Your Browser is Outdated
Compare (0)
1 item has been added
Add at least two items to compare
Very poor workmanship from the prescription lab
I'm assuming the damages to the frame I received was due to extremely poor workmanship at the prescription lab. I observed the following defects:
1. The left temple was mangled:
- The screw holding the lens had been stripped and replaced with a larger diameter slot screw (originals are phillips).
- The arm was loose and wobbly even with its screw fully tightened.
- The arm close to the temple was scuffed.
2. One nosepad had been bent way out of shape.
3. The level of the left and right arms were off by about 5mm. Probably due to the damage to the left temple mentioned above.
4. One deep gouge and numerous light scuffs on the frame.
I would have returned them if not due to the time involved in processing an international return plus the additional month plus of waiting for a new pair.
Cons: Damaged frame
1. The left temple was mangled:
- The screw holding the lens had been stripped and replaced with a larger diameter slot screw (originals are phillips).
- The arm was loose and wobbly even with its screw fully tightened.
- The arm close to the temple was scuffed.
2. One nosepad had been bent way out of shape.
3. The level of the left and right arms were off by about 5mm. Probably due to the damage to the left temple mentioned above.
4. One deep gouge and numerous light scuffs on the frame.
I would have returned them if not due to the time involved in processing an international return plus the additional month plus of waiting for a new pair.
Cons: Damaged frame
Would recommend: No
1 of 1 found the following review helpful.