At 01:28 PM 6/1/00 -0400, Carl Heinzl wrote:

>>           Low volume masks are easier
>> to travel with (especially if you must travel with several masks), easier
>
>Really?  Why?  The extra space of a mask, no matter HOW much "volume"
>sits
>between your face and the mask is of absolutely no concern to me when
>travelling.
>I simply pack it in there and put socks and other items inside the mask
>cavity.
>I guess if you're going to argue over the 2 oz weight differential then
>I
>have to acquiese.

        I make it 13 ounces for my U.S. Divers (Aqualung) Corsica with glued in
lenses (which I don't travel with) to 5.5 for my Dacor Bandit with glued in
lenses, but I carry so many battery packs that I don't want to nitpick on
~.5 lb. even if the three masks I travel with were all Bandits.  What I
appreciate is that the Bandit only needs about half the vertical space and
fits much more easily into a sleeve or a dive skin leg and will fit with
cushioning into odd places where my Corsica won't.
>
>> to clear, and with a minimum of windows less likely to leak.  As far as
>
>I'm sorry, but with the technology of making masks today this just
>doesn't
>cut it.  Mask leaks are typically NOT around the edges of the glass or
>little
>"windows", they're normally at the skirt/skin interface.
>
>In fact, I'd be curious if *anyone* has had a mask leak around one of
>the
>window or face plate edges!

        I've never had one leak, but I've heard it as a complaint and assumed that
it was a common complaint.  I know, "When you assume, you...."
>
>> peripheral vision goes, well, those of us with stronger corrections, who
>> must have glued in lenses, won't be seeing anything peripherally anyway.
>
>Again, simply NOT true.  I have glued in corrections simply so I have
>perfect
>sight underwater.  It's BETTER than without glued in corrections,
>*however*
>I can absolutely see out the side (peripherally) just not quite as well
>as
>I see out the front.  I suggest you think a bit more before making
>blanket
>statements like this.

        I believe that most myopic divers who have corrections of more than +8
diopters (the maximum for lens inserts that I have seen) have perfect
vision only within a small area around the optical center of the lens.
Personally, I'm at just over +9 diopters, and while I can see better
underwater than above everything that is more than three feet away in my
side windows just looks like a blurry lump.

        Nonetheless, YMMV, and you're right about my being too hasty in my prior
post about making blanket statements.  Insofar as I thought of that reply
as being more of a "me too," I'm afraid I didn't dip into my conditionals
and qualifiers as much as I usually try to do.

>I GUESS you could argue that I don't HAVE to have my lenses glued in but
>AFAIK, the cost of having these lenses done is a VERY TINY fraction of
>any
>scuba trip I've taken and personally I'd rather get the most of these
>trips.

        I couldn't and wouldn't make that argument.  For me the lure to dive is
mostly for the visual experience, and I dive in the local quarries and mud
bottomed lakes far less than I should to think of myself as a diver.  I
have four masks, all of them with glued in lenses, but only one current
pair of glasses and no sun glasses.  Priorities!
>
>>         What I first look for in a mask is one that fits, i.e., doesn't
leak much.
>
>Hmmm, what I like is one that fits and doesn't leak AT ALL!

        Clearly, your face is narrower than mine or you smile less.  Even my
ancient Nautilus leaks when I smile and it's the best fitting mask I've
ever found, and I look at masks a lot.
>
>>  After that I want a mask that is easy to clear, they say that purges work
>> much better now, but no thank you, I think we've all been down that road.
>
>I don't know about YOUR experience, however I have owned both purge and
>non-purge
>masks for quite some time now.  The purge is a bit more convenient.  Not
>something
>I'd base buying a mask on, and not something that I'd rule out, and, in
>fact,
>my favorite mask (the scubapro triview) does indeed have a purge.  The
>purge
>valves in the masks that I've owned have *never* leaked, not even once.

        I've had two bad experiences, one with a mask that worked fine until I
altered it to use the purge function; I might as well have cut off the end
of the nose piece.  Now I wouldn't consider a purge unless the mask fit
extremely well.
>
>
>>         BTW, if you have a favorite mask which has a skirt that fits
particularly
>> well but which has been discontinued, the manufacturer will often be able
>> to replace a broken faceplate even though the mask is no longer being
>> manufactured.
>
>This is true.

        Well, I'm glad I ended on a good note, it demonstrates the old adage that
"Even a +9 diopter pig finds an acorn once in a while."


DPTNST,


John