I agree, 49mm isn't all that small. I use the 49mm measurement because it tends to be representative of a company's narrow, small frame offerings. Zenni, the online site I prefer because of the selection of interesting and unusual frames, don't have a lot of frames smaller than that, unless you count children's frames, which are much too small. Honestly, when I was spending much more money on designer frames, I had an easier time finding what I wanted, but I refuse to go back to that time. Now, I just settle for what I can get.
You mention that there is a huge selection in the size I mentioned. Where? Please direct me. Do keep in mind that I want small, colorful, and unusual in plastic or acetate. Thanks, Paul. On Jun 20, 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
