Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

[Hank Trent]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

It's also worth remembering that most eyeglasses were still the "reading" variety that can be had at Walmart for under $20. You simply tried on a pair until you could see. Hey, anybody else old enough to remember when your parents used to tell you that you'd hurt your eyes by wearing someone else's glasses?

I think that's a good point. We generally think of glasses today as an all-day-wear kind of thing, part of the way you look when you go out, so why not be photographed in them? But reading glasses, that one only puts on when reading, aren't something you'd necessarily even take out of your pocket at the photographer's, or might not even take on a trip downtown.

Here's a discussion about gold in general, but gold spectacles in particular, from an 1849 book, A History of the Precious Metals by John Lee Comstock at http://books.google.com/books?id=ddMOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA174 Note that it's talking only about gold spectacles, which would be a luxury item, and not any of the cheaper kinds of frames which could cost well under a dollar. If his estimates are correct, one in forty Americans owned them, so even more would presumably own the cheaper kind.

Gold spectacle frames are of recent date. These were at first of heavy, and often of clumsy workmanship, and being commonly made to order, they cost twenty or thirty dollars... they are now more elegant in appearance, more comfotable, because less heavy, and less costly, by at least on half, than formerly. The price of this article, as now constructed, is from six to twelve dollars, and the average weight of gold in each is four dollars... Gold spectacles are now quite common. We estimate, therefore, the number who have adopted this ornamental necessity at five hundred thousand individuals, among the twenty millions of our citizens.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Hank Trent]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

Question is now: How much was the "average" (define this however you want for your own impression) person making and could they afford to buy glasses?

Here's a good discussion on wages and prices, with many examples. http://www.multiracial.com/readers/tenzer4.html

If you're not interested in the slavery discussion, ignore all that, and check out the second paragraph and the next few paragraphs after that.

A pair of cheap spectacles would be about the same as a cheap shirt or a pair of pants.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

Hank-

Question a this point:
If glasses were "cheap" for the "average" man to afford in the 1860s, then why aren't more people wearing them in period photographs of non-studio setting photographs? Would it stand to reason that more people would wear nearsighted (for people that cannot see far away) glasses more often as daily wear if they were as cheap as a pair of pants or shirt?

Maybe... Like the facial hair vs. clean-shaven discussion... we have to study the images of the period critically to see if there is a ratio here and to what conclusions that ratio points to... glasses vs. no glasses. I smell a research project somewhere there... ;) LOL

An explanation: Perhaps people took-off their glasses more for the image-maker..? Perhaps a vanity kind-of-thing?

I wonder what the period lense-making technique for glasses and was it a factor in the expense of glasses in this period.

I know I'm bringing questions, but hopefully if intelligent and critical questions are recorded here by us as-a-whole, we'll add to the AC's collective knowledge by asking those critical questions about specific subjects of the period we wonder about.

Good stuff -Johnny

[Hank Trent]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

If glasses were "cheap" for the "average" man to afford in the 1860s, then why aren't more people wearing them in period photographs of non-studio setting photographs?

I think it's for the reason we've been discussing above, most people wore reading glasses [edited to add, if they wore glasses at all, I mean]. How many people today would bother to put on reading glasses for a studio photograph, or sunglasses either, unless they wore sunglasses constantly for medical reasons or just wanted a special "cool" image?

Would it stand to reason that more people would wear nearsighted (for people that cannot see far away) glasses more often as daily wear if they were as cheap as a pair of pants or shirt?

I don't think so. First, my guess is that most available glasses, like the $20 Walmart ones, were aimed for reading/magnifying. So it would be less convenient to purchase far-vision ones--you'd need to go out of your way to do it. That's only a guess, though--no data.

Secondly, for the average person today with sorta okay far vision, what's usually the one thing that would convince them to get glasses? Failing a driver's license eye test and losing their license. That wasn't an issue in the 1860s.

However, for anyone who was literate, losing the ability to read in the 1860s was an issue almost as great as it is today, especially since receiving news from a distance always required reading, unless you could convince a live person to read a letter or newspaper out loud to you. No phone calls or TV news or radio.

So farsighted people's worlds narrowed down in the 1860s about as much as today if they didn't wear glasses, but nearsighted people could still drive a horse or ride a coach or train without glasses, unless their vision became exceptionally severe.

Maybe... Like the facial hair vs. clean-shaven discussion... we have to study the images of the period critically to see if there is a ratio here and to what conclusions that ratio points to... glasses vs. no glasses. I smell a research project somewhere there... ;) LOL

Yes, but remember, it will most likely only be showing who wore glasses for far vision or all day, not those who put on glasses for reading. Also, of course, like facial hair, it'll be different in different groups. What's typical for one group might be atypical in another.

An explanation: Perhaps people took-off their glasses more for the image-maker..? Perhaps a vanity kind-of-thing?

Very possible, though crowd or semi-posed outdoor photos would help with that. Also, one can sometimes see reading glasses hanging down on a ribbon in portraits, but that unfortunately doesn't help with all the reading glasses in pockets or left home.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Drygoods]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

Good Day All,

OK, I'll just come out with it, I don't have a lot of time to type this morning, so will just give you an off the cuff remark. For those folks who think that only people with VD wore tinted glasses, where do you get this stuff? Modern books? Look, read antique books and you'll get a better appreciation for what people thought at the time. The comments about tinted eyeglasses were basically because Mrs. Parton thought it one of those over-the-top fashions. She wrote a good deal of satire in her weekly column. (New York Ledger, and other dailies, for those who don't read period papers either). Mortimer Thompson, I believe from my memory, also made comments comically about folks wearing them. Suffice it to say that eyeglasses were out in the public market, people wore them for FUN not disease. Those swivel lense eyeglasses, better known as Richardsons, those came in during the early 1840s and were worn well into the 1860s.

Ok, so you need another source, and this one with a military slant.....
The Prairie Logbooks, Dragoon Campaigns to the Pawnee Villages in 1844, and to the Rocky Mountain in 1845, by Lieutenant J. Henry Carleton, in this book he mentions how the soldiers traded their tinted eyeglasses to the Indians. I can't find that exact quote since the book was read 20 years ago, but here is antoher....."Our Chaplain, who was then with us, had on a pair of green spectacles with four glasses---there being two additional ones upon the sides to protect the eyes from the wind. These he presented to the old chief. He received them with a most profound bow, and having looked at them a moment, as if to get "the hang of them" he put them upon his own nose with the gravity of a judge. Fortunately for him he got them wrong side up, and from that cause they afforded him no obstruction to his sight. It was amusing to see him looking out from under them at his various guests, with a face as solemn as a tombstone, more particularly after we had done eating and the old man had commenced upon the corn himself; then to look at him holding a long ear of it in his hands, as a man would a flute, and eating the corn without removing it from his mouth--at the same time paying profound attention to some one who might be talking to him, and grunting frequent acquiescence, was ludicrous in the extreme. All this time the parson's old glasses were not only upside down upon his nose, but out of all sorts of a level; one end being tilted up to an angle of 30 degrees."

Hey now, aren't we supposed to be well read and not fall into that reenactorism trap? You guys don't get your research from MythBusters do you? Human nature isn't all that different then to now, how many here put on a pair of eyeglasses when you go drive the car? If you could afford them, wouldn't you want that nice little luxury?

Read old books -- our, and their original search engine!

[Rob]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

I remember getting my first pair of glasses when I was eight, and having to endure catcalls of "Four-Eyes" and "Bookworm"... I would imagine that it was much the same, if not worse, one hundred years earlier.

[Parault]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

Talking about not wearing glasses when having pictures made. When I was in Old Washington a few weeks ago, I had my picture taken there by Ty Guillory(my avatar). He was telling me to remove my glasses because it leaves a glare so to speak. He showed me a picture he did for a gentleman that refused to have his glasses removed and you couldn't see the eyes. I would think that the photographers of that time would have known this,and advised the customer about not being able to see their eyes. I am sure there are others that would disagree on this. If someone knows of a picture please let me know. I would like to see what it looks like.
I have never thought about the idea of it "being cool" of that era,but it makes sense.


I remember getting my first pair of glasses when I was eight, and having to endure catcalls of "Four-Eyes" and "Bookworm"

Rob;

I only had one kid that called me four eyes......We had a" meeting" at the bus stop after school.After a few bumps and brusing,he never called me that again. We became close friends,even to this day.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

Here's another picture of someone in glasses, post-war (1875), but it's of a fellow who knew a little something about making photographs, Mathew Brady. The angle is also different than head-on.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/4/42/225px-Mathew_Brady_1875_cropped.jpg

In old age, Brady wore blue spectacles, but it's hard to tell if the ones in the picture are tinted or not, especially since blue would photograph light.

Also, there's the famous photo of Lincoln reading to Tad, in which Lincoln is wearing reading glasses.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[nastt]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

Heres the original images I started on this post, I removed from my webpage.

[AZReenactor]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

I was rereading A Prairie Traveler last night and thought this comment by the author might be relevant to this discussion

We also experienced great inconvenience and pain by the reflection of the sun's rays from the snow upon our eyes, and some of the party became nearly snow blind. Green or blue glasses, inclosed in a wire net-work, are an effectual protection to the eyes; but in the absence of these, the skin around the eyes and upon the nose should be blackened with wet powder or charcoal, which will afford great relief.

from A Prairie Traveler: A Hand-book for Overland Expeditions by Randolph B. Marcy which was published by the War Department in 1859.

[Prodical Reb]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

Here is a pic of the a CMH awardee who was wounded at Gettysburg and awarded the CMH for his actions. Due to his wound, he lost his eyesight. He was shot through both eyes. This is Sgt. Jefferson Coates some years after the war. The first was some years after the war wearing tinted spectacles and the second taken before the war ended. I suspect spectacles wore worn by those who had some deformity of the eyes to cover it up or look a bit more normal.

[MarionRifles]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

There is a photograph of Company H, 3rd Regiment Arkansas State Infantry taken in June of 1861 that has a soldier in its ranks wearing dark sunglasses.The photo appears in Brassey's history of uniforms, American Civil War Confederate Army by Ron Field on page 79.

[civilwarcaptain]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses

There is a photograph of Company H, 3rd Regiment Arkansas State Infantry taken in June of 1861 that has a soldier in its ranks wearing dark sunglasses.The photo appears in Brassey's history of uniforms, American Civil War Confederate Army by Ron Field on page 79.

I also saw this photo. Very interesting

[riptailedroarer]

Re: Period Tinted Eyepieces or Sunglasses



Is this what is being talked about?
An old fom of abuse for someone wearing glasses was "Gig lamps"