# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  verifying progressives ...oh my!

## pseudonym

Hi, I'll be a second year student in the fall and have wormed my way into the back of a shop where they are letting me observe repairs and look at donated specs all I want.  It's a sweet deal for me but I don't want to spoil it by asking a lot of questions while they are trying to run a shop.

I'm getting ok with bifocals, but these progressives are a whole nother thing. I'm getting the Rx  ok, but I can't figure out how to verify the add. Yesterday I found out that they just look for the number etched on the lens and write that down as the add. I've read every tutorial I can get my hands on and they all say to turn the glasses around ocular side facing the OP and place the near verification circle over the aperture, get the sphere reading in the near zone and take the difference between that and the sphere reading in the distance. 

Problem: The sphere reading in both zones always seems to be wavy or broken up. I'm not getting what the etched number says in any case. You guys must have looked at a few of these, right? So what am I doing wrong??

----------


## Jacqui

Try changing the axis on the lensometer by 90 degrees. You should be able to figure out why :D

----------


## chip anderson

While not 100% reliable (but close) most progressives will have "invisible" marks on the lens indicating the add power.  Often difficult and sometimes impossible to see, but they are usually there and can usually be seen in the right light, at the right angle.  Sometimes a head loop helps.

Also note they are often abreviated like:  2.5, or 2 or 1.7 instead of the full number.  Usually located below one of the trademarks which are also "invisible."

Chip

----------


## pseudonym

> Try changing the axis on the lensometer by 90 degrees. You should be able to figure out why :D


Believe me, the wheel may fall off from the many directions I've turned it. I get wavy sphere lines in all meridians. I've also repositioned the glasses numerous times in front of the aperture to try to get the lines to appear straight. Once in a while I get a pair of glasses that the sphere lines come in straight, but not often. 

I realize that opticians in the field merely note the etched number and write it down as the ADD, but what is the reason for the "near verification circle" if no one actually uses it to verify that the near power matches the etched number? 

I've been told that the state boards will require us to verify the ADD through the lensometer.  Is that right? If so, I need to figure out what I'm doing wrong. (Yes, I do match the logo on the lens to the lens chart to find out where to mark the lens. No problems there.)

----------


## obxeyeguy

You are indeed right, flip them around, and read as low as you possible can in the glasses.  The mires are still somewhat out of focus, but should be close.  Neutralizing any progressive is totally a guess on the add, in my opinion. Another reason the state boards are out of touch with the industry, as it is inscribed on the lens.:hammer:

----------


## hcjilson

> Another reason the state boards are out of touch with the industry, as it is inscribed on the lens.:hammer:


That statement was easy to type out, but difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate.

To the best of my knowledge, regulatory boards are composed of actively engaged opticians. Also to the best of my knowledge, practical exams allow the use of the etched number to determine the add.With all due respect, what leads you to the conclusion that state boards are out of touch with the industry? Quite the opposite, board members are usually on the cutting edge because they are often asked to make judgement calls on procedures, materials, techniques, and competence.You really can't do that if you are out of touch with the industry.

Just because a board acts in a way that is not in agreement with some in practice, does not mean they are out of touch with the industry. Just because a board does not move on something quickly enough to suit some does not mean they are out of touch with the industry. Please keep in mind that boards are governed by the statutes that created them. Most originally were written 50 or more years ago and to change them, which is necessary due to advances in technology, requires a lot of time and patience. Boards are probably more in touch with the industry than those who practice within their jurisdiction. You can take that to the bank.

----------


## pseudonym

> You are indeed right :hammer:


Words I never tire of hearing, thank you.

But the rest of what I'm reading brings up an interesting question. Why does the near viewing verification circle exist if no one ever seems to use it?

----------


## hcjilson

Same reason Sir Edmund Hillary climbed Mt Everest......................Because it's there!  :):)

----------


## obxeyeguy

> That statement was easy to type out, but difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, regulatory boards are composed of actively engaged opticians. Also to the best of my knowledge, practical exams allow the use of the etched number to determine the add.With all due respect, what leads you to the conclusion that state boards are out of touch with the industry? Quite the opposite, board members are usually on the cutting edge because they are often asked to make judgement calls on procedures, materials, techniques, and competence.You really can't do that if you are out of touch with the industry.
> 
> Just because a board acts in a way that is not in agreement with some in practice, does not mean they are out of touch with the industry. Just because a board does not move on something quickly enough to suit some does not mean they are out of touch with the industry. Please keep in mind that boards are governed by the statutes that created them. Most originally were written 50 or more years ago and to change them, which is necessary due to advances in technology, requires a lot of time and patience. Boards are probably more in touch with the industry than those who practice within their jurisdiction. You can take that to the bank.


Harry, sorry I hit your buttons on the state boards, as I know you have done a great deal for them, and it is in fact appreciated. Now, to the point. The lens is engraved for a reason, right? I have seen Doctors only use the engraved numbers to neutrilize, as the adds on most progressives do not in fact read true, even to the most experienced opticians.

Have we in fact "dumbed" down the industry by putting those there? I don't have the answer, but the fact that they are there, and I for one use them. Making a student not use them in my opinion is outdated, and counterproductive to the industry. That's where the "out of touch" comes in, as the state boards do not move anywhere as quick as this industry changes, and in many cases, not at all. 

If I neutrilize a Rx to duplicate on a progressive, I do in fact use the engraved number, but I also do read it.

Sorry to ruffle your feathers, but its what I think.

----------


## hcjilson

> Have we in fact "dumbed" down the industry by putting those there?  I don't have the answer, but the fact that they are there, and I for one use them.  Making a student not use them in my opinion is outdated, and counterproductive to the industry.  That's where the "out of touch" comes in, as the state boards do not move anywhere as quick as this industry changes, and in many cases, not at all.


I don't think you can accuse a board for being out of touch with the industry because they don't move fast.I hope my explanation of why that is the case is sufficient. The fact that a board requires the neutralization of a progressive lens is proof that they have at least recognized the importance of the etched markings. I haven't seen a practical that disallows using what has already been given on the lens itself, AND YET...I have seen the results of those taking the practical, getting that question wrong, when all they had to do was read the markings. Anyway no hard feelings,..... boards try to do the best they can.

----------


## pseudonym

Obviously, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm only too happy enough to learn whatever NCLE wants me to learn. The near verification circle is there for a reason, which I suspect is to verify near power. 

There are numerous tutorials online that describe how to verify progressives and they all have one fault. They make it sound easy. Easy it is not. I have lensometer eye from the past week of trying to teach myself how to do it. 

Thanks for the confirmation that I am trying to learn something that is, indeed, so difficult that almost no one else bothers except someone who is studying for the boards and maybe obxeyeguy. Peace out.

----------


## pseudonym

"The NCLE doesn't care a hoot about verification circles, they are contact lens examiners! You may be able to neutralize the add power on a progressive lens, but you still have something to learn!"

Meant to write the acronym for the NC State Board of Opticianry whatever it is. And if you have been reading my posts instead of trying to be clever, you would have noticed that  I do not know how to neutralize a progressive lens. At this point, I am still trying to learn. 

The verification circles are there because they are there?  Well, that's helpful. Thanks so much.

----------


## Laurie

Hello,

I think it is great that you actually want to become competent in neutralizing and verifying for yourself, and not just trusting the engraved notations.

And, you have uncovered one of the industry's dirty little secrets...an overwhelming amount of PAL designs do not even make it to 100 percent of the add power once edged...!

Good to know which ones are which, and you will soon learn this as you neutralize additional pals from different manufactures.

One tip:

from the opposite surface (Convex side against the lens stop, temples toward you), go to the highest point possible for the first sphere reading, and the lowest point possible for the nearpoint reading. It is OK if the sphere lines are slightly wavy...you can still get the reading. And, Jacqui was correct about the axis dial...make sure you are in the same cylinder (plus or minus cylinder) readings both time.

Finally, compare the two readings from the same surface.

: )

Laurie

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *And, you have uncovered one of the industry's dirty little secrets...an overwhelming amount of PAL designs do not even make it to 100 percent of the add power once edged...!*


Congratulations Laurie...............so far none of the others has thought of it.

Those lenses with not enough depth have the edge  at the edge of the full reading power, which actually should give a clear picture in the lensometer.............but if is not there you are still in the progressive area. 

Problem solved, get a lens with lots of depth and you will find it.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Obviously, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm only too happy enough to learn whatever NCLE wants me to learn. The near verification circle is there for a reason, which I suspect is to verify near power. 
> 
> There are numerous tutorials online that describe how to verify progressives and they all have one fault. They make it sound easy. Easy it is not. I have lensometer eye from the past week of trying to teach myself how to do it. 
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation that I am trying to learn something that is, indeed, so difficult that almost no one else bothers except someone who is studying for the boards and maybe obxeyeguy. Peace out.


I've heard something like 50% of people fail the lensometer portion.  I would ignore bad advice about not checking properly, especially on the boards.

Everyone has mentioned using the difference between the front vertex powers for the add, I would also add (no pun intended) that you should be marking each progressive with their mask, or marker using the proper cut out chart.  You can find them from our resident lens guru, lensguru (www.thelensguru.com) it's not to difficult to memorize the most common ones.  Good luck.

----------


## hcjilson

Quick question for all you guru's out there....has anyone tried to mark up a lens with Crizal Alize Avance yet? I had occasion to do that last week and was unable to find anything that stuck. I wound up using a wax crayon but that was really unsat. Any brighter ideas??

----------


## HarryChiling

> Quick question for all you guru's out there....has anyone tried to mark up a lens with Crizal Alize Avance yet? I had occasion to do that last week and was unable to find anything that stuck. I wound up using a wax crayon but that was really unsat. Any brighter ideas??


 
Staedtler lumocolor permanent markers do the trick.

----------


## hipoptical

> Hello,
> 
> And, you have uncovered one of the industry's dirty little secrets...an overwhelming amount of PAL designs do not even make it to 100 percent of the add power once edged...!


Though this is true, you will find upon further examination, that most PALs do not reach 100% even AT the verification circle. Thus, the reason "pseudonym" cannot truly verify the lenses, and the reason the verification circle is not used are, in fact, the same. We have come to trust that a lens that is molded will be molded correctly, and there is nothing that one can do to affect or change the outcome. This problem becomes even greater as labs begin to make digital lenses. Some will be laser engraved, some will not be. Some will have variable corridors (length, width, and/or inset) and some will not. It is impossible to then verify these type properly without mapping it, marking it, and verifying on the wearer. That's too much work, so most will:
1. Opt for traditional lenses because it "says so on the laser marks"
2. Trust the lab that the product was, in fact, produced correctly

----------


## obxeyeguy

> Staedtler lumocolor permanent markers do the trick.


I find that the uniPosca paint type pen works better on avance.  The lunocolor works good for me on the regular crizal and alize.

----------


## Laurie

Hipoptical makes a good point...




> Though this is true, you will find upon further examination, that most PALs do not reach 100% even AT the verification circle.


...we could trust the markings or trust the lab,

....or...we could only dispense PALs that promise 100 percent of the Add. And, verify it with our lensometer to see that it is true. If not, send it back.

This, of course, will not help for board prep, as the candidates must neutralize whatever lens is presented. I am making the point more for dispensing in general, and choosing lenses that provide the full add.

: )

Laurie

----------


## pseudonym

Laurie wrote: 

And, you have uncovered one of the industry's dirty little secrets...an overwhelming amount of PAL designs do not even make it to 100 percent of the add power once edged...!I wish I could say "Elementary, my dear Watson"  but actually I  didn't realize I'd stumbled onto anything of significance.  All I know is I'm not getting the correct ADD power when I position the aperture over the area labelled "near verification circle" on the template. Which makes me wonder if the circles are just useless decoration or what. I will go as low as I can in on the lens itself tomorrow and check my readings again- being careful to stay in the same cylinder for distance and near.

----------


## pseudonym

> This problem becomes even greater as labs begin to make digital lenses. Some will be laser engraved, some will not be. Some will have variable corridors (length, width, and/or inset) and some will not. It is impossible to then verify these type properly without mapping it, marking it, and verifying on the wearer. That's too much work, so most will:
> 1. Opt for traditional lenses because it "says so on the laser marks"
> 2. Trust the lab that the product was, in fact, produced correctly



The second option is frightening considering that I saw a pair of glasses in the remake bin today that came in with a 91 pd. I asked if they would let me look at them in the lensometer, and sure enough I couldn't begin to get them centered. 

New question: 91 pd is obviously wrong and it was even marked 91 pd on the lab ticket!  Don't labs have some kind of parameter for pd's that would reject them outright before they ever reach the shop? Or at least have the parameter set at (say) 74 which is the largest pd I've personally seen that would flag them for a technician to check and possibly manually override in the case of giantesses and ogres?

----------


## pseudonym

> I've heard something like 50% of people fail the lensometer portion.  I would ignore bad advice about not checking properly, especially on the boards.
> 
> Everyone has mentioned using the difference between the front vertex powers for the add, I would also add (no pun intended) that you should be marking each progressive with their mask, or marker using the proper cut out chart.  You can find them from our resident lens guru, lensguru (www.thelensguru.com) it's not to difficult to memorize the most common ones.  Good luck.


Using the proper cutout chart isn't always possible with donated specs- some of these things are strictly disco bondage headgear.  I've been told to use any 4mm template if I can't id the logo.

----------


## chip anderson

Geeze you guys,  I would be happy if I could feel 100% confident of the PD, much less the power on PALS.

Chip

----------


## obxeyeguy

> All I know is I'm not getting the correct ADD power when I position the aperture over the area labelled "near verification circle" on the template.


You are not getting the right power according to who?  How are they reading the "correct" power?  Lensometer or the engraved markings?

----------


## pseudonym

> You are not getting the right power according to who?  How are they reading the "correct" power?  Lensometer or the engraved markings?


Engraved markings.

----------


## mullo

What was the power of each lens in the 180° meridian of the spectacles in question?




> The second option is frightening considering that I saw a pair of glasses in the remake bin today that came in with a 91 pd. I asked if they would let me look at them in the lensometer, and sure enough I couldn't begin to get them centered. 
> 
> New question: 91 pd is obviously wrong and it was even marked 91 pd on the lab ticket! Don't labs have some kind of parameter for pd's that would reject them outright before they ever reach the shop? Or at least have the parameter set at (say) 74 which is the largest pd I've personally seen that would flag them for a technician to check and possibly manually override in the case of giantesses and ogres?

----------


## Chris Ryser

Iam really enjoying this thread how the guys and gals are finding distorted parts on lenses that should not be so.

Maybe the lens companies should go back to the drawing board or drop the prices for these lenses until they can come up with something that will pass the lensometer test of a finished lens.

Has anybody found a clean undistorted reading pat yet ?

----------


## pseudonym

> What was the power of each lens in the 180° meridian of the spectacles in question?


Power? On the 180th? I thought pd was a purely linear measure. 

The Rx was OD +0.50 -0.75 X 94 (calculator calculator...-0.25 on the 180th) 
OS was +0.25-0.50X80 so (tap tap tap...-0.23 on the 180th) 

Much as it pains me to admit it, the pd mistake was mine. The lab *did* list the pd as 91 on the ticket, but I had been diddling with the prism ring earlier and failed to zero it out. So the glasses were reading W-I-D-E when they were fine.

I still would like to know how the lab can list the pd as 91 when it was really 58.

----------


## pseudonym

> Iam really enjoying this thread how the guys and gals are finding distorted parts on lenses that should not be so.


Things looked better today after I used Laurie's trick of reading far down into the lens. I had to lift the shallower specs up off the lens table but I got readings that were close to the etched numbers. These readings still didn't seem to be related to the infamous "verification circle" though. I suspect I'm just looking for the power that is supposed to be somewhere in the lower half of the lens.

----------


## HarryChiling

> ....or...we could only dispense PALs that promise 100 percent of the Add. And, verify it with our lensometer to see that it is true. If not, send it back.


Great advice. 




> The second option is frightening considering that I saw a pair of glasses in the remake bin today that came in with a 91 pd. I asked if they would let me look at them in the lensometer, and sure enough I couldn't begin to get them centered. 
> 
> New question: 91 pd is obviously wrong and it was even marked 91 pd on the lab ticket! Don't labs have some kind of parameter for pd's that would reject them outright before they ever reach the shop? Or at least have the parameter set at (say) 74 which is the largest pd I've personally seen that would flag them for a technician to check and possibly manually override in the case of giantesses and ogres?


Most software will flag this kind of thing the DVI I use to order from the lab will flag based on negative decentration, so will Innovations. I don't think Visual Lab Pro does and that's the three I have worked with overthe years. The larger labs do flag this kind of thing and most will call to verify a 91 PD should never get through, but also keep in mind that in order for you to get a 91 PD, someone had to order it, so the problem starts in your office. Now on the labs end they try their best to prevent all unnecessary remakes because it costs them time and money, but at some point the accounts need to take responsibility for themselves as well.




> Using the proper cutout chart isn't always possible with donated specs- some of these things are strictly disco bondage headgear. I've been told to use any 4mm template if I can't id the logo.


If you had to use any template I would go with the 6mm above template as this is the highest fitting above PRP I have seen any progressive to have, although as long as you can identify that the lens is not a zeiss lens a 4mm template could do the trick as well. I guess in the absence of the proper tools (PAL Identifier, and cut out charts) you could always check at the lowest point on the frame as the near reference point, for the distance reference point I would recomend checking based on an average template and not a just the top most portion of the lens as some desings will start to change power if their is a significant room above the distance reference point. For example look at the maps below of a compact ultra.  The darkest blue indicates plano sphere power and each ring of color aroudn it indicates a +0.12 increase in power.

----------


## bob_f_aboc

> Power? On the 180th? I thought pd was a purely linear measure. 
> 
> The Rx was OD +0.50 -0.75 X 94 (calculator calculator...-0.25 on the 180th) 
> OS was +0.25-0.50X80 so (tap tap tap...-0.23 on the 180th) 
> 
> Much as it pains me to admit it, the pd mistake was mine. The lab *did* list the pd as 91 on the ticket, but I had been diddling with the prism ring earlier and failed to zero it out. So the glasses were reading W-I-D-E when they were fine.
> 
> I still would like to know how the lab can list the pd as 91 when it was really 58.


So total prism in this pair was still less than 1 diopter even at a PD of 91. (.792D)  There are times I wish my lab was that good!

----------


## lensgrinder

> I'm getting ok with bifocals, but these progressives are a whole nother thing. I'm getting the Rx  ok, but I can't figure out how to verify the add. Yesterday I found out that they just look for the number etched on the lens and write that down as the add. Fair enough, but I can't do that on the boards.


Where did you get this information from?
NC State Boards allow you to read the etched power.

----------


## Eva

I realize that opticians in the field merely note the etched number and write it down as the ADD, but what is the reason for the "near verification circle" if no one actually uses it to verify that the near power matches the etched number? 

The reason for the circle in the lower half of a progressive lens is to verify there is indeed a circle there.  If there is only a half circle or a little sliver, you've got problems.

----------


## hcjilson

> Iam really enjoying this thread how the guys and gals are finding distorted parts on lenses that should not be so.
> 
> Maybe the lens companies should go back to the drawing board or drop the prices for these lenses until they can come up with something that will pass the lensometer test of a finished lens.
> 
> Has anybody found a clean undistorted reading pat yet ?


Chris, you really should try some of the newer lenses. DEFINITY  is my favorite but there are other great designs. They are a vast improvement over the flat tops you told us you wear.  :):):)
from your friend in codgerhood  hj

----------


## pseudonym

> The reason for the circle in the lower half of a progressive lens is to verify there is indeed a circle there.  If there is only a half circle or a little sliver, you've got problems.


Ah so!  That makes sense. I've seen several half circles in the shallow frames. Bet the person that wore those had to squint to read the paper.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Ah so! That makes sense. I've seen several half circles in the shallow frames. Bet the person that wore those had to squint to read the paper.


Not really they'll just dip into their accommodative reserves more and have to purchase a new pair sooner.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Ah so! That makes sense. I've seen several half circles in the shallow frames. Bet the person that wore those had to squint to read the paper*.


.................................or buy a magnifier.    :bbg:

By having watched the threads on OptiBoard for years on the subject of progressives heights, I estimate there must be many millions of progressive lenses on peoples noses who pretend and try to read but have all the problems of doing so.

----------


## chip anderson

It's kind of like those who say they use all poly and never have any problems.   Patient doesn't have anything to compare with unless he gets a pair this isn't poly.  He thinks that's the standard.   I see a great many people who have been sold glasses from all or near all poly dispensaries who get something non-poly from us with no change in Rx and exclaim: "I didn't realize I couldn't see with my old ones."

Chip

----------


## pseudonym

> It's kind of like those who say they use all poly and never have any problems.   Patient doesn't have anything to compare with unless he gets a pair this isn't poly."
> 
> Chip


If you mean polycarbonate, that's what I have and I love them. Varilux Comforts. What is better?

----------


## hipoptical

> If you mean polycarbonate, that's what I have and I love them. Varilux Comforts. What is better?


Just about anything else.
Poly is terrible.
Varilux is hype- all marketing, zero new technology.
Higher Rxs usually notice the difference between poly and other materials more so than those with lower Rxs.
I know of at least 5 other lenses that I could fit you into, and you would notice no difference whatsoever compared to the Comfort. I know of several others that would perform better. I know of digital lenses that would cost the same (or less) than Comfort that would "wow" you, and some that cost more that would "wow" you. (And, yes, I know of others that are not as good, but like the Comfort, they are older designs.)

----------


## hcjilson

> If you mean polycarbonate, that's what I have and I love them. Varilux Comforts. What is better?


DEFINITY'S in trivex!


Note to hipoptical- Varilux was revolutionary in 1994 in that it was the first "soft" design progressive, minimizing the swim effect of the unwanted astigmatism. Previous to that you had the VIP and the Varilux 2 which were hard designs and very unsat because of the blind spot on the periphery. It isn't just advertising that makes a lens a sucess.

----------


## pseudonym

> DEFINITY'S in trivex!


You were just waiting for the opportunity, weren't you?   :Rolleyes:  I don't know enough about these lens materials yet to make an appraisal. Considering that I've had cars that didn't cost as much as the ones I wear now, "appraisal" is the only word that fits.

----------


## hcjilson

> You were just waiting for the opportunity, weren't you?   I don't know enough about these lens materials yet to make an appraisal. Considering that I've had cars that didn't cost as much as the ones I wear now, "appraisal" is the only word that fits.


You will notice I used that opportunity TWICE in this thread alone! :):)

----------


## cvbs

pseudonym,  I only quickly scanned this topic and as to not being able to read the true add in the verify circle to match the engraved.  This comes from to many "opticians" trying to fit progressives w/ longer intermediates into frames low seg hts. thus cutting off the add!!! If you use the "correct" lens for the frame the patient will get much better satisfaction out of the glasses and you will end up cutting down on remakes and keeping your costs in line besides.  :cheers:

----------


## pseudonym

> pseudonym,  I only quickly scanned this topic and as to not being able to read the true add in the verify circle to match the engraved.  This comes from to many "opticians" trying to fit progressives w/ longer intermediates into frames low seg hts. thus cutting off the add!!! If you use the "correct" lens for the frame the patient will get much better satisfaction out of the glasses and you will end up cutting down on remakes and keeping your costs in line besides.  :cheers:


Who are these "opticians" of which you speak? (Scan the first post, I am only a student.)

So, you are the optician. A patient walks in who has made up her mind what frames she likes. Very opinionated lady, this patient. The frames are tiny and will not fit even your shortest corridor lens. She wants to keep the same progressive she's been wearing for the past 5 years anyway. You know this lens in those frames will rob her of her reading power. 

Are you going to give the lady what she wants or are you going to kill the sale?

----------


## hcjilson

That answer is easy. When customers ask for something that you know is wrong, you don't do it. Forget progessives for a moment. What if the customer requests a couple of degrees of prism?..........You don't do that either, for the same reason. It's not on the Rx. If the customer asks for a frame that is too small for the progressive you could simply say, you can have them for distance, or you can have them for near, but you can't have them for both. You won't be killing a sale.....no one else would knowingly do the wrong because it will result in customer dissatisfaction.

----------


## pseudonym

> You won't be killing a sale.....no one else would knowingly do the wrong because it will result in customer dissatisfaction.


They wouldn't? Cvbs has indicated the problem is "opticians" incompetence. Judging from the number of incomplete circles I've seen in the donation box, he may have a point. 

Fashion is another problem. Could these tiny frames be tagged "no progressives" or will that just make the lady want them all the more?

----------


## hipoptical

> DEFINITY'S in trivex!
> 
> 
> Note to hipoptical- Varilux was revolutionary in 1994 in that it was the first "soft" design progressive, minimizing the swim effect of the unwanted astigmatism. Previous to that you had the VIP and the Varilux 2 which were hard designs and very unsat because of the blind spot on the periphery. It isn't just advertising that makes a lens a sucess.


I have never argued that Varilux is a bad product. The fact that a product was good at one time (compared to other products) does not mean that it's value stands for all time. If you were shopping for a computer, you would not buy from me a 1994 version when you could get a 2009 version for the same or less money, would you? The Varilux Comfort WAS a good lens in 1994. Compared to what you can get today, it is not. It is hype NOW... Varilux contracts with laboratories stated that the lab could not say anything was better than, as good as, or even compares to the Comfort. If it really is that good, then why write that language into a contract? It was hype that propelled the product, and hype that continues to sell it (combined with ignorance of "opticians"). Essilor is a marketing machine. They know they can't make anything outsell that lens now (notice I didn't say can't make anything better?) so they have to continue to sell old technology. Anyone willing to learn will find out quickly what the truth is, and they will sell better products and have happier customers. Everyone else will sell Comfort, and have "satisfied" customers. There are a lot of folks "satisfied" with their 1994 vehicles, there are happier people driving 2009 vehicles. Clothes, computers, TVs... we like everything upgraded, and updated, but we continue to sell 1994 eyeglasses????? NOT ME.

----------


## OCP

> I have never argued that Varilux is a bad product. The fact that a product was good at one time (compared to other products) does not mean that it's value stands for all time. If you were shopping for a computer, you would not buy from me a 1994 version when you could get a 2009 version for the same or less money, would you? The Varilux Comfort WAS a good lens in 1994. Compared to what you can get today, it is not. It is hype NOW... Varilux contracts with laboratories stated that the lab could not say anything was better than, as good as, or even compares to the Comfort. If it really is that good, then why write that language into a contract? It was hype that propelled the product, and hype that continues to sell it (combined with ignorance of "opticians"). Essilor is a marketing machine. They know they can't make anything outsell that lens now (notice I didn't say can't make anything better?) so they have to continue to sell old technology. Anyone willing to learn will find out quickly what the truth is, and they will sell better products and have happier customers. Everyone else will sell Comfort, and have "satisfied" customers. There are a lot of folks "satisfied" with their 1994 vehicles, there are happier people driving 2009 vehicles. Clothes, computers, TVs... we like everything upgraded, and updated, but we continue to sell 1994 eyeglasses????? NOT ME.


I´m 100% agree in this.
Actually it´s one of the industries worst issues, to get the optician to order new and better products, and Varilux Comfort is the worst.
Why is it so difficult for Essilor to learn the opticians about better products.? Comfort is nothing than a old lens design with absolutly no optical characteristics, and the 360 is the same just stuff, just on the back surface. By introducing the Comfort on the back surface, Essilor will never get out of this vicious circle. Actually they admid they have done a bad information job here. They are shooting them self in their feet.

----------


## pseudonym

> Comfort is nothing than a old lens design with absolutly no optical characteristics,


Poor Essilor sitting there with their Varilux Comforts, their zillions of dollars, and all that absurd customer loyalty to a product that is antiquated.  The success of the Comforts is a real problem for them. Sort of like  BB King having to play "The Thrill is Gone" one more time in concert when he has newer and better stuff.

----------


## OCP

> Poor Essilor sitting there with their Varilux Comforts, their zillions of dollars, and all that absurd customer loyalty to a product that is antiquated.  The success of the Comforts is a real problem for them. Sort of like  BB King having to play "The Thrill is Gone" one more time in concert when he has newer and better stuff.


Essilor own the business and what they say is always the only truth available. If they cant discontinue the lens, they just tell you it´s the best lens out there, and everyone applaud it.
Nice and easy to have lots of money. :)
:cheers:

----------


## hipoptical

> The success of the Comforts is a real problem for them.


Their success is a REAL problem us. Sheeple just keep following in line, heads down, taking orders. Meanwhile, better products, providing better vision, less eye strain, and more natural sight are out there, waiting for someone to care. GM never imagined bankruptcy. The economy isn't to blame. People eventually began to see that those "no-name" cars from overseas weren't so bad. I hope the same thing happens to Essilor. I hope that "opticians" will eventually take this industry seriously and begin to think for once. Maybe decide that name brand does not mean best. 
(On a side note: my last three "American" cars were made in Mexico and Canada. One "foreign" car I have now was made in the good ole USA. I'm just sayin'...)

----------


## hcjilson

> I´m 100% agree in this.
> Actually it´s one of the industries worst issues, to get the optician to order new and better products, and Varilux Comfort is the worst.
> Why is it so difficult for Essilor to learn the opticians about better products.? Comfort is nothing than a old lens design with absolutly no optical characteristics, and the 360 is the same just stuff, just on the back surface. By introducing the Comfort on the back surface, Essilor will never get out of this vicious circle. Actually they admid they have done a bad information job here. They are shooting them self in their feet.


Your statement above is incorrect. All lens manufacturers are trying to get the practitioner to try and to order new products. They all have CE courses, no further away than your search engine. Essilor has 6 that I can name right away. Of course the Comfort has optical characteristics.........What kind of lab tech doesn't know this.....I would consider the source before giving any creditability to the above post.

----------


## HarryChiling

The comfort is OK as a lens, but I have fit better.  Now if you ask me what i fit as my go to progressive, the Comfort. :hammer:

Seems rather silly right, well I noticed that while I was selling other products in the past independent opticians, independent OD's and OMD's just took one look at the markings on the lens and wrote off anything that wasn't a comfort as being wrong.  My poor name was being slandered, as soon as I switched to the comfort the problems stoped, now I knwo what your thinking, but many of the patients in the other PAL's were happy until their independent practitioner told them that they did not get a Varilux so it's a second rate lens.  So in their effort to spite the chains many of the independents have chosen to slander anything that doesn't have a football with a crooked e in it, this has also backed them into a corner when it comes to new products.  

My latest independent competitor likes to tell patients that we can't get Hoya lenses.  It seems to be that no one wants to stand on their own two feet anymore, it's slander all around.  The manufacturers take advantage of this by offering two tiers of products one for us, one for them.  You get the Physio and I get the Accolade.  Your under the impression that I can't get the Physio so you do your best to talk it up like it's the next best thing since wonder bread.

----------


## Uncle Fester

As I've said before a small segment of your patients will refuse to be switched. When this happens it's more often than not a Comfort wearer. (Not to say most can't be changed!)

I think to myself when this patient is complaining --You're seeing better- you just don't know it!

Or to paraphrase an old Indian saying- "Spend a few hours at my dispensing table before you judge".:)

----------


## pseudonym

> As I've said before a small segment of your patients will refuse to be switched. When this happens it's more often than not a Comfort wearer. (Not to say most can't be changed!)


Speaking for myself, there is an incredible gratitude that takes over when one's vision is rejuvenated by a progressive. This feeling is directed to the lens company and it takes the form of name recognition and customer loyalty.  If I hadn't done any reading on this, I probably would be in the percentage that would never switch. 

I'm thinking the optician often plays it safe with this kind of brand loyalty. Why suggest a change when the customer is tickled pink with a certain lens type? The optician will have to do some talking to convince the customer to switch, and he is raising that person's expectations by doing so. If the customer doesn't have a life changing experience over the new lenses, they are going to return them.

----------


## OCP

> Your statement above is incorrect. All lens manufacturers are trying to get the practitioner to try and to order new products. They all have CE courses, no further away than your search engine. Essilor has 6 that I can name right away. Of course the Comfort has optical characteristics.........What kind of lab tech doesn't know this.....I would consider the source before giving any creditability to the above post.


Please feel free to tell me what feature optical characteristics you find in the Comfort lens. In my oppinion, Comfort is old rubbish that the optician keep on selling because they ask the client "are you happy with the lenses".! Cant you see that they dont know better, and therefore you cant ask this way. In my oppinion, Essilor did a bad job by not informing the optician well enough, that this is and very old lens design and Physio is much better. Simple as that. You are obvious pro Essilor, and pease with that.

----------


## hcjilson

I *AM* pro Essilor, pro Sola, pro, Zeiss, pro Shamir, pro Rodenstock,pro Younger, pro AO, pro B&L and pro every other lens company who works so hard to give me the best products on the market for the customers I serve.

OCP said: "  You are obvious pro Essilor, and pease with that. 	  	"

Congratulations OCP .....you finally got something right!

----------


## OCP

> I *AM* pro Essilor, pro Sola, pro, Zeiss, pro Shamir, pro Rodenstock,pro Younger, pro AO, pro B&L and pro every other lens company who works so hard to give me the best products on the market for the customers I serve.
> 
> OCP said: "  You are obvious pro Essilor, and pease with that.           "
> 
> Congratulations OCP .....you finally got something right!


I got something right???


If you can only speak positive about everything here, you will not have any dialog. Right now we have an dialog about Comfort. Not about Physio or  other products. I understand that it´s good business for Essilor to keep on selling Comfort. Everyone would be happy to sell old products in that volume. It´s just wrong for the business, and for the clients.

----------


## hipoptical

> Everyone would be happy to sell old products in that volume. *It´s just wrong for the business, and for the clients*.


:cheers:

----------


## pseudonym

> Rather than foolishly trynig to one up a moderator (who ALWAYS can have the last word) would anyone care to return to the subject of THIS thread?


Nope. Now that I know the state boards doesn't consider reading the etching on a progressive ADD to be cheating. This thread has officially outlived its usefulness.

Note to OCP: You posted a PM?? Bad bad naughty karma. That's against all the rules of netiquette. Even in Denmark. In the US it's a hangable offense. Good luck with your new identity.

----------

