Does anyone with a moderate to higher minus Rx have Rx Frogskins? I'd like to see how they turned out - how the thicker edges look on them, where the bevel was placed and how lens thickness is distributed in front of and behind the frame. Also, what lens brand/model did you use, and what index? I know Oakley won't make them for stronger than -3.00, but some independent opticians will do it.
I know it's not ideal because of the larger lens (54-17 on my model 9245 low-bridge fit) and decentration on larger lens blanks will result in quite thick edges, but I'm still consider doing it with a single vision Rx of R: -5.75, -0.50, 90, L: -5.00, -0.50, 80, and mono PDs of R: 29.0, L: 32.5, and pupil height of 29mm (on 43.7mm B dimension). Considering doing Zeiss Duravision Drivesafe 1.60 SV (with Photofusion X photochromic), which would probably end up with an edge thickness of ~7-7.7mm on the right lens depending on the center thickness (using optiboard calculator). I'd go with 1.60 index over 1.67 because of better optical qualities (choosing Abbe value over saving ~0.6mm thickness). I've heard that sometimes 1.60 free form lens can be thinner than higher index stock lenses depending on lens design and center thicknesses in part because the material can take a thinner center.
Some of my other glasses with similar prescription and also 54 eye size are about 6mm thick (with 1.67 index lens and made with 31/31 PDs where they didn't do mono PDs like they should have, thus lessoning the right lens thickness, but resulting in some error due to 2mm error in PD). I can't say that I ever considered those glasses (or any of my glasses) thick looking, but the one with 54 eye size had a smaller B dimension (lens height) where the thickness is on my Rx (bottom and top edges thinner due to 90 axis and shorter distance to pupil). On the Frogskins, the 3mm frame side thickness might even hide the lens thickness better than some of my current frames. Also my Frogskins are clear on side view (Kokoro edition), so they might blend in with the lens edge.
I know it's not ideal because of the larger lens (54-17 on my model 9245 low-bridge fit) and decentration on larger lens blanks will result in quite thick edges, but I'm still consider doing it with a single vision Rx of R: -5.75, -0.50, 90, L: -5.00, -0.50, 80, and mono PDs of R: 29.0, L: 32.5, and pupil height of 29mm (on 43.7mm B dimension). Considering doing Zeiss Duravision Drivesafe 1.60 SV (with Photofusion X photochromic), which would probably end up with an edge thickness of ~7-7.7mm on the right lens depending on the center thickness (using optiboard calculator). I'd go with 1.60 index over 1.67 because of better optical qualities (choosing Abbe value over saving ~0.6mm thickness). I've heard that sometimes 1.60 free form lens can be thinner than higher index stock lenses depending on lens design and center thicknesses in part because the material can take a thinner center.
Some of my other glasses with similar prescription and also 54 eye size are about 6mm thick (with 1.67 index lens and made with 31/31 PDs where they didn't do mono PDs like they should have, thus lessoning the right lens thickness, but resulting in some error due to 2mm error in PD). I can't say that I ever considered those glasses (or any of my glasses) thick looking, but the one with 54 eye size had a smaller B dimension (lens height) where the thickness is on my Rx (bottom and top edges thinner due to 90 axis and shorter distance to pupil). On the Frogskins, the 3mm frame side thickness might even hide the lens thickness better than some of my current frames. Also my Frogskins are clear on side view (Kokoro edition), so they might blend in with the lens edge.
Last edited:
