William Grimes is a New York Times writer, Facebook friend, and language curmudgeon. A while back, combining the last two identities, he complained about Americans’ use of the adjectival “eye-watering.” I was unfamiliar with the expression and, needless to say, looked into it.
The story is a bit complicated. The OED has three separate definitions for “eye-watering” and (in my opinion) misses out on a fourth meaning. The first is, simply, “Having eyes which are watering,” and it doesn’t seem to favor a specific nationality. The dictionary’s first citation is from the North Wales Chronicle in 1874 (“A few days ago I left Edinburgh, a shaky, wheezing, snivelling, eye-watering, bronchial body”) and the second is from the New York Times in 1933 (“Dr. Gay had not found out more than any sneezing, eye-watering victim of hay fever already knows”).
The second meaning, also literal and agnostic as to nationality, describes something that causes the eyes to water, to wit:
The third and last sense is figurative. The OED defines it as, “That inspires a strong emotional response; astonishing, exciting, shocking, etc. Now: esp. (of a figure or amount) extremely high or large; staggering,” and says it is “originally U.S.” That’s presumably because of its first citation, from an Ohio newspaper in 1950: “Are you looking for a new refrigerator..? We’ve got eyewatering prices. Wow!”
But I’ve got to think that is an outlying one-off. As evidence, I offer this graph from Google Ngram Viewer:
That is, it really developed as a catch-phrase in Britain in the late 2000s, then slowly started taking hold in America. But William Grimes’s former employer is ahead of the curve. Just two days ago (April 14, 2025), the phrase appeared twice in the Times. One article noted, “Amid a spat with China, Mr. Trump raised tariffs on Chinese imports last week to an eye-watering minimum of 145 percent,” and another referred similarly to “eye-watering tariffs.” All told, “eye-watering” has been used used sixty-four times in the Times since the start of 2024 (admittedly a good number in English football/soccer coverage from The Athletic).
Two other examples from 2024:
- “Behind the dearth of elevators in the country that birthed the skyscraper are eye-watering costs.”
- “I have more than 50,000 pictures stored in Google Photos—over 700 of them taken in the first three months of this year alone. These photos, which take up an eye-watering 44 GB of storage space…”
I mentioned my opinion that the OED has neglected a fourth meaning. It’s an extension of “mouth-watering,” as in something imagined to be delicious; thus, “eye-watering” can mean very pleasing to the eye. I would say this applies to the 1950 refrigerator ad, as well as these two quotes from Times ballet and theater reviews, from 1973 and 2005, respectively.
- “[Patricia] McBride provided one of the very few memorable moments of 1973 when, radiating delicious and seductive opulence in an eye‐watering red gown, she was the center of attention in Jerome Robbins’ “An Evening’s Waltzes.”
- “This peculiar news serves as an apposite coda to a season in which much of the dancing on Broadway was probably more fun to do than to watch, those eye-watering splits from the acrobatic beauties in ‘La Cage aux Folles’ definitely excepted.”
But I don’t expect the OED to recognize this, so established has the staggeringly high figure or price meaning become–in Britain and now, America.
notoneoffbritishisms.com 
My gut feeling is that the splits in your last example are representative of another (original?) figurative eye-watering, which relates to a sympathetic reaction to something painful looking. I think this may be where the eye-watering amount of money comes from – a wince inducing amount of money.
I agree! Even the red gown comment probably falls into this category, in the sense of a painfully bright red – that is the sense I get from the quote.
I live in the South West of England, on the Devon and Cornwall border, so you may like to take that into account when evaluating this comment!
Exactly so.
I’m almost certain there are earlier uses of “eye-watering” in the literal sense than the 1959 citation. We just need people to find them! I think I’d try combing through sports reporting …. I’m sure a lot of sporty people would agree that a ball hitting certain parts of their body would make their eyes water! [Er – when I say I’d try this, I absolutely wouldn’t. But someone might like the challenge.]
As a Briton, the 2007 citation doesn’t work for me. I’d have read it twice, before realising that the originator meant “this made me cry”, rather than “I was pretty shocked”. I have never heard anyone in Britain use “eye-watering” in this sense. We have lots of other phrases to use instead. (Try “I cried/blubbed my eyes out.”)
But I’m also [fairly] sure that I’ve heard “eye-watering”, in the sense of “pretty shocking”, for quite a lot longer than the original post thinks.
But that’s why this wonderful website exists!
I have to agree with the OED, Ben. I.e., I don’t get your fourth context:
‘It’s an extension of “mouth-watering,” as in something imagined to be delicious; thus, “eye-watering” can mean very pleasing to the eye.’
The watering of the mouth is caused by anticipation of good food or drink. I do not think one can simply say that ‘very pleasing to the eye’ can, by extension, correlate to ‘eye-watering’
I think the 1973 Patricia McBride usage is just a mistake by the writer. If a gown ‘…radiat[es] delicious and seductive opulence’, in what sense can it be eye-watering?
In the 2005 ‘La Cage aux Folles’ review, I think doing the splits was being described as eye-wateringly painful for the dancer rather than so beautiful it made the viewer cry.
By the way, the 1950 refrigerator ad (OED sense 3) is puzzling. Why would a shop describe their prices as eye-watering? I take that to mean they are so high as to induce tears. Perhaps it was meant to be eye-watering for the retailer; not the best advertising.
I agree with others that the 1973 reviewer probably meant that the dress was extremely bright. That might make your eyes water. I notice it’s an American review. [No journalist writing in Britain at the time would’ve written “center”. If they had, a sub-editor would have corrected it.]
Interesting. I just checked the latest Chambers (which I have on this computer). Eye-watering is not defined. Eye-water, meaning tears or eye lotion is there.
I have the two-volume “Shorter” OED (1980 edition, though largely a much-reprinted edition of the 1933 original, with some corrections – vol 1, A-Markworthy). Benefit of working in public libraries – first dibs on the chuck-outs!
Let’s see ….
“Eye water” is printed with a dot (at the level of the higher dot in a colon) between the two words. I can’t find this in the index, but it looks like it probably means you can spell it as one word or two. Or hyphenate, if that’s your thing.
First citation 1590 “Water flowing from the eye. Rare in plural.”
Other citations: 1679 “A lotion for the eye”; 1874 “The humours of the eye” [someone must’ve been a bit behind the times, if they still believed in ‘humours’ in 1874!]; and 1869, as slang for gin.
No mention of “eye-watering”, though I suspect it was already in use in some quarters.
Actually, I remember from my O-level biology lessons back in the sixties (and Wikipedia agrees) that the liquid between the cornea and the lens of the eye is anatomically known as the aqueous humour, and the liquid behind the lens is the vitreous humour.
Aqueous humour – Wikipedia
Yes, you’re right, it does still take this meaning – I once had a report from a UK hospital which referred to the vitreous humour. I still have very little idea what that meant!
In my earlier post, I assumed that the quotation referred to one of the four “humours” of medieval science.
I actually remember having to dissect a sheep’s eyeball in biology lessons back in the sixties. (I wonder if they still make pupils do that these days. And no pun intended with “pupils”.) And the Wikipedia article reminded me that the aqueous humour in front of the eye is liquid, the vitreous humour behind the lens is a sort of clear jelly – vitreous, as in like glass.
Urrrh – yuk! This is why I gave up Biology as an O-Level subject in about 1983. I got Bs in Physics and Chemistry, though, in 1985.
I feel that eye-watering (prices) has been around for more than 25 years, but I can’t offer any evidence. And Paul, yes, my daughter dissected a sheep’s eyeball and a mouse in biology lessons, but she can’t remember if both were at A level (she’s 31 now).
She has zero squeamishness – a job of hers 6 or 7 years ago involved practicing on live pigs and dead humans. Even when we were in the EU, she had to fly to Austria for the (anaesthetised) pigs, our animal welfare regs being tighter. I was fascinated by the details I pumped out of her, but couldn’t have done the job myself. I always asked her to bring me a pork chop back. Dad-joke, you know. I’m convinced kids secretly love the repetition.
She reported only one unpleasant moment: Human heads had their faces covered, whether attached or not (resting on a shallow dish). She heard a thump close to her bench and looked round. A head had rolled off and hit the floor, its face covering now detached… It was coming to rest looking up at her.
Definitely O=level for me. Didn’t do A-level biology.
In our Australian family we have talked about things being eye-wateringly expensive for more years than I can count.