Thursday, December 8, 2011

"Progressive" Is Good, Right?

The three of us went to the mall today, for the second time in less than a week, which is really weird for us.

I had my appointment with the eye doctor, and Shrike had to pick up her glasses.

Not bad, eh?

Mine will be ready in three to five business days.

I really don't understand the results of my vision tests, because he told me that on the distance vision, I'm 20/20 and would pass the driver's license test to drive without glasses, but that I'll see better with them. I'm not sure how this jives up with the fact that I can't read a street name until I've pretty much missed my turn.

For the close-up vision, he told me that, again, I am 20/20, but with "about five steps of magnification to make it clear."

Yeah, "clear" versus "Are there words there? Because it just looks like a gray blob." That seems sort of significant to me.

He said that my prescription is "very weak" but, again, I'll "see better with glasses than without."

Well, I should hope so, because I can't see shit without them.

Then he began to describe the glasses that he's recommending: "They'll have one area that's for reading, and one that's for distance vision . . . "

I said, "Yeah, I like how you said all that without ever using the word 'bifocals.'"

He just laughed and said, "Welcome to your forties!"

Actually, he said that they are not, technically, bifocals, because those have the line and these will be progressive lenses, that also have an area that's good for middle-distance vision, like the computer or the dashboard.

When I get them, I'm supposed to wear them full time for a couple of weeks, to get used to them, and then I can go to just wearing them when I need them, like for reading or driving. I suspect that's a trick, because I'm guessing that after wearing them full time for a couple of weeks, most people decide that they need them all the time.

I thought that my crappy insurance had some sort of a glasses discount, at least, but it turns out that I have no coverage at all for vision, so I restricted my frames search to the cheapest ones. I found a pair that I think I'm really going to like, at the lowest price, so that's cool.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I could have found some that I loved at a higher price, too, but I wasn't even looking at those.

Although, I would have liked to have gotten the ones with "Magic Clip" magnetic "clip"-on sunglasses, but they were way more expensive, and I don't think there were any in that style that I liked as much as the ones I chose.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do for sunglasses, because I have to have them to drive during the day. I guess I'll get the dorky clip-ons. I will not be getting the giant ones that go on over your glasses. That is for sure.

Between the exam, frames and lenses - which were more expensive because I went with the progressives instead of traditional bifocals - I got out of there for a smidge over $200, which we don't really have to be throwing around, but I guess isn't too bad, all things considered.


  1. Yeah, I agree. On the other hand, Shrike's insured sight only cost us $20.


What say you?