Specsavers - how do they get away with it?

readytosnap

Ivan Noisy Sack wrote: »

Op, take a screenshot and report them to advertising standards.
They are normally good at replying.

I usually get my eyes tested in specdaver and buy online.

Specdaver? I'd get a second eye test if I were you :D

OP maybe they were not sunglasses, they could of been stunglasses?

pilly

I totally agree with OP, advertising Sunglasses that you have to pay to get made into sunglasses? Total rip-off.

animaal

I've also been (and continue to be) happy with Specsavers, but in this issue I agree with the OP.

If it has clear lenses, it's not a pair of sunglasses. I would have thought it would fall under the Sale of Goods Act; i.e. "fit for the purpose intended". SUNglasses that don't protect the eyes from the sun???

All we're missing is the "You weren't forced to buy it so it's not a rip off" brigade...

Tar.Aldarion

bladespin wrote: »

Really, priced at €89 but you have to give them €149 to get what's actually described while a similar product can be purchases for €32 (with lenses).

Refusing their own voucher over a PRSI claim?

Where did you get the 32e ones?

bladespin

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Where did you get the 32e ones?

Spex4 less, UK company recommended by a work mate.

Calhoun

Not as bad as optical express in new bridge , some hot shot (or so he thought ) option trying to up sell me on Lasik the whole time, No means no.

If I can find a nice local option I try go to them rather give my business to people who appreciate it but it is hard. Especially if you want decent selection.

bladespin

That's definitely my lesson from my experiences, it's hard to beat the chains for cheap (lol) frames though, in this case all I wanted was a cheapo pair for the car/hols.

Jimoslimos

pilly wrote: »

I totally agree with OP, advertising Sunglasses that you have to pay to get made into sunglasses? Total rip-off.

Specsavers don't really sell "sunglasses" though. They sell suggested frame ranges (similar to kids, women and men) that are suitable for including a prescription with. That's why you'll never see a pair of wraparound shades - because the curvature isn't suitable for most prescription lenses.

That said I do agree it is disingenuous to put up a picture of a frame with tinted lens and a price for non-tint (despite the text stating standard single vision) on the website. The price should state no tint/UV or at the very least have a drop down where you need to specify tint/no tint for the actual price. Lens options are already confusing enough to most customers.

nosilver

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Specsavers don't really sell "sunglasses" though. They sell suggested frame ranges (similar to kids, women and men) that are suitable for including a prescription with.

So this range doesn't exist?

https://www.specsavers.ie/glasses/view-all-designer-glasses#f%5Bbrands%5D=aurora,boss-orange,cheap-monday,converse,fcuk,french-connection,gok-wan,john-rocha,karen-millen,karl-lagerfeld,max-and-co,osiris,puma,red-or-dead,replay,roxy,tommy-hilfiger,jeff-banks,quiksilver,timberland,love-moschino,hackett&f%5Blifestyle%5D=sunglasses

ItHurtsWhenIP

Calhoun wrote: »

...

If I can find a nice local option I try go to them rather give my business to people who appreciate it but it is hard. Especially if you want decent selection.

I had previously been with SpecSavers for many years, but chose the local option the last time I got glasses. I thought the eyetest was better, though the selection of frames was limited. I have a large head (quit sniggering down the back! ) so she only had about 3 frames that fit me. The only one I liked was €200, so I got it.

It lasted less than 2 years before the frame broke while sitting on my face, with a lense flying off to the ground. I'm back to wearing my previous SS provided glasses, which I had for 3 years with no problem (cost €129 I think).

So I think I better go (back) to Specsavers.

BTW - I saw something on BBC Watchdog last season about one of the "eye-test-chains" charging stupid money for a "blue-light coating" to "reduce the stress on your eyes from reading smartphone/tablet screens all day." Apparently it is complete and utter bovine excrement. :rolleyes: Do Specsavers try that one?

rawn

ItHurtsWhenIP wrote:

BTW - I saw something on BBC Watchdog last season about one of the "eye-test-chains" charging stupid money for a "blue-light coating" to "reduce the stress on your eyes from reading smartphone/tablet screens all day." Apparently it is complete and utter bovine excrement. Do Specsavers try that one?

Myself and my husband got that coating on ours... Say it ain't so!

Tbf we spend a lot of time on the computer and I do find my eyes don't feel at tired as they used to at the end of the day, so it seems to work for me!

Orion

The op is wrong on this being a rip. As so many people have said the tint is extra.

That said the cost of glasses in Ireland is a total ripoff. I'm now on varifocals and the opticians said nearly 300 for the lenses. Frames extra. Bought two pairs of designer frames with varifocals for around 140 delivered. Varis were £50 on top of frame price (which included standard lenses).

Been buying from glassesdirect for years. Excellent service. One of the frames didn't fit well - sent them back and got a different set no quibble even though there was nothing wrong with the frames - they just didn't fit. First time that's happened tbh.

ItHurtsWhenIP

rawn wrote: »

Myself and my husband got that coating on ours... Say it ain't so!

Tbf we spend a lot of time on the computer and I do find my eyes don't feel at tired as they used to at the end of the day, so it seems to work for me!

It's so.

And here is the programme in question - jump to 1:58:

I spend most of my day on the computer and phone (have done so for most of my life). Even back in the days when the massive B52 CRTs (5250 monitors) were irradiating my brain, I had no problems.

bladespin

Orion wrote:

The op is wrong on this being a rip. As so many people have said the tint is extra.

Interesting you believe that a tint on sunglasses is an 'extra' but each to their own, when you buy a car do you pay extra for tyres?

jimmycrackcorm

Orion wrote: »

The op is wrong on this being a rip. As so many people have said the tint is extra.

Have you actually looked at the link - it's very blatant. The price and a tinted lenses. It's not even in the same league as a McDonalds ad showing a burger that is just a taller version of the squashed actual one you get handed.

Very clear misrepresentation IMO.

Senna

This is definitely a case for consumer protection agency.

emeldc

Orion wrote: »

The op is wrong on this being a rip. As so many people have said the tint is extra.

Jesus H what is wrong with some people. How can they be classed as SUNglasses if there's no fuggin' tint

Jimoslimos

emeldc wrote: »

Jesus H what is wrong with some people. How can they be classed as SUNglasses if there's no fuggin' tint

To be sold as sunglasses they just need to provide UV400 protection, which can be achieved with a polycarbonate or clear coated standard lens. Tint levels are categorised 0-4, but I don't think there is any minimum specification for sunglasses - might depend on jurisdiction though.

nosilver wrote: »

So this range doesn't exist?

https://www.specsavers.ie/glasses/view-all-designer-glasses#f%5Bbrands%5D=aurora,boss-orange,cheap-monday,converse,fcuk,french-connection,gok-wan,john-rocha,karen-millen,karl-lagerfeld,max-and-co,osiris,puma,red-or-dead,replay,roxy,tommy-hilfiger,jeff-banks,quiksilver,timberland,love-moschino,hackett&f%5Blifestyle%5D=sunglasses

I can only speak from experience in working in a physical store, but the range was called "Sun", not sunglasses - as in they were frames that were suitable for fitting a prescription lens and would "look" good as sunglasses as well. Pricing for tints was always indicated. If you want fashionable sunglasses go to sunglass hut but you won't get a prescription in most of those frames. Personally I prefer polarised non-prescription with contact lenses but each to their own.

Also IIRC identical frames were often in different sections (Mens/Sun), pricing was done on the dummy lens to avoid confusion (with different coloured stickers). This meant that different prices could be listed on the tint and clear, despite the frames being the same.

As I've said earlier I do agree that the website pricing is misleading but the staff in the retail stores have little control over this.

beauf

This has to be one of the most insane threads on boards.

sunglasses
ˈsʌnɡlɑːsɪz/
noun
glasses tinted to protect the eyes from sunlight or glare.

beauf

Jimoslimos wrote: »

To be sold as sunglasses they just need to provide UV400 protection, ....

I wonder if thats the same person who thought it was ok to define unlimited as limited for broadband.

readytosnap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2LTL8KgKv8

beauf

Lol great track...

Here another song

https://youtu.be/QePcj9BplMQ

vicwatson

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Have you actually looked at the link - it's very blatant. The price and a tinted lenses. It's not even in the same league as a McDonalds ad showing a burger that is just a taller version of the squashed actual one you get handed.

Very clear misrepresentation IMO.

Robbed from YLYL !

bladespin

vicwatson wrote: »

Robbed from YLYL !

You'll notice the disclaimer * Not such thing to the SS website, it actually states lenses are included, maybe all the ophthalmologists on here 'know' that standard lenses for 'sunglasses' are actually not tinted but it was news to me.

beauf

Sunglasses without tinted lenses, but UV400, and prescription lenses. Are just regular prescription glasses in my opinion.

beauf

Jimoslimos wrote: »

...That's why you'll never see a pair of wraparound shades - because the curvature isn't suitable for most prescription lenses.....

My favorite pair of wraparound shades were prescription from a place like this.
They did odd things to certain colours though. They got taken from the car, during a service and I could never find a place to make a similar pair again.

Orion

bladespin wrote: »

Interesting you believe that a tint on sunglasses is an 'extra' but each to their own, when you buy a car do you pay extra for tyres?

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Have you actually looked at the link - it's very blatant. The price and a tinted lenses. It's not even in the same league as a McDonalds ad showing a burger that is just a taller version of the squashed actual one you get handed.

Very clear misrepresentation IMO.

emeldc wrote: »

Jesus H what is wrong with some people. How can they be classed as SUNglasses if there's no fuggin' tint

Urmagurd. I've been wearing glasses for 36 years. Standard lenses are standard lenses. Always have been. Tinted, polarising, polaroid, reactalite - whatever they're calling it today have always been extra. Since the 70s at least!

Get real. Nobody is forcing you to pay for it. When they give you the price you can just say no and take your prescription and go elsewhere. Vote with your feet and don't be sheeple.

beauf

Standard lenses are not sunglasses.

eqwjewoiujqorj

Specsavers are a rip off.

Go to goggles4u.com - great prices - so low that when I get a couple of pairs from the US, it's always below the customs 25 euro limit.

learn_more

It's as if they think their customers are half blind and so can't make out the finer details in the advert in a deliberate attempt to dupe them.