Period correct safety eye glasses web site

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Try this web site...
Glasses are $128.00 plus $75.00 for polycarbonate safety lenses. Large round frames come with, or without nose pads. They have thousands of different style frames and a good selection of retro frames as well. They also have the same glasses with all wire frames without the plastic ear guards. I'm gonna order mine next week. All I'll need to do is add the leather, or plastic eye shields.

Bill

http://www.eyeglass.com/perfectlyround.html

[River City John]

Oddly enough we may have Harry Potter to thank for an increase in demand for round, wire rim eyeglasses without nosepads.

[Major 2]

if I read that right, they will include your perscription at charge ..it just so happens I need new glasses ( for reading only  )
I'll think I may go this route.

no nose guards and wire temples

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Major.....
Aren't those great looking glasses? The frames are made of titanium. I am going to get the frames and have my optometrist install my safety lenses in them.

I'm going to go with the Grey polycarbonate lenses, with no line bifocals. I think he can add the safety side shields too.

The frames are large and give you complete protection around the eye area, as much as modern shooting glasses.

So.....for those that said there wasn't a viable alternative to modern shooting glasses you now have one......or several, check out the web site.

The only complaint will be the price, but if you look at what we spend on guns, clothes and other period correct accouterments, I really don't see that as an issue.

Bill

[Major 2]

They R 

I'll get a pair when I get my eyes checked in 2 weeks..

The only complaint will be the price heck anything that looks good is that expencive anyway

[Dusty Tagalon]

I took my period frames to m local optometrist shop to see if I could get side shields. There were two problems with them, first the temples were too small diameter to support the side shields. 2nd, OSHA bans them from selling side shields for non safety frames.

I left my railroad goggles with them to see if my current perscription could br put in them. I didn't tell them what I was planning to do with them. I do belive the mesh on the goggles is strong enough to protect from splatter.

Dusty

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Major.........
Just for comparison sake.....here is an advertisement from the Sears catalog, page 463 printed in 1897. I would say there is a very strong resemblance.........

Bill

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Dusty....
Very interesting.....did you see if he would sell you the side shields and then you fit them?

The frames from this web site are gold or silver platted titanium and are considered safety glasses, as a matter of fact they will install polycarbonate safety lenses and side shields at extra cost. the frames alone are $128.00

Bill

[Major 2]

1897 .... Oh yeah 

[Dutch Limbach]

Out of curiosity, I took the picture of the glasses in the 1897 Sears Catalog, and a picture of the Round glasses on the web site OCB provided. The round glasses selected off the web site were chosen because they were facing the same as the Sears Catalog specs.

Using the bridge of the glasses as a common denominator I scaled the two pair of glasses using Photshop (the red arrows point to the two spots on the glasses that I matched up). Your optician and/or optometrist would refer to this area as the DBL (Distance Between Lenses).



Obviously there are significant differences in the two sets of glasses.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of buyuing a pair of these glasses, but I didn't want to see someone spending a couple of hundred dollars onthem thinking they were identical to the '97 Sears pair when clearly they aren't.

[Books OToole]

I spent the morning checking my Sears Catalog collection.

There are no round lens glasses listed in the:

1897, 1900, 1902, 1908 or 1909 catalogs.

However the afformention goggles are illustrated but in the '02 catalog but they are not called "Stone-cutters goggles."
If we were all to wear those (and I'm not sure about the level of protection) we would look as outlandish as the KVC in their masks. 

Books

[Dusty Tagalon]

Struck out with putting modren lenses in the rail road goggles.

Check out these,
http://www.safevision.net/frontoffice.html

The upper left is close to what I wear, with yellow tint.

Here is a decent looking pair to bid on. I am not bidding on these, I am bidding on something similar.
http://cgi.ebay.com/vintage-SHOOTERS-SAFETY-GLASSES-GOGGLES-STEAMPUNK_W0QQitemZ250278947757QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item250278947757&_trkparms=39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A15&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14.l1318



Dusty

[Coal Creek Griff]

I don't know if this will add to the discussion or not.  Here's a link to the glasses that I'm thinking about for reading (not shooting).  I don't believe that round lenses were in use much during the 19th century.  These list at $67 currently.

http://www.eyeglasseswarehouse.com/2115+15.html

Coal Creek

[Texas Lawdog]

Those would be fine for reading but I don't think they would stay on your face while you're shooting.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Out of curiosity, I took the picture of the glasses in the 1897 Sears Catalog, and a picture of the Round glasses on the web site OCB provided. The round glasses selected off the web site were chosen because they were facing the same as the Sears Catalog specs.

Using the bridge of the glasses as a common denominator I scaled the two pair of glasses using Photshop (the red arrows point to the two spots on the glasses that I matched up). Your optician and/or optometrist would refer to this area as the DBL (Distance Between Lenses).



Obviously there are significant differences in the two sets of glasses.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of buyuing a pair of these glasses, but I didn't want to see someone spending a couple of hundred dollars onthem thinking they were identical to the '97 Sears pair when clearly they aren't.

Dutch........

Those are not the same frames.....and the math on the DBL doesn't hold water because the new lenses are offered in several different sizes......we don't  know for sure what size the glasses are in the Sears catalog. Look.....I said the glasses were close...which they are....I didn't say they were an exact match.

Wear what you want....but I would much rather have a pair that was close to 19th century glasses then a pair of space age safety glasses that bear no resemblance to anything even close to 19th century glasses.

OCB

I spent the morning checking my Sears Catalog collection.

There are no round lens glasses listed in the:

1897, 1900, 1902, 1908 or 1909 catalogs.

However the afformention goggles are illustrated but in the '02 catalog but they are not called "Stone-cutters goggles."
If we were all to wear those (and I'm not sure about the level of protection) we would look as outlandish as the KVC in their masks. 

Books

And your point Books?

OCB

[Dutch Limbach]

OCB,

First of all let me say that this topic concerns SAFETY first and foremost! The people I shoot with are my friends. I'd much rather see them in 21st century safety glasses than in an Emergency Room having lead dug out of their eyes!

Now I'll have to admit that the opinions I've expressed on this matter have been of the "do as I say and not as I do" variety, since all I've ever worn while shooting WAS are identical to the glasses pictured below.



And the glasses I've used when shooting muzzleloaders look like this,



Now in retrospect, I've been lucky. The worst I've had happen was a spent cartridge eject from my '66 and somehow went under the brim of my hat and wedged itself between the left lense of my glasses and my fortunately closed left eye lid. Of course I was shooting BP, and I must say that the case was somewhat uncomfortably warm and I did end up getting a little warm lube in the eye but came away from the experience none the worse for the wear.

Now as far as the round glasses that were used for the comparison, they are the same frames just in the Black/Silver color combination. If you go on the site http://www.eyeglass.com/perfectlyround.html they are pictured second from the left, and if you click on them you'll get a larger picture of both the glasses on the far left. And like I said in my post I used those since they were the only ones that were facing the same way as the Sears glasses.

Agreed, we don't know the size of the glasses in the Sears catalog. However, lenses during the period tended to be small (I believe Books, Dr. Bob and RCJ have already mentioned this). According to the Eyeglass Warehouse:
"Medical theory in the 19th Century called for spectacles with a lens shape the size of a human eye. This is the reason that most 19th Century spectacles seem to be too small. However, at that time even substantially big men wore these tiny frames. Generally, total frame width for spectacles made prior to 1870 is between 4 and 4 1/2 inches. From 1870 until 1900 spectacles tended to be slightly wider. The most common widths are 4 5/8, 4 3/4, and 4 7/8. The size 4 7/8 is extremely rare."
http://www.eyeglasseswarehouse.com/19th-century-spectacles.html
The quote is found at the bottom of the page with the Heading "LENS SIZE AND FRAME WIDTH".

Now, I'd be amazed if the scaled versions came out to exactly match the picture. Nor, as I stated in the post, am I trying to talk anyone out of buying those specs if they like them. The point I am trying to make is, if someone is considering purchasing them for "authenticity" they might want to do some research to determine said "authenticity". Certainly, among those things would be the size of the glasses.

Bill, I wish you luck in your search for PC safety glasses, but I really think the chance of you find them are about the same as finding an honest politician!

[Major 2]

Dutch you have done some research and make a lucid point..
I don't want to sound argumentative 

you said "  This is the reason that most 19th Century spectacles seem to be too small. However, at that time even substantially big men wore these tiny frames and you link us to LENS SIZE AND FRAME WIDTH

My point is we are looking for the look ! WITH Safety there for does a few MM's in size seem that critical ..

I mean , How many, are wearin X-large or size 44 plus gun belts... should we frown on those of us that are well ! .. portly because
the avarage man was smaller or shorter in the 1800's.

We are emulating an era..

using these would be like using a Henry Big boy for a CW era 1860 for reenacting

or maybe these would work better

[Tjackstephens]

Books, outlandish? I thought the KVC looked  GREAT in their mask. Sure made my day to see you all walk in with those mask on. Thank you all for doing it. (That was at the 08 National Shoot) TJ 

[Black Powder]

What I can't abide by is the cost.  Eyeglasses are a rip, IMHO.  But I can't live without 'em, so I'm a captive audience.

Wish some of our talented/entrepreneurial folks here would create their own solution to this issue of PC safety glasses and take care of poor myopic customers like me!

I'm still lookin', still in need to improve on my look & safety, so please keep sharin'.

BP

[Books OToole]

And your point Books?

OCB

No point.  I was just showing off that I had all of those different Sears catalogs. 
I also have a 1912 edition, but I can't find it.

I guess the by-product of my showing off is:  There were no round lens glassess available in the late 19th century or in the first decade of the 20th century.

The "Stone-cutters" goggles might be a safe alternative;  if your 'Originals' character is a stone cutter.

I respect OCB's attempt to find a safe altenative to the space age safety glasses.  The modern glasses to look out of place in his video/DVD creations.  And the round lens are "less anachronistic."   But.......


Books