Worst frame design (just for fun)

**ajonesgirl** · 10-30-2018, 08:35 AM

I was adjusting the temples on a pair of eyeglasses yesterday. I few seconds in the frame warmer to heat the plastic, and I promptly burned my finger on the nice little metal insignia inserted into the temple cover. It seems like today's designers are trying their best to make frames difficult to work with. Well, not just today's. Showing my age here, but anyone remember the old Bill Blass semi-rimless? Pass the lighter, please. Lol!

What's your "favorite" design nightmare?

**Quince** · 10-30-2018, 10:31 AM

Temples that have complex 3D cutout accent pieces that are just the perfect size for glass beads to get stuck in when you dunk the frame.

Wait, no- wayyyy worse was the five or so Oakley frames that were a plastic front with a plastic snap-on nose piece. That would fall off immediately. Those were fun.

**jpways** · 10-30-2018, 11:23 AM

False fronts, especially if they're a hide a bevel mount in the back, not that groove is much better. I once had to break a polycarbonate lens (with a hammer and chisel) to remove it from the frame because the lab cut the lens too big (the frame had another manufacturers defect that had nothing to do with the lens being a little large so we had to send it back)

**Tallboy** · 10-30-2018, 03:24 PM

OOh you all have great suggestions. My current one is any complex wide temple design with a lattice type cut out that is attatched by a false front. That is being worn by someone with one ear 2 inches lower than the other, and no way to truly bend the temple.

Some frames are infuriating, though a state of the art edger really does help a TON with some of them... SOME of them...

**ajonesgirl** · 10-30-2018, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by jpways

False fronts, especially if they're a hide a bevel mount in the back, not that groove is much better. I once had to break a polycarbonate lens (with a hammer and chisel) to remove it from the frame because the lab cut the lens too big (the frame had another manufacturers defect that had nothing to do with the lens being a little large so we had to send it back)

I won't even buy those frames anymore. They're a nightmare, and what's the point? They could do the same design without the false front. smh

**King of the Lab** · 10-30-2018, 06:50 PM

Nylon frames where you have to trace the demo lens, cut the lens oversize, give it a semi rimless groove & struggle to mount.

**Tallboy** · 10-31-2018, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Lab

Nylon frames where you have to trace the demo lens, cut the lens oversize, give it a semi rimless groove & struggle to mount.

This may be the winner. Good lord.

**mervinek** · 10-31-2018, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by jpways

False fronts, especially if they're a hide a bevel mount in the back, not that groove is much better. I once had to break a polycarbonate lens (with a hammer and chisel) to remove it from the frame because the lab cut the lens too big (the frame had another manufacturers defect that had nothing to do with the lens being a little large so we had to send it back)

Yes!!!! Especially when you have a higher minus in it and there is a gap and the patient insists that it is broken. UGH!!!!

**lensmanmd** · 10-31-2018, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by mervinek

Yes!!!! Especially when you have a higher minus in it and there is a gap and the patient insists that it is broken. UGH!!!!

Don’t forget high plus. Reshaping these are not fun.

**ajonesgirl** · 11-06-2018, 11:07 AM

So, does anyone remember the old Bill Blass semi-rimless with only one hole for the cord? You had to melt the end of the cord and flatten it.

**Alex Camblor** · 11-07-2018, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by jpways

False fronts, especially if they're a hide a bevel mount in the back, not that groove is much better. I once had to break a polycarbonate lens (with a hammer and chisel) to remove it from the frame because the lab cut the lens too big (the frame had another manufacturers defect that had nothing to do with the lens being a little large so we had to send it back)

I almost had to do this with a warby parker frame that a patient brought in. False Front with an eyewire groove that looked like it was meant for a safety frame.

When the tech from Santinelli installed our edger, he told me to push the bevel towards the rear of the lens so that the front of the lens sits more flush with the false front and makes it a little easier to insert.

It really is a terrible design, even from the wearers perspective...it leaves too many gaps to collect grime.

**AngeHamm** · 11-12-2018, 03:01 PM

There's a Lacoste frame in my office that has two of my biggest strikes against it: 1) False front with grooved insert, and 2) hinges that start flush against the false front. So any lens of any power at all is impossible to mount, and if the lenses have more than a 3mm edge thickness the temples won't close flat.

**mervinek** · 11-12-2018, 03:32 PM

There should be some kind of law that prohibits you from being a frame designer without some kind of optical experience! I try to select my frames when I am restocking, but occasionally I will allow a trusted rep to send an order. If I get something like this, I do not keep it. I just tell the rep that I don't like it and they take it back. The good reps appreciate you telling them and then do not recommend it to other offices.

**jpways** · 11-13-2018, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by mervinek

There should be some kind of law that prohibits you from being a frame designer without some kind of optical experience! I try to select my frames when I am restocking, but occasionally I will allow a trusted rep to send an order. If I get something like this, I do not keep it. I just tell the rep that I don't like it and they take it back. The good reps appreciate you telling them and then do not recommend it to other offices.

In my mind it brings up the question, why are we doomed to repeat the history they didn't learn