love vintage / vintage-inspired frames, so he showed me these.

He said he had tucked them away and forgotten about them as he no longer carries the line, but when he saw them when he was looking through his old stock, he thought of me.

I forget their name (and can't find it on the frame anywhere) - sorry - but thought they had a real nice vintage look. Also, they are quite light - which can be a drawback to some true vintage frames. Anywho -here there are:


----------



## Old Road Dog (Sep 4, 2015)

Tempest said:


> The one thing that you really, really, don't want is round lens to accentuate your face shape. Really you want a wide, short shape that will make your face look longer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

