T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
1647.1 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Surfcasting with the alien | Thu Jul 11 1991 10:21 | 12 |
| Do not consider any glasses that do not have polarized lenses. Polarized
lenses are vital for locating fish in conditions where there is glare. (most)
Amber lenses are good for increasing contrast in low light conditions. Grey
lenses are good in bright sunlight and when you want no color distortion.
I have a pair of Action Optics sunglasses with grey lenses. They work pretty
good. I would have preferred leather side shields to the plastic ones, but
they aren't bad. They cost about $75 at Hunter's in new Boston, NH. (They do
mailorder.)
The Doctah
|
1647.2 | they make ya look like a gweeper 8^) | DONMAC::MACINTYRE | Terminal Angler | Thu Jul 11 1991 10:53 | 15 |
| As the Doc said, polarized is the only choice for water sports.
And you don't *have* to spend big bucks. For around $10-15 dollars
you can get polarized fishing glasses. I like the ones with the
glass scratch resistent lenses and the polarized plastic side shields
as well. (ulgly as hell but work great!) They are available thru most
catalogs and many stores.
I'm sure the expensive ones are "nicer", but the way I go through sun
glasses, no way... I lost a pair last week on the Nashua River, I had
my fishing sunglasses on and my everyday (but still polarized) glasses
were in their case clipped to the console winshield, while going after my
buddy's stuck lure, a low branch caught them and tossed them...
-donmac
|
1647.3 | attention ???-Mart shoppers | MAIL::HOUSER | | Thu Jul 11 1991 16:54 | 15 |
|
rereating what has been said...polarized is a must.
Like Donmac, I go through sunglasses like s**t through a goose.
I found a pair made by Shakespeare at K Mart (yes K Mart) on sale
for $5.00, regurally $7.50. They have gray and amber.
I personally like the amber color lenses, seems to provide a bit more
contrast. I seen a pair at Wal-Mart (so I'm cheap) endorsed by Bill
Dance that looked almost identical.
Bear
|
1647.4 | | IE0005::PUISHYS | Bob Puishys | Fri Jul 12 1991 08:59 | 17 |
| Frank,
Are you looking at those glasses at spags that have the display with the
little fish? You can see the fish when you put them on? Those are good glasses.
Spags sells them for 9.95 great price. Those are the ones I use.
I like the blue and or gray. I am getting a new pair today. I seem
to go about 1 pair a year. These are two years old and starting to go.
(They get lots of use, sitting, standing, sometimes I even wear them :^)
The ambor ones are nice early and late in the day. The brown ones seem
to darken the water too much.
If you don't get those, you sould get ones that have UV protection for you and
polorized to cut the water glare to see under the surface better.
Bassin Bob.
|
1647.5 | cheap polorized glass works well | PENUTS::GORDON | | Tue Jul 16 1991 13:20 | 14 |
| I have a pair $10-$15 that I bought at Kittery trading post. They are
grey,glass polorized with plastic side lenses. They are great and I
use they in the salt, spend lot of time wiping the spray off and they
are still clear (no scratches). I like they better than my driving $75
Rayban's. They don't have much style but the fish don't care and they
do the job very well.
Sorry, I don't remember the brand, but have seen many simular types.
Before these I had a pair with plastic lenses which scratched up in a
couple months due to the salt spray. Definitely go with glass.
Gordon
|
1647.6 | Fisherman Eyewear | ELWOOD::FONTAINE | Mr. Olsen, How many people work at Digital? Oh 'bout half | Tue Jul 16 1991 13:46 | 8 |
| Thanks for all the input.
Went to Spags at lunch time today and picked up a pair of sun
glasses. They're made in Korea and are called "Fisherman Eyewear".
Cost $8.98 and are Polarized with UV protection. I'll try them
tomorrow morning.....
Frank
|
1647.7 | Pretty good deal at Kittery | HPSTEK::CYGAN | | Wed Jul 17 1991 11:53 | 9 |
|
Wuz up at Kittery Trading Post last week and found a good deal
on a combo --> Flip-Up polarized lenses mounted atop a pair of
clear bi-focal's. REAL nice for us fading-eyesight types!
They wuz $19.95
Dick
|
1647.8 | A good type of clip on's | DASXPS::BARTON | Jack Barton | Thu Jul 18 1991 00:33 | 4 |
| I have always had a tough time finding a pair of clip ons for my
regular glasses. Have any of you run into the same problem? Any
recomendations?
Big Jack
|
1647.9 | | MRKTNG::TOMAS | JOE TOMAS @TTB | Thu Jul 18 1991 09:20 | 5 |
| My dad picked up a pair of flip-up polarized clip-on sunglasses at Northern
Bass Supply for about $7. They appeared well made and worked well. They
were the best he had ever found.
-HSJ-
|
1647.10 | I hated clip-ons | DONMAC::MACINTYRE | Terminal Angler | Thu Jul 18 1991 11:12 | 10 |
| One of the main reasons I switched to contacts was so I could wear
normal polarized sunglasses. I never dropped the big bucks for
prescription polarized glasses - and the clip-ons were always a pain -
they scratch easy, break easy, ugly as hell - which the wife didn't
really care for, etc...
If/when I go back to glasses, I'm going to get some quality
prescription polarized glasses right off.
-donmac
|
1647.11 | Polarized contacts, maybe??? | KAHALA::PRESTON | Judge Thomas isn't the right KIND of black.. | Fri Jul 19 1991 13:34 | 9 |
| Donmac,
I am thinking of doing the same - getting contacts so I can use regular
sunglasses instead of prescription or clip-ons. How's it working for
you? Are contacts a pain? Worth the effort? Expensive?
Thanks,
Ed
|
1647.12 | contacts for watersports (most sports) | DONMAC::MACINTYRE | Terminal Angler | Fri Jul 19 1991 14:36 | 22 |
| Well, this sort of stuff really doesn't belong here, but, I do like
them. Especially for outdoor activities.
I was (geez, I don't know if I should admit to this or not in this file)
*waterskiing* with them in last night, something I wouldn't do with
glasses (of course some folks wouldn't do that with contacts either).
While snow skiing glasses get wet and fog up.
Doing anything in the rain with glasses on is a pain.
Plus I've lost two pair of prescription glasses overboard in the last
5 years or so.
Never heard of polarized contacts... I kinda doubt it...
Contacts do require work, especially the daily wear that I have to
where, but I think it's worth it.
You can send me some mail if you'd like any additional info.
-donmac
|
1647.13 | Essential equipment for blind people like me | DECWET::HELSEL | Legitimate sporting purpose | Mon Jul 22 1991 14:18 | 15 |
| I agree with Donmac on the contacts issue. It really does make life
easier while fishing. HOWEVER, those babies go in hard at 3:30 in the
morning, which is when I have to get up to make it out before dawn. I have
daily wear too. They're okay once you get the tears flowing.
I used to avoid wearing lenses all together because I hated wearing
prescription glasses fishing for all the reasons donmac mentioned. Now,
all of a sudden, I realized how much I was missing when everything was
blurry.
/brett
p.s. What do you mean it doesn't belong here? I think it falls under
the category of equipment selection.
|
1647.14 | that reminds me, I gotta call the eye dr 8^) | DONMAC::MACINTYRE | Terminal Angler | Mon Jul 22 1991 15:34 | 9 |
|
>> p.s. What do you mean it doesn't belong here? I think it falls
>> under the category of equipment selection.
your right - at first thought i didn't think my personal contact lens
use was totally appropriate - but your right - they're an important
part of my equipment -donmac
|
1647.15 | | DECWET::HELSEL | Legitimate sporting purpose | Mon Jul 22 1991 19:21 | 9 |
| Oh, and I forgot to mention that you're right. You can wear cheap
sunglasses that you don't mind sitting on or losing when you have
contacts.
And slightly unrelated, they're also good for hunting IMHO because they
don't get water droplets on the lens in the rain and they don't reflect
the sun.
/brett
|
1647.16 | more on contacts | LEVERS::SWEET | | Mon Jul 22 1991 22:48 | 9 |
| Now that this coversation has been sanctified...I now am wearing
lenses called "Flexi-wear" which fall between daily wear and extended
wear. They are much better than the daily wear for those 2AM-7PM
tuna trips and only having them out for 3-4 hours before that long
stretch. They let more oxegen into your eye and don't get blurry
even after 12-16 hours on the big pond. The cost was only about $40
more than daily wear.
Bruce
|
1647.17 | flexwear as well | DONMAC::MACINTYRE | Terminal Angler | Tue Jul 23 1991 11:30 | 10 |
| Bruce, mine are actually flex-wear as well. My Dr suggests that I
remove them daily due to previous problems I had with extended wear.
Normally I remove them nightly.
But most of my multiple day fishing trips are combined with camping,
and while camping I'll normally leave them in for 2 nights, take them
out for 1, in for 2, etc..
-donmac
|
1647.18 | I like Revo's | BOSTON::DAGOSTINO | | Thu Jul 25 1991 11:54 | 11 |
| I use to swear by Nautilix Vuarnet's - about $90 a pair. I went through
two pair and realized I was getting headaches from the glasses!
After loosing my 2nd pair, I came upon Revo lenses. I can't say enough
about them - except they retail for about $130. I've never worn glasses
that cut such a significant amount of glare. (I tried the $10-$15
range)
If you want some serious eye protection give Revo's a shot.
Joe D.
|