Glasses...What's the story?

I had to get prescription specs the other day....so that I can see things
(tv, other cars, the ground, etc etc):rolleyes:
The eye tests and standard specs are covered under my medical fund, which is good,
But the mark up on frames and plastic lenses is outrageous:oo: :((
In a previous life I used to be a patternmaker, so I've got a fair idea of the manufacturing process and costs.
Trust me folks, standard , good quality presription specs should cost about the same as a decent toothbrush.
(there's more hardware and more complex injection moulding in some disposable razors.)
Anyways, rant over.

I agree Underfoot....its a blatent rip off....I just had to replace mine and $405 later .......I claimed mine on my household insurance as I sat on em.....had to pay $100 excess so that helped.....AL

Spot on. You can buy cheap magnifying spectacles and sunglasses in chemists but as soon as you get in an opticians the price for much the same quality goes through the roof.
cheers,
Jim

As with cameras, you do want quality lenses and it's v. desirable for woodies to have hard and anti-reflective coatings.

Within those criteria there's still a lot of variation and it pays to shop around.

When traveling overseas it pays to look at the opticians there. On a recent visit to Penang we picked up a couple of very good quality frames with dedicated clip on sun glasses for the princely sum of $50. Equivalent frames here are just under $400:o

And we claimed them on our health insurance, which has a maximum pay-out of $75, so they cost us nothing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsser

As with cameras, you do want quality lenses and it's v. desirable for woodies to have hard and anti-reflective coatings.

Within those criteria there's still a lot of variation and it pays to shop around.

---

I agree. It's the frames that i think are overpriced. As an aside, you're meant to try them on without lenses and decide what they look like. If you're like me you can't see the mirror, let alone your reflection.:D
Cheers,
Jim

Undie, I too, couldn't believe the prices of frames when I was trying to find a set of decent frames for myself on Thursday. So I cheated and had them reuse the frames from my old set of glasses:) Medical insurance paid for all of it bar the $25 fee to reuse my frames.

Shop around for starters one major long term optical co is so far out in front price wise they can be 3 times the price of little operations.

Frames by a cheap pair of sunnies and tell them to make the glass to suit :;

The was an article on ACA a few months back, showing how frames purchased for $5(China) are being resold at $179.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsser

As with cameras, you do want quality lenses and it's v. desirable for woodies to have hard and anti-reflective coatings.
Within those criteria there's still a lot of variation and it pays to shop around.

---

Agreed rsser, however, efficient, modern manufacturing process and economies of scale mean that optical quality (water clear) coated polycarbonate lenses should cost no more than 50 cents to produce.
and I reckon plastic frames with good quality hinges should be less than a dollar.

The current online Choice mag has an article on this issue.

FWIW my son scans and sends his prescription to an online UK supplier and gets lenses and frames for SFA; can't recall exactly but something like $30.

Last time I changed my reading glasses the frames were fine and the new lenses and coatings cost $40 from a discount shop.

Here's the critical test which I'll edit shortly cos of copyright:

Quote:

---

Optical tolerance test Are the lenses made according to the prescription? One lens each from [Store A] and [Store B] only rated a borderline pass for this test. To correct the refractive error for our shadow shopper, the left lens should have had a refractive power of -1.50D on one of the meridians, but the left lenses of the [Store A] and [Store B] pairs had refractive powers of -1.58D and -1.57D respectively. A variation of up to -1.59D is allowed to pass the test, however the instrument used in testing has an uncertainty of measurement of +/-0.03D. If 0.03 is added to the results, the lenses fail the test; if deducted, they are well within tolerance.
If the refractive power is wrong, this can cause blurriness, headaches or difficulty adapting to the new spectacles. In the case of the two lenses above, the variation is likely to be too small to cause problems, so we rated these lenses as being of acceptable quality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisb691

The was an article on ACA a few months back, showing how frames purchased for $5(China) are being resold at $179.

---

No wonder the opticians don't like re-using frames.

Yeah, I'm sure they make their big bikkies on the frames. Some are from fashion houses like Prada and license fees are high too.

The Choice article reckons the most common frames are stainless btw.

The article also makes the point that there's a price war now and the most basic spec offer (single vision) ranges from $45 (Optical Superstore) to $59 (OPSM). Their shadow shopper found $125 to $249. And if you add in anti-reflective coatings, multi-vision or high-index lenses then you can easily clock over $400.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsser

Yeah, I'm sure they make their big bikkies on the frames. Some are from fashion houses like Prada and license fees are high too.

The Choice article reckons the most common frames are stainless btw.

The article also makes the point that there's a price war now and the most basic spec offer (single vision) ranges from $45 (Optical Superstore) to $59 (OPSM). Their shadow shopper found $125 to $249. And if you add in anti-reflective coatings, multi-vision or high-index lenses then you can easily clock over $400.

---

It's a bugger. I need new ones soon and I have to have two pairs - one for general and one for reading as I can't come to terms with bi and multi focals.
Cheers,
Jim