Chuck Knight wrote: > > In all seriousness, there have been excellent > rimless frames produced for over 100 years. I have a few antique > examples that are still structurally sound, and which could be used > today...if you could find a lab willing to make the lenses properly. > I even have a pair of rimless pince nez...talk about minimal!
I had one pair of rimless glasses, as a preteen. They lasted maybe two weeks, and the first incident they encountered left them beyond repair. They were made of CR-39, which is actually pretty tough stuff that was first used for combat airplane fuel tanks. Full-rim frames can take life's little knocks-- accidental squashing, exuberant hugs and kisses, inadvertent naps, stray elbows-- and while they might need some attention to straighten them out afterward, they usually don't self-destruct. > Properly designed rimless glasses *are* structurally sound. They're > minimal by nature...but they are structurally sound. I guess we have different understandings of what constitutes structural soundness. But I think we can agree that such minimal frames are only minimally durable. Plastic lens materials in general are vulnerable to internal stresses that can be avoided through careful and specific processing. Most dispensing opticians can cut lenses to fit frames without introducing internal stresses, but some of them obviously have a harder time drilling lenses as successfully. Chalo --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Check us out at the oft-updated http://glassyeyes.blogspot.com! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GlassyEyes" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/glassyeyes?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
