I have not been happy with my inexpensive rimless frames. I had one pair from valueglasses and another from zenni. Both were highly unstable. The rim to glass connections would not hold tight.
OTOH, I've generally liked the half-rims I've gotten from Zenni. The $8 9620 did seem a bit cheap in finish (if you looked closely) but was structuraly sound. I had a pair of 4635 and used them as my main glasses with no problems at all for about a year. I got a second pair of 4635 (minor prescription change) a few months ago and oddly the nose pads both broke within 4 months (Zenni did supply replacement pads and tiny screwdriver for changing them at no charge). I've also had the 9602 half rim for my progressive lenses and it's holding up just fine, although I don't use it that often. On Sep 21, 7:35 pm, sonshine <[email protected]> wrote: > I read your comments about rimless and semi-rimless frames with > interest. It makes alot of sense. I love the look of these > 'minimalist' frames, but have been frustrated with my two past > experiences with this particular style. Especially considering how > much I paid for them thru my local optometrist's office. Since > finding this site, and discovering the world of affordable on-line > glasses, I have been fighting the urge to try rimless frames again. > But even at such a savings I'm wondering if its worth risking being > disappointed again. Have others here had great success with these > delicate frames, and if so, do you have any advice to help one make > the right decisions when choosing the particulars while placing an > order for this type of glasses? > > On Sep 20, 4:26 pm, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Paul wrote: > > > > I bought that exact [rimless] frame from Zenni, and replaced the vinyl > > > nose pads > > > with silicone to get an extremely light and comfortable pair for > > > computer use. (The pads didn't make that much difference, but silicone > > > is nicer and there's no chemical hazard.) They worked fine for quite a > > > few months, but then they broke in the middle. > > > I think opticals, both online and local, are all taking some blame for > > the intrinsic crappiness of rimless and half-rim frames. Such frames > > are all needlessly fragile, all structurally unsound, and all way > > better at making people have to replace glasses frequently than they > > are at correcting vision. > > > The optical retailers are only to blame for offering this junk to > > begin with-- but it's not their fault that such insubstantial frames > > are junky. It's just the nature of an incomplete frame to be weak and > > troublesome. > > > Would an astronomer make a telescope by drilling holes in lenses and > > connecting the holes together with wire? Would he use fishing line as > > a structural element of his instruments? No, he would not, because > > that would be dumb. > > > Glasses _frames_ are supposed to be just that. The lenses are optical > > elements and should not be required to function as frames. Confusing > > the two functions is one of the factors that gave us pervasive use of > > polycarbonate-- which is plenty strong and tough, but a terrible > > optical material that should never be used as a lens when visual > > quality is important. > > > Anyway, folks can save themselves the trouble of rickety and > > unreliable glasses by just using full-rim designs made from proven > > metals or plastics. Then they should use lens materials for their > > optical qualities and not their mechanical qualities. > > > Chalo- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
