# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  low 16 height progressive

## harry888

What is everyone out there using for a 16 high progressive?

My lab rep claims my present companies short lens is having back order problems, but this lab rep has forked tongue, maybe they owe the company $$.  (I won't say which lens company because rumours can be damaging if not true).

So, should I need to change lenses,  I would like to know what the rest of you have success with at 16 high.

Harry

----------


## For-Life

I have used the Nikon i and the Rodenstock XS.  I still do not get a call for a lot of 16 heights.  I do get a lot of 17 heights though.  The Nikon i is a nice lens, but expensive, and I have only used the XS twice.

----------


## Diane

This may not be all of the lenses, but here's information that I have from manufacturers on minimum fitting heights.

Manufacturer	Name	Corridor Length	Minimum Height
AO/SOLA 	                Compact	         13 mm	      17 mm
AO/SOLA	                SOLAMAX	         12.4 mm	      18 mm
Essilor	           Varilux Panamic      12.5 mm	      18 mm
Essilor	
Nikon Presio i 13	
                                                           13 mm	      17 mm
Hoya	                 Summit CD         11 mm	      14 mm
Kodak	                 ConciseTM          14 mm	      17 mm
Pentax	                 AF mini	            14 mm	      17 mm
Rodenstock	Progressiv® XS    12 mm	      16 mm
Seiko	              Proceed II Short     14 mm 	      18 mm 
Shamir	                 Piccolo	             11.5 mm	      16 mm
Vision-Ease	Outlook	             14 mm	      18 mm
Younger	                 Image®	             13.5 mm	      18 mm
Zeiss	              Gradal Individual     14 mm	      18 mm
Zeiss	                 Short i	             11 mm	      15 mm

Diane

----------


## jediron

Diane I would like to see the manufacturing specs on the Hoya
and the Zeiss. The Min. fit of 14 & 15 seem awful low. I have seen 
some dispensers fit at 16 hi without much luck. I don't care what the manufacture says in real life 18 is as low as I will fit a lens. I
have seen to many people trying to just make the sale instead
doing there job and correctly tell the patient this is not right for them. But Im willing to learn, I might try the Zeiss short and see
how it works out.
:drop: 



Remember: "It was the worst of times and it was the best times"
No Im not talking about Bill Clinton. From Charles Dickens: "Tale Of Two Cities"

----------


## Diane

> *jediron said:* 
> Diane I would like to see the manufacturing specs on the Hoya
> and the Zeiss. The Min. fit of 14 & 15 seem awful low. I have seen 
> some dispensers fit at 16 hi without much luck. I don't care what the manufacture says in real life 18 is as low as I will fit a lens. I
> have seen to many people trying to just make the sale instead
> doing there job and correctly tell the patient this is not right for them. But Im willing to learn, I might try the Zeiss short and see
> how it works out.
> :drop: 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you are referring to as far as manufacturing specs are concerned, but this information came to me directly from the technical departments from each lens company.  

Diane

----------


## Cowboy

One thing to also consider when fitting a low hieght is add power. The higher the add, the less effective the corridor and the add width. Regardless of what lens you choose, ensure that the manufacturer is specifying a specific add limitation and their coinsiding minimum ht. requirements.

:cheers: 

Cowboy

----------


## karen

harry, as much as I hate to say it, I have heard good things out in the field about the Hoya lens.  I have a few accounts that have tried it, one even at 14 high and had success.  I would try the Shamir Piccolo at 16 if it was a low add power.  No way to talk them into a slightly larger frame???

----------


## sjthielen

Zeiss has a new short corridor progressive out called Brevity, it has a 16 mm fitting ht.

----------


## For-Life

My Essilor people tell me that they are coming out with a lens with a 10mm fitting height.

----------


## paw

We use Rodenstock Life XS and have had no problems.

----------


## jediron

Cowboy good point. Because as you know the higher the add
the more you loose on the width and depth of any progressive.

Diane. What I meant is actual specs from the different manufactorers. Because anybody can tell you they have a short 
progressive then you actual look at the specs and the graphing of the lens and you could not make it work for a monkey let a lone a human. Different companies use different techniques to graph and plot there lenses to prove there point, where in reality it's not a very good lens. Now I have seen some these specs and 
even tried a number of these lenses and for me they don't live up
to all the hype they are given. That is why I would want to see the specs and technical data on each lens. Sorry for being picky.

:drop:

----------


## sticklert

The Essilor varilux lens will actually be a min fitting ht of 14mm and a corridor length of 9.5mm.  It will be released April 1st and is called Elipse

----------


## JennyP

;) Can we trust anything released on April 1st?? ;) 

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.:p 
As a progressive lens wearer, moderate minus, moderate add, in a  child's frame (I have a 52 pd and larger frames look like a joke on me) I am always interested in learning about a good "short" lens.

----------


## sticklert

You are right Jenny you can't trust April 1st.  It may change.....However, I would much rather they change the date than relase the product knowing they can't support the demand.  I would rather not sell the product at all than have to deal with back orders......VEE will be where everyone learns more about the product..

----------


## Eddie G's

Yep we just started to use that new Zeiss Brevity for that reason!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *For-Life said:* 
> My Essilor people tell me that they are coming out with a lens with a 10mm fitting height.


ESSILOR invented the progressive lenses and always preached in the old days that a progressive lens needs at least 18mm to be an effective reading lens and give you some decent vision in the progressive area.

If they come out with a 10mm they are just out for the buck of some of these aging baby boomer Ladies that want to wear the small kiddie frames and not show their age.

In above posting the only one that makes sense is Jediron who made the right statement.

As opticians you also should be advisors to your patients and customers and tell them that if they want one of these narrow progressives they will give up a lot of confort for a lot of money.

Maybe soon HOYA will have an 8mm progressive to beat ESSILOR at this crazy nonsense game of being fashionable bot NOT practical.

----------


## For-Life

> *Chris Ryser said:* 
> ESSILOR invented the progressive lenses and always preached in the old days that a progressive lens needs at least 18mm to be an effective reading lens and give you some decent vision in the progressive area.
> 
> If they come out with a 10mm they are just out for the buck of some of these aging baby boomer Ladies that want to wear the small kiddie frames and not show their age.
> 
> In above posting the only one that makes sense is Jediron who made the right statement.
> 
> As opticians you also should be advisors to your patients and customers and tell them that if they want one of these narrow progressives they will give up a lot of confort for a lot of money.
> 
> Maybe soon HOYA will have an 8mm progressive to beat ESSILOR at this crazy nonsense game of being fashionable bot NOT practical.


I do agree with you.  I have told my Essilor people that I want to see some proof before I dispense this lens at said height.  This lens is supposed to have no intermediate though.  That can be the reason.  They might of just widend the intermediate and bump up the power.

----------


## RT

There's some confusion here between corridor length and fitting height.  When talking about a low fitting height progressive, there are two separate specifications that are talked about**:

Fitting height--the distance from the fitting cross to the center of the near verification circle.  This is the minimum height recommended from the bottom of the frame to the fitting cross--if fit lower, you may cut off too much of the area of 100% of full near power.

Corridor length (sometimes called progression length)--the distance over which the power progression occurs.  Since the power typically begins to vary several millimeters below the fitting cross, the corridor length is generally shorter than the minimum fitting height.  For general purpose progressives with a min fitting height of 18-22 mm, corridor length would typically be around 14-18 mm.

As Sticklert pointed out, Essilor is NOT coming out with a 10 mm min fitting height progressive.  They ARE coming out with a 14 mm min fitting height progressive, which has a 10 mm (OK, 9.5 mm) corridor length.  Such lens designs already exist in the market, and are being used very successfully.  

The HOYA Summit CD, for example, has an 11 mm corridor length and a 14 mm min fitting height.  The design is such that 75% of Summit CD's produced in HOYA labs are actually fit at a seg height below 18 mm, as opposed to 40-50% for some competing short corridor designs.

----------


## LO1007

RT gave some great info on short corridor progressives.  Until a short time ago we used Piccolo at a 16mm fitting height and it did do the job. But now that Hoya has the Summit CD, this is the short corridor progressive of choice. 

I am currently wearing a pair of them, at a 16mm fitting hgt. They are great for everyday wear and computer use.  The intermediate does really work and there is plenty of it to use.

The Summit CD needs to be fit in a frame with a "B" measurement of not less than 24mm.

I have many accounts that are having great success with this new lens.  It's available in CR39, 1.60 & 1.70 materials.

I'd definately give it a try!!!
Good Luck

----------


## Gov't Mule

Hoya Summit CD:

We have made at least 30 CDs at 14-16mm with only 2 returns, one for PD and one for LOWERING the seg height from 16 to 14, if you can believe that.  The lens works.  Use it.

Varilux Ipiso: (sp?)

Minium fittting height of 14mm (interesting) will be available in April.  

I am sure if you ask your Varilux lens rep or better yet an Essilor lab rep, they will tell you that you can fit the Panamic has a min. of 2mm.  Honestly, they'll say whatever it takes for the sale.

----------


## For-Life

> *Gov't Mule said:* 
> Hoya Summit CD:
> 
> We have made at least 30 CDs at 14-16mm with only 2 returns, one for PD and one for LOWERING the seg height from 16 to 14, if you can believe that.  The lens works.  Use it.
> 
> Varilux Ipiso: (sp?)
> 
> Minium fittting height of 14mm (interesting) will be available in April.  
> 
> I am sure if you ask your Varilux lens rep or better yet an Essilor lab rep, they will tell you that you can fit the Panamic has a min. of 2mm.  Honestly, they'll say whatever it takes for the sale.


The Essilor lens witht he 14 fitting height is called the Elispe, as previously mentioned.

The *Ipeso* is another lens to look at.  This lens will be remarkable.  It is supposed to have no distortion as it is the first ever completely custom lens.  There is a machine that will outline the custom needs for the patient.  The patient puts on a pair of goggles and looks at light movement on the machine.  They then measure the dispersment from the eye and head movement.  From there they can make the lens that will work the same was for the customer.  It should be a huge technical improvement, but it does have a huge price ($900 retail Canadian for a pair, that includes their customized material that is best suited for the patient like 1.6 or 1.67 and Alize).

As for my Essilor rep.  I take what he says as being fact.  My guy will tell you straight out.  We have had a relationship with him for many years as he had a private lab before being bought out by Essilor.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

As described above, Varilux Ellipse has a progression length of <10mm, and a minimum fitting height of 14mm.  It is currently slated to be released on 1 April, and you will be hearing about this lens at Vision Expo East.

Regarding launch dates, I fully understand the skepticism some of you have expressed.  I can remember reading about products in _20/20_ or _Vision Monday_ and then waiting for what was seemingly an eternity for the product to actually arrive on the market.

Having watched the process of new product development, let me tell you, it is an amazing string of events.  Each time I think I have a grasp of all the aspects involved, I see new ones I never considered before.  Ironically, most of the time it is not actually lack of inventory that causes a delay.  Some products are sitting on the distribution center shelf _months_ before launch.   Other than making the product, a company has to create all the data and paperwork required to support ordering, distribution, marketing, software programming, and processing...

Anyway, I would wager that Varilux Ellipse does launch by 1 April...  Also, although it took a while to get it to market, the design is truly going to be especially well-suited for short corridor frames.  As a rule, I do not like short corridor PALs (for the very reason described above- a quality progression does take a certain amount of space to accomplish).  However, for the patient who just _has_ to wear that tiny Anne Klein frame with a PAL, Varilux Ellipse will work well.

Rodenstock Life XS, btw, is probably the shortest corridor PAL available today (Varilux Ellipse will be slightly shorter, but the real advantage will be the width of the distance zone in Ellipse compared to XS).  In my opinion, only the XS and perhaps the Zeiss lens are currently truly "short" progressions.  The other lenses mentioned here (and on the market) accomplish "shortness" via a variety of questionable design methodologies.

Regarding intermediate, any truly short corridor lens is going to have a minimal intermediate zone.  These lenses are not going to be especially well-suited for intermediate tasks.  

As for my Essilor rep. I take what he says as being fact. My guy will tell you straight out. We have had a relationship with him for many years as he had a private lab before being bought out by Essilor.
I always viewed reps with a skeptical eye, but having met most of ours (here in the states, anyway), they are a great bunch of guys and gals who are pretty dedicated to helping their accounts in any way they can.  Here in Florida, we have possibly three of the best lens representatives in the country- Dee Ham, Maureen Maglione, and Mitch Small.  If you've ever been called upon by one of these three folks, you should know what I mean!

----------


## mrba

Piccolo is soft feeling, even though it is a shorter corridor.  XS is a fully aspheric desighn, something most progressives are not.

We have had success with both of them.

----------


## Clive Noble

What about the Ovation from Essilor,  we've been fitting this at 17mm and many times at 16mm without any problems. in fact this is one of our most popular lenses these days.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Although Essilor Ovation was not designed to be a "short-corridor" PAL, it is relatively short.  I've heard from numerous eyecare professionals who fit Ovation at 16-17 with good success.

The research conducted when developing Varilux Ellipse turned up a couple interesting findings.  First, not surprisingly, patients strongly preferred a short progression when wearing a small "B" frame.  Secondly, and perhaps more interesting, patients wearing short "B" frames were most sensitive to peripheral restrictions in the _distance_ portion of the lens.  

All truly "short" progressions are going to be relatively (relative to general use PAL designs, that is) narrow in the near zone.  However, most of the "short" corridor PALs currently available on the market also use the distance periphery to distribute the unwanted cylinder that occurs with a seamless progression of power.

Varilux Ellipse will have 140 degrees of clear distance.  This is about 15% more than the closest competitor design, and really seems to improve patient acceptance of the lens.  My theory is that this occurs because- in the end- most of us still use our eyewear for distance viewing more than for close tasks.

Remember when eyewear started getting smaller in the 90s?  Even single vision wearing patients would often comment _"I can see the edge of the frame- it feels restrictive."_  Well, now that patients are somewhat used to the smaller frames, I think putting a progression in there- and robbing them of even more distance space- is even more restrictive. 

In my opinion, that is why a lens like Ovation (or any other general use PAL that has a progression short enough to give near function in a small frame) works better than the "short" PALs.  Nothing against Shamir Piccolo, but the area of unrestricted distance viewing is only 103 degrees.  AO Compact has 109 degrees, and Summit CD has 118 degrees.  Compared to most general use PALs, these lenses restrict the area of distance viewing.  In a small frame, the result is a very limited distance area.

Of course, there are other considerations as well.  For example, AO Compact is an extremely hard design that presents the wearer with a lot of motion in the near periphery.  This explains why even general use PALs like Varilux Comfort score higher than AO Compact in wearer tests- even in the areas of near vision (where a design like AO Compact should theoretically excel).

Before I am bombarded with all sorts of testimonials regarding how "well" all these short corridor designs work, let's consider something for a moment.  Who purchases most short corridor frames?  By age 70 or so, most of us have matured enough to accept that sometimes function is more important than fashion.  The typical short corridor puchaser is, I would guess, in her 40s or 50s.  What type of add powers do these people have?  That's right, 2.00 or below.  Its not exceptionally difficult to design a progression that works decently in the lower adds.  Even blended bifocals work well at 1.50 add.  Its when you get into the higher adds that the amount of progression begins to take a toll on the design.  So, while a relatively poor design may allow the wearer to "get by" at the lower adds, the hallmark of a really good design will be how it functions across the range.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> 
> Varilux Ellipse will have 140 degrees of clear distance.  This is about 15% more than the closest competitor design, and really seems to improve patient acceptance of the lens.



What about the reading segment ?





> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> 
> Its not exceptionally difficult to design a progression that works decently in the lower adds. Even blended bifocals work well at 1.50 add.


And here again, we still talk about frames with a height of approximately 26mm total height. Assuming the pupil fits exactly the centre at 13mm, *that will leave you a reading portion of 6mm at what width ??????????*

What a horrible thought of having to wear a lens like that and read the news paper or look at a building construction plan!

----------


## Pete Hanlin

What a horrible thought of having to wear a lens like that and read the news paper or look at a building construction plan!
Let me make it clear- I neither think "short corridor" PALs are a great idea, nor would I make a point of fitting them as an eye care provider.

Unfortunately, the market seems to think it is perfectly acceptable to fit progressive lenses below 18mm in the name of "fashion."  Once some lens manufacturers latched on to this trend, they began to create products that were supposedly "designed" to meet this ridiculous demand.

Unfortunately, physics being what they are, you cannot have a generous intermediate while cramming the progression into a tiny area.  Therefore, the vast majority of your "short-corridor" offerings are little more than a general type design with a   dislocated fitting cross, near verification circle, or both.  The ones that are actually short have considerable distortion crammed into the distance periphery- and usually also have poor symmetry between the nasal and temporal periphery of the near zone (causing swim).

Since most "short corridors" are fit to lower add powers, most wearers don't notice they have been fit down into the top of the progression- or that they have compromised the intermediate zone.  Also, most wearers of such small frames seem to consider being able to read at all a victory, so they are willing to accept the vision they recieve and are happy to "get away" with wearing their tiny spectacles.

Personally, I think this is one of the reasons we haven't launched a product in this market prior to now.  I think it has pained the designers to create such a short progression- knowing that it leads to compromise.  Regardless, it appears as if we've found the ideal design for an admitably compromised situation- based on studying wearer reactions to different types of short designs.  I'll look forward to everyone's reviews...

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> Let me make it clear- I neither think "short corridor" PALs are a great idea, nor would I make a point of fitting them as an eye care provider.
> 
> *Unfortunately, the market seems to think it is perfectly acceptable to fit progressive lenses below 18mm in the name of "fashion." *


Thanks Pete,

You gave the perfect answer I expected you to.

I think it is a shame that professionals like opticians and optometrists do not argue with their customers/patients at least for the reason of the sanity of the profession and give in to fashion demands. 

Then we read the post's on this board how happy the customers are the customers are and that there are no problems whatsoever.

When we think back into the sixties and seventies when we sold and pushed Executive lenses for people working on desks and needed a good reading area. These lenses did make sense for their own requirements.

Progressive lenses have established themselves as a bread and butter item, but they do have their limits. I think that all you guy's and girls out there in the shops should sell the right lens to the customer and not be guided by whats most expensive but what the right type lens for the purpose of use.

A person who wears a 10mm progressive should at least have a second pair of 18mm ones for the comfort of being able to do some decent reading at home in the evening or wear them at the desk at work.

If you catch on to this idea, you can sell 2 pairs.........................(send me the commision)

----------


## mrba

As if a normal progressive is ideal to read through!!!  Whats wrong with taking a bad solution and making it worse?  I think customers know progressives stink in general and don't feel as though they are sacrificing anything!!!

Now I will go back to my bench and make another 400 progressives!

----------


## jediron1

Pete Hanlin said: 

Its not exceptionally difficult to design a progression that works decently in the lower adds. Even blended bifocals work well at 1.50 add.

We all know the optics involved that at lower adds the progressives work very well. But as you know the higher the add
the larger the area of distorted viewing especially nasally and 
temporally. Most people notice the temporal region more than the
nasal portion just because of the physical nature of the individual
lens and person wearing them. Most people cannot look cross eyed so they can't pick up the nasal distortion. If your going to fit
lenses lower than 17mm in a small frame then maybe Pete's advise to use a blended bifocal might be a better fit. Just my two 
cents!:hammer:

----------


## hip chic

My vote is for the Shamir Piccolo lens or the Rodenstock XS.  I haved used the Shamir lens ALOT with fitting a fitting height of 16 (or even 15) with GREAT success.  I have also used the Rodenstock a few times with no complaints.

In all cases, when dispensing a progressive lens, I have a conversation with my patient about how much reading and intermediate work they do each day.  Because the short corridor lens has less intermediate area, someone who spends all day on a computer or doing intermediate work may not be happy with the short corridor lens.  Just as it was preached to us all 20 plus years ago...lifestyle dispensing is still so important.

hip chic

----------


## mrba

thank you hip chick... you are so hip

----------


## chip anderson

Had the Essilor man in today and he gave me the new availability poop sheet with info that in about a month they will have a 14 fitting ht. progressive.

Chip :Cool:

----------


## paw

It's like doing the limbo...how low can you go?

----------


## mrba

Why wait for essilor poop sheet?
Theres already others out there...

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *paw said:* 
> It's like doing the limbo...how low can you go?





> *mrba said:* 
> Why wait for essilor poop sheet?
> Theres already others out there





> *Chip said:* 
> Had the Essilor man in today and he gave me the new availability poop sheet with info that in about a month they will have a 14 fitting ht. progressive.


Is there still anybody out there in the retail field who is still fighting for *clean and proper vision of their clients, customers or patients?*

I am sitting in front of my computer for many hours per day, have a super large corner desk, total of about 12 feet.

*My glasses with the progressives in a small frame are are in a case and worn only at some cocktail hour parties to show that I am not one of those optical antiquities. After a few "Johnny Walkers"* (another Brand Name}* the distortion on the lenses seems to loose itself and disapear.*

However when working on my desk, dont take away my aviation shape frame holding a pair of ST 35s, the distance part holding an RX for the computer screen. No visible distortion anywhere, clean clear vision.

Funny.................that on this board nobody talks about clean clear vision anymore.

----------


## jediron1

Personally Chris your not going to get anybody to get it because
they are out  to sell the lens at any cost. I will not and have not sold a lens that I cannot at least have 18 mm for a fitting height.
And don't come back with some of these rediculous posts about
" your forgetting the corridor" and that other nonsence. I know what the corridor is and the fitting height are. But what it all comes down to is most people on this board don't want to the see the customer go to the competition so they cave in and give them a progressive at 16mm right or wrong. Personally I think that is wrong!:drop: :hammer:

----------


## jediron1

If you don't understand what Im saying then you should reread
Pete's post on the design of the short progressive!:drop:

----------


## Laurie

Hip Chic,

I can see why you are so hip!

The Shamir Piccolo is a GREAT lens.  

Shamir Insight lenses have been a well kept secret...but not for long!

...one thing I have noticed...people who REALLY KNOW OPTICS love the Shamir line.  

: )

They put the Chic in Geek Chic!

Laurie

----------


## hip chic

Jediron~

I do NOT fit people with a 16mm height progressive lens because I don't want them to go to the competition who will "cave in" giving them a low fitting progressive...right or wrong.  I mean really...how is that in my best interest as a businesswoman and a good optician.  I want my patients to be happy with their eyewear and come to me again.  If I fit them with something that they are unhappy with, I see it as BAD for them and me.

Nor would I fit Chris Ryser with a low fitting progressive to wear all day every day.  If I were Chris' optician, I am sure that after my conversation with him at the dispensing table, I would recommend exactly what he is doing currently.  Obviously, Chris has many different visual requirements...at work and socially and probably at home too, it's a little silly to expect that one pair of glasses is enough, isn't it?  I think that's the case with most people now...people who work on computers especially.

My father wears his Shamir Piccolo lenses at 16 mm high.  I would estimate that 60-70% of his visual needs are distance with the remainder, of course being intermediate and near.  He wears his Shamir Piccolo lenses most of the time.  When he's at home reading the newspaper while watching television, he has his lined bifocals.  For him the combination of wanting to look good with fashionable frames and the fact that most of his needs are distance, the Piccolo lens is perfect.     I do not in any way want to imply that the Piccolo lens is not great for intermediate and reading, because it is.  I am only trying to illlustrate how important it is to have a thorough conversation with the patient about their visual needs and  their expectations with regard to their eyewear.    I think it's our job to advise and educate.

I would never limit myself or my patients by saying that I will only fit progressives at at least 18mm,  I don't think it's a necessary limitation except in the instance where a patient DOES only want one pair of glasses and does alot of intermediate and reading.   Even then, if they insisted on something with a lower seg., after educating them on the pitfalls and advising against it, I look at it as their decision .

hip chic

----------


## sticklert

hip chic

Well Said!!!

----------


## Chris Ryser

Hip Chic

Thanks for the well made explanation. You hit the nail on the head, but how about all the others, specially on this theme. 

It still looks as if the majority just sells progressives because it is the *IN* thing and easy to sell for an upscale price while not alway's serving its purpose.

----------


## jediron1

Hip that was not directed at you or anyone else in perticular.
I agree with Chris who said:
It still looks as if the majority just sells progressives because it is the IN thing and easy to sell for an upscale price while not alway's serving its purpose.

That is the point. If you don't get the point as I said before you should re-read Pete's excellent exhortation on the issues facing 
the dispenser fitting a lens at 16mm. 

Laurie:
one thing I have noticed...people who REALLY KNOW OPTICS love the Shamir line.

I think I know a little about optics and I would not give you two cents for a Shamir lens. Now if it was varilux I would give you at least 2 bucks. I have fit and wear Varilux and have nothing but praise for that design. The mapping of the Shamir is very similar to the varilux design and I wonder why? Why! Varilux is the one who pioneered these lenses by offering them only to independent
opticians and Doctors and being the pioneer they have come up 
with certain design features that other manufacturers are now starting to copy. Sure Shamir and others make slight inprovements to there designs, but I still find the Varilux to be top DOG.:drop:

----------


## mrba

"The issues with short Corridors"

Hmmm.... Ok lets be real here.  If you slapped a short Corridor on ALL patients and gave them the generic lecture on adapting to a new lens there would be no problems. I have found that the psychology of the dispensor and what they impose on the customer is usually what determines the outcome!

It wasn't any different with the Sola VIP or Infinity in the good ol days.  So lets stop stressing the "squeeze".  Its only a squeeze in your head if you ask me..

TGIF

:cheers: :D :) :p :drop: :angry: :shiner: :bbg:  :Confused:   :Eek:

----------


## jediron1

Hip said:
 Even then, if they insisted on something with a lower seg., after educating them on the pitfalls and advising against it, I look at it as their decision .

I thought that is the way everybody should present there lenses.
Educate,Educate and more education.

The problem I have with your premise is you admit that you fit your father at 16 mm knowing he will not have much use for the 
reading portion because you said he wants it more for fashion and distance viewing. To fit a lens at 16 mm the B-dimension of the frame would have to be some where around 23 or 24 mm bare min. Fit at 16 mm gives him 8 mm for the distance and 16 mm for the interm. and then near. Corridor depending on what lens you use is going to be somewhere around even if you stretch it 9 to 11 mm. Which in the most opportunistic cases only allows a reading area of around 5 to 7 mm extremely small and that does not take into effect the width of the near area at those extreme low measurements. Then you have rx requirements and this could go on and on. I still stick to my guns 16 is to low even
with all the education in the world.:hammer:

----------


## hip chic

I thought that is the way everybody should present there lenses.
Educate,Educate and more education.

I still stick to my guns 16 is to low even
with all the education in the world.:hammer: [/QUOTE]


jediron~

I respectfully disagree with your views.

And although you said "that is the way everybody should present there (their) lenses.  Educate, Educate and more education" it seems to me that with your earlier statement saying that you would not fit a progressive at a height less than 18 mm that your philosophy is more about giving your patients limits rather than information.

I am curious to know if you've tried a Shamir lens?  I have, in the past been a very strong supporter of Varilux product.  However, I am always curious when a new product comes out.  When the Shamir lens was introduced, I did not begin selling it exclusively (I still don't...I only use it where it's advantagous).  I explained to a good handful of my patients who were wearing the Varilux lens that I'd like them to try the Shamir lens.  They were getting new glasses anyway and most people are flattered to be asked to try something new.  I explained to these patients that I would be checking with them for about 2 months time to see how they liked the new lens.  I further explained that I would gladly remake their lenses, switching back to the Varilux design if they didn't like the new lens.  Out of 8 customers, none asked to be switched back.  I am not a bifocal wearer so it is impossible for me to truly judge the performance of a bifocal lens.  I  have, however, never been lead wrong by my customers who are bifocal wearers.  I am just curious if you've worn the Shamir lens and what YOUR impresssion was.

I maintain my view that a progressive with a height of 16 mm performs for ALOT of people however, I accept that all opticians do not feel the same way...I mean no offense to you by disagreeing.

hip chic

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *hip chic said:* 
> 
> *..........................................I maintain my view that a progressive with a height of 16 mm performs for ALOT of people however, I accept that all opticians do not feel the same way...I mean no offense to you by disagreeing.*
> 
> hip chic



By using a 16mm progression you loose 11% of rhe progressive portion compared to the 18mm variation. I don't think that i6t make a difference if Shamir, Essilor, Rodenstock or whoever makes the lens. As long as they do not infringe on the still existing patents they are all basically the same.

However if the patient is happy you will gain 2mm on the reading segment *if  you maintain a decent frame height*

But all overall you still deprive them from a distortion free peripheral vision. The main thing is that the customer is happy.

----------


## jediron1

Hey Hip no disrespect taken. When you have a lively debate going
there are going to be disagreements,but that does not mean you
can't express your views. Just the opposite. I have worn many types of lenses. I have had a round seg, a navigator progressive
vip and others and I still come back to my Varilux.:bbg:

----------


## jediron1

Hip the one thing I did notice is that your talking about education
and Im talking pure fitting of the lens.:bbg:

----------


## Cowboy

Its kinda funny reading all of the posts regarding this height issue. Some agree and some don't. Some even placed sales over professionalism as a problem. What I see to be true is that the consumer places themselves into a location and says "I Want." Now granted, not all 'opticians' are opticians by standards of such a title and they provide the want. We, that are true to our profession, know the limitations to products and do our damdest to sway that "want" to an understanding of reality. However, If I or anyone of us don't find the solution that is acceptable to both parties, then the consumer leaves and goes to the guy who will fit the "fashion" pair regardless. One of two things occur, the patient sees that you were right, returns the shat they just got, and comes back to you, or, they surfice with what they have and are pleased because they got what they wanted. 

Now, as far as what some of you had said about the lenses and being totally wrong, I personally agree and do not dispense them and I do not go below a 19mm ht. in certain frames or add powers. However, the industry is a supply and demand game just like any other business out there. We (opticians) supply based on public demand. We educate as best we can to make everyone happy. We are in business just as you are to make money so we can also be in on the demand side.
Another issue to look at, is the manufacturer. If it is true that, it is not a wise decsion to bend to the demand(s) of the public because too much sacrifice of vision will endure, then they (manufacturers) should be equally responsible and professional and not make the product. Nonetheless, they do. We have to face that reality. It is available. They educate us (optical professionals), and we educate the public. It is a vicious revolving cycle. My final point is that, if the product is available, then it is simply left to those who want to use it face the music when it comes time to defend it (the lens) and themselves.

These are my opinions, not meant to offend any individual or group, rather to provide a perspective that I haven't seen much posted throughout this thread.  Thanks for listening.

:cheers: 

Cowboy

----------


## mrba

I agree.  I think its our professional obligation to educate the customer as to the ins and outs of their situation.

After that its their money! (and as long as its green I'll take it thank you)

----------


## Laurie

I completely agree...education is key.

jediron:  Maybe I should have used a different term than "those who know optics..." ( I did not mean to offend anyone in that statement...)  

I am finding, however, that more and more "optical geeks" (meant in a good way!) are getting hip to Shamir lenses.

Instead of debating, let me ask you to compare the following with your lens of choice and Shamir Genesis or Piccolo:

(I am going under the assumption that your lens of choice is also a design that uses multi, variable insets, right  and left design and symmetry...)

I would ask you to campare this additional criteria:

1.  Ratio of excessive cylinder anywhere in the lens.  (Ratio of 1:1 means that the amount of excessive cyl will not exceed the add power...Ratio of 2:1 means that excess cyl will be double the add, etc...)

2.  Placement of excessive cylinder (unwanted marginal astigmatism)...is it above the 180 line?

     (this is an important factor...topography charts in 0.50 D. steps will show differences very quickly)

3.  Vertical dimension of FULL add

4.  Corridor length

5.  Reading width



A great way to study and compare these, and additional criteria is to look at the recent paper by Dr. James Sheedy, OD, PhD on progressive lenses (February issue, Journal of the Optometric Association of America)...it is a white paper/blind study of various progressive lenses.   What an eye opener! 



: )

Laurie

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Laurie said:* 
> 
> I completely agree...education is key.
> 
> 1: )
> 
> Laurie



It just looks to me that the main education these days comes from manufacturers advertising to the public and from salesreps to the optical retailers.

----------


## Laurie

Hi Chris,

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

I know that we have increased our enrollment in our college opticianry program (over triple!), but we still have work to do.

Even with increases at optical colleges around the country, most people do not go through a formal education process to become an optician.  Learning optical theories in a college environment adds alot.  Then, the hands on learning is even more valuable.

I am happy to see education from any venue...as long as it is optically legit, not just marketing.

: )

Laurie

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Although personally my training came via experience and a lot of self-directed study, I agree that formal education holds the key to any real future our profession may have.

That out of the way, it is unfortunate that eye care providers are not better informed regarding the optical characteristics of progressive addition lenses.  Unfortunately, articles like the aforementioned "study" (_Progressive Addition Lenses- Matching the Specific Lens to Patient Needs_) do not help this situation.

I do not wish to disparage a well-intentioned article.  By way of clarification, however, this "study" did not involve any actual wearers- lenses were measured in a static environment using a Rotlex lens analyzer.  Additionally, the measures used for a PALs "performance" were zone sizes and length of progression- both of these indicators are outdated and easily disproven as predictive assessments. 

You fit what you fit and determine the quality of the product based upon the responses you receive from your patient.  As Cowboy stated so eloquently, some patients will return because the product does not meet their needs.  Others will not realize that vision has been compromised (i.e., they "get used" to it).  Still others will realize the compromise and remain happy because they "got what they wanted."

As for design quality, each manufacturer will highlight whatever characteristics they feel show their product in the best light.  I can certainly show you some graphics which show the "superiority" of Varilux designs.  Hoya, Kodak, Rodenstock, Seiko, Shamir, Sola, and Zeiss have nifty graphics to show off their product's performance as well.   At the end of the day, people who truly "know optics" realize there are several good designs out there- some perhaps being better than others- and are able to discern, describe, and dispense each accordingly.

So for those of you going to Vision Expo, flag Laurie and/or I down and you'll learn why Shamir (or Varilux, depending upon whom you manage to flag down first) lenses are superior to anything else on the market.

PS- The official and final launch date for Varilux Ellipse is 12 April- although product will be flowing from the distribution center prior to that date.

----------


## Darryl Meister

Most of you realize that I generally don't involve myself in product-oriented debates since I work for a lens manufacturer. After all, I'm not here to sell you guys anything, and I don't want to call into question my objectivity. However, it would be remiss of me not to address a couple of points in this discussion.




> ESSILOR invented the progressive lenses


That's actually a myth. Though they were responsible for the first commercially _successful_ progressives.




> I'm not sure what you are referring to as far as manufacturing specs are concerned, but this information came to me directly from the technical departments from each lens company.


Keep in mind that few manufacturers adhere to the same standard of corridor measurement, so if you asked each of them separately for their own figures, they probably wouldn't be very consistent with each other. Some may measure to 85% of the add power (Essilor), some to 95% (SOLA), some to the add power less 0.12 (AO), some to the near circle, some using surface power, some using front vertex power, and so on. Also, the "length of the corridor" is only _so_ meaningful, as I discuss below.




> As a rule, I do not like short corridor PALs (for the very reason described above- a quality progression does take a certain amount of space to accomplish)... In my opinion, only the XS and perhaps the Zeiss lens are currently truly "short" progressions. The other lenses mentioned here (and on the market) accomplish "shortness" via a variety of questionable design methodologies.


I disagree that lenses using _other_ means to accomplish good small frame performance represent "questionable design methodologies," for the very reason you give above: Short corridors must compromise "quality" (in the optical sense). As you know, there is no magic dust that we, as manufacturers, can sprinkle on these lenses to "squish" the optics into a shorter corridor length. Optical compromises must be made elsewhere.

Unfortunately, many manufacturers have fallen into the trap of marketing on the basis of corridor lengths, only, which aren't particularly meaningful on their own. While corridor length is obviously one _indication_ of near performance, a short corridor is inconsequential if the size or width of the actual near zone is not adequate in small frame sizes. Moreover, if the compromises made elsewhere in the lens in order to achieve that short corridor do not respect the visual demands of the wearer, what have you really accomplished with that short corridor?

As eyecare professionals, we should be cognizant of the fact that a short corridor alone, is by no means an assurance of performance. Rather than quote a single arbitrary figure, you'll see SOLA's small frame comparisons demonstrate a measure that is truly relevant: actual ray-traced optical performance for the wearer with the lens in its position of wearer. Designing a progressive lens with a short corridor length is _not_ difficult to do. Designing a progressive lens that _performs well in small frames_ can be quite a challenge.

I would also argue that AO Compact is, indeed, a _true_ "short corridor" progressive. And, for that matter, the first lens specifically designed for small frame performance. Not only does AO Compact have a truly short corridor, but it also has a rather large near zone high up in the lens while maintaining generous distance vision and an extremely soft periphery. Consequently, it was designed to work well in small frames, not to simply provide a "short corridor" figure.

Also, the corridor length (to 95% of the add) of Rodenstock life XS and AO Compact are virtually identical according to our (SOLA's) measurement samples.




> one thing I have noticed...people who REALLY KNOW OPTICS love the Shamir line


I tend to think that I know a thing or two about optics, and I'm kind of partial to our line. ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## mrba

Darryl,
I am of the understanding that XS is fully aspheric in the distance and compact is not.  I have a way to confirm this without technical fanfare, but I thought I would ask you if this true or not.

I agree with a lot of what you said.  And to add one thing, Shamir makes most of the molds for most progressives anyway. Infer from that what you will.

 :Confused:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I am of the understanding that XS is fully aspheric in the distance and compact is not. I have a way to confirm this without technical fanfare, but I thought I would ask you if this true or not.


Actually, it depends on what you mean when you say "aspheric." In the "basic progressive design" sense of the word, AO Compact is actually more aspheric than life XS, with a softer distance. But if you are referring to asphericity in the sense of neutralizing off-center aberrations, as is the case with a single vision aspheric lens, it would depend upon the lens material.

AO Compact in hard resin uses best form base curves, which aren't particularly flat, so it does not require asphericity. (This is the same case with single vision lenses, which only benefit from asphericity if they are flattened below best form base curve recommendations.) AO Compact in 1.6 high-index, on the other hand, uses slightly flatter curves, and employs the appropriate amount of aspheric optimization.




> And to add one thing, Shamir makes most of the molds for most progressives anyway.


Well, if it makes you feel any better, they certainly don't make ours.  ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *mrba said:* 
> ............................................ And to add one thing, Shamir makes most of the molds for most progressives anyway. Infer from that what you will.


*This thread starts looking like the battle of the GREEN GIANTS*


Here is each one of biggies defending their status and quality and design of their products.

Lets not forget it is all a matter of money, money, money  !!!!!!!!!!!!

In the old day's of glass lenses it was all a matter of design, ..........then labour intensive manufacturing with the use of extensive machinery to grind and surface the lenses or blanks.

*Not anymore .............these day's. When you actually think that the most labour intensive lenses  these days are the CR39's because you will have to fill the mold with the monomer and after curing you have to open them and clean the mold.

Enter polycarbonate lenses which are not touched by a human hand until finished, hard coated and packaged. 

These lenses are made by a fully automated injection process like you would make childrens toy's in plastic. The moulding machine spits them out in batches of 4, 6 or 8 lenses every few seconds.*

For  plastic lenses the manufacturing cost factor is the *SAME* for a progressive, a straight top or a single vision lens once you have the moulds. And that goes for any type of plastic lens.

Do we have to wonder that the manufacturers are getting touchy when their product is critizised and they might loose a few sales?

In today's age manufacturers of lenses are turning much higher profits than in the old labour intensive days, and it shows in the huge amounts of money being spent by advertising in all sort of professional or other magazines, often to the end user.

Before spending money, you have to make it and our beloved lens manufacturers are making it and react very fast when being attacked.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Here is each one of biggies defending their status and quality and design of their products...


Chris, I would say that you completely misinterpreted the spirit of these three pages of posts.




> In the old day's of glass lenses it was all a matter of design...In today's age manufacturers of lenses are turning much higher profits than in the old labour intensive days, and it shows in the huge amounts of money being spent by advertising in all sort of professional or other magazines, often to the end user.


While the landscape of lens manufacturing has changed slightly over the years, the actual business really hasn't changed much at all. We have always invested in research and development. We have always pursued newer, better lens designs and materials. We have always fostered relationships with our customers. We have always sought to improve manufacturing efficiency while reducing operating costs. We have always had consultants discuss the technical merits of our products. We have always offered value-added services to complement our products. We have always "advertised in professional magazines." And so on.

As far as "labor intensity" and lens materials go, our industry has had mass-production capabilities, even for glass, since the early 1900s. Obviously some products are more involved than others, but that hasn't changed much. You also seem to underestimate the extensive costs and overhead involved in our operations, while overestimating how our profit margins compare to lenses from twenty or thirty years ago. For that matter, and as with most businesses, many of our costs have little to do with the actual manufacturing process.

You speak as though you believe that lens manufacturers are "rolling in the dough" or something, which is obviously not the case. For that matter, in any free market with as much competition and as little growth as our industry has, it is extremely difficult for any manufacturer to make "money, money, money." Now, I can't speak for the other lens manufacturers, and certainly not for the frame or contact lens industries (which were apparently overlooked by your post), but I'm relatively certain that we _all_ have to work very hard to be successful -- much like our customers.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## mrba

Got Bread?

Perhaps if manufacturers wouldn't spend their "dough" on a business they don't understand (labs), they would have more "dough":p

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Perhaps if manufacturers wouldn't spend their "dough" on a business they don't understand (labs), they would have more "dough"


Well, this is the part where Pete should probably jump in during the tag-team match. ;) However, I will add that, back in the "good ole' days," manufacturers actually owned the majority of surfacing labs. Bausch & Lomb and American Optical, in particular, ran quite a few of them. But certainly the two industries have diverged over the years.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## mrba

its actually happened more than several times in the good ol days... and B&L for one got out of the biz because they just couldn't get into it in the first place! Other noteable failures include US shoe, Revlon, and AO.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> B&L for one got out of the biz because they just couldn't get into it in the first place


I kind of thought that they had gotten _so far_ into it, that the FTC came and pulled them out. ;) Monopolies and that sort of thing.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Darryl Meister said:* 
>  ;) However, I will add that, back in the "good ole' days," manufacturers actually owned the majority of surfacing labs. .............................................
> Best regards,
> Darryl


* How about the "present ole days "..........................?*


ESSILOR owns loads of them .............world wide

ZEISS owns Loads of them .....................world wide

HOYA owns loads of them ..................world wide

SOLA owns lots of other manufacturers people don't even know about

Darryl you try to make them look like the angels that have to protect the good old world to keep the vision industry going.

The  trend these days is called * DOMINATION*

----------


## Darryl Meister

> How about the "present ole days "...


Actually, my point to mrba was simply that manufacturers have been intimately familiar with the surfacing side of the business before, and that modern lab acquisitions are certainly not new. I'm not advocating it _or_ condemning it. Since it hasn't been something that SOLA has actively pursued in the past, I really can't comment on the efficacy or long-term implications of this strategy, myself.




> Darryl you try to make them look like the angels that have to protect the good old world to keep the vision industry going.


Your reference to "angels" seems to hint at another underlying theme in your recent posts on this topic: the struggle of good versus evil. Surely you aren't insinuating that lens manufacturers are evil? ;) Unfortunately, it's nothing quite that dramatic. It's just a business. And I'm sure that each of us hopes to put out a good product, turn a bit of a profit, and remain in business -- preferably without summoning the forces of darkness. ;)




> SOLA owns lots of other manufacturers people don't even know about...


Apparently, including me. ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## shanbaum

> *Chris Ryser said:* 
> 
> The  trend these days is called * DOMINATION*


Ooh.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I agree with a lot of what you said. And to add one thing, Shamir makes most of the molds for most progressives anyway. Infer from that what you will.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you are inferring- and the source you got it from.  I'd point out that a false claim is as easy to speak as a true one (perhaps even easier, because you can spin whatever tale you desire into a false claim).  My grandad always said, _believe half of what you see and none of what you hear_.  The optical business has proven him correct over and over again.

Well, this is the part where Pete should probably jump in during the tag-team match.  However, I will add that, back in the "good ole' days," manufacturers actually owned the majority of surfacing labs. Bausch & Lomb and American Optical, in particular, ran quite a few of them.
Sorry, Darryl- I was out speaking on the behalf of several _independent_ Varilux distributors all last week...  To add to your point, in most countries manufacturer-owned laboratories handle the vast majority of their company's Rx lens processing.  In the United States, we have a diverse market which includes retail and independently owned laboratories as well.  Anyone thinking companies like SOLA or Essilor "don't understand the lab business" should really tour some of the huge facilities in other countries (I was in one last month that cranks out 7,500 jobs a day- pretty awesome technology).  So, tag Darryl- you're it. 
:)

Actually, it depends on what you mean when you say "aspheric." In the "basic progressive design" sense of the word, AO Compact is actually more aspheric than life XS, with a softer distance. But if you are referring to asphericity in the sense of neutralizing off-center aberrations, as is the case with a single vision aspheric lens, it would depend upon the lens material.
Actually, we've run some wearer comparisons (which, as is the norm, have been challenged by the competitor manufacturer) between Compact and Comfort.  Lenses were fit at 17mm, and Comfort scored higher in every category measured.  Of course, since this was an Essilor study, one has to question the objectivity of the findings (well, I wouldn't, but I work for Essilor, so... 8^).  Having looked at the power profile and measurements of Compact's sphere slopes and some other characteristics of the design, I believe the study was probably pretty close to dead on.  While I wouldn't put AO Compact in the "questionable design practices" category, I would reaffirm that there are certianly some PALs that are such.  I mean, when the ADD power begins 4mm above the fitting cross- or when you don't reach your total add power anywhere within the near verification circle- one has to start wondering...

As I indicated earlier, every manufacturer is going to be able to defend the merits of their own designs using one measure or another.  For example, the emphasis on Varilux Ellipse is going to be the very short progression and the width of distance field.  This combination yielded the best results in wearer studies, and Essilor feels strongly that this will become the premium short-corridor product.  SOLA/AO have other design theories- like bipolarity and polyvalence- which they will emphasize.  

As long as everyone takes the "high road" and speaks to the strengths of their own designs, than all is fair in love, war, and optics.  Unfortunately, some companies do not adhere to the lofty path and attempt to improve their sales through the slander of other products or companies.  History shows this is not a strategy for long-term success (things like investment in R&D and building relationships with your customers are).

----------


## mrba

I figured the "other countries" point would come up.  That doesn't compare apples to apples.  Eyecare and expectations of manufacturers are so different in other countries.  Not saying which is worse or better... But I rather prefer a doctor that isn't employed by a manufacturer, and required to use their lenses to give me his unbiased oopinion, as to what my lens and coating needs are.

As for historical anti trust considerations... were you trying to make a point in favor or against manufacturers?

----------


## Joann Raytar

> *Chris Ryser said:* 
> *This thread starts looking like the battle of the GREEN GIANTS*
> 
> Here is each one of biggies defending their status and quality and design of their products.


Not that he needs defending, but I think most of the old time OptiBoarders would agree that Darryl is the last to toot his own horn.  He probably felt he could honestly add to the thread.  If you note, Darryl rarely enters into any form of a "battle of the brands" type of discussion.

Darryl is probably one of the most Optically respected OptiBoarders as far as education and the like.  I think he posts more from the vantage point of an educator than a marketer.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Jo said:* 
> Not that he needs defending, ....................


...........but you are doing it anyhow. I wish I had some brave defenders sometimes out there in cyberspace.





> *Jo said:* 
> He probably felt he could honestly add to the thread.  If you note, Darryl rarely enters into any form of a "battle of the brands" type of discussion.


I don't think that this is/was a battle of the brands. I am actually of the opinion that they (the major manufacturers, optical conglomates) all cook in the same kitchen of the Grand Hotel, only one works for the restaurant downstairs and the others in other areas of the complex and compete for the available customers.





> *Jo said:* 
> Darryl is probably one of the most Optically respected OptiBoarders as far as education and the like.



I agree with you. Darryl is a gentleman and we are not insulting each other.

The remarks made in above postings are not meant to insult anybody personally. If some harsh word are said in an opinion against or for a corporation, in french they call them "Societe Anonyme" which is means the owners are anonymous shareholders.

You can not insult somedody that is anonymous, but a corporation alway's sends out a spokesman to defend or promote their policy, product or or any other company opinion.

And we have seen that on this thread if you go back all the postings to the start.

Everybody claims to have the best and newest and latest design in short corridor progressive lenses.

* One qualifaction they all have together, is that they have not been able to get rid of the lens areas that are full of distortion because it is NOT possible to do.*

So I will continue wearing my progressives at cocktail hour invitations only where the "Johnny Walker"(another brand name) lets me forget the distorted peripheral vision and wear my clean clear ST35's for work

----------


## skirk1975

I have had great success with the Shamir Piccolo.  I have fit countless people at 16mm high and I don't think I have ever had a problem.  It is well priced also.  Hoya Summit CD and Rodenstock XS also have good product at this height.

----------


## mrba

Chris,

I had a patient with high cyl and keritoconus walk out the door teary eyed looking up and to the left and right... like seeing the world for the first time.  During the dispensing she said she had another 10-15 degrees peripherally.  She ordered another pair.

Havn't had a dispensing like that in a long time.  For all intents and purposes peripheral distortion was all but gone.

Rx was unchanged from previous lens which was Hoya wide.

Thank You Gradal Individual...

----------


## Darryl Meister

See, this is why I usually hang out in the Ophthalmic Optics forum. ;)




> As for historical anti trust considerations... were you trying to make a point in favor or against manufacturers?


Neither, really. I'm simply pointing out that manufacturers have been quite successful at running lab operations in the past.




> Darryl is probably one of the most Optically respected OptiBoarders as far as education and the like.


Thanks for the kind words, Jo.




> but a corporation alway's sends out a spokesman to defend or promote their policy, product or or any other company opinion.


I tend to think of it as "stifling the spread of disinformation," which is a popular pastime on the Internet.

While I, personally, refrain from "pushing" SOLA's products on OptiBoard, for obvious reasons, it is entirely appropriate for _any_ of us associated with lens manufacturers to clarify, reconcile, or even enhance someone's understanding of our products when the situation demands it or when we are called upon to do so. As I said earlier, it would be remiss of us not to... Not just as an Essilor or a Shamir or a SOLA employee, but as somone who understands the product well enough to do so.

As a matter of fact, though few people may realize it, I believe that one of the major benefits of this forum _is_ having _direct access to_ and _involvement from_ such manufacturers. And I think it would be nice to see even _more_ manufacturers actively participate on this forum.

**** TECHNICAL MARKETING CONTENT -- ENTER AT OWN RISK ****




> Actually, we've run some wearer comparisons... between Compact and Comfort... Comfort scored higher in every category measured.


In all fairness to AO Compact (and keep in mind that I have _nothing_ to do with technical marketing for the AO side), this study only had something like 20 people in it (so I doubt the results were statistically significant), I believe it was over a relatively short duration (which means adaptation will play a large role), many of the wearers were previous Comfort wearers to begin with (which means they were already comfortable with the design), the results will depend largely on the types of questions asked, and it _was_ sponsored by Essilor... ;)

I seem to recall a J&J study that stated, "Presbyopes preferred Definity lenses' advanced performance 3 to 1 over [Varilux Comfort]." I suspect, however, that if you guys had your own clinical study comparing the two, the tagline would read quite differently. ;)




> Having looked at the power profile and measurements of Compact's sphere slopes and some other characteristics of the design


I am assuming by "sphere slopes" you are referring to something like the gradient, or rate of change, of mean power across the surface. The distance region and periphery of AO Compact will have less over all (integrated) change in mean power than Varilux Comfort, where I believe it matters most, but immediately adjacent to the near region AO Compact will have more.

However, keep in mind that this is due to the design's approach to providing a short corridor and a high near zone, and a high gradient in this area is, in my opinion, less detrimental to vision (otherwise, flat-top wearers would be throwing their lenses at you). Consequently, given the success of AO Compact, I would say that their design choices, which by necessity require compromises, were quite sensible.

Lastly, I will say this of AO Compact and "short corridor" lenses in general:

The foreward-thinking folks at AO brought a product to the market to solve a dispensing issue that no-one else had bothered addressing. They saw a problem, and gave dispensers a solution. It was, in fact, the _first_ progressive lens _specifically designed_ for small frames. And it has performed very well for dispensers and wearers, alike.

Since then, however, many manufacturers have realized that it's "okay" to design a product for this kind of niche, and have scurried to jump on the "short corridor" bandwagon. And a few actually work quite well. However, marketing against other short corridor progressives _solely_ on the basis of incremental reductions in corridor length may leave dispensers with the mistaken impression that corridor length, alone, is the only important measure of performance.

*RESUME REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING*

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Pete Hanlin

In all fairness to AO Compact... this study only had something like 20 people in it (so I doubt the results were statistically significant), I believe it was over a relatively short duration (which means adaptation will play a large role), many of the wearers were previous Comfort wearers to begin with (which means they were already comfortable with the design), the results will depend largely on the types of questions asked, and it was sponsored by Essilor...
Fundamentally speaking, I agree with your points (which is why I pointed out that the objectivity of the study does have to be considered since Essilor sponsored it).  Questions of objectivity will arise anytime a manufacturer compares its own product to another's.

I seem to recall a J&J study that stated, "Presbyopes preferred Definity lenses' advanced performance 3 to 1 over [Varilux Comfort]." I suspect, however, that if you guys had your own clinical study comparing the two, the tagline would read quite differently.
Actually, we didn't even need to do our own comparison- after asking J&J for details regarding how their "study" was conducted (still waiting on that one), some of the ECPs who have access to both products did their own comparisons.  Since I've gone to the trouble of mentioning these comparisons, you can guess which product prevailed.  Its fairly easy to demonstrate that the J&J product is nothing "revolutionary," and- in fact- incorporates certain design elements known to be less acceptable to wearers.

I am assuming by "sphere slopes" you are referring to something like the gradient, or rate of change, of mean power across the surface. The distance region and periphery of AO Compact will have less over all (integrated) change in mean power than Varilux Comfort, where I believe it matters most, but immediately adjacent to the near region AO Compact will have more.
Actually, Essilor studies have shown that wearers are more sensitive to restriction of the distance periphery in smaller frames than in larger frames.  In larger frames, patients are more sensitive to symmetry.  According to Essilor measurements, AO Compact has a distance zone with minimal distortion that encompasses about 109 degrees (taken from the fitting cross).  Using similar measurement parameters, the Varilux Ellipse zone will be about 140 degrees.

However, marketing against other short corridor progressives solely on the basis of incremental reductions in corridor length may leave dispensers with the mistaken impression that corridor length, alone, is the only important measure of performance.
On this point (and many others, I would suspect), we completely agree.  The "old" measures of PAL performance (width of zones, softness of design, and more recently corridor length), have been replaced by several considerations which are addressed in modern lenses.  Namely, does the design take into account the ametropia and level of presbyopia of the wearer?  How symmetrical is the distortion in the lens?  How smooth is the peripheral progression in the lens?  And so on...

As Darryl has mentioned, the AO Compact design was launched years ago- it was the pioneer of the market, and the "foresight" of AO gave them good positioning in what has turned out to be a significant market.

In the end, having several large lens manufacturers promoting products is beneficial to the market.  Each new design challenges those of competitors and leads to more R&D and new products.

I figured the "other countries" point would come up. That doesn't compare apples to apples. Eyecare and expectations of manufacturers are so different in other countries. Not saying which is worse or better... But I rather prefer a doctor that isn't employed by a manufacturer, and required to use their lenses to give me his unbiased oopinion, as to what my lens and coating needs are.
As I recall, you were the one making the accusation that manufacturer's "don't understand the lab business."  Then, when it is pointed out that manufacturers ARE the lab business in most countries, you state this is irrelevent.  Also, I know Essilor doesn't employ dispensing ECPs or force them to use our products (I know of no such arrangements with other manufacturers, either).  

Finally (at last), I think it should be pointed out that the vast majority of PAL designs simply _work._  You can fit a patient with a Sola VIP (which even Darryl would admit is a rather outdated design) and many patients will be "satisfied."  What we are comparing here amounts to very minute levels of performance.   Fortunately, patients are always interested in purchasing products which give higher levels of performance.   After all, a well maintained Chevette will get you back and forth from work pretty much as well as a Cadillac Escalade- however, the Escalade will let you rid in somewhat better comfort and may give you a little more versatility...

----------


## mrba

Pete missed my point completely,
I guess I should respond at least in how what I said was referenced...

I have been told In Germany and France for instance opticals often work for the manufacturer.  I will confirm this with an optician friend in Paris, and if I am wrong I will delete this part of the post.

Also I was saying that the fact that manufacturers do lab work world wide IS IRRELEVANT, and it is simply because the US market is different.

If you are not aware of the differences in US market and US customer expectations I will let that speak for itself.

----------


## jediron1

skirk1975 said:
I have had great success with the Shamir Piccolo. I have fit countless people at 16mm high and I don't think I have ever had a problem. It is well priced also. Hoya Summit CD and Rodenstock XS also have good product at this height.

Well I have seen quite a few of those 16mm fit lenses with people coming into my office complaining they have to pick up there head to see and even when they do they have such a small area that it is uncomfortable to wear. So I am very happy to have all you continue to fit those 15 and 16mm heights and I will continue to reap the rewards of people complaining that they can't read with those 15 and 16mm fit lenses. Please keep fitting
them my business is booming because of them!:drop:

----------


## Texas Ranger

I don't suppose i've had the opportunity to fit a "short corridor" pal design, and have pretty much stuck to a 19mm minimum on Panamics. Sure to some degree the "fashion" aspect of frame "styling" has "wagged the dog". but I think it our(opticians) job professionally to inform(educate) our clients about the "good and the bad" of why we might recommend certain lens designs. but the main problem with presbyopes in small "B" frames is that when they look down to read, they must drop their head down to move the reading area down, or look under the frame, a rather awkward price for fashion; if they're a myope, why not just put a SV lens in the frame and let them read under it? but, we need to advise the pt that that is what they will be doing. I think i'd fit Chris with a Nikon Online pc lens for that big desk, instead of the FT-35s.  I just got the info yesterday on the Vx Ellipse, (supposed to be available today...?) I have no idea about it's cost, it's only in Cr-39(for now), I just got a new price list from thier lab, and it's not on it? strange... I do have a pair of Definity lenses and they seem quite nice, and I wear the Nikon Online lenses from 8:30 to 6:00 every day in the office, with the top 1.50 weaker than the bottom, a lot like the old read-rite lens of old that looked like an inverted ultex...hip chic is right, educating the pt to let THEM make an informed decision is critical...in the people amaze me dept. lady was in with some of these "competitor" glasses: -250-1.00x90 2.00 add, pupils at 23mm in a frame with a B of 35; seg ht of no-line that she's been wear for two yrs= 30mm, she said that if she dropped her head a bit and looked out the tpo of the lens, it helped with her driving! so, I feel that until there are people fitting lens that "care" about what they are doing, the lens design discussions are moot!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Texas Ranger said:*  
> 
> ..................................I feel that until there are people fitting lens that "care" about what they are doing, the lens design discussions are moot!



*You got a point*

----------


## keithbenjamin

> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> I know Essilor doesn't employ dispensing ECPs or force them to use our products


No, they just strong-arm their "independent" distributer labs into recommending and selling Varilux above everything else to those ECPs. 

But hey, I guess all's fair in love and ...marketing?


It was mentioned how the AO compact was the first of its kind and a pioneer in the area of low fitting progressives. It is interesting to note upon the release of the Compact, certain other manufacturers' recommended fit heights magically dropped from 22 or 24 to 18 overnight. If you want to know which ones, take a look at your old Progressive Lens Identifiers.

----------


## jediron1

I was wondering why keithbenjamin was getting so hot in the collar with Pete, then I went to" Laramy-K Optical Laboratory: Quality Uncut Ophthalmic Lenses" and found out why. Varilux and 
Laramy-K don't get along to well. Thats ok as long as we are all 
playing on an equall playing field. This is just my thought but it seems Laramy-k has a bone to pick with Pete and Varilux which
from what I could gather is a little bogus at best.
:drop:

----------


## mrba

I doubt you are correct.  It is obviously profitable for Kieth's lab not to sell Varilux product.  I would assume they have begged for Laramy to sign a contract stateing that they would sell Varilux as "the best" choice.

Laramy K has morals I guess, wish I could say the same for Varilux.

----------


## keithbenjamin

MRBA,

Thanks for the kind words although "begged" is probably a stong word. We're not THAT big, yet. ;)

Jediron, 

We have no bones to pick, certainly not with Pete. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut. We just happen to take our independence seriously. We're in the information business as much as anything. If asked, we will always recommend the lens that we feel best suits the purpose, regardless of the manufacturer, price, or profit. That may be a Rodenstock, a Hoya, a Shamir, a Younger, a Zeiss, a Sola, or even an Essilor, but unfortunately it won't be a Varilux. Not because we think Varilux is a bad lens. We don't. We provide availability information on Varilux to our customers that use it. You can look at our Progressive Lens Chart online to see that. 

It's just that there are a lot of other good products out there and we weren't willing to sign a contract that WE felt would compromise our integrity. Now, was that a smart business decision? I don't know. Seems we could probably boost our production by at least 20% by distributing Varilux, which is huge, especially these days, but that's the choice we made. We certainly don't fault other labs that have made the decision to distribute their product. A Varilux contract is big deal in the industry and means a significant amount of income. Maybe other labs haven't been asked to sign the same contract we were asked to sign. We do, however, have a lot of contact with other labs and know that many of them, while greatful for the income, lie awake at night knowing, if Varilux were to pull their distributorship, they'd be out of business, plain and simple. Seeing Essilor expand their lab business, certainly doesn't help them sleep any better. Not to say Varilux is alone in this. Everyone knows questionable practices are rampant throughout the optical industry. And we're not claiming to be perfect. We just try to steer clear of as much of it as possible, run our business as ethicaly as we know how, and try to provide our customers and their patients with the best information and product to suit their needs. Maybe we're too idealistic, but as I said above, for better or worse, that's the path we've chosen. 

-KB

----------


## jediron1

keithbenjamin there was to ill will intended in my response. I was
just responding from reading your responses you made on this
thread about the Varilux product and there distrubution. Now I happen to wear the Varilux lens and find it far superior to any of the other lenses I have tried. I have tried at least six different brands and still came back to the Varilux. It is far superior in all areas. I understand your stance and you are entitled to it. I also believe in the philosophy you expoused in giving the patient the
best possible lens for there situation. It probable came down from  reading your reply to a misunderstanding on what you really
meant in your other posts.
:bbg:

----------


## mrba

> *jediron1 said:* 
> I was wondering why keithbenjamin was getting so hot in the collar with Pete, then I went to" Laramy-K Optical Laboratory: Quality Uncut Ophthalmic Lenses" and found out why. Varilux and 
> Laramy-K don't get along to well. Thats ok as long as we are all 
> playing on an equall playing field. This is just my thought but it seems Laramy-k has a bone to pick with Pete and Varilux which
> from what I could gather is a little bogus at best.
> :drop:


Laramy K and Essilor are on by no means on an equal playing field... Which speaks to the brilliance of Laramy K if you ask me!

:finger:

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I'm going to try to stay focused on addressing the technical issues that have been raised in this thread.  Suffice it to say, however, that I don't feel that Keith has been taking any "shots" at Essilor/Varilux.

Naturally, when you are the owner, the "business" becomes especially personally relevent.  Its not surprising then, when a lab owner has strong convictions about the state of the laboratory market in the US.  

That said, I would like to address a few points...

That may be a Rodenstock, a Hoya, a Shamir, a Younger, a Zeiss, a Sola, or even an Essilor, but unfortunately it won't be a Varilux. Not because we think Varilux is a bad lens. We don't. We provide availability information on Varilux to our customers that use it. You can look at our Progressive Lens Chart online to see that. 
With the exception of possibly Hoya, I believe most Independent Varilux Distributors deal with most if not all of the products mentioned (Hoya- like Essilor- has a limited distribution network).  Even Essilor-owned laboratories provide lenses from other manufacturers.  Like any such agreement, the Varilux distributor contract has provisions and responsibilities- for both Essilor and the distributing laboratory.  The contract doesn't keep a laboratory from using other manufacturer's products.

It was mentioned how the AO compact was the first of its kind and a pioneer in the area of low fitting progressives. It is interesting to note upon the release of the Compact, certain other manufacturers' recommended fit heights magically dropped from 22 or 24 to 18 overnight. If you want to know which ones, take a look at your old Progressive Lens Identifiers.
I can name one- Varilux Comfort.  The original fitting recommendation for Varilux Comfort was 22 (or 24, I wasn't here then).  The current minimum fitting height is 18.  I can tell you the design hasn't changed- so what has?

The answer is that the definition of "minimum fitting height" has changed.  In 1994 (when Comfort was introduced), the tiny oval frame shape hadn't yet reached its current popularity.  Frames were rounder and a bit larger.  The minimum height you can fit a Varilux Comfort and receive the _optimal_ benefit of the entire reading area is 22mm.  

Today, frames have become exceptionally small.  As a result, the "minimum fitting height" has now been defined by opticians as the _"minimum height at which the patient has enough area to read."_  At 18mm, Varilux Comfort provides about 5.5mm of comfortable reading area.  So, while an 18mm height isn't optimal, it does permit the design to work as well as- better in most cases, actually- than a lens originally marketed with a shorter fitting height recommendation.

Truth be told, most of the "short corridor" lenses on the market have an "optimal" fitting height that is considerably higher than their advertised "minimal" fitting height.  Just analyze the design and you'll see my point.  Even the advertising for many of these PALs demonstrate the product at a height considerably above the MFH recommendation.

There are some exceptions, and since this thread started out on the subject of short corridors, I'll mention them.  The Rodenstock Life XS is quite short.  Next to Varilux Ellipse (available this Monday- the 12th), it is the shortest progression on the market.  Seiko also has a short progression.

----------


## mrba

I believe that contract requires that the distributors of Varilux promote it as their first and best choice lens.  I think that Doctors should know that, when their labs give them advise.  Don't you all think that opticals expect honest advise instead of advise given "under contract"?

Please note I have seen these contracts at other labs which doesn't mean all distributers are under the same contract.  I also did not quote an actual contract verbatim.

----------


## keithbenjamin

> Like any such agreement, the Varilux distributor contract has provisions and responsibilities- for both Essilor and the distributing laboratory. The contract doesn't keep a laboratory from using other manufacturer's products.


That's correct Pete, the Varilux contract certainly doesn't prevent the distributing lab from using other manufacturer's products. It is however, explicit in stating the distributing lab must recommend Varilux product when asked and is restrictive about the distributor lab taking part in other manufacturer's promotions, unlike other manufacturer's contracts. That's what we weren't able to abide by. It's not that Varilux doesn't make a good lens, but no manufacturer makes lenses that are ideal for all situations.

It's also not that we wouldn't want to distribute Varilux. It would certainly make a number of our customers happy and would probably bring us even more customers, it's just that we couldn't sign the contract, couldn't get any wiggle room in it, and we have to live with it (but at least we can sleep at night).


Interesting bit of information on the recommended min fit height. Although I'm wondering who the opticians are that define "recommended minimum fitting height." They must work at Essilor.  :bbg: 
I've noticed that some manufacturers have stuck to their 22's, 23's and 24's.

-KB

----------


## Chris Ryser

Having been around Varilux since it's inception around 1955. My father was one of the first opticians to be presnted with a trial pair by the then president of SL (ESSILOR).

It was always stipulatd to give a perfect height as Pete ha s statet in above posting.

*I personally think it is the greed and competitive inststinct of the opticians to sell these progressives that the public wants mounted into these mini frames. Opticians are worried that the customers goes to the competition who will sell this more or less useless pair of glasses with a reading portion that measures 5.5mm*

Now having said my piece of mind we can start fighting again about seg heights rather than Varilux contracts.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Interesting bit of information on the recommended min fit height. Although I'm wondering who the opticians are that define "recommended minimum fitting height." They must work at Essilor.  I've noticed that some manufacturers have stuck to their 22's, 23's and 24's.
If you are suggesting there should be an objective, clear definition of a minimum fitting height, I am with you 100%.  In fact, it would make my job considerably easier (and I'm all for easy).  

Given all the progressions on the market- and all the methods different manufacturer's use to mark the lenses- I try to go by lens functionality.  With that as a measure, all I can offer is that Varilux Comfort- in my opinion- should work as least as well as most of the short corridor PALs down to 17 or 18mm.  I've already stated that I personally wouldn't want to be fitting patients this low anyway, but if people are going to do it you have to tell them what works and what doesn't I suppose.

As for recommending lenses as first choice and all, look...  I suppose you just have to believe in what you're selling.  I know some fine professional people who sell Rodenstock, Shamir, SOLA, Hoya, etc. and earnestly believe it to be the best.  That's _great_- if you can't believe in what you sell, you shouldn't be selling it.  Fortunately, I believe pretty strongly in Varilux and Essilor products- and I think there are some pretty good bases for the beliefs.  

Does that mean I would _never_ recommend some other manufacturer's product in certain cases?  Of course not- I've recommended Blended bifocals several times over the past couple years (Essilor doesn't make Blended bifocals).  Overall, however, I'm hard pressed to think of too many scenarios where Essilor doesn't make a product that is either the best or comparable to the best for the patient's needs.

As my dad says though- _"Opinions are like _________, everyone has one."_  (Fill the blank in however you see fit. ;^)

Pete "we'll both sleep well tonight- and that's the way it should be" Hanlin

----------


## jediron1

I'll just say what I have been saying to all you who want to fit at 17 and lower, please keep it up, my business is booming because
of your fitting techniques. I just had a woman in today who was complaning that she had to pick her head up to read and that it hurt her neck. I went on to EDUCATE her on the relevance of having lenses placed that low. But she said I paid big bucks for these and they told me everything would work, well it didn't and I was there to grab the business and do some EDUCATING of my own. The price of you selling those progressives so low is just enriching my bottom line. I THANK YOU ALL!:bbg: :D

----------


## Chris Ryser

*Wisdom stands at the turn in the road and calls upon us publicly, but we consider it false and despise its adherents."* 

-Kahlil Gibran, "Between Reality and Fantasy"

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Harry,

I'm presently wearing a Concise at 19mm (B= 28mm -4.50 add 2.25). I placed an ink line at 16mm to see if I could read comfortably, and J1 was sharp and clear. I actually had to tip my head slightly to see the line. However, the "new" bottom of the frame was very obvious and disconcerting. Essentially unwearable. 

When I see a 16mm fitting cross height my immediate concerns are that the frame is not, or can not be adjusted "in and down" sufficiently, and if it is, the B is so narrow that the client will see the top and/or bottom of the frame (tunnel vision), enough so that it will be extremely uncomfortable. 

After optimizing the frame fit I ask the client if they notice the top or bottom of the lens, if it would be something that would be irritating, and if so bump the B measurement by changing the frame size and/or shape. I've yet to make a PAL at 16mm after informing the client of the vertical field of vision concern, 17-18mm seems quite common though. 

Robert

----------


## mrba

> *jediron1 said:* 
> I'll just say what I have been saying to all you who want to fit at 17 and lower, please keep it up, my business is booming because
> of your fitting techniques. I just had a woman in today who was complaning that she had to pick her head up to read and that it hurt her neck. I went on to EDUCATE her on the relevance of having lenses placed that low. But she said I paid big bucks for these and they told me everything would work, well it didn't and I was there to grab the business and do some EDUCATING of my own. The price of you selling those progressives so low is just enriching my bottom line. I THANK YOU ALL!:bbg: :D




... Or maybe she was under powered in the add.  What was the desighn?

----------


## mrba

> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> As for recommending lenses as first choice and all, look...  I suppose you just have to believe in what you're selling.  I know some fine professional people who sell Rodenstock, Shamir, SOLA, Hoya, etc. and earnestly believe it to be the best.  That's _great_- if you can't believe in what you sell, you shouldn't be selling it.  Fortunately, I believe pretty strongly in Varilux and Essilor products- and I think there are some pretty good bases for the beliefs.



Alright pete I'll bite.  Why is Varilux better than everyone else?  We want reasons not spiel please.  It's time, let us have it. :Rolleyes:

----------


## jediron1

Nice try mrba. Add was +2.50 and it was a Sola design:hammer:

----------


## mrba

> *jediron1 said:* 
> Nice try mrba. Add was +2.50 and it was a Sola design:hammer:



I was unaware sola had a short corridor?  Not sure if 2.50 add means pt wasn't under plussed?

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I would list the reasons for my belief in Varilux products under the following groups: R&D, Distribution, and Consistency.

Regarding R&D, Varilux designs are created through a solid conceptual process called the "Dioptric Loop," which is comprised of the following steps:
*Designation of "Merit Functions"-*  Based on results gathered from years of wearer studies and clinical trials, merit functions- or the expected performances of design- are created by the designer.  A computerized program calculates a design that will match the design functions through application of the data within the survey databases.
*Creation of molds-* Once a design is proposed, molds are created to reproduce the design on test lenses.  Molds are expensive to create and the design is time consuming.  Basically, molds are being created to produce a lens design that will never be sold.
*Verification of molds-* It does no good to test if the molds haven't accurately replicated the intended design.  Essilor has a rather impressive facility for measuring the surface powers of molds and lenses.
*Test lens production-* Lenses are produced in quantities sufficient for wearer studies.
*Wearer studies-* Wearers across the Rx range evaluate design performance in several areas related to the original merit functions.
*Compilation of data-* The input from these wearer studies is compiled and used to measure the actual design performance against the original merit functions.  Once the performance is evaluated, the designer adjusts the design to better meet the merit functions.  At this point, the process starts again and new test lenses are created, and so on and so on.  

In the end, the process may be slow and expensive- but by utilizing a large number actual wearer experiences I believe it is reasonable to assume the designs are proven by the time we launch them.  I'm sure other manufacturers spend resources and time- and perhaps engage in somewhat similar processes- in the development of their designs.  However, since the manufacture and fabrication of ophthalmic lenses is Essilor's _only_ business, quite a large sum of money is invested in R&D to retain a competitive edge in the market.  Based on my tours of the Essilor R&D facilities, if there is a more extensive R&D program out there, I'd certainly enjoy touring it.

Regarding distribution, Essilor has invested in the infrastructure necessary to consistently provide ordered products.  In Columbus, Ohio, the main distribution center stocks something like 23 million lenses.  Over the past 16 months, they have had zero "no ships."  In other words, if you place your order before the daily deadline, if the lenses are in stock they will go out that same day.  The people who work at the distribution center are nothing short of amazing.  There will always be backorders (although the percentage, which is closely tracked, is amazingly low considering the volumes shipped), but I would venture to say there are few companies that do a better job of distributing their products consistently and accurately.

Finally, it comes down to consistency.  I am not here to disparage the quality of any other manufacturer.  However, as the manager of Essilor's Market Quality department, I can say that the quality of Essilor lenses generally compares rather favorably with most of the other products out there- and we measure both ours and their quality pretty much constantly.

So, to summarize, I believe in the effectiveness of Varilux products because a.) the quality of the R&D process used to create the designs, b.) the quality of the infrastructure used to distribute the product worldwide, and c.) the ability to consistently produce the same design from lot to lot.

Beyond the actual product are the resources Essilor dedicates to educating both the eye care professional and the consumer about PAL lenses.  Naturally, the consumer advertising is geared towards the promotion of our own product (it would be rather silly if it were not), but overall the general effect is a greater awareness of PAL technology- and that has a side effect of increasing the total market, not just Essilor products.

Regarding education of professionals, Essilor invests considerable resources in training both dispensers and laboratory technicians.  The Laboratory University I oversee may not be the only program of its kind, but I would imagine it is certainly one of the few opportunities laboratories have to send their managers out for an A-Z review of how to manage a lab- from HR through surfacing and finishing and equipment selection.

In case its difficult to tell, I enjoy working for Essilor / Varilux and am extremely proud to make my small contributions to the overall success of the company.  I suspect you are also quite proud of your business, and that's great.   I would suspect that an employee of any other lens manufacturer could probably make a case for the superiority of their design, distribution, and quality control processes as well.  From my vantage point, however, there are some pretty logical reasons for Essilor's performance in the PAL and AR market in the US- and most of them have very little to do with marketing or contracts.

----------


## jediron1

Look  mrba, the product was a Sola. The whole point of my reply
was people are fitting these to low and even with the short corridor ones they still don't have the freedom and reading ability
that you do in a longer corridor lens. I still want my competition 
to keep fitting them, because as I SAID BEFORE I M DOING A BOOMING BUSINESS IN REFITS. So mrba put that in your pipe and smoke it, because it seems your smoking something. Ha HA :hammer:

----------


## mrba

> *jediron1 said:* 
> Look  mrba, the product was a Sola. The whole point of my reply
> was people are fitting these to low and even with the short corridor ones they still don't have the freedom and reading ability
> that you do in a longer corridor lens. I still want my competition 
> to keep fitting them, because as I SAID BEFORE I M DOING A BOOMING BUSINESS IN REFITS. So mrba put that in your pipe and smoke it, because it seems your smoking something. Ha HA :hammer:


And my point  is that the progressive was a sola and therfore probably not a short corridor.  Hence, as soon as your competition gets saavy to short corridor progressives, you will be in the smoke at 22 hi

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *mrba said:* 
> 
> *Its all "good $hit" right? so stay higher than the rest, and enjoy it while you can bud.
> 
> 
> Harde har har har he he he ha ha ha*



Whatever you are smoking,  if the trend of shorter corridors continues you are going to end up with a zero corridor and you are back to the  straight line.............equal............straight top and perfect reading.

If poeple can't read properly, they have been ill advised and the optician who knows the basics will be the ultimate successful one.

----------


## keithbenjamin

Jediron,

So people can't read properly in a straight top? 

Intermediate isn't always important. They probably couldn't read because they were a fit with a Sola as a short corridor and wound up with the add cut off (as mrba pointed out). I'd be willing to bet if they had been fit properly with a Brevity, XS, Summit CD, or Piccolo, they would have had no problems. I've known lots of people to have success with these lenses.

-KB

----------


## mrba

> *Chris Ryser said:* 
> Whatever you are smoking,  if the trend of shorter corridors continues you are going to end up with a zero corridor and you are back to the  straight line.............equal............straight top.


OH GOD! Not that!  You strike me as someone who thinks that any trend shorter at all will end in its extreame?  Ok Kojak, find me a company planning on the 4 hi or a 10 hi or a 13 hi progressive.




> If poeple can't read properly, they have been ill advised and the optician who knows the basics will be the ultimate successful one.


I know the basics of short corridors, when they work and when they don't.  Intermediate is not nessecary for everyone, especially an emerging presbyope.

I agree with everything KB said except for the summit cd.  Been there done that.  Doesn't work at 14 or 15 maybe 16... XS is such a better desighn.  Piccolo good. Brevity very good.

HAVING NEVER HAD A REDO AND REPEAT CUSTOMERS WITH SHORTYS I WILL CONTINUE TO USE THEM UNTIL I DIE.  THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING.

The Sonny Clark is just so on today...

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I agree with everything KB said except for the summit cd. Been there done that. Doesn't work at 14 or 15 maybe 16... XS is such a better desighn. Piccolo good. Brevity very good.
I just didn't want to miss the opportunity to agree with you on something.  Based on the power progression profile of the design, the Hoya Summit CD probably doesn't perform all that well at 14-15mm.  On the other hand, the Rodenstock Life XS is a rather short- if extremely hard- design, so it should work better at lower fitting heights.  In fact, wearer studies Essilor has performed comparing the Life XS and Varilux Ellipse show that the Rodenstock product performs pretty well (Varilux Ellipse scored better, but the Rodenstock product wasn't bad).

----------


## mrba

Agreement with me is appreciated, but not your true agenda.

Ok kids,
What was Pete's real agenda in agreeing with me?  Answer will be posted later.

Hint: He restated what I said referencing an Essilor funded study that said;         Essilor=Good        Hoya=Bad (What a suprise)

and then there was Rodenstock=almost as good

as if Rodenstock is a competetor or something...



:shiner:

----------


## keithbenjamin

Oh, c'mon now mrba. Pete may work for the French company and be somewhat biased, but he's still a nice guy. Of course, he threw in the Ellipse, it is after all his job.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *keithbenjamin said:* 
> *..............Of course, he threw in the Ellipse, it is after all his job.*



At least he is alway's present. What I would like to see some of the other manufacturers have some spokesman come on the Optiboard and explain their side.

----------


## Cowboy

MRBA,

With regards to Pete's response and your perception of his agenda, the fact is, it is your agenda that is prohibiting you from seeing the truth. He simply gave a statistical observation as well as agreed with your points. I have met Pete outside of this forum and I find it hard to believe that he would just simply give a random point of view without having a way to back it up. 

For All...

I believe that I have posted a couple times regarding the 'low height' issue. We all have our favorites because they work. Some are better than others and may not produce any "redo's", However, it does come down to the validity of short corridor pal's and the effectiveness it provides in a well balanced visual aquity scenario. The constant battle of who is right or wrong will be never ending. So, just keep doing what works for you. As long as you educate yourself to educate your patients of the ups and downs of the shorts, ultimately, it does become the clients choice. As professionals, we have to help lead that horse, but still can't make them drink.

:cheers: 

Cowboy

----------


## mrba

> *Cowboy said:* 
> MRBA,
> 
> With regards to Pete's response and your perception of his agenda, the fact is, it is your agenda that is prohibiting you from seeing the truth. He simply gave a statistical observation as well as agreed with your points. I have met Pete outside of this forum and I find it hard to believe that he would just simply give a random point of view without having a way to back it up.


He gave a statistical observation that is potentially biased, and used my points to push his product, under the auspices of complimenting me.  Not sure I shouldn't find that a bit un-nerving... and Pete's undeniable nice guy status, shouldn't have anything to do with that.  His backup is always in his posts, and I think speaks for itself.

I happen to think Pete represents his company very well.  That doesn't mean I should agree with him on anything.

I must also say one other thing.  As a compliment to Pete, he defends himself well.  Not sure what points you were trying to make though...



I'd still drink with you however :cheers:

----------


## mrba

> *Chris Ryser said:* 
> At least he is alway's present. What I would like to see some of the other manufacturers have some spokesman come on the Optiboard and explain their side.


The opportunity is coming soon...

----------


## Cowboy

OK MRBA, when and where!?!:D



:cheers: 

Cowboy

----------


## mrba

I've never drank with an "owning optician" before.  NH?  Ok I do expo in NY every year.  Lets do NY expo next year, drinks on me.

----------


## jediron1

mrba said:
And my point which seems to be lost on you, is that the progressive was a sola and therfore probably not a short corridor. Hence, as soon as your competition gets saavy to short corridor progressives, you will be in the smoke at 22 HI, from whatever you have in your pipe.

I stopped discussing "quality of product" with pot heads years ago, because the endevor is futile... Its all "good $hit" right? so stay higher than the rest, and enjoy it while you can bud.

As usual we get someone who does not read previous posts.
I never said I did not fit low I said I will not fit lower than 18mm.
Far cry from what your saying. Oh by the way the add was a +2.50 and not under corrected, if you had to quess at anything you should have said over corrected.:hammer:

----------


## keithbenjamin

> At least he is alway's present. What I would like to see some of the other manufacturers have some spokesman come on the Optiboard and explain their side.


Indeed. We've been trying to make our manufacturers aware of Optiboard. Managed to get Zeiss in on the Walmart thread (if only for one post). I would suggest ya'll doing the same with your reps.

-KB

----------


## jediron1

keithbenjamin said:

Jediron,

So people can't read properly in a straight top? 

Intermediate isn't always important. They probably couldn't read because they were a fit with a Sola as a short corridor and wound up with the add cut off (as mrba pointed out). I'd be willing to bet if they had been fit properly with a Brevity, XS, Summit CD, or Piccolo, they would have had no problems. I've known lots of people to have success with these lenses.

Where did you come with I don't like straight tops? You must be smoking that same pipe mrba is. In any of my posts I did not say people can't read properly in a straight top. What I did say was 
that I agreed with Chris and that if you wanted a pristine distance
and a large reading area use st.tops. I just had a person in with
I believe it was a Piccolo could not read a thing unless she picked her up. I measured it was fit at 16mm. Again I wrest my case not
to fit lower than 18mm. Smoke that:hammer:

----------


## mrba

Hey Kieth,

Jedron is really obsessed with smoking things isn't he?




> As usual we get someone who does not read previous posts.
> I never said I did not fit low I said I will not fit lower than 18mm.
> Far cry from what your saying. Oh by the way the add was a +2.50 and not under corrected, if you had to quess at anything you should have said over corrected.


I guess you are so high, you just have a different idea of low?! 18 a far cry from 16? Ok.  


regards:p

----------


## hcjilson

Knock off the name calling, insults and inuendo.It shows pettiness as well as a lack of maturity. The moderators are tired of having to babysit those who attach labels to  others with different opinions, and jump all over them when they post. If either of you would care to edit your posts above, to take that stuff out, I will be happy to remove this post which was made necessary by your childishness.

Did it occur to either of you that perhaps the reason more manufacturers don't contribute to our forums has something to do with the poor manners of some of our members? This is not YOUR board, it is OUR board. Conduct yourselves accordingly and as professionals.

Harry C. Jilson

----------


## mrba

> Did it occur to either of you that perhaps the reason more manufacturers don't contribute to our forums has something to do with the poor manners of some of our members? This is not YOUR board, it is OUR board. Conduct yourselves accordingly and as professionals.
> 
> Harry C. Jilson



Harry,
Point well taken.  I apologize for lowering myself.  I will conduct myself more "professionaly" in the future w Jedron.

However, your point about manufacturers is not taken.  I sell as much of their product as you do and everyone else here.  I expect them to participate in discussion of those products. Irregardless of of my irreverence,  they are willing to take my money aren't they?

Just a point.  I don't work for them, and they are not in any way "opti holy".  I suspect some manufacturers are afraid of taking the hard questions.  I really respect Pete for his imput among other reps on these boards.  At least he puts it out there, and although I often spar with him, I respect him for trying and doing a good job at it.

By the way I do respect your concerns... even if you are a liberal!

regards,
mrba

----------


## Darryl Meister

> So people can't read properly in a straight top? Intermediate isn't always important.


Keep in mind that you are talking about two very different lens designs here, though. There's a reason that manufacturers don't make progressive lenses with 5-mm corridor lengths.

Progressive lenses must obey certain mathematical principles in order to produce a change in add power with a smooth surface (having smoothly increasing power and magnification). One of the most important of these principles is that the change in surface astigmatism must increase as the rate of change in add power increases. Shorter corridor lengths require more rapid changes in add power and, consequently, more rapid changes in surface astigmatism.

So, progressive lens manufacturers must make certain compromises or trade-offs when using shorter corridors because of the added restrictions imposed by the increasing astigmatism. They must also find an acceptable balance between viewing zone sizes, peripheral blur, swim, and so on. Unfortunately, there is no magic formula here.

You will also find that _conventional_ progressive lenses have a relatively small range of corridor lengths (on the order of only a few millimeters for +2.00 adds), suggesting that manufacturers have found an optimum range of corridor lengths that allows for a good balance of optical performance and utility. Consequently, you have to ask yourself what compromises you might be tolerating by using corridor lengths that are significantly shorter than necessary simply for the sake of unrestrained frame selection.

One potential issue I see with some new short corridor designs is the tendency for some manufacturers to make the corridor as short as practical, perhaps in order to maintain a simple marketing story. Keep in mind that these designs are still subject to the same compromises described above.

Moreover, they may potentially -- and unnecessarily -- compromise vision for the _majority_ of "small frame" wearers in order to satisfy the most extremes cases. A look at the distribution of frame sizes and required minimum fitting heights would reveal that relatively few frames actually demand _extremely_ short fitting heights. And prudent frame selection reduces that number even further.

For instance, if you design a lens to work at a height of say, 12 mm, in order to fit the 1% of frames out there with B measurements of 24 mm or less, the majority of small frame wearers, who could get by with considerably higher fitting heights, also have to live with the compromises you had to make. As you can imagine, manufacturers must make a lot of decisions as they work towards what they hope is the optimal balance of trade-offs and compromises.

The moral of the story is that nothing in life comes free, and that applies just as much to short-corridor progressives. ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## mrba

> The moral of the story is that nothing in life comes free, and that applies just as much to short-corridor progressives.


It applies to traditional progressives too doesn't it?

----------


## mrba

> *hcjilson said:* 
> Knock off the name calling, insults and inuendo.It shows pettiness as well as a lack of maturity.  If either of you would care to edit your posts above, to take that stuff out, I will be happy to remove this post which was made necessary by your childishness.



Hey wait a minute... Who is calling who names here?!!!
 :Mad:  

If I were to write that professionally I would say...

..."Some of us find the name calling un called for.  If you would care to edit your above posts it would be appreciated.  I would remove this post if that were to happen, and the opti board would be a better place for it.  Thank you for considering your edicate on this public forum"...

I don't think you are very professional either and that sentance you wrote is the reason.

:finger:

Irregardless of your lack of tact I will try to edit my part above as possible.

----------


## Occulus Sinister

HC,
I am newly registered to the boards, but have read them for quite a while and loved this thread especially... I am familiar with mrba's postings, and although a bit edgy, I enjoy them.

I think he was right to call you on YOUR namecalling, and I think you are too sensitive.  Take a hint from your friend Shanbaum.  He doesn't like mrba's opinions, but humbles him with a bit more.. shall we say persuasive tone?

mrba,
I know you can be a little smarter about what you say.  I want to say tone it down, but then again it just wouldn't be you would it?  Well as you once said, Inter Arma Legus Silent.

Jedron,
It helps to not tell people to shove things in their pipe.

peace out bro

----------


## jediron1

To mrba and Occulus Sinister. In the heat of battle sometimes things get said that maybe were not meant to be said. But on the flip side sometimes there can be some meaningful outcome to all
the gabs thrown back and forth. I took no ill to mrba's or keithbenjamin's comments, but you have to look at it from the 
moderators position as they read these from a purely sterile environment not knowing what the vibes are that are being traded back and forth. Actually I find quite stimulating. And by the way thanks for that back handed slap from mrba saying:"I apologize for lowering myself". You had to lower yourself to those deprecating remarks? Come on mrba! 

And yes to your question about traditional progressives but also 
yes to what Darryl Meister said. If you don't get it yet reread Darrly's point it was well put and nails on the head what we have been arguing about these last few weeks. You have to give up something to gain something and in low fitting progressives that 
is normally to much for most people to over come. Basic mathematical principles in a progressive inhibit the design that as the add gets stronger the area for reading gets smaller and smaller. I believe this was bought up earlier in this post or possible another thread.:hammer:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> It applies to traditional progressives too doesn't it?


It applies to everything. Traditional progressives must sacrifice some utility in small frames in order to provide better optical performance (and vision), while short-corridor progressives must sacrifice some optical performance (and vision) for greater utility in small frames.

If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't even have "traditional" versus "small frame" progressives.

And keep in mind that most wearers are not educated in these matters, and rely on our professional judgment. Do we actually ask Mrs. Jones to choose between the use of a tiny frame that must compromise some vision or the use of a slightly larger frame that demands less of a compromise? Consequently, we need to ask ourselves not just whether Mrs. Jones _can_ wear that frame if we can find a progressive to fit it, but also whether Mrs. Jones _should_ wear that frame.

You will eventually get to a point where wearer satisfaction in a small frame is limited by the mathematics of optics, and not by the availability of small frame progressives.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Cowboy

MRBA,

NYC next year, or maybe VE West! - If you go to that one. Otherwise, I guess I will have to endure your wittiness here on the board.

:cheers: 

Cowboy.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Darryl Meister said:* 
> 
> *...........And keep in mind that most wearers are not educated in these matters, and rely on our professional judgment. ...............................*
> 
> Do we actually ask Mrs. Jones to choose between the use of a tiny frame that must compromise some vision or the use of a slightly larger frame that demands less of a compromise? .......................
> 
> *You will eventually get to a point where wearer satisfaction in a small frame is limited by the mathematics of optics, and not by the availability of small frame progressives.*
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


Now that the master has spoken in a "very crystal and optically clear way" we are back to the nitty gritties ....................

A friend of mine wanted a progressive in one of those mini frames and I told her not to do it .........................she got em anyhow from some optician who likes to make a good expensive sale and obviously does not care about the patients maximum comfort. * She now walks around with a pair of fashionable mini lenses and reads through a reading part that is 5mm in height*

She is happy because of the looks and went to the flea market and bought a couple of $ 1.00 readers which she is using to read and work where nobody can see her.

I am still saying that the whole thing and discussion is not a matter of segment heights but more a matter of professional ethics if you know what you are doing .........................or maybe ignorance if you don't.

----------


## keithbenjamin

Darryl,

Changing gears a bit, and going back a few pages... Have you read Dr. Sheedy's _Progressive Addition Lenses - Matching the Specific Lens to Patient Needs_ ?

If so, I'd like to know what you think of the study and Pete's assertions that

"this "study" did not involve any actual wearers- lenses were measured in a static environment using a Rotlex lens analyzer. Additionally, the measures used for a PALs "performance" were zone sizes and length of progression- both of these indicators are outdated and easily disproven as predictive assessments. "

Thanks,

-KB

MrBA, 

Keep it up! Try to keep from getting too personal, but the lively discussion and debate is excellent. I for one have enjoyed it. It was starting to get a little slow around here until you showed up.

-KB

----------


## jediron1

If you want to find out what we have been screaming about in low fitting progressives, I suggest you go to the Sola web site 
and go to the technical papers section where Darryl Meister wrote an excellent article on the mathematically  properties on  long corridors. If you interject the same mathematicall formula to
short corridor lenses you will see why the small percentage of us refuse to fit lower than 18mm.  :hammer:

----------


## mrba

I suppose a fair question for the layman would be, is the math the same for short vs longer?  I'm sure that it is of course, except perhaps the equations use different variables etc. for harder designs?

Does the eye recognize math, or different curves as dramatically as this thread may suggest?  What studies discuss this?  Where can I put my education to good use and learn more about super technical stuff that might not be in english enouph for optiboard?

----------


## jediron1

As usual mrba your sarcasm  begets you. I thought Darryl did an exceptional job on explaining the differences between the soft and hard designs. Now mathemathical formulas won't change 
but the feature he was pointing out the astigmatic changes in the
lenses and what would happen in long corridor lenses with a brief mention of what would happen if it were in a short design were excellent.
In the same technical briefs is an excellent paper by David R. Pope on Progressive Addition Lenses: "History, Design,Wearer Satisfaction and Trends" One thing I would agree is that I would 
put the low fitting progressives into what Mr. Pope calls"niche lenses". Another words to prescribe a lens a progressive for a specific propose. Like golf or driving. His paper was well done and not to technical for most even though you do have to wade through some of the ray tracing formulas and the deminsionless measure. Pete you might want to comment on this
looks and sounds very interesting. See Ya:bbg:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I suppose a fair question for the layman would be, is the math the same for short vs longer? I'm sure that it is of course, except perhaps the equations use different variables etc. for harder designs?


You pretty much have it. Corridor length is just one more parameter (or variable) that designers can play with, just like the size of the viewing zones, softness of the periphery, and so on. A lens designer may come up with a completely new design that is more suitable when the corridor length parameter is reduced, but progressives are all constrained by the same principles.




> Does the eye recognize math, or different curves as dramatically as this thread may suggest?


Sure. In the extreme case, think of the visual differences produced between a single vision (spherical) lens surface and a progressive lens surface, which essentially differ only in curvatures across their surfaces. While progressive lenses do not differ as much from each other as from a single vision lens, a wearer can certainly observe the differences between designs, assuming that the differences are visually significant (after all, some designs are more similar than others). These differences may become even more dramatic for certain prescriptions, fitting situations, or viewing tasks, or for wearers with a greater sensitivity to this sort of thing.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## mrba

> *jediron1 said:* 
> As usual mrba your sarcasm  begets you. I thought Darryl did an exceptional job on explaining the differences between the soft and hard designs.


I had no intention of being sarcastic! I happen to have had a bit of math in college and was interested in how multivariable equations work with respect to lens curves, and where could I learn this.  Not sure that could be put on an optiboard, but maybe there is something on the internet we could link to?

Jedron, I think you tend to read me a bit more harshly that I am really intending.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I happen to have had a bit of math in college and was interested in how multivariable equations work with respect to lens curves, and where could I learn this.


What you're referring to is differential geometry, which requires a pretty extensive background in mathematics. Usually, you'll need two semesters of calculus and a semester of linear algebra before you would normally take a course on differential geometry. After all that, you would get a pretty in-depth look at analyzing and modeling complex curved surfaces, including an understanding of partial derivatives, bi-cubic splines, and a bunch of other strange-sounding stuff. This kind of background is required in order to understand the nature of progressive lenses well enough to design a modern one from scratch.

However, you may find some articles that give you the basic "gist" of what's involved, and maybe even provide you with some of the formulas used.




> Not sure that could be put on an optiboard, but maybe there is something on the internet we could link to?


Again, you could probably find some fundamental principles out on the 'Net, and even patents and that sort of thing, but few manufacturers are going to provide a step-by-step guide to design one of their lenses, since this is generally considered important intellectual property.

Besides, most lenses nowadays are undoubtedly designed iteratively with sophisticated computer software, so you'd have to write your own computer application (and a rather complex one, at that) in order to reproduce what they were doing, even if you knew exactly how they were doing it.

You don't just have a few formulas that you punch numbers into, you have sophisticated algorithms that create base surfaces from proprietary computational methods, using a set of reasonable parameters chosen by the lens designer. These surfaces may then be optimized iteratively using optical ray tracing for various merit functions. The initial designs might even be manually "tweaked" for a number of reasons.

Needless to say, designing a progressive lens is a very complex process.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## jediron1

Darryl:
Your last post was most informative. You should post more on the technical side. At least I would enjoy that and I m sure others would too. I took geometric optics in college where you would compute for thin lenses, thick lenses and different surfaces but since it was a while ago, things have changed in regards to progressives and lenses in general. I found your papers quite informative, please keep it going!:bbg: :D

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I found your papers quite informative, please keep it going!


Thanks, jediron.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Have you read Dr. Sheedy's Progressive Addition Lenses - Matching the Specific Lens to Patient Needs ?... If so, I'd like to know what you think of the study and Pete's assertions that


Yes, I have.

I agree completely with Dr. Sheedy's idea, and we employed a similar visual task analysis about a year or so ago for SOLAOne. However, our analysis was more comprehensive in a number of ways, particularly since we analyzed thousands of prescriptions in the as-worn position for a variety of metrics, including swim, binocularity, ray-traced fields of view, and that sort of thing. We then used some wearer trial data to develop a series of "task" profiles that we characterized with various performance measures in order to assess how each lens design performed. Needless to say, it took a lot of work.

That said, the specifics of Dr. Sheedy's approach differ appreciably from our own in many cases. First and foremost, his comparisons were all based upon vertex power measurements of the lens. We analyze our lenses using optical ray tracing in order to model the eye-lens system with the lens in the _as-worn position_ when measuring fields of view (or viewing zones) and such. Essentially, we model the perception of optics by the actual wearer, based upon assumptions derived from measurements of a large sample population of wearers.

Using vertex or surface power measurements, instead of ray tracing for the as-worn position, may potentially _penalize_ lenses with optimized asphericity, as-worn optimization, or other design choices based upon optical ray tracing, when they may in fact perform _better_ for the wearer. Essentially, surface astigmatism meant to _improve_ vision in some cases would still count against the lens in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation. This would be a consideration for SOLA, since all of our new lenses are optimized for the as-worn position and make use of asphericity in the viewing zones.

Dr. Sheedy is a very sharp guy, which I can personally attest to, and he undoubtedly understands these issues. However, he probably didn't have ray tracing software at his disposal during his evaluation, since these applications are often proprietary -- and the data from the Rotlex also need to be post-processed appropriately in order for a lens to actually be reconstructed from the measurements for the purposes of ray tracing.

His power error thresholds were also relatively tight compared to our own. Dr. Sheedy focused more on the amount of error that the wearer would actually _detect_ (a _just noticeable difference_ threshold), not on how much error the wearer would _accept_, which we feel is more practical when assessing the usable regions of a progressive lens.

At SOLA, for instance, we base our zone size calulations on clinically established blur thresholds using RMS power error, which combines both the spherical _and_ cylindrical errors into a single meaningful measure.

Furthermore, Dr. Sheedy's approach might favor _older_ "harder" designs, since they will generally have larger viewing zones at such a low threshold of unwanted cylinder power. Additionally, his relatively tight sphere power threshold would appear to severely restrict distance vision in many cases. He doesn't sample the distance zone very high above the fitting cross either, which would further limit the size of the distance viewing zone.

Use of lower thresholds would also make the results more sensitive to any noise in the measurements, manufacturing variations, limits in accuracy of the measurements, and so on, which could be more of an issue in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation, since he only used one measurement sample for each lens design.

Another big difference in our approaches is in terms of binocular vision. We assess (again, using optical ray tracing) fields of vision through both eyes, _simultaneously_, in order to determine the _binocular_ performance of a lens. Dr. Sheedy's current approach does not. Consequently, designs with poor binocular alignment, including _older_ "rotated" designs, would appear to produce better vision than they would in practice for the wearer.

Lastly, Dr. Sheedy had only one measure, the maximum level of unwanted cylinder power (astigmatism), that was related to dynamic vision performance and comfort. SOLA also assess things like _image swim_ and _binocular power differences_ across the lens.

In general, the results of Dr. Sheedy's evaluation may be less consistent with some of the modern approaches to lens design that many manufacturers are now pursuing. In particular, some of his measurement choices may potentially disadvantage newer design philosophies, while failing to reveal the performance limitations of older philosophies. Consequently, it's not entirely inconceivable that some lens manufacturers, like Essilor (as Pete mentioned), would take issue with the evaluation.

Nevertheless, I feel that his idea was quite sound, and this type of objective performance assessment would be extremely valuable to eyecare professionals. However, since this _would_ be perceived as an objective assessment by eyecare professionals, it is important that the methodology and assumptions employed reflect the continuing evolution in progressive lens technology. With the right the tools, he could further improve future evalulations in order to ensure that the results are as accurate and meaningful as possible.

Obviously, Dr. Sheedy has fewer resources at his disposal than a major lens manucturer, like SOLA or Essilor, would have -- and this is certainly a consideration. While SOLA (or any lens manufacturer, no doubt) would obviously feel that our approach to lens assessment is preferable for modern lens designs, we can still appreciate the effort that Dr. Sheedy put into his evaluation. And, while we might not wholeheartedly agree with all of his results, we can also appreciate his ultimate goal of educating eyecare professionals on the value of utilizing certain lens designs for specific visual tasks in order to match the performance characteristics of the lens with the visual requirements of the wearer.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## mrba

Darryl,
I would think Vertex VS Ray tracing wouldn't be such a large factor at low power... What is unique about more aspheric desighns that warrant Ray Tracing as a better measurment method?

And by the way, your response to the sheedy study was really neat!  Keep it up, we're learnng something!

----------


## keithbenjamin

Outstanding response Darryl, as usual.
:cheers:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I would think Vertex VS Ray tracing wouldn't be such a large factor at low power... What is unique about more aspheric desighns that warrant Ray Tracing as a better measurment method?


Ray tracing can provide a more accurate look at the performance of the lens at any power, with or without asphericity -- particularly for objects at near and intermediate distances. Ray tracing also facilitates binocular analysis. Consequently, lens designers at SOLA feel that ray tracing is a better approach to assessing lenses, in general.

_Asphericity_, on the other hand, will generally be less of a factor in lower powers, as you point out... Which is a good thing for Dr. Sheedy's evaluation (he used Plano Rx powers). In particular, if a lens uses the same base curve for Plus _and_ Minus Rx powers, it generally won't have a great deal of asphericity in the distance zone.

However, a more generalized approach, suitable for any Rx power, should definitely consider asphericity, which would require at least some form of ray tracing. Moreover, lenses with as-worn optimization may have surface astigmatism/asphericity at near, even for Plano Rx powers. This astigmatism wouldn't necessarily be penalized with ray tracing. SOLAOne, for instance, has "asphericity" at near, even in Plano Rx powers.

A more generalized approach with ray tracing would also be valuable for assessing the performance of the design across different power ranges, which is becoming increasingly relevant as more manufacturers employ design by prescription technologies.

However, more significant differences _will_ be produced by other differences between our methods, for any Rx power, including his tighter power error thresholds, monocular zone measures, and so on. His power error thresholds, in particular, represent an important deviation that can have significant consequences with lenses that have softer viewing zone boundaries.

And, again, I want to point out that these ultimately represent differences in our approaches, and ways that we feel he could have impoved his evaluation methods with additional tools and slightly different assumptions. I certainly wouldn't call Dr. Sheedy's method fundamentally flawed or anything like that.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## mrba

Darryl,

Would the sheedy study be different if Cyl was introduced?  In other words is peripheral distortion constant at plano, and does it increase "evenly" as Cyl is increased in any given meridian.  Or do some lenses handle more cyl better than other lenses that may look superior with minimal cyl?

Was that an intelligent question for 2 hours sleep?:hammer:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Would the sheedy study be different if Cyl was introduced?


If you're referring to prescribed cylinder power, Yes, it will affect the optical performance of the lens. Generally, cylinder power will either expand or contract the viewing zones, depending upon the lens design, amount of cylinder, and orientation of the axis.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Nevertheless, I feel that his idea was quite sound, and this type of objective performance assessment would be extremely valuable to eyecare professionals. However, since this would be perceived as an objective assessment by eyecare professionals, it is important that the methodology and assumptions employed reflect the continuing evolution in progressive lens technology. With the right the tools, he could further improve future evalulations in order to ensure that the results are as accurate and meaningful as possible.
Exactly.  

To re-address one other point, as Darryl points out, PAL manufacturers use ray tracing and other analyses of progressives- including wearer studies.  The wearer studies I speak of here aren't the "marketing" studies that are used to promote one design's superiority over another.  They are a bit more "mundane" and are administered by R&D departments and such.

From Essilor's perspective, the actual experience of the wearer (which is individually subjective, but- when measured in large numbers- does provide reliable indicators of the wearability of the design) is the final and most important evaluation of a design.  Therefore, while I agree with Darryl that the idea behind this study was "quite sound," the execution of the study did not incorporate more advanced measurements (including wearer responses) that could provide findings that would perhaps be more predictive of actual wearer experience.  This is fundamentally my original observation, and unless I misread the preceding, was essentially agreed with (albeit much more eloquently).

As a point of practicality, the resources required to conduct a truly comprehensive study of PAL designs are probably only found in the R&D departments of the major lens manufacturers.  Unfortunately, the acceptance of any study conducted by one of these labs is going to be reduced by: a.) any information coming from a manufacturer will be _considered_ biased, b.) any information coming from a manufacturer _will_ be biased- at the very least from the fact that the factors chosen for the evaluation are likely to be congruent to those used by the company to design PALs.

----------


## ripper

Regardless of style used, we are saying goodbye to the intermediatte!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *ripper said:* 
> 
> *Regardless of style used, we are saying goodbye to the intermediatte!*



I think ripper has a good point.

As far as I learned the progressive lens was originally introduced in the mid 50s by SL (ESSILOR) to replace the trifocal lenses.

Until that time we used straight tops or executives  which had no so called "image Jump" versus the old Kryptok lens which was a fused round segment with the optical centre in the middle and provided a huge "image jump.

The new progessives were going to have a smooth increase in power which would allow you to see at intermediate distances, better than the fixed power trifocal lens.

As the trend seem to be the intermediate will become an invisible dividing line and we will be back to the old system at a much higher price.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> As far as I learned the progressive lens was originally introduced in the mid 50s by SL (ESSILOR) to replace the trifocal lenses.


Believe it or not, the first progressive lens was conceived by Owen Aves in 1907. Henry Gowlland later patented some improved designs in 1909 and 1914. None of these designs were ever "commercially" successful, however. The first progressive lens commerically available in the US was the _Omnifocal_, which was designed by David Volk around 1961, and distributed in the US by Univis in 1965. Essel's _Varilux_, which was designed by Bernard Maitenaz around 1959, was released in the US in 1967 by Titmus.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Chris Ryser

Thanks Darryl,

Some of these items I did not know. Just learned something.

I was actually selling Varilux lenses in my Fathers store in 1959 very successfully as a young optician. That was back in Switzerland.

----------


## fvc2020

Hello


I was wondering since we were discussing short corridors can someone tell which one has a enlongated square for the marking.  My DKNY rep has one and I am unfamilar w/the marking and she is having problems.


Thanks for the hlep 


Christina

----------


## jediron1

ripper said: 

Regardless of style used, we are saying goodbye to the intermediatte! 

That is the point we have been trying to get across, along with not having enough room for the reading area. Finally the point is getting across to some people. We who have been preaching the
short corridor disaster are pleased.:bbg: :D

----------


## mrba

> *fvc2020 said:* 
> I was wondering since we were discussing short corridors can someone tell which one has a enlongated square for the marking.
> 
> Christina


if its a rectangle on its side its an Rodenstock XS

----------


## ammoe2

harry, 


We use the rosenstock xs and love it and have fit as low as 14 with an add bump . 16 is our standard here. We also have patients with very tricky rxs here so these are not very tolerant people visiually speaking. a/o compact is "OKAY" for 17. the new varilux omega is touted for a 14 minimum but I have yet to try it.:bbg:

----------


## Amit

your best best is the new Essilor Ellipse. Claim 14-15mm height with a tradition Varilux style design. Cant go wrong. Ive tried it successfully on adds upto +200, with vdu users even claiming good results. sometimes helps to up the panto tilt tho.

----------


## mrba

Try a 275 add and see what happens at 14 hi!!!

----------


## rwallner

I have been using the Zeiss Brevity for many Rx's and have found it to be excellent (tolerance) The Rodenstock XS is a very good choice as well. But I would have to agree with Pete, short corridors really arent the best solution for presbyopes. It is kind of like a staircase. I you need to get from one level to the next, you can build "comfortable" steps or you can build steps which are either too long or too short.
The levels of the "floors" dont actually change, only the "height or number" of the steps.

----------


## Amit

well obviously a higher add will shorten the corridor, but I consider +2.00 the limit for this height and lens for most people, but as always with prog dispenses visual task analysis and accurate wearing history and symptoms is vital.

----------


## omisliebling

I have had very good luck with Zeiss Brevity and Image fitting at 16.

----------


## jediron1

Jediron1 quoted and then said:ripper said: 

Regardless of style used, we are saying goodbye to the intermediatte! 

That is the point we have been trying to get across, along with not having enough room for the reading area. Finally the point is getting across to some people. We who have been preaching the
short corridor disaster are pleased.:bbg: :D

You guys keep selling those low seg heights becuase I love the business you are generating for me right now. Can't tell you how many low fitting progressive's
I have refit to no lower than 17mm and the patient then tells me I can read again. So guys keep up your work in selling those low fit segs and I will keep reaping the rewards! :Cool:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I have refit to no lower than 17mm and the patient then tells me I can read again. So guys keep up your work in selling those low fit segs and I will keep reaping the rewards!*


Even that is low, the patient can read again through 5-6mm of space, how beautiful...................at keast something if not much.

*Why dont all you guy's and girl go back to the basics and start learning about progressives the generic way..................which means.............not from the sales reps of the different lens makers.................but available literature and learn the proper theory on these type of lenses.*

There must be at least $ 1,000,000 worth of progressives sold per day,
in the USA , through which people can't read no way.

----------


## jediron1

Chris you are 100% correct. Could not agree more! :Cool:

----------


## Johns

*Why dont all you guy's and girl go back to the basics and start learning .*

:finger:

----------


## jediron1

Hey John's who makes you the know it all of optical? :hammer:Wow couple years in the business and now I know it ALL!:drop:

----------


## Johns

Jediron,

The last post was a quote from Chris Ryser.  I just didn't present it correctly.  It reminded me of a teacher admonishing her pupils,thus the :finger: .  The part of the statement struck me as a kind of "know it all statement", but I wasn't the author.

----------


## jediron1

Johns! Then why the finger wagging? Seems strange for someone who does not agree.:hammer:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Jediron,*
> 
> *The part of the statement struck me as a kind of "know it all statement", but            I             wasn't the author.*


I did a study for ESSILOR in Canada in *1963* to find out if they should start selling Varilux lenses within the next year or two on this side of the Atlantic, way ahead of the USA.

*The funniest part of it was interviewing opticians throughout the country, all of which had never heard of a progressive lens. Each physically checked a Varilux lens in my presence and 100% of them declared the particular item as a bad lens full of distortion that could never be sold by any decent optician..*

We have gone a long way since. Just over 30 years ago, a time I was already very familiar with progressive lenses and today I still see opticians squabbling on the Optiboard about technicalities of progressive lenses they still do *NOT* understand *or do not want* to understand, maybe because of greed.

:finger:

----------


## jediron1

Chris I could not agree more. I see all the time people fitting progressives at 14mm, 15mm, 16mm, and 17mm with most of them failing. But most of the time these same dispensers ( and I use that word loosely ) are on this board saying oh ya we can fit progressives at this height and that and say they have no problem, while thier patients are screaming " I CAN"T READ, I HAVE TO PICK MY GLASSES UP TO SEE".

As has been pointed out before on this board, go back and reread your basic physics  principles in relation to how progressives are made. Once you understand that, you would realize that fitting heights as low as 17mm are extremely hard to realize a good reading height. :Cool:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Chris I could not agree more. I see all the time people fitting progressives at 14mm, 15mm, 16mm, and 17mm with most of them failing....................*


jediron1, True story. The little old lady, personal friend asked me my opinion in reference to progressive lenses.

She wanted one of those little square frames 28mm high with a pair of progressives 
I gave her my opinion, I guess everybody knows it by now, and told her that she would not be able to read the newspaper nor see the fine art work she is doing.

She said all her friends were wearing them and I was off my rocker. My answer was that she would not find any good optician that would fit her with such a job.

The first one she went to sold her a pair, exactly as she wanted in exchange for $ 475.00 including the frame.

She came back to me and showed me the job which was fitted at 12mm from the bottom edge. She was totally happy and said it was fantastic.
I gave her something to read.................she put the right hand on the glasses lifted them up .........and read, also moving her head to the right and to the left while doing it.

Maybe we are talking to the Optiwallers instead the Optiboarders.

----------


## Johns

Jediron,

I guess you had to be there...;)

Johns

----------


## jediron1

Johns: Whattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt! I had to be there! Where?:hammer:

----------


## Johns

Jediron,

You had to be...

In my second grade class!! Sister Philomean used to wag her finger at us when she was reprimanding us (which was quite often).  That's all...That's it!  The statement reminded me of someone talking down to a group of people.  The wagging finger fit.

----------


## jediron1

What I believe Chris was saying in post 157 was that you need at least 5mm from the bottom of the lens to get into the full reading area ( usually 5mm is considered additque to start with). If you fit a lens at 14mm and take into account the 5mm for the reading your only left with 9mm. Now that also assumes that your using 5mm. If you want more reading area you will have to compensate from 5mm on up. The more reading room you can give someone the more comfortable they will be in reading through there lenses. :Cool:

----------


## mrba

You guys are too much.  I am going to sell a 14 hi seg ht tomorrow, in celebration of you!

----------


## Johns

I'll celebrate by selling a SV, giving them a subscription to Reader's Digest Large Print Edition, and telling them it's the "no wave" progressive. :Rolleyes:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *You guys are too much. I am going to sell a 14 hi seg ht tomorrow, in celebration of you!*


  mrba...........dont see you wearing a low fit p;) air on your picture

----------


## chip anderson

Tomarrow I am delivering a 10 seg.ht.   Of course, I had sense enough to use a flat top.

Chip

----------


## jediron1

Chip good reply :Cool:

----------


## jediron1

What johns and mrba should do is go back and reread some of Darryl Meister's

postings on this subject. He gives you theoretical aspects as to why fitting at 

18mm and lower is impractical. :Cool:

----------


## slaboff

personally i do not fit progressive below 19, preferably 21 or higher... my 2 cents

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *......................... my 2 cents*


Pobably you made a lot more than 2 cents with that policy in profits and happy customers who actually see what they should see.

----------


## jediron1

Chris said:Pobably you made a lot more than 2 cents with that policy in profits and happy customers who actually see what they should see.

He probable did make more money. With out all the complaints of not seeing and having to redo them, he has saved himself a lot money. :Cool:

----------


## For-Life

What happens when you use 17-20mm fitting heights within that lens' suggested fitting perameters and even 15-16mm with lenses like the Ellipse and Brevity and the customer is not only extremely satisfied, but they also send you a lot of referrals?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *......................................and even 15-16mm with lenses like the Ellipse and Brevity and the customer is not only extremely satisfied, but they also send you a lot of referrals?*


Assuning that these customers of your are first time users of multifocals with a low addition you will have happy customers because they do not know any better.

Most of those I would also assume are women who want a small frame with lenses other than visible bifocals so their age can not be guessed.

Therefore they are happy. In the middle ages the chinese bent their female childrtens toes upwards because it was fashion. Even if they could barly walk as adults they were happy vecause they were assumed to be beauitiful and therefore happy.

Have you ever tried to sell that type of fitting and lens to an architect and seen him happy?

----------


## For-Life

> Have you ever tried to sell that type of fitting and lens to an architect and seen him happy?


Yep, but I have also sold a pair of task specifics to go along with them.  I find that people like architects do not like PAL's for their work and preferm to have a second pair, even if you fit them with a 25mm fitting height with an additional 20mm for distance.  I also find that they are not satisfied with ft-25 to ft-35.  Some people are just better with a second task specific pair.  

However, I do have a doctor here that suggests that a patient get a pair of reading glasses with the purchase of PAL's; however, I tell them to hold off, try the PAL when we are done with them (we actually fit them properly here, unlike most places in town) and then see if you need the extra pair of reading glasses (and I always give them a great price).  I have found that they usually calling raving about how much they like their glasses and are happy that I did not do the reading pair at that time, because they do not need them.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> However, I do have a doctor here that suggests that a patient get a pair of reading glasses with the purchase of PAL's


*Here we have actually a totally new concept in the use and sale of progressive lenses.* 

*When you need a bifocal for reading, but due to the small frame the readiunf portion is actually barely usable for cosmetic reason..................you sell them a pair of single vision readers at a good deal or give them for free.*

*I hope that Pete Hamlin from Essilor will use this new idea and concept immediately for an advertising campaign before the competition will catch on.*

 :Cool:

----------


## For-Life

> *Here we have actually a totally new concept in the use and sale of progressive lenses.* 
> 
> *When you need a bifocal for reading, but due to the small frame the readiunf portion is actually barely usable for cosmetic reason..................you sell them a pair of single vision readers at a good deal or give them for free.*
> 
> *I hope that Pete Hamlin from Essilor will use this new idea and concept immediately for an advertising campaign before the competition will catch on.*


I think you are confused.  I am the one who caused this.  I see this doctor offer it to all prebyopic patients.  Whether they wear a 35 seg in a frame with a 60 B or a PAL in a frame with a 30 B.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Sorry about that. My apology.

----------


## jediron1

Chris posted:*Here we have actually a totally new concept in the use and sale of progressive lenses.*

*Ya with this new concept I may adapt my fitting to lets say maybe 12mm*
*in height because who cares whether you can see, " just put on your reading glasses" WOW what a concept! At least you can sell that extra pair.:hammer:*

----------


## For-Life

> Chris posted:*Here we have actually a totally new concept in the use and sale of progressive lenses.*
> 
> *Ya with this new concept I may adapt my fitting to lets say maybe 12mm*
> *in height because who cares whether you can see, " just put on your reading glasses" WOW what a concept! At least you can sell that extra pair.:hammer:*


please read my original post and my reply

----------


## jediron1

For-Life I was not taking you seriously. I was making a rhetorical comment on the utter foolishness of fitting segs that low.  :Cool:

----------


## Specs

I've had such wonderful success with the Hoya Summit CD that I find no need to experiment. Before using this lens I did have a need to keep looking for an answer.

----------


## johntricity

*Not because I sell it, but because i wear it. I just made my 2nd pair of Varilux Ellipse, wearing at 15 and 16 m/m height. I also wear Shamir Piccolo at 16. Both are excellent. In fact they are the best vision wise for me of the 12-14 different Pal's I have tried.*

----------


## mrba

> I've had such wonderful success with the Hoya Summit CD that I find no need to experiment. Before using this lens I did have a need to keep looking for an answer.


 Try putting cylinder into it.

----------


## Johns

A lady just picked up her new Elipse lenses that were fit at 17 high.  She loved them and was persuaded to come to our office by her husband who was fit at 16 high.  They are both MDs and were upset that all there friends had "fun" frames, but their eye doctor told them they couldn't get small frames because of their "age related"  prescription.  Either they both enjoy the vision from their new glasses, or they are extremely good actors.  I know they won't be buying glasses from their eye doctor anymore.

----------


## jediron1

Oh well I will repeat myself one more time. And Jediron1 said:



You guys keep selling those low seg heights becuase I love the business you are generating for me right now. Can't tell you how many low fitting progressive's
I have refit to no lower than 17mm and the patient then tells me I can read again. So guys keep up your work in selling those low fit segs and I will keep reaping the rewards! :Cool: 


Case closed! :Cool:

----------


## Chris Ryser

*Of course all you guy's and girls can see with low fitting progressives, the question is only:*

*How Much, compared to a perfect field of vision for reading and working?**Your customers have never expirienced a full field of vision for close up and do not know any better. You can promote low fitting progressives as much as you want, sing all the songs of glory how happy your customers and patients are. You are NOT giving them what you should do in your profession, which is maximum possible vision!*

----------


## jediron1

Chris could not have said it any better. Great job!:cheers:

----------


## jediron1

Ya I see all these posts from people commenting on how they are fitting there  progressives low now. I had a lady come into my establisment and wanted to see the small frame selection I had.( she already had a small frame with low fit progressive, she just wanted a second pair). I commented to her that in all good professional judgement I could not put a progressive in that small frame with out compromising her reading. She took off her glasses and said I can read fine. I just shook my head as she walked out. Someone had confinced her that all she had to do to see better was remove her glasses. Unbelievable!:hammer:

----------


## 1968

> You can promote low fitting progressives as much as you want, sing all the songs of glory how happy your customers and patients are. You are NOT giving them what you should do in your profession, which is maximum possible vision!


Chris, for the sake of being argumentative (because I don't have much luck with low fitting PALs either!), some may say that our goal is to make patients happy. For most patients, achieving maximum possible vision makes them happy... for others, maybe it's wearing frames they think are more stylish [reference Johns' example]. In refractive surgery, it's the ol' 20/20 vs. 20/happy argument.

----------


## jediron1

1968 said:Chris, for the sake of being argumentative (because I don't have much luck with low fitting PALs either!), some may say that our goal is to make patients happy. For most patients, achieving maximum possible vision makes them happy... for others, maybe it's wearing frames they think are more stylish [reference Johns' example]. In refractive surgery, it's the ol' 20/20 vs. 20/happy argument.

That might be two points for the dispenser ( 1:happy 2: maximum vision ) but what about the patient? Are you not obligated to give the patient the best possible viewing while also explaining the many benefits that they could achieve with better fitting progressives along with A/R ect.ect.? The only point that seems to come out in these many posts through eight pages is that most of the people fitting low are in it for the dollars. And what I mean is that they don't seem to care what is good for the patients overall eye health but what or how much they can line there own pockets. I have had patients walk out because after giving the x's and o's about how the progressive should be fit, they said: "well XYZ said they could do and would walk back to XYZ". I am not going to compromise my creditability for a few measley bucks! :Cool:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Chris, for the sake of being argumentative (because I don't have much luck with low fitting PALs either!), some may say that our goal is to make patients happy.*


For arguments sake lets assume the patients are happy, equipped with an expensive pair of progressives, any make will do, an expensive small mini mouse frame, walking out the store leaving $ 400 to $ 700 behind.

Vision is not important because we are in fashion.

What is going to happen next year when according to prognostics the stock market crashes, the Dollar goes into a real dive and a good recession hits???

These happy people will going to the places that advertise low and lower prices, will buy an inexpensive frame with flat tops and suddenly discover that they can see a lot better than during the good booming days of 2004.

----------


## 1968

> For arguments sake lets assume the patients are happy, equipped with an expensive pair of progressives, any make will do, an expensive small mini mouse frame, walking out the store leaving $ 400 to $ 700 behind.


Thus far we have "the patients are happy".




> Vision is not important because we are in fashion.


I never said "vision is not important because we are in fashion", so you shouldn't infer that from my previous post. What I do recognize is that patients/customers weigh those values differently.




> What is going to happen next year when according to prognostics the stock market crashes, the Dollar goes into a real dive and a good recession hits??? 
> 
> These happy people will going to the places that advertise low and lower prices, will buy an inexpensive frame with flat tops and suddenly discover that they can see a lot better than during the good booming days of 2004.


 If they discover that, then they discover that. They will still have "lines" and some patients/customers don't want that.

----------


## 1968

> That ["the ol' 20/20 vs. 20/happy argument"] might be two points for the dispenser ( 1:happy 2: maximum vision ) but what about the patient? Are you not obligated to give the patient the best possible viewing while also explaining the many benefits that they could achieve with better fitting progressives along with A/R ect.ect.?


Patients need to be made aware of the benefits and drawbacks of any option. I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary.

----------


## jediron1

1968, Then you have not been following the thread or reading all the posts. Anyone can say they read them and say what you did. If you read the posts and see what people have posted you can see the true motive. If you can't so-be it:hammer:

----------


## 1968

> 1968, Then you have not been following the thread or reading all the posts. Anyone can say they read them and say what you did. If you read the posts and see what people have posted you can see the true motive. If you can't so-be it:hammer:


Ditto to you. I see where some Optiboard members have claimed success with low fit PALs but I don't see where any Optiboard member has claimed that patients should not be made aware of the benefits and drawbacks of any option. If you wish to address the honesty of other Optiboard members, your best bet is to take it up with them directly, rather than through me. Let me know when you plan to bring this back on topic.

----------


## jediron1

1968 your sarcasm begets you! You can believe what you want!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *.................................Let me make it clear- I neither think "short corridor" PALs are a great idea, nor would I make a point of fitting them as an eye care provider.*
> 
> *Unfortunately, the market seems to think it is perfectly acceptable to fit progressive lenses below 18mm in the name of "fashion." Once some lens manufacturers latched on to this trend, they began to create products that were supposedly "designed" to meet this ridiculous demand.*
> 
> 
> *Pete Hanlin, ABOM, LDO**Training & Development Manager**Essilor of America Lens Group* _phanlin@essilorusa.com__sub specie aeternitatis_


1968,

Jediron has been on this thread since it's start and had posting number 4, I jumped in with posting number 16.

In order to confirm our opinion I posted above quote from page 2 of this thread.

*I don't think it is necessary to argue who read what, above quote coming from the lions mouth would just about confirm our opinion we have repetetly statet since the beginning of this thread which had already over 4,000 lookers*.

----------


## jediron1

As usual Chris you make a great point! Nice job :Cool:

----------


## 1968

> 1968 your sarcasm begets you! You can believe what you want!


There was nothing sarcastic about my post. If I said, "You are the master of the 'Hear! Hear!' argument" in reply to posts #194 and #205, that would be sarcasm. If I said, "Pick up a dictionary and learn the definition of 'sarcasm'", that would be advice.




> 1968,





> Jediron has been on this thread since it's start and had posting number 4, I jumped in with posting number 16.
> 
> In order to confirm our opinion I posted above quote from page 2 of this thread.
> 
> *I don't think it is necessary to argue who read what, above quote coming from the lions mouth would just about confirm our opinion we have repetetly statet since the beginning of this thread which had already over 4,000 lookers*.




Chris,

I have no beef with you. Petes opinion does confirm yours and that of jediron1 that low fitting PALs are not a good idea. And I completely agree with that. What I disagree with is the false alternative between vision and fashion that was posed in posts #163 (when you implied providing maximum possible vision is always our primary goal) and #199 (when you implied that the only corollary to that is vision is not important because we are in fashion).

My opinion on *that* particular point is that each patient ultimately decides the balance between vision and fashion that is best suited for him or her. We are indeed obligated to inform patients how that balance may be affected, so that is why I told jediron1 that patients need to be made aware of the benefits and drawbacks associated with any option. If a dispenser feels that a drawback to a particular lens type would sacrifice maximum possible vision for fashion, then the patient certainly needs to be informed to do otherwise is dishonest. (Here, I would add that claiming someone is *dishonest* for using low fitting PALs and claiming they are *unwise* for using low fitting PALs are two different things.)

----------


## jediron1

1968 said:My opinion on *that* particular point is that each patient ultimately decides the balance between vision and fashion that is best suited for him or her. We are indeed obligated to inform patients how that balance may be affected, so that is why I told jediron1 that patients need to be made aware of the benefits and drawbacks associated with any option. If a dispenser feels that a drawback to a particular lens type would sacrifice maximum possible vision for fashion, then the patient certainly needs to be informed to do otherwise is dishonest. (Here, I would add that claiming someone is *dishonest* for using low fitting PALs and claiming they are *unwise* for using low fitting PALs are two different things.)

So since this is in YOUR OPINION, you mean to say that if the lens they chose (patient)  would not be particularly good for them (visually) but they liked it fashion wise, you would sell it to them as long as they knew the pros and cons of there selection? :hammer:

----------


## 1968

> 1968 said:My opinion on *that* particular point is that each patient ultimately decides the balance between vision and fashion that is best suited for him or her. We are indeed obligated to inform patients how that balance may be affected, so that is why I told jediron1 that patients need to be made aware of the benefits and drawbacks associated with any option. If a dispenser feels that a drawback to a particular lens type would sacrifice maximum possible vision for fashion, then the patient certainly needs to be informed to do otherwise is dishonest. (Here, I would add that claiming someone is *dishonest* for using low fitting PALs and claiming they are *unwise* for using low fitting PALs are two different things.)





> So since this is in YOUR OPINION, you mean to say that if the lens they chose (patient) would not be particularly good for them (visually) but they liked it fashion wise, you would sell it to them as long as they knew the pros and cons of there selection?


I never said that it is our obligation to make a job that we feel isn't going to work for the patient.

And I hope the opinion that patients should be informed about the benefits and drawbacks associated with any option is not just mine.

----------


## lensguy

Let me try to bring this back on topic. 
I can't believe the number of people that seem to disagree with "low fitting ht" progressives. I wonder if all of you are in your 60's and have over 2.50 add's.

I have sold a couple of HUNDRED of these things and have had very few remakes (usually a patient that wants a shallow frame and a previous wearer that HAS been warned of the diffrence ). It's all about patient profiling!!

These lenses work great for 1st timers, High -, and when switching from st lenses. The facts are low add's (below 2.25ish) have enough residual accomadation to see intermed through the distance portion and the newest bonus is "flat pannel" monitors, they sit further away than a regular one.......do the math.......

----------


## For-Life

> Let me try to bring this back on topic. 
> I can't believe the number of people that seem to disagree with "low fitting ht" progressives. I wonder if all of you are in your 60's and have over 2.50 add's.
> 
> I have sold a couple of HUNDRED of these things and have had very few remakes (usually a patient that wants a shallow frame and a previous wearer that HAS been warned of the diffrence ). It's all about patient profiling!!
> 
> These lenses work great for 1st timers, High -, and when switching from st lenses. The facts are low add's (below 2.25ish) have enough residual accomadation to see intermed through the distance portion and the newest bonus is "flat pannel" monitors, they sit further away than a regular one.......do the math.......


I have fit a 3.00 add at 16mm. She needs the glasses in her workplace and is a hyperopic presbyopic. She loves them.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I have fit a 3.00 add at 16mm. She needs the glasses in her workplace and is a hyperopic myopic. She loves them.*


Of course she loves them as a *MIOP* to walk around and go shopping and when she works close up jobs she just talkes the glasses off to get a proper sight.

*I can just not get over the thought that professionals have been advised and instructed by the representative spokesman of the largest and original producer of progressive lenses ESSILOR, as per above quote, are still singing the song on how proud they are, having done a job that is wrong but the patient is happy.*

I will now tell you something you might not have considered. This thread has gone on for quite a while, and has the following 



*4230 Visitors on 209 postings**on for and against fitting progressive lenses on low heights or the way they should be fitted.*

If any of you have followed the way search engines have developed over the last little while and check the Alexa rating (measuring traffic on websites) of the *Optiboard which is at 85,846 today*, *(Yahoo is a 1, ESSILOR a 291,208 and BPI 2,184,825)*, you will find that many Optiboard topics are picked up by GOOGLE especially.

When you put a question relating to a subject discussed on the Optiboard you will find an Optiboard *answer on the very pirst page on GOOGLE answers* just about every time, as the following example shows:

*OptiBoard Discussion Forums - Questions on ANSI Standards*
*... The test should probably be if the progessive has discernable ... fitting height and pupillary distances of a pair of mounted PAL lenses within 1mm ... Posting Rules. ... 
www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9959 - 96k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages



The world is watching our discussions more and more on this forum as the search engines report more and more on them.

This was just some food for thought.
*

----------


## jediron1

lensguy said:Let me try to bring this back on topic. 
I can't believe the number of people that seem to disagree with "low fitting ht" progressives. I wonder if all of you are in your 60's and have over 2.50 add's.

Wow very Enlightened lensguy. I don't think I could have thought of that. I mean I have only been dispensing since 1973 so I m sure you know it all! WOW what hypocrisy!

----------


## jediron1

lensguy said:These lenses work great for 1st timers, High -, and when switching from st lenses. The facts are low add's (below 2.25ish) have enough residual accomadation to see intermed through the distance portion and the newest bonus is "flat pannel" monitors, they sit further away than a regular one.......do the math.......

It must be because of all that Canadian hot air because this guy sounds like he is smoking something. Woops Canadian (cold air) sorry my mistake! This guy seems to be on one kind of ego trip!

----------


## Shutterbug

I'll jump into this conversation after first admitting that I have not followed the whole thread  :0).

I remember when plastic lenses first hit the market.  There were many negative feelings about this "new trend", but as time went on there was acceptance, and eventually the product was preferred.  Then came High index plastic materials.  These offered reduced visual accuity, traded for thin edges and better fashion.  People tend to think fashion first, which explains the reluctance to get glasses in the first place, and resistance to bifocals when we get old.
What we're seeing in the low fitting progressives is just the same old, same old.  Just as people only do a portion of what their medical Dr. advises, so they will only accept a portion of what you tell them.  Make them fashionable to make them happy and they will keep coming back - even if they can't see as well as you would like them to see.  You will get them what they want, or lose them to the competition.  That's just how it works folks  :0)

Shutterbug

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Make them fashionable to make them happy and they will keep coming back - even if they can't see as well as you would like them to see. You will get them what they want, or lose them to the competition. That's just how it works folks :0)*
> 
> Shutterbug


Obviously my food for thought posting of this morning has bypassed you. You might  have a point by saying that you will loose them to the competition. but that puts you on the same professional competence level as your competition.

So then really it is a matter of greed and not a matter of professionalism. The optical retail gives them what they want for a big lot of money even if the job lacks the quality it should have.

----------


## Joann Raytar

shutterbug,

That's allright, I stopped following this thread when everyone just started arguing the same point over and over again myself.

Chris,

You're right. The public is probably looking at this thread and trying to get information out of it.

Hopefully, what the public will derive from this thread is the importance of finding a good Optician. It looks like a great deal of the advice in this thread involves trying to fit a person with one, all-purpose pair of glasses. We all know in today's modern world, where almost everyone deals with some form of technology or specialized tasks, that one pair of glasses is not going to offer "optimal" vision for many presbyopes.

If a patient isn't willing to shop for eyewear the same way they do for everything else in their lives, including occupational clothing, dress clothing, casual clothing and athletic clothing then they will have eyewear that won't afford them the most comfortable vision for some task in their lifestyles. Take a pair of leather soled dress shoes for example. They might be great for the office and be a bit uncomfortable but tolerable on days off around the house and you could probably take a leisurely walk in them but try and wear them jogging, on snow and ice or on a golf course.

Obviously, if a patient is requesting eyewear that isn't safe then an Optician should refuse to fit the patient with what they are asking for. However, we do need to fit patients with eyewear that compliments their lifestyles, make recommendations regarding what the best combinations should be and make sure the pros and cons of the selected eyewear are understood. Given all of that information, it is up to the patient if they want to compromise complete optimal vision for fashion.

It isn't fair to the consumer not to let them know that specific lens technology exists, especially, if combined with other options, it can improve some aspect of their quality of life. Deny patients that technology and you might do the opposite of what you intend to do and loose their trust.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Good argument and I am glad that we are getting some more supportive arguments for the doing it right side. Thanks Jo.

If penty people look at this thread they will start thinking if they had been given the right choice or should have been dicouraged to make it ,he last time they made a purchase.

----------


## lensguy

> It must be because of all that Canadian hot air because this guy sounds like he is smoking something. Woops Canadian (cold air) sorry my mistake! This guy seems to be on one kind of ego trip!


jediron, RELAX (maybe start smoking somthing!)

I would like to have your technical insights into why these don't work ?

Why do you think the reading area is smaller than a "regular" fitting pal

I have changed many patients from regular prog to short (at hights up to 20mm) and they prefer the more natural eye movement and get feedback like "the reading area is easy to find and the intermed is not allways in my way but its there if I need it). I have had NO complaints of lack of reading area.

----------


## jediron1

lensguy said:I have changed many patients from regular prog to short (at hights up to 20mm) and they prefer the more natural eye movement and get feedback like "the reading area is easy to find and the intermed is not allways in my way but its there if I need it). I have had NO complaints of lack of reading area.

Apparently you have not been following the thread. Chris and Darryl Meister have given some very convincing arguments against fitting segs that low. Go back and read some of Darryl's comments and papers on the subject of PALS. I see no reason to put down more arguments that run the gambit as Darryl's and Chris. I believe they have more than broached this subject with scholarship and common sense for which I also agree.

 The reason you have no complaints is because we are seeing the complaints from establishments like yours where people are fed up with trying to find answers and go to where there questions can be answered. I see them all day and my cash register just keeps right on humming. So keep right on selling those low segs because I m reaping the rewards! laughts on you guys!:D :bbg:

----------


## Johns

Chris & Jo,

I couldn't agree more with your statements. The most important thing you both mentioned is choice.  In the end, it is the patient that will decide what they want (w/or w/out compromise of vision), and who they choose to fit the product.   

I know women that will occasionally wear shoes that are uncomfortable, but they match a certain outfit just right.  A podiatrist wouldn't reccomend them, but...

I've often heard contact lens fitters (all 3 O's) say "there may be a compromise of vision with these lenses, but...

As an optician, lifestyle dispensing means that you should fit the glasses for the activity, and one pair certainly won't do for all activities, just as all patients don't require the same amount of reading area in their progressives.

The patient will make the decision, it's our job to make sure they have a good supply of options to choose from.  It sounds like many on this thread get locked in to a single mindset and can't let go.

----------


## jediron1

Johns said:The patient will make the decision, it's our job to make sure they have a good supply of options to choose from. It sounds like many on this thread get locked in to a single mindset and can't let go.

I would say that. The original post was: #*1*
 02-28-2004 

What is everyone out there using for a 16 high progressive?

My lab rep claims my present companies short lens is having back order problems, but this lab rep has forked tongue, maybe they owe the company $$. (I won't say which lens company because rumours can be damaging if not true).

So, should I need to change lenses, I would like to know what the rest of you have success with at 16 high.

The premis then got into high gear because certain people started to say they love fitting segs at 16mm and lower. Chris, Myself and Darryl jumped in to correct some of the ambiguities that were occurring according to fitting heights in relation to the technical data which is out there. That technical data has been covered masterfully by Chris and especially Darryl in some of his technical papers. The technical data supports our claim that fitting segs that low will compromise your overall reading to a point that it will be uncomfortable and basically un-usable. Now because as I like to call the WAR 
scenario has occurred, where they want to win at all costs. Some people are now throwing into the mixture, that you give the people there options and if they don't see well but are fashionable thats ok or just the opposite where they see well but are not fashinable. These are not compromises as some have asserted. You either have the ethics to stand your ground or you don't. The chose is your's! :Cool:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *These are not compromises as some have asserted. You either have the ethics to stand your ground or you don't. The chose is your's!*


*As opticians you are the pharmacist of opthalmology or optometry*

The doctor, either the ophthalmologist or the optometrist hands the patient a prescription which in his opinion provides the patient with maximum vision for distance, reading, or any other distance wanted.

As optician you are required to fill this prescription so that the patient has the visual capabilities the prescription was made for.

A pharmacist that sells a 100 milligram pill to a heart patient instead of the 500 milligrams the doctors prescription said, can be taken to court and sued for incompetence and damages if the patient dies of a heart attack.

*As jediron says, in the optical trade it is matter of ethics*, as nobody will die of a heart attack because he or she has a near field of vision that is only 40% of the size it should be. So far I have never heard of anybody suing an optician big time for neglect, and damages for loss of pleasure to be able to see 2 coloumns in the newspaper instead of only half a one.

As most of the progressive lens wearers have started with this type of lenses they do not know better when they buy or switch to a fashionable small frame that has a low fit and little reading space and the optician will not put in to much of opposition as he hears the cash register humming.

Also the manufacturers are supportive of this low fitting craze, even if their spokespoeple admit, right here on the Optiboard they would not prescribe low fitting progressive lenses personally.

----------


## grace angel

Shamir Insight offers the Piccolo lens recommmended fitting ht minimum is 16mm and it is available in standard CR39 plastic, 1.50 transitions gray, 1.60 high index plastic and polycarbonate as well.  Shamir's "Office" lens also has a 16mm fitting ht requirement and is an excellent progressive choice for an emerging presbyope working in close parameters of an office cubicle (from reading to computer to distances of 13 feet) This lens gets a 5 star rating according to the feedback i've heard from people who are wearing it! :Rolleyes:

----------


## jediron1

Grace angel said:Shamir Insight offers the Piccolo lens recommmended fitting ht minimum is 16mm and it is available in standard CR39 plastic, 1.50 transitions gray, 1.60 high index plastic and polycarbonate as well. Shamir's "Office" lens also has a 16mm fitting ht requirement and is an excellent progressive choice for an emerging presbyope working in close parameters of an office cubicle (from reading to computer to distances of 13 feet) This lens gets a 5 star rating according to the feedback i've heard from people who are wearing it! :Rolleyes: 
__________________
grace angel 

We have gone over this many times. All you have to do is re-read Chris's previous post. You can look up the technical papers that Darryl wrote on this very same subject. Darryl even though he works for one of the companies, in my opinion gave a very unbaised approach to the technicalities of manufacturing a PAL and the difficulties in trying to get a usable reading area. :Cool:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *............ Piccolo lens recommmended fitting ht minimum is 16mm and it is available in standard CR39 plastic, 1.50 transitions gray, 1.60 high index plastic and polycarbonate as well. .................................a 16mm fitting ht requirement and is an excellent progressive choice....................*.....


Grace Angel you gave us all above details, now I would like you to exactly tell us *the size, height and the width of the reading segment* when you mount this into a frame that has 38mm total height and you fit it at 16mm

----------


## 1968

> *As opticians you are the pharmacist of opthalmology or optometry*





> The doctor, either the ophthalmologist or the optometrist hands the patient a prescription which in his opinion provides the patient with maximum vision for distance, reading, or any other distance wanted.
> 
> As optician you are required to fill this prescription so that the patient has the visual capabilities the prescription was made for.
> 
> A pharmacist that sells a 100 milligram pill to a heart patient instead of the 500 milligrams the doctors prescription said, can be taken to court and sued for incompetence and damages if the patient dies of a heart attack.
> 
> *As jediron says, in the optical trade it is matter of ethics*, as nobody will die of a heart attack because he or she has a near field of vision that is only 40% of the size it should be. So far I have never heard of anybody suing an optician big time for neglect, and damages for loss of pleasure to be able to see 2 coloumns in the newspaper instead of only half a one.
> 
> As most of the progressive lens wearers have started with this type of lenses they do not know better when they buy or switch to a fashionable small frame that has a low fit and little reading space and the optician will not put in to much of opposition as he hears the cash register humming.
> ...


Chris, I think that simplifies the art of prescribing a bit too much. Maximum visual acuity and maximum visual comfort are not one in the same, so I prescribe for patients with 20/happy in mind (which accounts for many factors, including visual acuity, visual comfort, ocular health status, cost, and even fashion!), and I always advise them of potential benefits or drawbacks to the prescription they receive. [For example, a 0.25 change may maximize a patients visual acuity but there is a cost to that (i.e. the price of new lenses). I always let the patient know whether that change is going to make a significant difference or not so that they can make an informed decision on whether they should get new eyeglasses or lenses.]

If a doctor thinks that a patient should absolutely not receive a particular lens option, he or she has the prerogative to make that specification on the Rx. Personally speaking, I recognize opticians, optometrists, and ophthalmologists all as professionals with many complementing as well as overlapping skills. Consequently, I am not so rigid in my prescribing technique that I fail to trust an opticians ability to weigh the aforementioned factors and make decisions with the patients best interest in mind, or that I fail to be open to his or her suggestions that may even require me to alter my prescriptions.

In my opinion, there is no ethical dilemma or conflict of interest between making money and doing what is in the best interest of patients. If you show patients that you are honest and acting in their best interest, they are more likely to return for future services and to refer others for service. And given that simply providing maximum visual acuity does not always fulfill the patients needs, I think its unwise to assume that achieving that objective always equates to acting in his or her best interest.

----------


## Johns

Grace Angel,

You need to show your customers the data, then you'll have a better cahnce of convincing them of how unhappy they really are. :cheers:

----------


## jediron1

Johns said:Grace Angel,

You need to show your customers the data, then you'll have a better cahnce of convincing them of how unhappy they really are. 

Johns the facts are the facts whether you believe them is up to you. And you don't have to worry over your unhappy customers because I have seen most of them and they are quite happy now. What is that ringing? Oh it's my cash register with more sales from those low fit segs. Thanks guys! Please keep selling them because my business would not be the same if you stopped!  :Cool:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *In my opinion, there is no ethical dilemma or conflict of interest between making money and doing what is in the best interest of patients.*


*The dilemma is that at a 16mm height in a small frame the patient has 3 to 4mm of reading segment. To me that is a major dilemma and therefore it becomes an ethical issue and is NOT in best interest of the patient.*

----------


## Johns

Jediron,

That ringing sound must be your alarm clock...your dreaming.;)   I don't think  Grace Angel's patients are lying to her, and then running over to your place to buy another pair, and then coming back to her practice 2 years later to do it all over again.  You really are dreaming!


Chris,

You are assuming that a 16mm fitting height is only being used in small frames.  I have fit them in frames with b meas of over 50mm.  One of our offices has a contact with a lumber company, and many of the lumber graders wear progressives, but due to the way they must stand to grade the timber, and read their grading sticks, the 16 mm seg does a great job for them. (Of course, even though we've handle their eyewear needs for over 15 years, they'll all be going to Jediron1 because he won't fit them that low :cry:  :D  .)


All,

Gee, I wish I wasn't so darned greedy!  I know that none of my patients can see that well, but that one-time profit is just so tantalizing that I can't help myself.  I figure that by misfitting progressives at the rate I have been, I'll be able to retire in 3 more years.  It just makes perfrect business sense!:D

----------


## chip anderson

Some folks think the very best interest a patient can have is his money passing into your money.

It's no accident that the refractive surgeon who does the most and advertises the most in the area has the worst reputation as a surgeon.

Chip

----------


## 1968

> *The dilemma is that at a 16mm height in a small frame the patient has 3 to 4mm of reading segment. To me that is a major dilemma and therefore it becomes an ethical issue and is NOT in best interest of the patient.*


Then you are doing the proper thing.

----------


## 1968

> Some folks think the very best interest a patient can have is his money passing into your money.


Some think that, but I don't.

----------


## jediron1

Johns said:Gee, I wish I wasn't so darned greedy! I know that none of my patients can see that well, but that one-time profit is just so tantalizing that I can't help myself. I figure that by misfitting progressives at the rate I have been, I'll be able to retire in 3 more years. It just makes perfrect business sense!

To you it probable does. I have not met or worked for an MD or OD who has not been so money hungry that the dollar signs clouded there vision! So keep up the good business sense!:hammer:

----------


## jediron1

Johns said:You are assuming that a 16mm fitting height is only being used in small frames. I have fit them in frames with b meas of over 50mm. One of our offices has a contact with a lumber company, and many of the lumber graders wear progressives, but due to the way they must stand to grade the timber, and read their grading sticks, the 16 mm seg does a great job for them. (Of course, even though we've handle their eyewear needs for over 15 years, they'll all be going to Jediron1 because he won't fit them that low

Again the sarcasm. Come on Johns your better than that!

The reason for 16mm not being good for the umpteenth time is in post #219. If you are an O.D. then you should know better then to go on bantering about the attributes of fitting lenses at 16mm or lower. We (Darryl,Myself and Chris) are decrying the effects of trying to fit a lens lower than 16mm because of the insufficent room for reading or other activities. If you dispute this, then you should go read the papers Darryl has put out and gain an understanding on the technical aspects of fitting PAL lenses that low. :hammer:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Gee, I wish I wasn't so darned greedy! I know that none of my patients can see that well, but that one-time profit is just so tantalizing that I can't help myself. I figure that by misfitting progressives at the rate I have been, I'll be able to retire in 3 more years. It just makes perfrect business sense!*:D


Thank you Johns, this must be the most honest posting i have seen on this thread

So it all boils down to what I have been saying for the last 2 years, ==== *GREED*

*So how many of you other girls and guy's are going to admit to this new trend and standard in the optical trade?*

I really think that opinions like this are sad news. Make glasses that admittedly and knowingly are not right. taking big bucks for it in order to retire in 3 years?

I hope that any of the general public looking into this thread is going to have seconmd thoughts next time they are going to buy glasses.

Not all opticians are ethical and will they give you minimal value for your maximum Dollar.

----------


## chip anderson

Chris:  

Surely Johns posted in jest.   I admit that there are far too many in the optical business including all ophthalmologist in the business who are in it just because of greed. Why else would a doctor who can knock down a couple million a year sacrifice his ethics to sell merchandise in an area where is motives for precribing same become suspect?  But there are few if any who would admit this in print.  So I feel John's must be printing in jest.

Chip

----------


## jediron1

Chip I agree maybe Johns was using that in jest, but as I said before:

I have not met or worked for an MD (ophthalmologist) or OD who has not been so money hungry that the dollar signs clouded there vision! So keep up the good business sense!

I stand by that statement. I have worked for 3 Ophthalmologists and 7 O.D.'s and everyone was exactly as I discribed. :Cool:

----------


## Johns

Jediron.

1. My middle name is "Jest".

2. Anyone that has any business sense would not jepordise their business by using a product that doesn't work.

3. The majority of my patients don't get fit at 16mm, but the ones that do would not be any less happy just because they read a research paper that contradicted their personal experience.

4. The horse is dead, you can stop beating it now.;)

----------


## jediron1

Johns said:The horse is dead, you can stop beating it now!

I will stop beating it. My only point in this whole diatribe was if you had taken the time to do a little research on this subject you would have seen where myself, Chris and Darryl were coming from, but since you refuse then the beating of the horse is up to you. Stetching one's mind is the process of turning a page.

 I wonder what the animal rights people will say about beating a horse? HA HA  :Cool:

----------


## Johns

Jediron1,

To be honest w/ you  I've never beaten a dead horse, but when I lived in Korea, I did eat (part of) a dead horse (and dog).  The part that would really get the animal huggers is that neither the horse, nor the dog were free range:D

----------


## Chris Ryser

Low fitting progressive and NO dead horses or dogs............................

they are reality and the ones who fit them plus the ones that have to look through them are all alive....................

----------


## Spexvet

We're in the age of task-specific eywear. 

Think of small glasses with low-fitting-height PALs as specifically for fashion, a task that many patients feel is important. An analogy might be high heeled shoes. Women wear them every day. They're not as comfortable as sneakers, and they're difficult to run in, but they look great. So that they can look good, people will wear glasses that allow them to see distance and only "spot" things that are close to them, and make do when reading a magazine (for example), or they'll buy an additional pair of glasses that are better for heavy-duty reading.

----------


## lensguy

Spexvet,

Good analogy, the same parallel could be made with many things.

Jediron,

I still have yet to hear any " conclusive " reasons that patients shouldn't have these or why "we" would be doing them any injustice by recommending them. I think the only injustice is a closed minded dispenser passing individual opinion to a patient or worse not giving patients all the options available to them. Yes, I have read the entire thread.


Please try to respond to the question without riding on the coat tails of what Chris and Darryl have already said................

----------


## Andrew Weiss

The other optician in our office and I have a standing argument about whether it's better to take a patient who's been in a long-corridor lens and wants a slim frame and leave that patient in their old-friend progressive, use the short height (usually 18) and ask the Dr to bump up the reading Rx to compensate, or whether to switch the patient to a short-corridor lens.  Richard, my colleague, takes the former view; I take the latter.  His theory: the patient is going to be more comfortable in the lens design they know.  My theory: they're going to be reading through the intermediate corridor, and except for the VIP, that means they're going to get a lot less width.

  Any thoughts?

 And, on another strand of this thread:




> *So how many of you other girls and guy's are going to admit to this new trend and standard in the optical trade?*


 Not here.  Probably too much guilt if I did it.:o

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Any thoughts?*


Here is one thought............................................

If your customer was happy with the present lenses in a deep enough frame and now wants a small frame..................it does not matter what fancy design or make of a progressive you put into that small frame (they are all more or less the same). Him or her, the customer will see the difference, the reduced or missing reading field.

Spexvet posted a proposition to sell them as a fashion addition which is a good proposition as long as the customer knows that he or her is paying a big price tag to look fashionable without getting maximum vision for close up. objects.

Desing a form for the customer to agree to that fact, let them sign it and you will have no come backs.....................I told you so.

----------


## Andrew Weiss

Chris,

 I know that the postings here all seem to agree that the compromise in all short-corridor lenses is in the reading area, but . . .

 I wear a Zeiss Individual, a Zeiss Individual Short, and a Zeiss Brevity.  The latter two are short-corridor lenses.  I notice no difference in the size of the reading area.  What I mostly notice is the progressive corridor and reading area are higher up, and the reading area is more accessible.  

 What am I missing?

----------


## jediron1

lensguy said:

Please try to respond to the question without riding on the coat tails of what Chris and Darryl have already said................

If you had read the entire thread you would seen that I was on nobodies coat tails. If anything I got this thing going. So stop with your whinning and bombastic statements and put down something credible. :hammer:

----------


## chip anderson

My my, we're getting nasty over nothing.

----------


## Johns

Andrew Weiss,

If you would read the ENTIRE post, you would realize that you really can't see out of your short corridor lens, and that you're so unhappy with your vision that you can't bring yourself to admit it.  Trust me on this one... I know-I've got thousands of customers stumbling around wearing the same lenses.:D

----------


## jediron1

Chip said:My my, we're getting nasty over nothing.

Boy how you guys read into things is beyond me! If it sounded nasty it WAS not meant to be. It was only a rebuttal to lensguys posting. Thats all, nothing more, nothing less. 

The act of learning is turning the first page. :Cool:

----------


## jediron1

Johns said With tongue in cheek:

If you would read the ENTIRE post, you would realize that you really can't see out of your short corridor lens, and that you're so unhappy with your vision that you can't bring yourself to admit it. Trust me on this one... I know-I've got thousands of customers stumbling around wearing the same lenses

You hit the nail on the head (your head). We never said you could not use the lens or that you can't read out of it. We said the better alternative would be to fit no lower than 18mm for BETTER and easier reading. Don't say or write more than you can handle, because your posting is starting to look like a cartoon. HA HA :Cool:

----------


## Johns

A cartoon?

A CARTOON?!

WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!!!:cheers:

----------

