# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Complaints about distortion an progressives...................................

## Chris Ryser

*Maybe its time again to have another thread on the subject of distortion on progressive lenses*.




> *No one is interested in a line, no one is interested in bifocals, No one is interested in progressives, no one is even interested in glasses. These are tools to do the job with. If you want to see peripherally well get a line and be dissinterested, you will see. 
> This is much like useing the proper sized and designed wrench to turn a bolt. Sure sometimes pliers or vice-grips will do the job, but the right tool will do the job right.*


Opticians, either they do not know,..........or by greed............or the patient wants them because of brainwash publicity by the manufacturers, and the optician does not object and *warn the patients about the drawbacks of progressive lenses.*

As practical they can be, they do have do have some negative points.......mainly the lateral distortion tha can be bothersome to some people. Opticians would have happy customers if they would forewarn the of this mentioned facts and then let them make the choice,

----------


## cinders831

> *Maybe its time again to have another thread on the subject of distortion on progressive lenses*.
> 
> 
> 
> Opticians, either they do not know,..........or by greed............or the patient wants them because of brainwash publicity by the manufacturers, and the optician does not object and *warn the patients about the drawbacks of progressive lenses.*
> 
> As practical they can be, they do have do have some negative points.......mainly the lateral distortion tha can be bothersome to some people. Opticians would have happy customers if they would forewarn the of this mentioned facts and then let them make the choice,


 Chris,
I understand your sentiment,  I regularly fit progressive lenses with great success.  I also fit d-28, d-35's with success.  Some opticians (me) educate each pt about the drawbacks of each lens, speak to them about what they will  be using the lenses for and make educated recommendations.  All the while educating the pt on each lens feature.  The pt is the one able to choose and ultimately what ever they decide I can be wholly satisfied that my pt selected something that they  think will work best based on our conversation.  You see were not all money hungry progressive pushers.  We are educaters and pts do normally pick the progressive option.  When fit properly and educated about the lens designs we end up with happy pts.  Sorry for the rant.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *We are educaters and pts do normally pick the progressive option. When fit properly and educated about the lens designs we end up with happy pts.*


I am glad you show a good attitude and I am sure if you practise it you will not end up with re-dos and non adapts.

When you say *we*, do you mean yourself, your company or the whole optical retail world?

----------


## cinders831

> I am glad you show a good attitude and I am sure if you practise it you will not end up with re-dos and non adapts.
> 
> When you say *we*, do you mean yourself, your company or the whole optical retail world?


_ I mean our practice, surely the whole optical world isnt on the same page.  If it were our business wouldnt be as good.  People love honest opticians abd we get a lot of referrals for that._

----------


## drk

Chris: for better or for worse, this is a true statement:

"The optical industry is in love with progressives."

Do we buck the trend or go along with it?

I particularly struggle with progressives in sunwear.

On the one hand:
1.) It's nice to give a +1.50 presbyope some near vision for signing the scorecard and dialing the cell phone

OTOH:
1.) Progressives, especially polarized, with poly (which is great for sunwear, IMO) is muy expensivo.  (Sometimes difficult to find a frame that justifies such nice lenses!)

2.) "If it ain't wrapped, it ain't cool".  Everything is wrap optics, now, and wrapping a progressive isn't smart.  I guess Shamir's wrap-optimized progressives fit the bill, but why Piccolo in polar poly and Genesis in 1.6/1.6 Transitions?  Are they trying to tell us to use the short corridor fit low, and use the Genesis for wrapped dress ophthalmic frames?  

The main point is that wrapping a progressive only screws up the distance vision that much more.  And isn't distance vision what sunglasses are really for?

Heck, maybe I should push 6-base fronts a little more...maybe ophthalmic versions of lines that have sunwear, to avoid the geek factor :Nerd:  , maybe Oakley Ophthalmic or Nike Ophthalmic (Yeah, I know, they have Rx programs for their sunwear...but what do they know about optics, anyway?  Sola's helping Marchon, I guess, in SV, but what about progressives?)


Sorry I hijacked.  Just stay in your seats and nobody gets hurt.

----------


## shellrob

Cinders, I'm with ya, I ecucate, educate, and educate. I too fit everything depending on what's going to work for the patient. I don't give the patient false hope or unrealistic expectations.  I think that's why we're successful at fitting them. I have a very low non-adapt rate.


 I find the hardest patient to fit is the one that's been unsuccessful because of a poor fitting by another optician. They tried it before and it didn't work. They weren't educated because I'm betting the person fitting them didn't even know how to explain things because they themselves didn't know a lot about the lens. I was that person 10 years ago doing the fitting. I still to this day don't know why anyone bought glasses from me. I didn't know anything when I started out. That's a big problem around here I find.

----------


## Happylady

What about warning our patients about the drawbacks of flattops? I had a patient today tell me that she hates wearing her sunglasses because she did them with a flattop to save money and the line and the jump really bug her. She sees the line. She told me that she loves her progressives, that they are so much better.

----------


## chip anderson

Happy, you have a problem with (plastic) flat top sunglasses.  Unless you frost the ledge (as I described in an earlier post) you will have patients complaining of glare from the ledge which is more bothersome than the ledge.  This is not a problem with glass flat-top shades as there is no ledge.

Chip

----------


## Happylady

> Happy, you have a problem with (plastic) flat top sunglasses. Unless you frost the ledge (as I described in an earlier post) you will have patients complaining of glare from the ledge which is more bothersome than the ledge. This is not a problem with glass flat-top shades as there is no ledge.
> 
> Chip


I'm not sure if the problem she had was glare or not. She just commented to me that the line bothered her.

What is frosting the ledge? I have never heard of this. I almost never do glass lenses, maybe once a month.

I have had other patients that have worn both progressives and flattops tell me they perfer progressives. One man is a pilot and he perfers his 8 by 35 trifocals for flying. For EVERYTHING else he perfers his progressives even at the computer. 

This surprised me tell he explained that with his trifocals he had to be exactly a certain distance from the computer to use the trifocal but with the progressive he just adjusts his head slightly for any distance.

----------


## chip anderson

To frost edge on a flat top you must mask everything except the area you wish to frost with tape.  Get some copus cloth and very, very carefully sand the ledge until it no longer shines.


Chip:cheers:

----------


## Dd

As a consumer about to go into my first pair of progressives and concerned about this issue, I've asked a couple progressive wearers about the distortion. It's only a survey of two, but neither had any idea what I was talking about. They moved their eyes from side to side but couldn't see any.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Chris: for better or for worse, this is a true statement:*
> 
> *"The optical industry is in love with progressives."*


drk..................you are so right. That has been true ever since their inception in the late 50's and I was still working in the retail family business. I sold myself many hundreds of the at the time, but we did a good job with them. There was no return and non adapt warranties. 

Therfore we had to sell them to the patients we knew could wear them and make sure that the questionable cases would NOT choose them. Therefore we had no returns and no non adapts. That is still practised these days in that business.

The warranties have made the optical retail world go "happy go lucky", if it dont work we lost nothing way of thinking.

I am wondering what would happen if all the corporations that are pushing these highly expensive lenses would change policy and *revert to NO MORE WARRANTY. You the optical retailer takes the blame for everything, because yopu should have known. :D*

----------


## Mikef

> I am wondering what would happen if all the corporations that are pushing these highly expensive lenses would change policy and *revert to NO MORE WARRANTY. You the optical retailer takes the blame for everything, because yopu should have known. :D*


 
What would happen is Independents would not be able to take a chance selling too many customers and they would all lose tons of income because of it.  The big stores could take more chances.

Warranty is a great thing!  For your bottom-line that is!

----------


## Happylady

Chris how do you know for SURE that someone will be a non adapt? If you only will fit those you are sure will like them (and again how can you be sure) then there are lots of your patients that you are talking out of progressives that would be happy with them.

What % of your patients do you put in flattops and what % in progressives?

I think we pay for the warranties, it is included in the price of progressives. So I don't mind using them since I feel I am paying more for the progressives in the first place. We don't have many nonadapts and we fit proabably 9 progressives to 1 flattop.

In my office we have 6 people wearing progressives happily and one wearing flattops. She tried progressives many years ago and wasn't happy. I would love for her to try some of the newer progressives. She really isn't happy with her flattop bifocals either.

----------


## efsamuel

> *Maybe its time again to have another thread on the subject of distortion on progressive lenses*.
> 
> 
> 
> Opticians, either they do not know,..........or by greed............or the patient wants them because of brainwash publicity by the manufacturers, and the optician does not object and *warn the patients about the drawbacks of progressive lenses.*
> 
> As practical they can be, they do have do have some negative points.......mainly the lateral distortion tha can be bothersome to some people. Opticians would have happy customers if they would forewarn the of this mentioned facts and then let them make the choice,


Part of the non warning that is given I know has to do with the "we must see as many as we can" additude and not spend the amount of time needed with each Pt. If you are in an enviroment where education is primary then you should have no problems with fitting ANY type of lens. You can discuss lifestyle with the pt to help the Pt make an informed choice. 

Chris I know you love the FT's but I tell you this I have a group of retired nuns we see them all in the course of the year. After one had her cat surgury she asked about the no line bifocal. She had heard and seen it and wanted to try it. We went over everything with her and she had a sucsessfull fit. Wouldn't you know it but now they are all coming in to get them after she sang the praises of the no-lines. Each one we went through and evaluated what would be the best and they are all wearing no-lines.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I think we pay for the warranties, it is included in the price of progressives. So I don't mind using them since I feel I am paying more for the progressives in the first place*.


I think that you think the right way.

When you mold a lens, you take a frontmold and a backmold, stick the on a spacer ring and inject the monomer. Start the curing cycle and when finished you open the mold and take out the lens.

*What comes out of the mold is "the lens". It makes no difference if you used a frontmold for a straight top lens. a single vision lens, or a progressive lens.*

As you said...............you are paying more for the progressive lens which at the manufacturing level did not cost more than the mentioned single vision lens. 

There are some reasoning that the progressive mold cost more than the others, as R&D and manufacturing ........................but then is the counter argument that these molds can be used thousands of times over and over.

The profit picture in the optical business has changed. It used to be the opticians who were the big money earners these days it looks like the real profits are made at the manufactruing level.

(I will get beaten up again for having said that one)     :cry:

----------


## QDO1

> I think that you think the right way.
> 
> When you mold a lens, you take a frontmold and a backmold, stick the on a spacer ring and inject the monomer. Start the curing cycle and when finished you open the mold and take out the lens.
> 
> *What comes out of the mold is "the lens". It makes no difference if you used a frontmold for a straight top lens. a single vision lens, or a progressive lens.*
> 
> As you said...............you are paying more for the progressive lens which at the manufacturing level did not cost more than the mentioned single vision lens. 
> 
> There are some reasoning that the progressive mold cost more than the others, as R&D and manufacturing ........................but then is the counter argument that these molds can be used thousands of times over and over.
> ...


so chris... if i took a microwave, some water, and a copy of your tints, and reproduced what you do - how would you feel?  If I come on this site and said "its only a microwave, its just water and dyes you put the lens in, it comes out tinted"

so what do you say if i then said - the chemicals - Ive sources some at 1/5 the price - i mean chemicals are chemicals arnt they, cheap - they are mixed together and thats it...

post after post - you make these claims that all a lens is is moulded plastic.  Post after post you fail to say that the manufacturers and designers and toolmakers etc. have made masive investements into making "that mould"

You cant have it both ways

I still maintain that the cost of a budget PAL is consumate with a moulded S/V aspheric, and D28, in terms of retail and buying finished lenses fom a supplier

----------


## hipoptical

> The profit picture in the optical business has changed. It used to be the opticians who were the big money earners these days it looks like the real profits are made at the manufactruing level.
> 
> (I will get beaten up again for having said that one)


You only get beaten if you mean the lab as manufacturer. Lab owners are not big $$ earners. That's why many of them are still plugging away in the lab daily. They only do well when Essilor buys them out and demands they stay on at a higher wage. The actual manufacturers, who I think you're referring to, yeah they make money.

----------


## spartus

Wait--I think Chris is really on to something here! What we do, see, is buy only outdated technology and sell it cheaply, to keep *other* people from making more money than we are. I mean, who really cares about serving patient's _needs_--we have to screw the big guy that, that...uh...did something that Chris doesn't like.

It's genius, really. Sell enough glass FT35s to people who wanted a high-index progressive with AR, and very soon, you won't have any customers to worry about.

----------


## C-10

I think we all have got it wrong. We should ONLY FIT single vision lenses. The myope can remove their eyewear to see close up. The hyperope can have two pairs one for reading and one for close. Lets looks at it. Progressives have distortion on the edges, the annoying line on flat tops lead to an image jump. We can fit glass lenses with flat tops so that you get less refection off the line, but you then you need a neck brace to keep them up. What we are talking about is a compromise with any multifocal lens. You are always going to have problems fitting different people. You can educate them and you can screen them, but you will still have problems with some people; that is the way it is.

I have trouble fitting some people with SV. So if you think you can find a solution with a multifocal lens you are the one that is NUTS

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *so what do you say if i then said - the chemicals - Ive sources some at 1/5 the price - i mean chemicals are chemicals arnt they, cheap - they are mixed together and thats it...*


I think you missed the point...........................If you have sources at 1/5th the price of mine and use them ..............I can and will take you to court and sue your but for the value of your sales in this domaine for damages . I do have patent protection in the UK and just about everywhere else. Therefore can drag you into court as soon as the lawyers can arrange it, for patent infringements. 

*So for the next 15 years you got to behave.............after that you can do whatever you want.*

Same does not apply for lens casting anymore..............patents have expired and it is a totally open market, maybe with a few protected corners.

In today's optical lens world, there is no more protection and it is an open field, If you would start getting progressive lens molds from Shamir who is one of the largest supplier of the babies to the lens casting industry and start your own lens casting business which then would not succeed.

But, you would not succed, not because the large corporations could not take you to court, but because the would counter the threat with their powerful advertising machine.
:D 


-

----------


## cinders831

> I think we all have got it wrong. We should ONLY FIT single vision lenses. The myope can remove their eyewear to see close up. The hyperope can have two pairs one for reading and one for close. Lets looks at it. Progressives have distortion on the edges, the annoying line on flat tops lead to an image jump. We can fit glass lenses with flat tops so that you get less refection off the line, but you then you need a neck brace to keep them up. What we are talking about is a compromise with any multifocal lens. You are always going to have problems fitting different people. You can educate them and you can screen them, but you will still have problems with some people; that is the way it is.
> 
> I have trouble fitting some people with SV. So if you think you can find a solution with a multifocal lens you are the one that is NUTS


 



Are you even kidding me right now?!!!???

So the person working in an office greeting those walking in the door and multitasking by doing some paper work sees how with two pairs of glasses. I know your newer to the industry, you still have some to learn and clearly the thought that no multi focal ever works is one of them. People have needs for distance and near and cant wait the seconds required in switching glasses. As an optician I would go nuts if I had to change my glasses all the time. Holy Toledo I hope you were kidding.

----------


## Jubilee

I believe the post was in jest.. Taking the view point of Chris to a further extreme...

I personally believe there are some differences in progressive designs, my patients do as well... 

I also believe that progressives aren't for everyone.. and yes some people do prefer the two pair method of 1 for reading and 1 for distance.

Patient education and interaction is what it is about.

Cassandra

----------


## C-10

> Are you even kidding me right now?!!!???
> 
> So the person working in an office greeting those walking in the door and multitasking by doing some paper work sees how with two pairs of glasses. I know your newer to the industry, you still have some to learn and clearly the thought that no multi focal ever works is one of them. People have needs for distance and near and cant wait the seconds required in switching glasses. As an optician I would go nuts if I had to change my glasses all the time. Holy Toledo I hope you were kidding.


 
Am I kidding well maybe we sit here debating what is clearer pals or FTs but SV will give someone clear vision with very little distortion. What I am saying here is that. Most people can be fitted with PALs and most people can be fitted with Fts but what is best for your client you have to decided. Yes we are maybe preoccupied with fitting PALs but are that not what the consumer wants if there was not a demand for them we would not be selling so many. Take Refection free coating we all will declare how good it is but due to some poor quality coating out there we have a hard time selling them . No I am not new to the industry I have been licence for 32 years and worked in a lab six year before

----------


## Dd

What determines whether someone will notice distortion in a progressive?
  Is it the script? It seems some people notice it in the higher end lenses and others wearing a lesser lens may not.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *What determines whether someone will notice distortion in a progressive?*
> *Is it the script? It seems some people notice it in the higher end lenses and others wearing a lesser lens may not.*


The patient will notice it.

Assuming you start a patient on PALs first time he get reading glasses with a low add.............he will most probably not notice anything, get used to it without a problem. After a couple of years he will get another pair and will have no problem as the reading addition increases along with the distortion. This is all psychological effect.

Assuming you start somebody on a progressive at a 1.75 addition he will immediately notice a doorframe being round when lookiong straight forward. He will see everything distorted through the periphery of the lens. Some of these people when making a special effort can get used to it and some will not.

Specially a myope is usually a very picky personality that has a good near vision without glasses. Therefore they are very often disturbed when seing objects distorted when looking through the periphery of the lens. :(

----------


## QDO1

> I believe the post was in jest.. Taking the view point of Chris to a further extreme...
> 
> I personally believe there are some differences in progressive designs, my patients do as well... 
> 
> I also believe that progressives aren't for everyone.. and yes some people do prefer the two pair method of 1 for reading and 1 for distance.
> 
> Patient education and interaction is what it is about.
> 
> Cassandra


exactly

----------


## Lady Nicole

> I have a group of retired nuns we see them all in the course of the year. After one had her cat surgury she asked about the no line bifocal. She had heard and seen it and wanted to try it. We went over everything with her and she had a sucsessfull fit. Wouldn't you know it but now they are all coming in to get them after she sang the praises of the no-lines. Each one we went through and evaluated what would be the best and they are all wearing no-lines.


The moral of this story is, that the patient wanted to try the lens, and knew what to expect. She had the proper motivation to get her through the awkward "adaptation" stage, and was well educated by her optician on what her new lenses would feel like. 

Patient complaints about distortions come from patients who did not expect the distortions. I remember when I put on my first pair of progressives. I knew what to expect, but it was still a struggle the first few days. If I had been simply a patient expecting clear vision like my single visions, and an optician had put me in that lens without teaching me what the pros and cons were, I probably would have been a complaining non-adapt myself!

It is the optician's responsibility to help guide the patient into making the best choice of lens for their personal needs. It is a disservice to them to simply slap a PAL into their frames and say it's the best available and they should "get used to it". Our industry is infatuated with progressives, but I personally believe that _not every patient is a good candidate for progressive lenses_. This is the fine line we walk in opticianry between being retailers and health professionals. If you start fitting progressive lenses simply because they're "the best" and don't take your patient's needs into account, I say you've crossed that line.

----------


## spartus

> I personally believe that _not every patient is a good candidate for progressive lenses_. This is the fine line we walk in opticianry between being retailers and health professionals. If you start fitting progressive lenses simply because they're "the best" and don't take your patient's needs into account, I say you've crossed that line.


I think that most halfway sensible opticians would find that self-evident. Among posters here, I think it's probably close to 100% agreement on the point. However, there are some bomb-throwers around here who turn up in Every. Single. Conversation. about PALs and moan about "distortion". 

Can we, once and for all, all come to an agreement that progressive lenses are not for _every_ patient and stop apologizing to the minority that seems to think that it means that they're not for _any_ patient? Really. It's getting monotonous:




> Poster: Hey, is this progressive any good?
> 
> A chorus of other posters: Yeah, it's all right.
> 
> Bomb-thrower: There's nothing but distortion.................................oh sorry, "surface astigmatism".......................you know, a FT35 is much clearer.............my whole desk............clear out to *here*...........big companies make too much money.......


Stop. Point taken. Please.

----------


## chip anderson

This only one patient which doesn't say anything about the general population.  But today I had a patient in to pick up new glasses his wife has been a happy contact lens patient of mine for 35+years (she now wears trifocal contacts and was about 15 when I first fitted her ) contacts, I have made him SV glasses in the past and he has been happy.  He is 56 and until now has never needed bifocals even with distance glasses on.

I delivered his new glasses Rx -0.75sph O.U. +1.50 add. Vx comfort with Ar and transitions. His doctor had specificaly prescribed progressives.  He wasn't happy   but agreed to try them (acuity 20/15, J-1).  Within an hour he was back wanting his old lenses back.  Said he just couldn't live with this.  On further observation (which I should have done before ordering lenses, but since his doctor had specified progressives, or because I was negligent) the man just does not move his head, but only rotates his eyes when reading.

I re-made the glasses in ST-28's and the patient is happy.

Of course his wife called me back an hour after he returned the progressives complaining about the fact he would have a line.  He doesn't care of course, as he said: "I'm 56 and bald and I don't give a damn whether I have a line or not."

Chip:p

----------


## chip anderson

Yesterday, I had an Essilor man in (for 2 hours) selling me on the Varilux Physio. Among the promotional materials was a pamplet that actually used the words: *Distortion and Aberration.*  I was shocked this is the first promotional material that didn't have misnomers like: _Sand, Astigmatism, Blended areas, peripherial transition areas. _ 
I was shocked, is truth in advertizing actually arriving in the optical business?

Chip

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *............ It is a disservice to them to simply slap a PAL into their frames and say it's the best available and they should "get used to it". Our industry is infatuated with progressives, but I personally believe that not every patient is a good candidate for progressive lenses*.


Thank you Lady Nicole, your post was very sensitive and should be framed and hang on the wall of every opticians store.




> *There's nothing but distortion.................................oh sorry, "surface astigmatism".......................you know, a FT35 is much clearer.............my whole desk............clear out to here...........big companies make too much money*.......
> 
> *Spartus: Stop. Point taken. Please.*


When a fact is a fact and.......................*when the word "distortion" is changed and replaced by manufacturers for the sake of boosting sales to "surface astigmatism" so nobody will know what we talk about,* your bomb thrower should remain active on this subject.






> *...........the Varilux Physio. Among the promotional materials was a pamplet that actually used the words: Distortion and Aberration.* 
> *I was shocked this is the first promotional material that didn't have misnomers like:* _Sand, Astigmatism, Blended areas, peripherial transition areas._ 
> *I was shocked, is truth in advertizing actually arriving in the optical business?*


Chip, don't be shocked...............maybe the Optiboard discussions on the subject have helped them to make a turnaround. I know they all are watching this place like hawks.

----------


## John Sheridan

> Assuming you start somebody on a progressive at a 1.75 addition he will immediately notice a doorframe being round when lookiong straight forward. He will see everything distorted through the periphery of the lens. Some of these people when making a special effort can get used to it and some will not.





> your bomb thrower should remain active on this subject.


Well I disagree.

I have seen the effects of cheap vs. premium lenses. My first progressives showed exactly the effects you mentioned. Curved doorframes, curved computer keyboards, walls "swimming" when I walked down a corridor, etc. etc. And my add is only 1.5. They made me dizzy and sick and I had to return them.

Got lined bifocals. Those were OK most of the time but I couldn't go hiking in them. Try hiking a rocky steep trail with that discontinuity in your visual field. I couldn't do it anyway.

Then I told a couple of my friends about my PAL experience and they recommended another optician. I went there and got PALs that are totally different. 

Please listen carefully Chris - these are *totally different.* The only time I see a curved doorframe is when I stand right in the door and turn my eyes so far to the side that it hurts. The only time I see any "distortion" is when I try to read fine print through the periphery. Yes, *fine* print. Ordinary sized print is a little blurred but I can still read it.

OK these effects will get worse as my add increases, but I don't expect that they will ever again be as bad as before with those other cheap lenses.

"But" you say, "I just fit someone with expensive premium lenses and they can't see. Cheap lenses had nothing to do with it"

Well, I think I can explain that. Put your head close to the screen so I can whisper a word in your ear: counterfeit

 :Eek:  

Well, why not? Aren't designer clothes counterfeited all the time? Manufacturers making cheap imitations, and slapping designer tags on them, selling them at high designer prices? Why can't it happen in your industry too? A lab, or more likely, lab*s* in the plural, making cheap PALs out of old outmoded designs from the 60s, stamping them with the appropriate markings, then selling them at high prices? Sure it happens. If there is money to be made, you can bet someone out there is making it.

I'm not saying that it accounts for all PAL non-adapts. It may not even account for the majority. But when you have checked everything, the fitting, the prescription, etc. and you can't understand why your patient can't see - well, maybe those "premium" lenses you put in front of their eyes aren't as premium as you thought they were.

Personally I am never going to go back to lined bifocals ever again. These are *so* much more comfortable now that I don't have that jarring discontinuity in my visual field. 

You don't notice that discontinuity Chris, because you are used to it. Why is getting used to that line any better than getting used to a little distortion?

EDIT: Decided to re-word a certain comment... ;)

----------


## Happylady

I agree completely with John Sheridan. Chris just because you don't like progressives and notice the distortion doesn't mean everyone else does. There is a huge difference between different progressives. 

I see no distortion in my newest progressives unless I actively look for it. The distance is clear almost to the sides of the lenses. If I twist my head and try to look at the distance through the lower sides of the lenses it is blurry, but how often do I need to do that?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *You don't notice that discontinuity Chris, because you are used to it. Why is getting used to that line any better than getting used to a little distortion?*


John, you said it right..................I dont notice it because I am used it.

Same as you don't notice the distortion anymore because you are used to it too................but it is still there. 

Anywhere there is a distortion on a lens you can not see clear through it and that is a fact.

I have never said that I am against progressive lenses, and I am not and have never been. 

What I am against is an opticians attitude to love and admire progressives so much that they start believing they are made in heaven and not by Essilor, Zeiss and whoever else makes them. There are some post's on this thread that do make good sense and you should scroll back and read them.

*Being resonable and sell them to  patients that are good prospects for them and neing able to know the difference to the others that will NOT be able to tolerate and adapt to them............that is the key of selling progressives successfully*.

After all there is still a much higher percentage of people in the age of having to wear multifocals that are wearing other lenses than progressives.

----------


## John Sheridan

> John, you said it right..................I dont notice it because I am used it.
> 
> Same as you don't notice the distortion anymore because you are used to it too................but it is still there.
> 
> Anywhere there is a distortion on a lens you can not see clear through it and that is a fact.


Sorry you can't get away with that one. I do notice the distortion and I notice it fully. It's just a whole lot less than what you think it is, and *that* is a fact. When I put them on for the first time, my reaction was "Oh you made a mistake, these are single vision glasses". I had to look for the distortion before I saw it. I had to test my reading distance to see that they were indeed progressive.

You wear them in a frame with a small B measurement, where they are at their worst. And I suspect that your "all progressives are the same" attitude has lead you to get cheap lenses.




> I have never said that I am against progressive lenses, and I am not and have never been.


No you just say that progressives are great for emerging presbyopes who don't know any better and for forty-something women who want to hide their age. I've been lurking here for long enough to know that's what you think.

The problem with saying "distortion" is that people don't know what you mean by that either, any more than they know "astigmatism". I used the word "distortion" when describing my PAL vision to a thirty-something I know. She was alarmed and said "Wow and they let you drive with those?" I had an uphill battle to make her understand that the so-called "distortion" is just barely enough to prevent me from reading fine print. It has no effect at all when I drive. My distance vision is clear across the entire top half of the lens.

Yes Chris maybe "surface astigmatism" is a euphemism that is trying to hide an undesireable characteristic of the lens. But your "distortion" has the opposite effect, making people think that the effect is worse than it really is.

----------


## shellrob

Ok John, I'm oficially in love with you!!!!


Just kidding. But in all seriousness, your post was not only easy to understand,but true in it's nature. I wish you could go to every consumer progressive post and just copy and paste the entire explanation you just wrote. Bravo.......

----------


## Dd

So I won't feel like I'm walking through a funhouse??  :)
I plunked down the extra money for the Physio's yesterday just to be sure.
I hope the distortion gods are kind.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Ok John, I'm oficially in love with you!!!!*


 
Shellrob, ......................please dont start an affair with everybody looking on.






> *You wear them in a frame with a small B measurement, where they are at their worst.* 
> *And I suspect that your "all progressives are the same" attitude has lead you to get cheap lenses.*


Having a couple of degrees in optics, having owned an optical lab specialised in progressive lenses and a frame company for 20 years, plus having a few inventions and patents in the optical field, has not lead me to get "cheap lenses". I can get the very best at distributor price and do the in my own premises.

Having looked at your profile I see that you are not related to optics which means you are a consumer that gives his opinion, to which you are fully entitled and welcome. However that does not make you a judge and a specialist in the optical field just because you are a "happy customer"

There are thousands of happy consumers and customers wearing progressives like you, but these are not the ones that were addressed with these issues.

The optical retail business should not be a happy go lucky business, as sell the most expensive items as much as you can, It is a business that should be ruled by what is best for the patient, and there are patients that do not fit in this category of lenses.

----------


## spartus

> Having a couple of degrees in optics, having owned an optical lab specialised in progressive lenses and a frame company for 20 years, plus having a few inventions and patents in the optical field, has not lead me to get "cheap lenses". I can get the very best at distributor price and do the in my own premises.


Yes, yes, appeals to authority aside, the burning question is this: If they're all the same, how do you tell which one's the "best"? If it's so clearly superior, please do share. It could really help us all out with removing the Essilor/AO-Sola/Zeiss brainwashing of which you claim we're under the effect.

----------


## John Sheridan

> Having looked at your profile I see that you are not related to optics which means you are a consumer that gives his opinion, to which you are fully entitled and welcome. However that does not make you a judge and a specialist in the optical field just because you are a "happy customer"


I never claimed to be a "specialist". But when someone says something that I know is false, then I know it's false.

I was going to write a longer reply than this but I just deleted it. Like you said, you are the professional. So don't bother with me, just go and do whatever you want.

----------


## Happylady

Chris, I know you have posted which progressives you have worn before but I can't find the post. Isn't the latest progressive you have tried the Comfort? Am I remembering correctly or incorrectly?  

Can you update us again with which progressives you have personally tried?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *If they're all the same, how do you tell which one's the "best"? If it's so clearly superior, please do share. It could really help us all out with removing the Essilor/AO-Sola/Zeiss brainwashing of which you claim we're under the effect*.


What I have said and stand by it.................that they are all the same in principle.............some have a slightly shorter progressive channel or larger or smaller reading segments..............or smaller or larger distorted areas.

If they would .........not have a minor difference they could not make any pro selling claims. So......I am in no position to say what is best. In the case of  advewrtising they all tell you that they are the best and make the best .....would'nt you say you are the best optician in you area?

It is the power of money that dictates the means of advertising and the better and more often you do it the more people will believe you.




> *Can you update us again with which progressives you have personally tried?*


You have personally asked me the same question before and I did answer it.

If memory dont help, go and do some checking back in the optiboard files.;)

----------


## Happylady

You are right Chris, I did ask you before. However both of us have many posts and I was unable to find it. I guess you aren't too proud of which ones you have tried since you won't tell again..... :Rolleyes:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I guess you aren't too proud of which ones you have tried since you won't tell again.....*


It makes no difference which make or model or design progressive I am wearing, have worn over the years.....there are too many to even remember.

This discussion is not about me............liking them or not, it is about knowing who should wear them and who should not.

In general your post's show that you are an enthusiastic promoter and advocate of this type of lenses, which is all good as long as you know who can, or should not be using them.

Everything has a limit, and so have progressives or any other lens. Nothing is for universal use because of limitations of one way or another. If you don't agree with that arguments you must one of those "one way opticians".

:)

----------


## Mikef

What do you think the % of patients are non adapt! Out of 100!


Have been asking cutomers over the past week and most of them say less than 5% and some less than 2%!

Does anyone of the lens rep have any hard #'s

----------


## spartus

> It makes no difference which make or model or design progressive I am wearing, have worn over the years.....there are too many to even remember.
> 
> This discussion is not about me............liking them or not, it is about knowing who should wear them and who should not.


On the contrary, the discussion has expanded to include precisely that when you said this:




> Having a couple of degrees in optics, having owned an optical lab specialised in progressive lenses and a frame company for 20 years, plus having a few inventions and patents in the optical field, *has not lead me to get "cheap lenses". I can get the very best at distributor price and do the in my own premises.*


All I want to know--and I think Happylady will concur--is what lens you are wearing, since you've already told us it's the "best". Since you have a couple of degrees in optics, I eagerly await your informed opinion on such a contentious matter.




> In general your post's show that you are an enthusiastic promoter and advocate of this type of lenses, which is all good as long as you know who can, or should not be using them.


I'd call her enthusiastic, certainly, but an advocate or promoter? Not really. She has been forthright in informing any and all readers of this forum of her correction, lens designs she wears, and opinions on all of them. What I find interesting is that she praises her Sola Ones nearly as often as her Physios (and mind you, she's mentioned several times that her husband tends to prefer his Sola Ones over his pricey Physio 360 lenses), but she's never accused of being an overt Sola advocate. You, however, have accused her of being a shill for Essilor, both overtly and covertly. In fact, you're just about as reliably an anti-Essilor voice as High Abbe is anti-Luxottica, although High Abbe tends to be slightly less juvenile.

A significant portion of the time when Happylady posts on merits/drawbacks of progressives, it's hardly unbidden. The reason I posted my "typical conversation" above was to highlight that the typical discussion around here is started by someone asking if a given lens is any good, not "Golly gosh my new Varilux Superdupers by Essilor sure are terrific! I hope they corner the market and crush all their competition!" However, that seems be the way you typically interpret the run-of-the-mill "Panamic/Physio/Gradal Top/Sola One/Comfort/Liberty: Any good?" threads. In fact, it's gotten so pervasive (and tiresome), I intentionally chose not to post to this thread, simply because I didn't want to get dragged into the usual tedious "Well of course they all have distortion," discussion. Or in that particular thread's case, this: 




> If a company can still do product launch parties of that kind.........in the UK and how many other countries.................they for sure will price the product accordingly and count on major sales figures. 
> 
> The customer will always have to pay back advertising cost and original R&D in the price of the product.


We get it: Progressives have distortion. They're not for everyone. They're expensive, perhaps moreso than they should be. Too many lazy opticians put every presbyope into them, perhaps because they don't know any better. *We. Get. It.* 

I'm not disagreeing with your message, just the predictability of it. You would be better served promoting education and the passing on of information like this, rather than sitting around crankily reminding a group of people on the Internet who already know better, that they should know better.




> Everything has a limit, and so have progressives or any other lens. Nothing is for universal use because of limitations of one way or another. If you don't agree with that arguments you must one of those "one way opticians".


Everything has a limit? Damn, there go my plans for a hot-dog powered spaceship.

----------


## hipoptical

Spartus, intentionally or not, I just disrupted my wife's sleep because of you. For those of us who are posting at weird hours, there should be a warning when you're writing something that makes one's drink exit through one's nose.





> ..."Golly gosh my new Varilux Superdupers by Essilor sure are terrific! I hope they corner the market and crush all their competition!"
> _
> and
> 
> _...there go my plans for a hot-dog powered spaceship.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *What determines whether someone will notice distortion in a progressive?*
> *Is it the script? It seems some people notice it in the higher end lenses and others wearing a lesser lens may not.*


 
What I learned long ago.......and the also expirienced myself, as the reading addition inmcreases so does the distortion.

This is why people starting out on progressives when they have a low addition will never have a problem to switch to a higher addition as the reading add gets higher with age. They are used to it.
The problems usually occur when you start people with on progressives with an addition of 1.75 and higher. Thes are the ones that get disturbed and can see the distorted parts.

----------


## Happylady

> What I learned long ago.......and the also expirienced myself, as the reading addition inmcreases so does the distortion.
> 
> This is why people starting out on progressives when they have a low addition will never have a problem to switch to a higher addition as the reading add gets higher with age. They are used to it.
> The problems usually occur when you start people with on progressives with an addition of 1.75 and higher. Thes are the ones that get disturbed and can see the distorted parts.


Hey, we agree on something! :D 

The doctor I work for often recommends single vision glasses for people that have a low add like +1.00 or +1.25, I don't think she realizes how much easier it is to adjust to a progressive with a low add rather then waiting. She didn't wait, she got her first progressive when her add was no more then a +1.00.

----------


## chip anderson

Just a pearl that I am sure all of you are aware of.  This same "adaptation" is present in SV patient's with high cylinders.  For this reason an experienced refractionist will undercorrect the patient's (if he has not been wearing same) cylinder and gradually increase this each year until full or near full cylinder has been reached.   For some reason (other than possibly the lens being closer to the eye and the center moving with the lens) this does not seem to be a problem in high cylinder contact lenses.  These people can stand full correction for cylinder in the contacts (but probably not the spectacles) first try.

This probably indicates that one can adapt to incorrect cylinder in large amounts even if it's in the form of distortion if done slowly.

Chip

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Hey, we agree on something!* :D


Happylady, I am so glad that we have found grounds to agree upon...................

So now if you cultivate your patients that have purchased progressives at a low add, they will happyly continue to do so and you have created a very good customer base that has nothing to complain about.

Just stay away from a first progressives with a higher add starting at 1.75 and higher. Those cases are an invitation for arguments and trouble.

----------


## Happylady

I agree that it is better and easier to start a person with progressives with a lower add.

However, if someone is getting their first mulitfocal with an add of +1.75 or more I don't suggest flat tops. I mention them and I tell my patients honestly the pluses and minuses of both types of lenses. 

I find that very few people want flattop bifocals. Don't forget, they also have distortion but it is in the middle of the lens and not on the sides. They also don't give any correction for midrange, which is important with stronger adds.

I have a set of longettes made up with two progressives, one has a +1.50 add and one has a +2.00 add and a set with a flattop with a +2.00 add. All have a plano distance. 

I explain to the patient that they won't be exactly like actual glasses and I hold them up over his present distance glasses and show him both distance and near. I hold a reading card and move it to the side and tell him to tell me when it gets blurry. I then tell him to turn and look at it directly. I have him look at the distance and then raise his head and  I explain why it gets blurry. Most people comparing the lenses perfer the progressives.

If someone walks into your shop wanting to get her first mulifocal and her add is a +1.75 will you always recommend a flattop?

----------


## spartus

> Happylady, I am so glad that we have found grounds to agree upon...................
> 
> So now if you cultivate your patients that have purchased progressives at a low add, they will happyly continue to do so and you have created a very good customer base that has nothing to complain about.
> 
> Just stay away from a first progressives with a higher add starting at 1.75 and higher. Those cases are an invitation for arguments and trouble.


I'm so glad you took the time to reply to my post above. I spent a lot of time writing it, so I thank you for your thoughtful and considered reply.

Oh...you didn't. Silly me. Well, at least I got out in front of that one.

Anyway, about your last post, I tend to agree about 90% with it. The 10% where I disagree is when the patient is actively asking for a PAL, no matter the add. You can cajole, reason, beg, plead, talk, or hector them into changing their mind, but if the patient is motivated, they'll make it work. To be clear, I'm not saying that 10% of patients with an add greater than +1.75 are begging for progressives, only that I don't fully agree with your above statement.

All other things being equal, with a competent fitting, appropriate material, AR if applicable, and a well-informed patient knowing what to (and not to) expect out of the lens, it comes down to the patient's motivation. The patients that wear the lens for a day and bring it back are never, _ever_ going to be happy with a PAL. 

I find that the greatest percentage of nonadapts are the 45-50ish +1.00 little-bit-of-cyl previously uncorrected hyperopes. The add doesn't factor into it much other than higher adds being worse, obviously. These are people who, for the first four-plus decades of life, didn't need any help seeing. They've been using +2.00 readers, and they're just great. Suddenly, they're talked into spending an awful lot of money on this (to them) funhouse mirror of a lens, everything's blurry and--what the hell?!?--they're now suddenly having trouble seeing _without_ glasses at all. 

So they try it out for a few days, getting increasingly frustrated, and come in raving and complaining. Those are the nonadapts that you're never going to convince. Myopes are used to correction--they've either always worn glasses or accepted that life's just blurry. Higher-power hyperopes are in much the same boat. So, when situating myself across the dispensing table from a patient with a possible trouble RX like that, I make very clear what they can expect, and that it will _take time_ to get used to the new glasses. More often than not, however, they end up getting either simple readers or an occupational lens.

----------


## cinders831

> I'm so glad you took the time to reply to my post above. I spent a lot of time writing it, so I thank you for your thoughtful and considered reply.
> 
> Oh...you didn't. Silly me. Well, at least I got out in front of that one.
> 
> Anyway, about your last post, I tend to agree about 90% with it. The 10% where I disagree is when the patient is actively asking for a PAL, no matter the add. You can cajole, reason, beg, plead, talk, or hector them into changing their mind, but if the patient is motivated, they'll make it work. To be clear, I'm not saying that 10% of patients with an add greater than +1.75 are begging for progressives, only that I don't fully agree with your above statement.
> 
> All other things being equal, with a competent fitting, appropriate material, AR if applicable, and a well-informed patient knowing what to (and not to) expect out of the lens, it comes down to the patient's motivation. The patients that wear the lens for a day and bring it back are never, _ever_ going to be happy with a PAL. 
> 
> I find that the greatest percentage of nonadapts are the 45-50ish +1.00 little-bit-of-cyl previously uncorrected hyperopes. The add doesn't factor into it much other than higher adds being worse, obviously. These are people who, for the first four-plus decades of life, didn't need any help seeing. They've been using +2.00 readers, and they're just great. Suddenly, they're talked into spending an awful lot of money on this (to them) funhouse mirror of a lens, everything's blurry and--what the hell?!?--they're now suddenly having trouble seeing _without_ glasses at all. 
> ...


 



You had me until the quote at the end by Chip, until that point I was reading and thinking yes, he's right he's so right and then that wild out of no where for no good reason nasty take on someones words quote and I went darn, just like everyother man....it was so good and then....

----------


## Dd

> I find that the greatest percentage of nonadapts are the 45-50ish +1.00 little-bit-of-cyl previously uncorrected hyperopes. The add doesn't factor into it much other than higher adds being worse, obviously. These are people who, for the first four-plus decades of life, didn't need any help seeing. They've been using +2.00 readers, and they're just great. Suddenly, they're talked into spending an awful lot of money on this (to them) funhouse mirror of a lens, everything's blurry and--what the hell?!?--they're now suddenly having trouble seeing _without_ glasses at all.


Man.... I soooo fit the above profile.
 My glasses will be ready in a few days... guess I'll find out.

----------


## spartus

> You had me until the quote at the end by Chip, until that point I was reading and thinking yes, he's right he's so right and then that wild out of no where for no good reason nasty take on someones words quote and I went darn, just like everyother man....it was so good and then....


What nasty take? Those are precisely his words. If you don't believe me, click the link. I thought they needed a more...public airing.

----------


## cinders831

Perhaps I misunderstood, are you running for president against Chip soon and need to have his feelings advertised?  BTW, agree or disagree with Chip?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Everything has a limit? Damn, there go my plans for a hot-dog powered spaceship.*
> 
> *I'm so glad you took the time to reply to* *my post above**. I spent a lot of time writing it, so I thank you for your thoughtful and considered reply.*


I apologize..........guess I got the reprimand for a reason. I pushed off the answer on a long post, because it would merit a long answer.

Long answers do take time, at least for me, because I am not the best typer and have my fingers all of the board and then correct and correct, guess that is the curse of getting older.

I am also still doing long hours starting at the latest 4am and going on till 4pm, occasionally dropping in at the optiboard during the day. So its not ignoring, rather dealying and then not going back on threads. Begging for absolution. :hammer:

----------


## spartus

> I apologize..........guess I got the reprimand for a reason. I pushed off the answer on a long post, because it would merit a long answer.
> 
> Long answers do take time, at least for me, because I am not the best typer and have my fingers all of the board and then correct and correct, guess that is the curse of getting older.
> 
> I am also still doing long hours starting at the latest 4am and going on till 4pm, occasionally dropping in at the optiboard during the day. So its not ignoring, rather dealying and then not going back on threads. Begging for absolution. :hammer:


I appreciate the reply. I tend to, uh, get carried away sometimes and I fully realize that replying to something that long can be an imposing task. My aim is to not feel insulted until the person I've posted directly to replies in the topic--but not to me. ;) It could, of course, be honest oversight, and it's easy enough to do, particularly with the forum software's extremely handy "Zap to the latest post" feature, to let something like that just get sort of buried.

----------


## spartus

> Perhaps I misunderstood, are you running for president against Chip soon and need to have his feelings advertised?  BTW, agree or disagree with Chip?


I'm too young to run for president--maybe in 2012. As for my agreement with Chip, click the link in the sig to be taken to the conversation in question (Don't want to muddy up a topic in the wrong forum).

----------


## Chris Ryser

Did not know that AO had one of the first patents for progressive lenses...................


1923	Industrial Eye protection department established
1923	Wise Owl eye safety program established
*1924	Progressive Lens Patent #1518405 issued to AO (Estelle Glancy)
*1925	"AO aquires De Zeng Instrument Company of America (Ear, Nose and Throat products)"
1925	"Tillyer lens revolutionizes Industry, 15 yrs in making, lens corrects for astigmatism and power"
1926	Tillyer patents ophthalmic lens series where off axis power and astigmatism errors were controlled
1930	High temple Ful-vue spectacles introduced

----------


## Dd

Does one typically see more distortion on one side than the other? My right side seems fine but the left is pretty annoying. Oncoming traffic on my left is somewhat blurry while the right side appears clear as a bell as far over as I can move my eyes to the right.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Does one typically see more distortion on one side than the other? My right side seems fine but the left is pretty annoying. Oncoming traffic on my left is somewhat blurry while the right side appears clear as a bell as far over as I can move my eyes to the right.*


What you describe is something only a professional , like your optician can determine. Se him and explain the problem, he should be able to help.

----------


## pbsE46

There's isn't one single lens out there be it progressive, bifocal, or single vision that is not a compromise of the normal visual system. Your comments are true indeed and most progressives are sold for greed IMHO. But this is a retail/for profit business and PAL's are very big part of the picture. I agree, Opticians should warn of the disadvantages of PAL's, and I usually do. It was years and years before the lens manufacturers finally started to admit there was perephial distortion. When they finally did, I felt an inner vicroty. :cheers:

----------


## chip anderson

PBS:  

Any optician that couldn't (can't) see the distortion the distortion in _almost any_ lens by holding up at arms length and moving it just a little isn't an optician.  Any any that can't see the massive distortion in a progressive or a blended anything is blind.

Chip

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I agree, Opticians should warn of the disadvantages of PAL's, and I usually do. It was years and years before the lens manufacturers finally started to admit there was perephial distortion. When they finally did, I felt an inner vicroty.*


Actually when the SL...ESSEL...ESSILOR...introduced the Varilux lenses in Europe in the late 50a they gave courses to opticians warning them about it and teaching them who was and who was a good or bad prospect to wear progressive lenses. So distortion on progressives is an old hat......with the exception the corporations call it now surface astigmatism.

:D

----------


## hipoptical

PALs look better than Fts, and bottom line is that's most important. ;) Even with the surfaceunwantedastigmatismdistortionunusedportionperipherypa  rtofthelens I still like them better. Some don't, and that's why they still make Fts. Many people like standard motors in cars. I think Renesis Rotary engines are much better. They make both. Hybrid cars are better. Standard internal combustion is still the larger part of the market. To each his own...

----------


## QDO1

if we want to be picky - we can say that all lense distort - that is what we want them to do! Abberations however are a different cuppa tea

----------


## hipoptical

I like Lion's Gold Label, two sugars, and a touch of milk...

----------


## SpexAppeal

Hello~

I noticed this post about progressives and I've already given a review of my brand new Ellipse lens glasses, so I won't go into details. But I must say these are just* wonderful.* No distortion or anything negative at all! I am amazed. I was almost expecting problems from learning about the shorter frames and lenses. But not at all! I truly am pleased with what I was fitted with. Thank you for any advice you've given me here.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I went grocery shopping after I picked them up and noticed if I tilted the bottoms closer to my cheeks the distance was a bit clearer. I called and then went back to the optician to ask him about this. He said he doesn't prefer to tilt the lenses a lot but he did it for me. He said it's sometimes an optical illusion. ??*


Above quote came from another thread. Looking at your profile you are an optician.

Obviously you again back as another thread opener with another name pulling everybodies legs......................

----------


## chip anderson

It seems that I will be aiding abeting the other side with this post but,
When I get new glasses in for my personal use, I ususally just stick them on, don't adjust, don't inspect, just go for it.  I did this with a new pair of progessives as while back.    I noticed that the brick walkway I was walking on was laid out in a  "U" shape.  I wondered why they did this.  Then I turned 90 degrees, the "U" design turned with me.  I found that if I elevated the temples (added pantoscopic angle)  the "U" disappeared.  Of course, I broke down and adjusted them at this point.
And only yesterday, I was putting some progessives in a frame, and probably stimulated by this and similar threads I did some grid/print scanning for aberration and found the lenses to have much less of same than I remembered last time I looked.

Chip

----------


## SpexAppeal

Hello~

I believe you have mistaken my name for someone else's. In your response you addressed it to *Spexvet*. My name is *SpexAppeal* (actually Claire). I can assure you am not an optician. Giggle! I have no profile that I know of. 

~Claire





> Above quote came from another thread. Looking at your profile you are an optician.
> 
> Obviously you again back as another thread opener with another name pulling everybodies legs......................

----------


## Eyecing

In the office where I work, there is one optician who has no CLUE about patient education. She will do her best to push progressives on every multi-focal patient that walks in the door, whether they want them or not. She never tells them ANYTHING about the negative aspects of progressives, doesn't care how the patient will be using their lenses, and then she doesn't bother even trying to TRAIN a patient on how to use them- just expects them to magically know exactly how they work. Because she's brainless, when the patient returns because they can't figure out how the lenses should be used, this optician hands the patient and their glasses over to me to "take care of." 

So, I can definitely see this situation from both sides. Some "professionals" do push progressives on patients. I always take the time to let the patients know what they are getting into. I do my best to talk the patients who work using a computer eight hours a day OUT of the ultra-short B measurement frames which will only fit a progressive lens with very little intermediate viewing area. I also try to educate my co-workers on how progressives work and why they are not right for every patient and why certain styles are not right for certain patients. 

Unfortunately, many patients _& professionals_ need more than just the standard "education" on lens styles. It's been my experience that some people are unreceptive to the typical lens-style education and require another method altogether in order to truly absorb the information. For patients, their lesson often lies in actually wearing and trying to adapt to progressives. For my co-worker- well - I've tried several approaches so far. The most recent being that I've flatly refused to do any more of her "clean-up" work. Perhaps that will be effective.

----------


## pbsE46

> Hello~
> 
> I noticed this post about progressives and I've already given a review of my brand new Ellipse lens glasses, so I won't go into details. But I must say these are just* wonderful.* No distortion or anything negative at all! I am amazed. I was almost expecting problems from learning about the shorter frames and lenses. But not at all! I truly am pleased with what I was fitted with. Thank you for any advice you've given me here.


Here's a good example of a patient who doesn't notice any periphal blur. It just goes to show you everybody has their own level of toleration. We as Opticians know full well there is blur, but SpexAppeal can tolerate it easily. Of course there are reasons why she doesn't notice it, some are physical some are phycological.

----------


## shellrob

Some professionals "push" the progressives because they are told to. they're told every patient should be in a high index progressive w/ ar. Believe me....I know because I started out at one of those Optical chains and that's what I was told. I was told what progressive to sell and I got good commision for selling it. I got no commision on a multifocal or a cr39 progressive. And I didn't educate the patient because I didn't know how. So, I believe that's what's still happening. They need people to sell glasses and most of the places don't care if you have experience or not. They'll hire you, give you a little bit of background in optical and throw you out to the dogs. I don't blame the people hired, I blame the corporations for doing it.

----------


## SpexAppeal

Hello~

I truly am amazed since I did have that dizzy-feeling when I got my last progressives several years ago. The comforts in a much larger frame. It took me a few days to adjust i must admit. However this time with these smaller glasses I literally put them on and they felt like they've always belonged there. Not one moment of blurry or strange vision.

When I asked my optician this he said there is actually less of this with the smaller lenses (Ellipse I guess he was talking about). He also said my add-power for my close-up went down. Apparently it was too high in the past. Not sure why. Anyway, no matter what the reason I am a very satisfied patient! That makes me want to get a second pair for a back-up. I do believe my next sunglasses will be larger though. I prefer my eyes to be shielded more. I can actually wear my old progressive off brand sunglasses just fine. Trouble is I was told they are not polarized. I can surely tell too! If it's not too bright outside I have less glare with these new Alize coated Ellipse glasses than I do my SUNglasses.






> Here's a good example of a patient who doesn't notice any periphal blur. It just goes to show you everybody has their own level of toleration. We as Opticians know full well there is blur, but SpexAppeal can tolerate it easily. Of course there are reasons why she doesn't notice it, some are physical some are phycological.

----------


## pbsE46

> I don't blame the people hired, I blame the corporations for doing it.


Make no mistake....this also happens in private practice. It's not just corporate america doing this and that's not to say this happens at all corporate locations. I've always believed a place, not matter what it is, is only as good as the people working there.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I can surely tell too! If it's not too bright outside I have less glare with these new Alize coated Ellipse glasses than I do my SUNglasses.*


This is a real superlative statement you made..............are you sure your not on the payroll of the advertising agency working for the maker of above mentioned products?
:D  :bbg:  :D

----------


## Cindy K

> Some professionals "push" the progressives because they are told to. they're told every patient should be in a high index progressive w/ ar. Believe me....I know because I started out at one of those Optical chains and that's what I was told. I was told what progressive to sell and I got good commision for selling it. I got no commision on a multifocal or a cr39 progressive. And I didn't educate the patient because I didn't know how. So, I believe that's what's still happening. They need people to sell glasses and most of the places don't care if you have experience or not. They'll hire you, give you a little bit of background in optical and throw you out to the dogs. I don't blame the people hired, I blame the corporations for doing it.


Hallelujah! Bingo!. 

In your first sentence, there's a bit of a contradiction in terms, however. "Some *professionals* push the progressives because they're told to." A _professional_ in our industry will have the experience, knowledge, and background to fit whatever lens their experience, knowledge, and background will dictate. If an optician is unfortunate enough to be employed by one of these entities, I can only say that they merely become a 'salesperson' and lose the respect-deserving label of optician.

I'll say it once, I'll say it again: I do not feel that our industry is one in which commissioned sales belongs.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I do not feel that our industry is one in which commissioned sales belongs*.


Looking at the number of visitors this thread has had so far and still heads the bunch.............it must have passed on the message and is still interesting to a lot of people.

That was very good statement cindy made...................all we should know at this stage who are the major culprits that have the commissioned pushers on the sales staff.

Lets also not forget...........that the public is getting it from all sides, namely the large corporations that are using brainwash techniques of publicity in their fight for first place in the sun, ady advertising the products that cost them the least to make but, which they can sell at the highest prices.

:finger:

----------

