# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  WOW...ultra cheap 1.74 high index lens?

## webmal

Just noticed that this online retailer is selling ultra cheap 1.74 high index lens. I recently paid US$275 for my 1.74 Essilor with Crizal Alize, did I get ripped off?

US$117.31 for 1.74 high index lens with AR
http://www.selectspecs.com/optional_...?item=option=1 
This is my first 1.74 high index lens and I'm astounded by the difference in price.

----------


## For-Life

> Just noticed that this online retailer is selling ultra cheap 1.74 high index lens. I recently paid US$275 for my 1.74 Essilor with Crizal Alize, did I get ripped off?
> 
> US$117.31 for 1.74 high index lens with AR
> http://www.selectspecs.com/optional_...?item=option=1 
> This is my first 1.74 high index lens and I'm astounded by the difference in price.


because you went to see a qualified Optician.  If you went to an online retailer you do not get that and with that lens it NEEDS to be fit properly.

So, no you did not get ripped off.  Getting ripped off is spending $117.31 for lenses that you may not see through.

----------


## webmal

For-life, I'm aware of that fact. My point is; no online retailer is selling the 1.74 high index lens for less than US$200. How do they do it? Do they cut corners?

----------


## For-Life

> For-life, I'm aware of that fact. My point is; no online retailer is selling the 1.74 high index lens for less than US$200. How do they do it? Do they cut corners?


could be the AR that they use.  Could be a lie.  Could be making bad business decisions.

----------


## rsandr

> For-life, I'm aware of that fact. My point is; no online retailer is selling the 1.74 high index lens for less than US$200. How do they do it? Do they cut corners?


They may not have enough markup in them to warrant a remake if there is a problem. This is fine if your order isn't one of the ones which warrants a remake.

You pays your money, you takes your chance.

----------


## webmal

I did a bit of detective work and called selectspecs.com (based in the UK). I asked who manufactures their 1.74 high index lens and the rep claims that they manufacture it themselves. Is this plausible? I thought only 2-3 companies have the technology to manufacture 1.74 high index lens?

----------


## rsandr

> I did a bit of detective work and called selectspecs.com (based in the UK). I asked who manufactures their 1.74 high index lens and the guy claims that they manufacture it themselves. Is this plausible? I thought only 2-3 companies have the technology to manufacture 1.74 high index lens?


I would suspect that is untrue.
I would be **extremely** surprised if they do any more than cut the lenses to the shape of the frame.
As I said they can make a profit at the price they quote if their redo's are low. 
In my experience the less a company charges, the less likely they are to remake an order which isn't quite right.

So they are either brilliant at getting it all right first time, or they let some crap go out of the door. It's not for me to say.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I thought only 2-3 companies have the technology to manufacture 1.74 high index lens?*


I guess you can buiy semi finished blanks and if equiooed to surface them you can make them. All possible.

The lens material is not not made by the companies advertising the lenses. They buy the monomer or the resin and then cast lenses, but so can anybody else that can get their hands on the materials.

----------


## rsandr

> I guess you can buiy semi finished blanks and if equiooed to surface them you can make them. All possible.
> 
> The lens material is not not made by the companies advertising the lenses. They buy the monomer or the resin and then cast lenses, but so can anybody else that can get their hands on the materials.


I would imagine this is more expensive than buying the stock blanks which in this material would probably serve range 10/2.

I do not know of anyone in the UK who casts lenses. That is not to say it isnt done.

----------


## High_Abbe

I didn't think we were allowed to post prices, wholesale or otherwise anywhere in this forum??????:finger:

----------


## webmal

> I didn't think we were allowed to post prices, wholesale or otherwise anywhere in this forum??????:finger:


I checked the sticky posts but couldn't find anything about posting prices. The price is really irrelevant, my point is the huge price difference. Nevertheless, my apologies if I broke the rules.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I do not know of anyone in the UK who casts lenses. That is not to say it isnt done.*


I am not saying that this is the case, but do know that these days it is very easy to get materials of any kind from any corner of the globe. There is always somebody willing to make a sale.

Like frames...............lenses these days are all made in the far east from Thailand to Malaysia and on to China. The large corporations also have their own plants all spread around.

There are right now operating lens labs making Rx lenses in Thailand that are being sent by Fedex or DHL to Europe and it takes not any longer to get them than when you order locally.

I am just trying to say that all this is possible today and easily arranged.

----------


## fjpod

> Just noticed that this online retailer is selling ultra cheap 1.74 high index lens. I recently paid US$275 for my 1.74 Essilor with Crizal Alize, did I get ripped off?
> 
> US$117.31 for 1.74 high index lens with AR
> http://www.selectspecs.com/optional_...?item=option=1 
> This is my first 1.74 high index lens and I'm astounded by the difference in price.


You're not getting a "real" 1.74 with a "real" AR.  You're probably getting a 1.67 with a generic AR.  Contary to some of the posts here, I don't think that 1.74 material is widely available to "off-brand" companies.  More importantly, you must have a high Rx...who is measuring your monocular PDs, your OC heights, pantoscopic tilt, and face form (if any)?  These are the things a professional, in a face to face encounter with the patient,  will measure and take care of for you.  The on-line retailer is asking and doing none of these.

----------


## Karenrp1956

Just like getting three pair of glasses for LOW $$$$$$.  You get what you pay for.

----------


## webmal

> You're not getting a "real" 1.74 with a "real" AR. You're probably getting a 1.67 with a generic AR.


 
Thanks for the interesting insight.

----------


## optigrrl

Is this for single vision or progressives?

----------


## mrmac

Who will take the required measurements?

----------


## Matthew

You get what you pay for.

You got the best money can buy.  

There are cheaper 1.7s with lesser quality AR coatings available.

Be happy with your deal.

----------


## Spexvet

I'll sell you a car for $2,000. Wanna but it?

----------


## harry888

Webmal,

Theres a lot of counterfeit product out there.

If you brought in a pair of purchased elsewhere specs to my office and asked if you had 1.74, I wouldn't be able to tell you by looking at it.

Kind of like 14 carat gold, the only way to tell if real is to melt it down.  So you must trust your supplier.

----------


## mirage2k2

I'd like to know why 1.74s are so expensive in the first place :angry: 

Is 1.74 material really that much more expensive to produce and process than CR39 - how can you justify being 3-4 times as expensive  :Confused:   :Mad:   :Confused:  

Perhaps the manufacturers are just cashing in on the demand.

----------


## DocInChina

> I'd like to know why 1.74s are so expensive in the first place :angry: 
> 
> Is 1.74 material really that much more expensive to produce and process than CR39 - how can you justify being 3-4 times as expensive    
> 
> Perhaps the manufacturers are just cashing in on the demand.


Manufacturers have to pay for both material and design R&D costs. Typically, any new, "cutting edge" product in any field will have a higher cost as compared to when it was first introduced. The manufacturers want to recover as much of their original investment and make their biggest profit while the large margins are still attainable. A large percent of these profits are re-invested into R&D as well as advertising. 

You cannot look at the raw material cost alone. How many people and people  hours did it take to get that new product to you? That is part of the equation too.

Doc

----------


## mirage2k2

I partly agree with you :)   I'm a software engineer and our company can work for several years on r&d and new software and not earn a cent!

However, expensive 1.74 material is 1) old hat already, 2) optically inferior to cheaper cr-39.  It is just thin that is all!

----------


## mirage2k2

It is all about vanity.  People are prepared to pay lots of money to look good ;)

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *However, expensive 1.74 material is 1) old hat already, 2) optically inferior to cheaper cr-39. It is just thin that is all!*
> 
> *It is all about vanity. People are prepared to pay lots of money to look good*


*How right you are................................Best comment ever on optiboard in reference to high index lenses.*

In the old days of corrected curve lenses (glass) the old high index were the flint lenses which had flat curves and were considered good only for estethics and lousy for optics.    :D

----------


## QDO1

> It is all about vanity. People are prepared to pay lots of money to look good ;)


Wrong.  If your prescription warants it, a high index lens is a valuable tool in the box, offering a lighter more manageable lens

I say this over and over agin - dispensing is about judging the comprimises. Its all well and good a lens being optically perfect, but if it is so thick or heavy that its unwearable, then it is a poor dispensing choice.  High index opens the door to a lot of patients to comfortable spectacles

There are other comprimises too - smaller frames, contact lenses etc.  We need a more holistic approach to dispensing, rather than the polarised view that specification X is all that matters

----------


## webmal

> Theres a lot of counterfeit product out there.
> 
> If you brought in a pair of purchased elsewhere specs to my office and asked if you had 1.74, I wouldn't be able to tell you by looking at it.


You mean consumers have no means of verifying the lens they paid for? Isn't there some kind of invisible watermark on the lens? I find that astounding and I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few customers are actually getting an inferior substitute.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few customers are actually getting an inferior substitute.*


I like that one...................................what is an inferior substitute ?????

High index lenses are usually in a lab surfaced lenses. 

So if XYC lab surfaces the high index material to perfect powers and curves......................compared to an Essilor lab  or an indendent lab using an Essilor brand name lensblank making a lens that is imperfect.

*You now have a substitute lens that is perfect..............and a brand name lens that imperfect.*

By the way an optician is not supposed to pass on a lens to consumers that is not acceptable.

----------


## webmal

> I like that one...................................what is an inferior substitute ?????


Huh? I'm taking about unscrupulous opticians who pass off 1.67 high index as 1.74 high index lens. Please read the previous page before commenting.

----------


## mirage2k2

> Wrong. If your prescription warants it, a high index lens is a valuable tool in the box, offering a lighter more manageable lens
> 
> I say this over and over agin - dispensing is about judging the comprimises. Its all well and good a lens being optically perfect, but if it is so thick or heavy that its unwearable, then it is a poor dispensing choice. High index opens the door to a lot of patients to comfortable spectacles


I agree :) - I'm wearing 1.74s - I'm just having a moan about the cost :bbg:  ... you'd think they would be much cheaper by now - and the manufacturers probably are cashing in a bit on the whole vanity thing ;) ... I suppose the demand is there!

How is it back in England?  I moved to OZ 4 years ago and I really miss home  :cry:

----------


## QDO1

> I agree :) - I'm wearing 1.74s - I'm just having a moan about the cost :bbg: ... you'd think they would be much cheaper by now - and the manufacturers probably are cashing in a bit on the whole vanity thing ;) ... I suppose the demand is there!
> 
> How is it back in England? I moved to OZ 4 years ago and I really miss home


How are things in the UK? OK, and bloody cold today. I had the fortune in life to move to Nottingham, and live with the most wonderful person.  However, Optics in this region is pretty dire, which is why I now work as a Locum Optician/Spectacle maker.  Which is cool, because now I get time to run my own IT/Photography business, and deal with even dafter people.  As a coleage of mine said the other night... "that woman was so blond she was a natural, with blond higlights" (something about getting a floppy disk stuck in a CD drive) 

Back to the Optics.. the reason the 1.74 is so expensive is the relative rarity of it, and the fact it allways needs AR.  Here in the UK, where we have had it for ages now, the price has dropped a lot

----------


## mirage2k2

I must admit I dont miss the weather!  This place is great but you still miss home, friends and family.

1.74 is still pretty expensive here in Oz - comes with AR coating as standard - you can't buy the lense without it.  Good thing really.  Funny though, when they remade one of my lenses accidentally without it!  I had one green lense and one clear one!  This was the point when I found another optician!

----------


## rsandr

> You mean consumers have no means of verifying the lens they paid for? Isn't there some kind of invisible watermark on the lens? I find that astounding and I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few customers are actually getting an inferior substitute.


It would be possible to tell by measuring the curves on the lens.

I cant imagine it is widespread that companies are selling 1.67 as 1.74, if they were investigated it would show up when the number of lenses they had sold were fewer than the number of blanks they had bought.

----------


## fjpod

> Manufacturers have to pay for both material and design R&D costs. Typically, any new, "cutting edge" product in any field will have a higher cost as compared to when it was first introduced. The manufacturers want to recover as much of their original investment and make their biggest profit while the large margins are still attainable. A large percent of these profits are re-invested into R&D as well as advertising. 
> 
> You cannot look at the raw material cost alone. How many people and people hours did it take to get that new product to you? That is part of the equation too.
> 
> Doc


Doc,

What's your take on this?  You are involved in lens manufacture in China, correct?  Is 1.74 material readily available for lens fabrication enabling dirt cheap lenses?

----------

