Sign in 
Stay in Touch
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
A386304
Prive Revaux The Eliza Progressive Blue Light Readers 0-2.5
Not Eligible for Return or Exchanges
Recommendation Test Anchor, don't delete
Recommendation Test Anchor, don't delete
Previously recorded videos may contain expired pricing, exclusivity claims, or promotional offers.
Reviews & Community QA
Prive Revaux The Eliza Progressive Blue Light Readers 0-2.5 is rated
out of
5 by
25.
Rated 1 out of
5
by
SparkleOn from
Too distorted for me!
These glasses are too distorted for me. I have to tilt my head way back in order to see the computer and the middle of the lens is too distorted to read anything. This style is so cute. Please consider making these into regular readers - I'll buy several pair!!!!!
Date published: 2021-06-15
Rated 5 out of
5
by
julieME from
Love these!
I just got these over the weekend and love them already! Exactly what I was hoping for. I don’t have to keep my readers in my nose and peer over them anymore!! The clearness of the lenses, the blue light blocking, the progressive lens… the whole package!
Date published: 2021-05-17
Rated 1 out of
5
by
deescangal from
Great concept-Horrible performance
I was excited to see progressive readers. They arrived. I immediately tried them on and everything was strange to say the least. Re-packaged them within 5 minutes for return!
The curve is entirely wrong. The magnification is too far up the lenses. When I looked straight ahead toward my neighbors home, I could see their house and what I can only describe as a negative looking hazy blue image of their house on the top area of the glasses where there is no magnification at the same time. The ones I received are beyond defective! I don't care how the host talks these up, I will never bite again on Prive Revaux. There is no Quality or Value and it is terribly Inconvenient to get cheap products passed off as "all the rage"-Celebrities wearing them, yada yada. The ones who are leaving good reviews must not understand how readers should work or they are bogus reviews that are there to give the product better ratings. Just my opinion.
Date published: 2021-03-26
Rated 1 out of
5
by
terrylyn from
Minus 5 stars
I ordered three pair of these with the 2.0 magnification. 2 pair do not have any magnification at all and the other pair just makes me dizzy. Where is the quality control? I have worn 2.0 readers for many years and these glasses are not manufactured properly. I am returning all 3 pair as they are defective. This will be my last purchase for this brand of readers.
Date published: 2021-03-23
Rated 5 out of
5
by
DDT777 from
Love Them!!!
Absolutely love these!
Ordering a second pair!
Great on computer!
No problems like other folks have indicated!
Date published: 2021-03-12
Rated 1 out of
5
by
FlaBeach from
Causes extreme distortion
My iphone looks like it’s curved (distorted) when I use these. And they don’t seem to be truly 0 at the top. I have prescription progressives and I have also had OTC progressives and these aren’t similar to either. I am keeping one pair for the frames only to be replaced with prescription lenses.
Date published: 2020-12-05
Rated 1 out of
5
by
Ajsassi from
I Thought It Was Just Me
I thought it was just me. I thought maybe I ordered the wrong strength. But now after reading all of the reviews I realized its the glasses themselves. I can't read anything with them on. So Blurry they make u dizzy. Great idea but not made correctly. I can see better without them and that is pretty bad. Very nice readers, I ordered two pair and can't use them. I have Price Revaux sunglasses many of them and Love them all. But these are a NO GO!!!
Date published: 2020-12-04
Rated 1 out of
5
by
Dibs from
Needs work. A lot of work.
Progressive lens needs work. Area of lens for close-up work like reading is too small. Worse, the "plain" part of the lens, for distance viewing, did not provide 20/20 vision -- everything was a bit blurry. Finally, I noticed a lot of distortion on the outside edge of both lenses. Great idea, poor execution.
Date published: 2020-12-03
