The real question is, did anyone actually wear them long enough to find out if they worked or not? or possibly even made the person's eyesight worse?


>>>>>>I have 1x reading glasses that I bought at Walmart (per the eye doctor's recommendation) and use for reading fine print on medicine bottles, ingredients on food products and shampoo, et al. I finally had to admit that the print wasn't getting smaller and it was my eyes :o)
>>>>>
>>>>>I had good eyesight until recently - maybe last 5 years - but eventually it turned into a kind of push ups for the eye, so I started getting reading glasses. Started with 1.25, then 1.5 and am happy with a 2.0 now.
>>>>>
>>>>>My usual frustration is exactly the shampoo. The print isn't getting smaller, it's the word "shampoo" (vs "conditioner") that is getting smaller and smaller and being tucked into unexpected corners of the label. You get a lot of large print on the bottle, but it's all the words that help sell the bottle, not exactly the words that could help you know what's inside.
>>>>
>>>>When I want to ascertain which is the shampoo, in the shower, I make a wee pin-hole with my thumb and curled index finger, and peer through that. You'd be surprised that you can read ANYTHING, without glasses, that way.
>>>
>>>About 10 or so years ago, there was a product advertised in a TV infomercial that was based on this concept. It was a pair of glasses. The lenses were black plastic covered with pinholes. The pitch was that if you wore these for a while (a year? 2 years? who knows.) you'd be able to see while your eyes would get exercise and you wouldn't need glasses. I know about this because my sister bought a pair. She proudly told me about them at thanksgiving dinner one year. As you might imagine, I was a little incredulous, not at the fact that my sister would by them (you'd have to know her), but at the concept. My first question was, "you wear glasses so that you don't have to wear glasses?". Anyway, I tried them on, and immediately felt like a fly.
>>
>>I hope you didn't go and regurgitate all over the turkey then crap on the butter!
>>
>>>I could see hundreds of duplicates of very small parts of everything I looked at. What a stupid idea.
>>
>>Sure you weren't looking through a kaleiderscope? Maybe you should have had your own pin-hole prescription?
>>
>>Strange, as the concept is the same as the camera obscura, or "instamatic" film camera.
>
>Are you sure? Didn't the instamatic still only have one aperture? These 'glasses' had many holes regularly spaced all over the lenses.