Talk:Monocle

eye strain

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't putting a corrective lens over one eye result in serious strain? -- Kizor 21:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not if you only have one eye screwed up. Some people have different strength of vision in their eyes

You're right, thanks. It's easy to miss that on the basis of the stereotype. Nowadays that's handled by glasses that only correct one eye; I guess they're relatively recent. -- Kizor 16:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My sister is blind in one eye and wears a monocle on the other. 146.145.99.210 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Monocle magazine

Monocle magazine is pretty hard to find. I live in Seattle. There is not a library within 500 miles with a collection. I think it would be worth writing more about (also, there is a related outstanding question at Talk:radical middle.) Here's a list of North American libraries that have it. Would anyone be willing to take this up? -- Jmabel 18:40, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

CA -CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV, LOS ANGELES vol: 5-6 1963-1964
CA -STANFORD UNIV LIBR
CA -UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS, SHIELDS LIBR
CA -UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
CA -UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
CO -UNIV OF COLORADO AT BOULDER
CT -UNIV OF CONNECTICUT vol: 1:2,2:2-6:5 1957/19??
CT -YALE UNIV LIBR
IA -GRINNELL COL vol: 1-6 1957-1966
IN -INDIANA UNIV
IN -PURDUE UNIV
KS -KANSAS STATE UNIV
KY -UNIV OF KENTUCKY LIBR
KY -UNIV OF LOUISVILLE
MI -MICHIGAN STATE UNIV vol: 2-6 1958-1967
MN -UNIV OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS V.2-4 all inc.; v.5; v.6
NC -UNIV OF N CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL
NY -BUFFALO & ERIE CNTY PUB LIBR vol: 5-6 1963-1967
NY -NEW YORK PUB LIBR RES LIBR
OH -OHIO STATE UNIV
TX -TEXAS TECH UNIV vol: 5-6 1963-1964
TX -UNIV OF HOUSTON vol: 6
TX -UNIV OF TEXAS, TARLTON LAW LIBR
UT -BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV LIBR vol: 2,5-6.
VA -UNIV OF VIRGINIA
ON -MCMASTER UNIV

http://ken.coar.org/gallery/mugshots/Ken_Coar_974x976

Why!?

If monacles were a status symbol, that means even men who didn't have the specific "single bad eye" problem. It is ridiculous to wear a monacle! Like Hot Pants! Havantus 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I like them, personal prefference and popular fashion are important factors. 68.62.233.226 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt

Surely there should be a mention of this most famous wearer of monocles? 70.16.18.49 02:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt wore pince nez spectacles , not a monocle. Edgewise 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that Eric von Stroheim wore a monocle when playing as an actor a German officer in some movies. But otherwise? The same question for Conrad Veidt (the German officer in Casablanca)

Maurice Van Meenen 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi

Why must a Nazi lead off this section? I found the image jarring when I opened the page. sæ (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fritz Lang was never a Nazi. He left Germany in 1934. (In one particular sense, he was Jewish, since his mother was.) However, I agree there is some risk of stereotyping. Lord Peter Wimsey, an English aristocrat (albeit a fictitious one), would be far more recognizable than any of the real people in the three photographs. (They are good photographs tho...so it goes.) Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why indeed?

I am curious about monocle wearers. I've never heard of anyone in modern times who has vision bad enough in one eye, yet good enough in the other to require a prescription in only one side of glasses or one contact lens. Was the monocle intended for people with one eye requiring correction but the other eye fine? How could the monocle become so common as to be a sterotypical symbol of anything given its purpose for such a seemingly rare situation?

At least one modern monocle wearer that I know of is blind in one eye and wears the monocle on the other. 146.145.99.210 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests the monocle went out of style "in large part to advances in optometry which allow for better measurement of refractive error, so that glasses and contact lenses can be prescribed with different strengths in each eye". This doesn't make sense to me, as while advances would allow better measuring, I don't see how advances would stop anyone from making down lenses in a pair of glasses different strength unless technology only allowed for one universal strength of lens for everyone (if you could make two pairs of glasses different strength, surely you could make two lenses in one pair different strentgh). Either way, a monocle seems to me to only be a useful device for someone who has one eye that doesn't require ANY correction, right? That seems like an unusual situation. TheHYPO (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

First, TheHYPO, right, this statement doesn't hold up under examination:

"This is due in large part to advances in optometry which allow for better measurement of refractive error, so that glasses and contact lenses can be prescribed with different strengths in each eye."

This is vaguely referring to a long-ago period when lenses weren't ground for astigmatism, but simple distance correction? When lenses were probably turned out in a somewhat ill-controlled fashion?...who knows...the basic point is that it's no more difficult to match one eye with moderate vision problems, than two eyes.

Yep, same question here. Better tech for creating lenses has no bearing over whether you wear one or two of them at a time. I think we're left with fashion. When is it enough to request the section to be taken out? Seems ludicrous, though perhaps I'm missing some context. Citation needed has been up there since September 2009. Rufwork (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Second, commenting on the unsigned first paragraph. I have terrible vision in one eye, reasonable vision in the other. As I'm typing, I'm not wearing glasses at all. Why? Because even though prescription glasses make my vision sharp, they are a bother. No glasses transmit 100% of the light, so no glasses are preferable -- in some limited ways. If I lived in 1940, I suspect I would wear a monocle, at least sometimes, as a "halfway measure". I.e., the bad eye gets "help", but the good eye isn't compromised by a largely unnecessary piece of glass.

Third, the article is missing a major point, which is that precision lenses were expensive to create 150 years ago. Two lenses would be twice as expensive. The cost is not the only factor. In an era that was not capable of correcting astigmatism (most of human history), an eye whose major problem was not distance, but astigmatism (being distorted, not blurred) wasn't a strong candidate for correction. Why pay for correcting an eye that still ended up being nearly worthless, when corrected?

Fourth, this just occurred to me, German lenses in the mid 20th century were the best in the world. (The Allies in WWII used to consider German binoculars a great prize.) If we assume that is of importance, then other countries would have two choices: Import German monocles to get the best optical results, or make do with local lenses of similar cost, but of such optical inferiority to cross the line between "useful and cost effective" and not. I.e., it was probably more practical for Germans to get good optical correction.

Fifth, lol, I didn't come to this article for the above reasons at all, but, watching a movie, to wonder whether it was recognized that monocles have a unique advantage -- which is that they can be easily and naturally adjusted in and out to change the focus. If you wear fixed focal length glasses, you'll know how important this is: by sliding your glasses in and out, they can practically be turned into a microscope. But a monocle can be easily, and relatively permanently, adjusted to fit the situation. (I should be clear, I've tried this with lenses taken out of my old eyeglasses.)

Thoughts? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Current picture

To anyone who is interested: A lot of people [ 1 ](mainly anti-Nazi's), don't like the fact that the wearer of the monocle in the picture is a "Nazi". I know there is WP:CENSOR, and I couldn't care less if there was a Nazi in the pic, but really, what do Nazi's have to do with monocles? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article is pretty clear that monocles were actually very popular in German society during that time period. Germans of wealth and power tended to wear monocles as a status symbol and, during this era, powerful Germans also tended to be members of the Nazi party. Also, let's face it, free-use pictures of men with monocles are rather hard to come by. We use what we have and ot's an excellent picture illustrating a monocle in use, which is why it leads. As for the rest, in the words of a Wikipedian I have a lot of respect for: "To paraphrase Archimedes, give me a place to stand, and I will offend the Earth". It's a picture of a guy with a monocle, who just also happened to be a Nazi. Get over it. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 07:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I personally don't have a problem with it... I'm requesting on behalf of that questioner ... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know Calvin.  :) I'm more talking to the ether than to you directly.  :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

TECNICAL ADVICE

Is anyone aware of technical optician's advice about prescribing and building monocles? Actually having different sight on the two eyes gives a lack in 3D vision, but is quite easily dealt with once one is used to it. In miopy it allows to see near and far without changing eyeglasses. I see that the monocle is worne both on the left and right side, which on symmetric miopy in effect is equal. In case of one eye worse then the other, the correction would have made the worse eye to be used for distant sight and the better eye for nearsight. But this would have given problems after age 50 (and most monocle wearers seam to fall in that category!) because of rising nearsight problmes in the better eye. So at that age correcting the better eye and leaving the worse one for nearsight, could be logical. I did non find any scientifical or tecnical articles about the use of monocles on the web! 81.174.11.26 (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fritz Lang.jpg

The image Image:Fritz Lang.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tilley

The introduction read It was introduced by the dandy's quizzing glass of the 1790s, iconified by the cartoon character Eustace Tilley, mascot of the The New Yorker magazine. This seems like an anachronism or at best an odd jump in time, as Tilley first appeared in 1920, at which time monocles were long established. Neither is Tilley, to the best of my judgement, famous enough outside New York to iconify the monocle. EverGreg (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Say what?

It was introduced by the dandy's quizzing glass of the 1790s, as a sense of high fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.183.147 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Rarely worn"

According to the article, monocles are "rarely worn today." This suggests that they are sometimes worn. Personally, I've never seen anybody wearing a monocle in my life. Perhaps a rewrite of this part? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen people wear monocles in movies, TV-series, pictures etc. as part of a costume. I also know somebody personally who occasionally wears one. To say they're never worn would be an overstatement, I'd say that rarely is appropriate here. --80.101.187.6 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I wear a monocle and have met exactly three other men who do so, one of whom lives in New York City, one in Vienna, and one in London, although he is originally from Lithuania. We all have the same condition, that one eye is near-sighted and the other not. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the section on fictional characters referring to cartoons, it was poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.17.240 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove the in fiction section

I'm going to remove the in fiction section, it is nothing more than a list of fictional wearers, in prose form. It does not even correctly categorize the fictional characters. I could see this section being reworked on how the monocal is represented in fiction, and use some the characters as examples (i.e. moncoal = old rich guy or something like that) but that would be original research for me. As I don't see this happening anytime soon, I've just removed that section, if you need it you can always find it in the archives. Lotu (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Theatrical effect

When a character in a period-piece set in an appropriate era is required at some point in the script to express astonishment, there is a theatrical convention or Trope that they absolutely must wear a monocle that will fall out when they raise their eyebrows, magnifying a tiny change of expression so it can be seen from every seat in the house. Conversely if you attend a play where one actor is wearing a monocle, it is practically certain that he will be surprised at least once !

Notable ? Citations ? I guess if we add it, it will become a huge list of 'Monocles in Popular Culture'.

Ohh, yes, Basil Brush !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Monocle function

"Monocles were most prevalent in the late 19th century, but are rarely worn today. This is due in large part to advances in optometry which allow for better measurement of refractive error, so that glasses and contact lenses can be prescribed with different strengths in each eye."

But, as the article says, the monocle was not worn for normal vision (like glasses or contacts. It was worn for the close-to examination of jewellery, paintings, clues etc. I would say it's more likely that the monocle was more likely replaced in use with the strong magnifying glass (a la Holmes). Anna (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Info in the Talk page should be in the article

I searched for this page because I was curious about the historical practical purposes of a monocle and found a vague inference that a single lens was more practical solution for the contemporary lens manufacturing technology but nothing about its development and history of usage as a medical device.

There seems to be a lot of that relevant info from informed people in the Talk discussions, I'm not experienced enough to author whole sections but would someone be willing to flesh out this article to the level of other historical medical devices? FusionTorch (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

🧐

This article should mention the "face with monocle" Unicode character --damiens.rf 23:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. A reference (perhaps yours) would be good, but I am busy. Error (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Size of popular culture section

This article should definitely have an "In popular culture" section, as monocles have widespread cultural associations in media. However, the section at the moment is just too large. Most of the things in the list are minor examples of fictional characters wearing monocles, and none of them have references. What would be an appropriate method for cutting down the size of the section? – InterestingTime (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The best method would be to take only a few of the most prominent examples (that is, those that have contributed the greatest to the popular image of the stock character) and re-write the section as prose rather than a list. WP Ludicer (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Monocle

I read yesterday that a tribune declared the monocle out of style in 1894. 209.2.228.235 (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)