Personally, I count anything under 50mm as small, but not tiny. Since I
prefer "small" frames, myself, I try to stay in that range.
As to why the stretched rectangle became so popular, it's simple. As we
grow fatter, we grown rounder. Since eyeglass frames should be the opposite
of our face shape, we need increasingly angular frames. I know that's the
case for me, as I grow rounder. :)
-- Chuck Knight
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wouldn't have thought that a 49mm lens was particularly small, since
> 54 mm is considered quite large. I've been wearing lenses in the 38-46
> mm range (frame width 125-130 mm), and my face isn't that small. When
> heavy glass was the only choice for lenses, small lenses were much
> more common, and I think the frames from that era tended to be more
> elegant. Now we have huge widths and tiny heights, so that everybody
> looks like they're wearing oversized half-frame reading glasses.
>
> I've never figured out how this style became fashionable in the first
> place, or why it's still here after so many years.
>
> Anyway, there is a huge selection of frames in the size range you
> mentioned, and the prices are incredibly low, so it's cheap and easy
> to experiment.
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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
