# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  your preferred anti-reflective coatings

## Ecliptic

I have access to zeiss (teflon, carat, etc), kodak (cleAR), and essilor (crizal, crizal alize) anti reflective coatings (at least this is what my lab does in house).

in terms of premium A/R, the kodak cleAR is the cheapest, followed by the alize, with teflon being the highest.

My lab go-to-guy prefers the cleAR irregardless of pricing.  What do you think is the "best" A/R (out of all A/R out there... and out of these that are available to me).


Thanks :)  :Nerd:

----------


## For-Life

I have tried most.  Several years back, I started to try Crizal.  I was shocked in the fact that, where before we had about one or two crazes a month, we were not getting crazed lenses.  So I have stuck with it.  Now I use alize.  I have tried other easy to clean, but I prefer Alize.

----------


## Happylady

My personal favorite is Crizal Advance with Scotchguard. I have it on my newest glasses and it is much easier to clean the Crizal Alize. It is not VSP approved so for those jobs I use Alize. If I am using a lens I can't get Alize on I use Carat Advantage or Hoya Super High Vision.

----------


## Chris Ryser

It boils down to which manufacturer has made the most impressive product advertising thsat affects your liking it............and then it has done the job it was intended to.

And never forget that you are paying the advertising in your purchase price included.

And when the time comes to strip them, they all come off in 10 secinds because they are all made with the same ingredients.

----------


## bob_f_aboc

> It boils down to which manufacturer has made the most impressive product advertising thsat affects your liking it............and then it has done the job it was intended to.
> 
> And never forget that you are paying the advertising in your purchase price included.
> 
> And when the time comes to strip them, they all come off in 10 secinds because they are all made with the same ingredients.


Buzz Kill!  (Thanks for the reality check)

Personally I like the HOYA Super HiVision.  Easy to clean and I like the light green residual color and no problems with crazing.

----------


## Happylady

> It boils down to which manufacturer has made the most impressive product advertising thsat affects your liking it............and then it has done the job it was intended to.


I like Crizal ARs because they are very durable and almost never craze. I like the Crizal Advance because it is extremely easy to clean and stays clean for a long time. I have also had excellent results with Hoya Super Hi Vision and Carat Advantage as far as scratching and crazing.

I have dealt with many ARs over the years that crazed and were horrible to clean. I like the ARs that I do because of my experiences with different ones not because of the advertising.

----------


## ajboon

I have been happy with Crizal alize, and Super Hivision

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

My favorites are Carat Advantage and SHV.

----------


## Jedi

> It boils down to which manufacturer has made the most impressive product advertising thsat affects your liking it............and then it has done the job it was intended to.
> 
> And never forget that you are paying the advertising in your purchase price included.
> 
> And when the time comes to strip them, they all come off in 10 secinds because they are all made with the same ingredients.


Can't say that advertising influences my decision. Personally i thought Essilor had gone off the deep end when (in Canada) the introduced Crizal D' Alize with AST. That doesn't mean anything to me. It's about patient satisfaction, less warranties in the office, and less headaches. For me Essilor has nailed it. A good solution to prevent lenses from slipping on the wheel, virtually zero warranties and excellent service from our reps when there is a problem. We are a fickle bunch in the office and do not hesistate to drop a brand when then don't live up to the service they should (we have dropped Essilor in the past). I hope others manufacturers follow suit and pull up there socks because they are losing our $$$.

----------


## Chris Ryser

So far out of 7 post's none has a a favorite outside the big business circle.
Are all Optiboard members that favour their local independent AR coating lab too shy to post ?

----------


## For-Life

> So far out of 7 post's none has a a favorite outside the big business circle.
> Are all Optiboard members that favour their local independent AR coating lab too shy to post ?


I have had far too many failures with independent coatings.  Not to say that there is not one out there that works.  I have only heard good things about Vivex Stainless.  But for most of them, it is hard to know if you can trust them or not.

----------


## john-atlanta

Although it is limited to only SV poly made by them, I happen to love the Color Free AR from Resolution.  

My local lab uses an independent coating, but I found it too green, especially compared with the colorfree, but even compared with Synergy from Nassau, which is basically Crizal.  

Don't have experience with SHV, but will try it!  Carat advantage is decent, but doesn't blow me away.  Just started doing some teflon too, to me they are all quite similar excepting the colorfree.  

Rumor has it that resolution is testing color free with other materials and may make the formula available for other lenses in about a year.  :cheers:

John

----------


## ajboon

I have tried transdura, which is supposed to be comparable to crizal alize.  I haven't had any complaints

----------


## optigrrl

> So far out of 7 post's none has a a favorite outside the big business circle.
> Are all Optiboard members that favour their local independent AR coating lab too shy to post ?


Vivex stainless is good but you still can't beat Super Hi Vision from Hoya!

----------


## MarcE

> It boils down to which manufacturer has made the most impressive product advertising thsat affects your liking it............and then it has done the job it was intended to.
> 
> And never forget that you are paying the advertising in your purchase price included.
> 
> And when the time comes to strip them, they all come off in 10 secinds because they are all made with the same ingredients.


Just not true.  Some come off like crepe paper.  Some are "integrated" with the hardcoat and take much longer to strip.  These with "integrated" hard coats can not be removed except by removing the hardcoating also.  That's just my experience.

Sure they are all basically the same, except:
1.  Some labs don't apply a backside hardcoat first
2.  Some ARs don't include a slick coat
3.  Some are compatable to the hardcoat.  
4.  Some have the hardcoating stripped off and a compatable hardcoated added in the process so that the AR is actually part of the hardcoat.
5.  Some scratch easily and some don't
6.  Some Craze easily and some don't 

Other than performance, they are exactly the same.

----------


## MarcE

> So far out of 7 post's none has a a favorite outside the big business circle.
> Are all Optiboard members that favour their local independent AR coating lab too shy to post ?


 
I'm not too shy. These are good:

HPV from Hawkins in Topeka, KS.  It comes with the blue anti-slip stuff
ARx and ARxHP from Interstate, also comes with the blue stuff.  (Although Interstate was recently "partnered" with the Empire)
Allure from KC Ophthalmic (Zeise/SOLA lab), no blue stuff -  too slick to edge.
Synergy is great stuff from Nassua, no blue stuff
Sharpview - GREAT value from the Empire, also w/ the blue stuff.

This is far cry from what I would have said even 18 months ago.  The lab applied ARs have increased in quality tremendously lately.  I don't have a problem using any of these are even some others.

Incidently, I had lots of problems with the few pairs of CleAR that I dispensed.  The all peeled off.  I think it was the lab, not the product.  Because many here have had good luck with it.

----------


## john-atlanta

> I'm not too shy. These are good:
> 
> Synergy is great stuff from Nassua, no blue stuff
> Sharpview - GREAT value from the Empire, also w/ the blue stuff.


My understanding is that these are virtually identical, other than the name.  Anyone else know?

Haven't seen much on Teflon.  In a stock CR39 lens Crizal Alize and Teflon are very, very close in price from my lab.  Sounds like most would choose the Crizal?

My other lab calls Synergy poor mans Crizal (not Alize).  It includes the TD2 two sided scratch coat.

John

----------


## Happylady

On stock lenses I have used Synergy with good results.

----------


## specs4you

My favorite is Duratough EZ.  Then I like Vivex Stainless, crizal alize',
and you know I have never had failures with the old  Zeiss SET and GET if you like Gold hue the GET is nice, looks nice with a fancy golden frame.
Wish I had a job so I could retain my knowledge...after nearly 4 mos I am
getting desperate...............................HELP................  .........:hammer: :cry:

----------


## nevio

just so happens i put on an old pair of eyeglasses that are about ten years old,(progressive over contact lenses ) and I'd like to know if anyone knows where I could get a single layer of magnesium of fluoride coating, this was the precursor to modern multi layer coatings and kindly excuse me if I posted in the wrong Group,
TIA

----------


## ArielJG

When it comes to stock SV lenses form my company that I work for JG Optical.
I like to recommend my customers for Premium AR's: 
CR-39: Teflon, PentaxAR Slippery When Dry, & then Crizal Alize
Poly: ResolutionAR & Resolution ColorFreeAR (Resolution has grate optics), Teflon & then Crizal Alize. & we have some other ones in stock.
1.67: PentaxAR Slippery When Dry, Crizal Alize and we have the new 
1.67 PentaxAR TranGray SV in stock ,
1.70 HoyaAR 
1.74 NikonAR

----------


## MarcE

> 1.67 PentaxAR TranGray SV in stock ,


I didn't know that was available w/ Stock AR.  Does you lab apply it?

----------


## Crazy-bout-Optics

I've only worked with the Big Lens Co's A/R products.

I love the new Crizal Avance w/Scotchgaurd, and I did like Crizal Alize w/Clear Gaurd.

However my Favorite is Hoya Super HiVision. It is the best I have worked with. In 2 years of dispensing it, no crazing and very few scratch returns. I know it is one of the more expensive ones.

I didn't like the Teflon A/R that much, still smudgy when cleaning it. 

I would love to get my hands on Vivex's A/R for comparison. I know a Higher $ doesn't mean a better product. So if anyone is in a giving mood, Id love to compare them, and don't mind paying for it, just dont have wholesale access to them. 

I also would love to try stock A/R lenses from say Lehman Optical and apply Chris R. coating to it to see how it stands up to the Big Boy's A/R. Again, if Chris is in a giving mood, I'd love to try it out! ;-)


Let me see if I can get any more plugs in. LOL, Ok just kidding. But just in case . . . . 

Cartier,Cartier,Cartier,Cartier,Cartier,Cartier.

Hope that made someone chuckle at least :-)

----------


## Lee Prewitt

> Vivex stainless is good but you still can't beat Super Hi Vision from Hoya!


Thanks for all the wonderful endorsements! Has anyone noticed that Stainless (iCoat) has the most mentions? SHV is a very good coating but it has so many limitations as to what lenses it can be applied too. Stainless is compatible with all materials and lens styles and yes Virginia, that includes FT. It was mentioned earlier that you are paying for all the marketing hype that goes with the corporate brands. Stainless will definitely surprise you! Here ends the plug! Notice not shameless!

PS/ PM me if you want to try Stainless. I will be happy to let you see for yorself what a wonderful, independant coating can be.

----------


## Ecliptic

hmm... anyone know the bayer rating of crizal avance with scotchgard? :)

(and the ratings for kodak cleAR and some of the other coatings as well?)

----------


## nevio

what ever it is it is just a guide that doesnt mean much, when i actually had the gizmo with the rubber against a lens and  rubed the lens i found out that the way that particular batch was proccesed made a very large difference, pick a number between 1 and 500 it's probably in there some place:cheers:




> hmm... anyone know the bayer rating of crizal avance with scotchgard? :)
> 
> (and the ratings for kodak cleAR and some of the other coatings as well?)

----------


## DoctorParker

Crizal hands down...

----------


## Happylady

> Crizal hands down...


Last week I had a couple of patients come in with glasses that were two or three years old. Both of them were VERY unhappy with their lenses because they were so hard to clean and got dirty so fast. 

They were bad, I washed one with dishsoap and warm water and it looked bad within minutes. Neither were crazed or badly scratched but I could write on both of them with markers unlike good ARs. Neither patient would get AR again and I can't really blame them.

One of them was some cheap Davis AR but the other was Crizal. It makes me wonder how good regular Crizal is after a couple of years; do all Crizal lenses get like this with regular washing and wearing?

----------


## opt2012

> Crizal hands down...


 
YES. I love it. I have three pairs of glases with Crizal.  One of those pairs is four years old and it still looks great.  However, I do know how to take care of my glasses... a lot of people are careless and that's why they come in over and over again with nasty looking lenses. 

A lot of our customers that come in swearing never to get AR again try Crizal and are really satisfied.

----------


## ilanh

> It boils down to which manufacturer has made the most impressive product advertising thsat affects your liking it............and then it has done the job it was intended to.
> 
> And never forget that you are paying the advertising in your purchase price included.
> 
> And when the time comes to strip them, they all come off in 10 secinds because they are all made with the same ingredients.


Chris,
If you are saying that all AR coatings are the same, I would have to disagree with this.  If you are saying that the base ingredients are the same, I wouldn't know.  However, there is absolutely no question in my mind that some AR coatings are absolutely horrible and others are fabulous.  I've had a lot of experiences with some terrible coatings that we got from various labs that we used in which every pair of lenses that they were put on looked smudged beyond repair after a few months.  On the other hand, our crizal alize patients come in with sparkling lenses visit after visit.  Don't get me wrong: I hate paying those alize prices and I wish it weren't so, but it is.  On the other hand, I know that you sell a dip product which you claim turns any AR coat into a premium coat.  If this is true then it's worth it's weight in gold (literally).

----------


## Ecliptic

anyone used the Crizal Avance with Scotchgard enough to give a good idea how it compares to the other top coatings?

essilor seems to advertise it as the most scratch resistant A/R... but with the Super Hivision having a bayer rating of 10.9 I find it unlikely! Anyone know the bayer rating of the Avance lenses? or at least used them enough to give a decent review of them?

I tried to email essilor using their website but whenever i try to send the email it gives an error. I also tried to call them and when I asked the supposed coating rep if she could give some kind of comparison she sounded clueless and told me if I had "internet" i could go to their website (which basically says that it is the newest and best... but doesn't have any numbers or comparissons to back-up the claims!).

Anyhow, thanks :)  :Nerd: 

@nevio:  if you find the bayer ratings to not mean too much, then do you have subjective experience that can say how this coating compares to the rest?

----------


## For-Life

> anyone used the Crizal Avance with Scotchgard enough to give a good idea how it compares to the other top coatings?
> 
> essilor seems to advertise it as the most scratch resistant A/R... but with the Super Hivision having a bayer rating of 10.9 I find it unlikely! Anyone know the bayer rating of the Avance lenses? or at least used them enough to give a decent review of them?
> 
> I tried to email essilor using their website but whenever i try to send the email it gives an error. I also tried to call them and when I asked the supposed coating rep if she could give some kind of comparison she sounded clueless and told me if I had "internet" i could go to their website (which basically says that it is the newest and best... but doesn't have any numbers or comparissons to back-up the claims!).
> 
> Anyhow, thanks :) 
> 
> @nevio: if you find the bayer ratings to not mean too much, then do you have subjective experience that can say how this coating compares to the rest?


 
I have not used Avance, but before I left, I did a lot of Alize.  Essilor's is lower than Hoyas.  With that in mind, I never got Alize lenses back with scratches.  It is one of those things about if it is good enough.  An Escalade is huge and big enough for a family of four on a vacation.  Just because a Hummer is bigger, does not mean it is more appropriate.  At that point, there are other factors to consider.

----------


## fivetradejack

While i dont care to admit it the Ultra coating from Walman optical has done well with our few patients we send through them.

----------


## Happylady

> anyone used the Crizal Avance with Scotchgard enough to give a good idea how it compares to the other top coatings?


I have it on my newest progressive lenses. I also have Crizal Alize on some other glasses.

The Crizal Avance is very slick and very easy to clean. The best thing about it is that it stays clean. I wash them in the morning and can go all day without cleaning them again. I have never had this with any other AR.

My other glasses with the Crizal Alize are easy to clean but not quite as easy as the Avance. They also don't stay clean as long, I can't clean them in the morning and not clean them again all day.

As far as scratches go, I don't have any that I can see on my Avance lenses. I think I've had the glasses for about 6 months. I take care of them but I'm not perfect about it. 

My husband is not as good about taking care of his glasses and his Crizal Alize with Clearguard lenses do have a few scratches on them. I have replaced them once.

----------


## ArielJG

> I didn't know that was available w/ Stock AR. Does you lab apply it?


No the lens SV 1.67 Pentax TranGray AR ( In stock ) comes like that with the Pentax AR form Pentax I have a Pair myself they are good lenses. 

ArielJG :bbg:
JG Optical & Galaxy Optics, NY

----------


## allycat

> anyone used the Crizal Avance with Scotchgard enough to give a good idea how it compares to the other top coatings?


 

I have used it for about three years now (yes I work for the enemy) and I have to say its the best coating I have used it 13 years in optical. I am my worst customer...I use and abuse my glasses to see what they can take and I have yet to destroy a schotchguard lens. I have a few scratches but nothing like my other lenses. The one thing I have noticed at work is that on a 1.67 lens...it crazed with heat easily..where the poly doesnt.

----------


## MarcE

> I have used it for about three years now (yes I work for the enemy)


It hasn't been available except for about 3 months.  Are you talking about the LC "Scotchguard" branded lenses?  If so, it's not the same.  And it wasn't applied over Avance.
Welcome to the board!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> Chris,
> *..................................On the other hand, I know that you sell a dip product which you claim turns any AR coat into a premium coat. If this is true then it's worth it's weight in gold (literally).*


ilanh.........we do not have to glorify a dip product more than it actually does provide.

The microscopic gaps between the crystals of the AR layer are the culprits that collect dirt and facial grease............and because these gaps are very hard to keep clean we developed a water based organopolisiloxane material over 20 years ago that fills those gaps and results in very smooth and slick surface which prevents dirt and grease to get into those space.

Your premium coating contain also organopolisiloxane that been applied by evaporation of a siloxane pill under vacuum which eliminates the extra step of dipping the lenses.

However the result is about the same while the cost to you is about 100 fold more, than if you would have applied it yourself. We do make a living by providing the optical retailer the possibility of doing some finishing operations themselves to reduce their cost and sell the end product with a higher profit or being able to reduce their selling prices which is not the worst idea in todays economy.

----------


## drk

I would certainly appreciate a brief rundown on the difference between:
CrizalAlizeAlize with Clear GuardAvance with Scotch Guard.Let me guess:
AR stack on lens manufacturer's hard coatStack with hydrophobic/oleophobic top layeressilor's proprietary hard coat, stack, and top layerSame thing with added anti-static layer?

----------


## For-Life

> I would certainly appreciate a brief rundown on the difference between:CrizalAlizeAlize with Clear GuardAvance with Scotch Guard.Let me guess:AR stack on lens manufacturer's hard coatStack with hydrophobic/oleophobic top layeressilor's proprietary hard coat, stack, and top layerSame thing with added anti-static layer?


1. Crizal is the traditional coating with a hydrophobic layer
2. Alize is the easy to clean, with an oleophobic layer in addition to a hydrophobic one.
3. Alize with an anti-static layer
4. An upgrade of Alize with Clearguard that is even easier to clean, stays clean longer, and will retain its ease of clean throughout time.


In my opinion, no need for four options.  Each one replaces the next.  However, some people still use Crizal (why, I have no clue).  Alize with scotch guard quickly replaced Alize.  Avance has replaced Alize with Clear Guard.  Also, Alize with Clear Guard and Avance were introduced with almost no price increase.

----------


## drk

Thank you, ForLife!

----------


## EdgeOptical

in our office we have seen mostly good results with teflon. Crizal alize has also been a very strong coating for us, neither have shown any true issue. 

i recently got my father a pair with the hoya super hi vision, so i am pretty eager to see how well that holds up, he is one of the worst about cleanign their glasses i have seen.

----------


## MarcE

> I would certainly appreciate a brief rundown on the difference between:CrizalAlizeAlize with Clear GuardAvance with Scotch Guard.Let me guess:AR stack on lens manufacturer's hard coatStack with hydrophobic/oleophobic top layeressilor's proprietary hard coat, stack, and top layerSame thing with added anti-static layer?


Not exactly:
1.  mfg's hard coat is stripped and Essilor's substrate-matched hardcoat is applied at the time of AR which supposedly bonds the AR much better to the hardcoat and the hardcoat to the lens.
2.  Yes.  Crizal w/ slick coat
3.  Adds a slicker coat and "static guard" - but wears off with repeated cleanings.  Being discontinued soon
4.  Same as 3, but it's supposed to stay on for 40,000 cleanings or something like that.  Maybe has a higher contact angle. Costs more of course.

----------


## Chris Ryser

*An excellent descrition of polisiloxane which are the main ingredient of the subject on discussion.*

*http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/Courses/ce435/Polysiloxanes/*

----------


## sharonm516

I wear Alize and I like it.  I dont have a problem with it getting dirty or anything.  
I have a pair of Vera Wangs that I put it on 3 years ago...no issues ever and they look brand new. 
I just bought 5 pairs of Menizzi glasses all with Alize (Im trying to get all that I can before I move. :bbg:).

----------


## drk

These coatings are increasingly excellent. However, the price is becoming high enough that it becomes more and more luxury instead of necessity. What a disconnect!

What's more, selling two-tiers of AR sends a terrible mixed message:

_"NO, Mrs. Leery, that hard-to-clean stuff was our BASIC AR last time for $49...This is the 'good stuff' for $119."_

_"Well, Mr. Thinwallet, if you can't afford Optochemical's 'Polysiloxoryser with Kevlar' you can always get the basic stuff for less."_

What's an optical to do? Seriously?

----------


## joptician

This discussion of AR is very interesting and really shows the confusion at our retail level about AR.  I blame the misleading marketing and ignorant sales people for the confusion.  

That being said, lets not forget that Crizal from a large Essilor lab is most likely different than the same Crizal from a recently purchased Essilor lab or an independent lab with in-house Crizal.  This is due to the fact that there are different makes and models of coating equipment, the personnel and technicians, condition of equipment and finally the short cuts that they have exploited.  This should also be true of Zeiss and any other coating "licensed" out.  It might even include the Kodak; it did when they first came out with it.  It was very poor!

Most important I believe is to choose a product with a long standing reputation from a company with the same that is committed to improving product so that we all can confidently increase AR sales.  For those of you who "don't blame the patient for not wanting AR based on the past."  Well, maybe you are to blame for dismal AR sales in the US.  We need not sympathize with them.  Remember plastic consumer products from the 70's and 80's?  The thin stuff that was brittle.  Now, think about how many products we buy today that are plastic, have replaced metal items and last much much longer.  The AR today is far superior to what was in the past and it is your responsibility to relay this message to your patients as well as the benefits and value only AR can provide.

my .02

----------


## For-Life

> These coatings are increasingly excellent. However, the price is becoming high enough that it becomes more and more luxury instead of necessity. What a disconnect!
> 
> What's more, selling two-tiers of AR sends a terrible mixed message:
> 
> _"NO, Mrs. Leery, that hard-to-clean stuff was our BASIC AR last time for $49...This is the 'good stuff' for $119."_
> 
> _"Well, Mr. Thinwallet, if you can't afford Optochemical's 'Polysiloxoryser with Kevlar' you can always get the basic stuff for less."_
> 
> What's an optical to do? Seriously?


You are correct.  It really is creating a barrier between adding it on to help everyone out and adding it on as a luxury.

I have many thoughts on this.  My first one is that I shy away from the cheap stuff, because it has a history of failing.  In many cases, I believe that I am better off to not offer AR than offer a poor AR that will fail.  So then we get into offering something such as Crizal (the older premium coatings that tend to be very strong, but hard to clean).  With that said, many patients hate the fact that they are hard to clean and people tend to turn down the AR coating instead.

So now you can Crizal it and put the Optochemical stuff.  I am a big fan of Chris Ryser's products and do not want to say anything bad, but I also want to be honest.  This product will not match what Alize has to offer.  I also question how much better it is than regular Crizal.

I think one option is to look at something like Essilor Trio.  It has an easy to clean version.  As easy to clean as regular Alize, which is not that bad.  Less expensive too.  But offers a teal blue (not the Artic Blue of Zeiss, Teflon, or D Alize) that does not look as nice and allows in a little more reflections.  I guess that is the customer compromise.  

To add to the food for thought, the poor ARs, even the Trios are all offered by the chains.  These are their primary coatings.  By offering them, you are doing little to seperate yourself from them.  So while you are offering the more expensive AR coating, you are doing it for a reason and that is differentiation.


So in the end, my former business has chosen to stick with Avance (or its equal alternatives).  Part is to offer the easy to clean AR that people want, part is for duriability, part is for differentiation.  Of course, if people want regular SRC, they can have it too.  But I feel that we are better to offer no AR than something cheap that will either peel, look bad, or create complaints of ease of clean.  I should also mention that no one in town really discusses the easy to clean aspect and most offer hard to clean lenses.  So the ease of clean really does gain us word of mouth.

----------


## For-Life

> This discussion of AR is very interesting and really shows the confusion at our retail level about AR. I blame the misleading marketing and ignorant sales people for the confusion. 
> 
> That being said, lets not forget that Crizal from a large Essilor lab is most likely different than the same Crizal from a recently purchased Essilor lab or an independent lab with in-house Crizal. This is due to the fact that there are different makes and models of coating equipment, the personnel and technicians, condition of equipment and finally the short cuts that they have exploited. This should also be true of Zeiss and any other coating "licensed" out. It might even include the Kodak; it did when they first came out with it. It was very poor!
> 
> Most important I believe is to choose a product with a long standing reputation from a company with the same that is committed to improving product so that we all can confidently increase AR sales. For those of you who "don't blame the patient for not wanting AR based on the past." Well, maybe you are to blame for dismal AR sales in the US. We need not sympathize with them. Remember plastic consumer products from the 70's and 80's? The thin stuff that was brittle. Now, think about how many products we buy today that are plastic, have replaced metal items and last much much longer. The AR today is far superior to what was in the past and it is your responsibility to relay this message to your patients as well as the benefits and value only AR can provide.
> 
> my .02


 
Absolutely. From beginning to end.  I agree!

I think the idea of independent coatings is not that they cannot copy Crizal, but we do not know if they could copy Crizal.  To switch clients over to try something new is a huge risk.

Lets say I have a business where I do 1,000 sales a year.  600 are put into AR.  I have been using Crizal and a rep comes in from an independent company pushing his new AR at 20% less.  So I try 300 patients in this new coating.  In the next year I try another 300 patients.  After one year, I start getting lenses peeling and crazing.  Not on all 600, but lets be conservative and say 100.  I then get half of them tell me that they will never buy from me again and the other half tell me that they do not want to try the premium AR because they do not trust it.

That is a significant loss for my business.


Therefore, I stay with what I know. Crizal, Teflon, Nikon, Hoya.  I am also willing to throw in Vivex, an independent, that I have not tried but have heard only good things about.  

But to try any other brands out there is just too much of a risk.


PS - I do want to mention that watch the posters on this board and opticians in the practice who use the cheaper alternatives.  They tell you that they are just as good, but are the first to not give AR its due saying it scratches easily and crazes.

----------


## KStraker

another vote for Hoya's SuperHiVision

----------


## optigrrl

> I have not used Avance, but before I left, I did a lot of Alize. Essilor's is lower than Hoyas. With that in mind, I never got Alize lenses back with scratches. It is one of those things about if it is good enough. An Escalade is huge and big enough for a family of four on a vacation. Just because a Hummer is bigger, does not mean it is more appropriate. At that point, there are other factors to consider.


Yes, but if the "Hummer" out performed the "Escalade" and costs the same....which one would you want your family in? :cheers: (Hoya vs. Crizal brands)

----------


## For-Life

> Yes, but if the "Hummer" out performed the "Escalade" and costs the same....which one would you want your family in? :cheers: (Hoya vs. Crizal brands)


 and that is fine.  

I paid the same for both and found Essilor's much easier to clean.  Plus, I could get the D Alize, which had the much more attractive blue coating. 

Then, you have to argue what lab you use and what products you want to put it on.

----------


## Eddie G's

Just tried on my Weco edger the new Airwear AS Transitions 6 with the Crizal Avance in the RX -1.25-0.75 & -1.25-.50 and BOTH lenses CRAZED!!!

So then I tried the Transitions 6 plastic in the Crizal Avance and they BOTH CRAZED as well!!!

Quickly ordered a plastic Trans 6 in a UTMC and NO CRAZING!!!
Hate the coating but I needed them quick.

So far this is what I'm finding with stock lenses lately:

-Essilor's new coatings craze a lot
-Stock teflon's come pre-scratched
-Hoya's are TOUGH and my favourite by far but don't come in transitions
-Zeiss coatings didn't last
-Resolution lenses crack after a while and the AR doesn't last

Gonna try the pentax's and see what happens.

Also noticing a lot of YELLOWING hi-index lenses!!!

:angry:

----------


## For-Life

> Just tried on my Weco edger the new Airwear AS Transitions 6 with the Crizal Avance in the RX -1.25-0.75 & -1.25-.50 and BOTH lenses CRAZED!!!
> 
> So then I tried the Transitions 6 plastic in the Crizal Avance and they BOTH CRAZED as well!!!
> 
> Quickly ordered a plastic Trans 6 in a UTMC and NO CRAZING!!!
> Hate the coating but I needed them quick.
> 
> So far this is what I'm finding with stock lenses lately:
> 
> ...


 
Probably the reason why the Airwear Crizal lenses crazed the UTMC ones did not is that Airwear has a 1.0 centre and Crizal is a harder coating.  With that said, how did you edge them?

With Airwear, you need to make sure you put a chuck on each side, low pressure, and the chuck size should match the clamp size.

----------


## Eddie G's

Yeah I put a chuck behind the poly & plastic avance lenses.

I can't adjust my pressure on my older Weco edger but I just had the weco guy (Wayne) in here to check it and he said it the pressure was good.

The center thickness was the same for the Avance & UTMC plastic lenses.

Man, I need a new edger but the boss says we have to keep it for a while longer!!  :cry:

----------


## For-Life

> Yeah I put a chuck behind the poly & plastic avance lenses.
> 
> I can't adjust my pressure on my older Weco edger but I just had the weco guy (Wayne) in here to check it and he said it the pressure was good.
> 
> The center thickness was the same for the Avance & UTMC plastic lenses.
> 
> Man, I need a new edger but the boss says we have to keep it for a while longer!!


Yeah, with it being an older edger it will happen.

Why don't you switch to 1.6 Avance?  Similar price, better optics, and will not craze or crack.

----------


## Eddie G's

Yep I agree on the 1.6's!:cheers:

I switched over to the "Hoya 1.6 nulux hivision vp" from the "poly arc's" for ALL my semi-rimless work! It's a nice change.

But for Transition Lenses with an ARC... stock plastic UTMC or Rx Club's surfaced Poly AS Transitions with the TNT EZC arc. Surprisingly those don't craze and they do pretty good. They just take longer.

Or maybe I'll just try to put on 5 layers of the blocking pads on each side of the lens :hammer:

----------


## FCChemist

> *An excellent descrition of polisiloxane which are the main ingredient of the subject on discussion.* 
> *http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/Courses/ce435/Polysiloxanes/*


This structure is polydimethylsiloxane also known as silicone. Premium easy clean topcoats are not derived from this chemistry rather they are fluorinated silanes that are either dipcoated or vapor deposited. Hydrolysis-condensation of the silanes creates a polysiloxane network that is bound to the outer layer of the AR stack, SiO2. This network creates a covalently bound coating that is durable to abrasion. The pendent fluorinated segments offer easy clean properties through the hydrophobic and oleophobic nature inherent to fluorochemicals. Easy clean and slipperiness of the coating can vary based on the type of fluorochemical functionality used and the process in which they are applied.

----------


## Mirror

I have Mag flouride on the shelf and still have the right formulas for applying it as an AR coating. We havent used it in years. If you want lenses done in it, just for fun, I would be willing to take a whack at it.

The normal coating materials these days are ZrO2 and SiO2 in layers with an adhesion layer on the surface of the lens. Followed by a hydro-phobic layer on the top surface, usually applied in high vacuum as are the rest of the layers. The hydro layer can consist of thicknesses of Poly Siloxane. There are a few other tricks there but for the most part thats what makes an AR coating. Residual colors can be manipulated to further the brand.

Crazing, cracking etc are normally factors of how well the layers well put down. Trick of the trade again!!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Crazing, cracking etc are normally factors of how well the layers well put down. Trick of the trade again!!*


..............and don't forget extreme hot and cold temperatures will affect the expansion coefficient between plastic and glass materials and produce also these effects.

----------


## bt5050

Is there a place that list most of the lens/coating combos with 
brayer ratings ? 
Thanks 
B

----------


## chip anderson

All the confusion on ARC is because of them Braying about their ratings.
It's the Bayer ratings that most hold significant.  But I am not convinced that any of the claims for ARC relate to the *real* world.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

I think the Bayer rating does not mean much.  Teflon, Avance, Carat Advantage, Ice, Stainless, Super Hi, ect are all very scratch resistant.  I go for other variables, like visual appeal and optics, durability (ability to resist crazing), and easy of clean.

----------


## Uilleann

Crizal Avancé with Scotch Guard.

There are several reasons this is our go-to lens product.  First and foremost, we do not "_SELL A/R COATED lenses"_.  We _DESIGN "A/R LENSES"_.  This is a small and simple point, but one that is becoming more and more important to differentiate between.  The newest A/R lenses are using bonding processes that bear little resemblance to methods used in years past.  It has become an integrated part of the lens as a WHOLE, and I strongly feel with these lenses you are doing your patients a dis-service not to make that distinction.

Some of the reasons we are currently happy with the Avancé product:

Clarity:  The clearest, most color-free product we have seen on the market yet.  Better even than the 'invisible' A/R from Resolution (which I also own personally.)

Durability/Cleanability: The scratch resistance coupled with stain, oil, water and static resistance are second to none that we have found so far.  Simply the easiest lens to clean...and KEEP clean.

Adhesion: Absolutely NO problems with ANY bond, [excessive] scratch or color issues since the products release in mid January 2008.  After 2 years of simulated cleanings, (20,000 was the number I believe), the Avancé product measured at something like 97% of it's original durability/cleanability and scratch resistance.  I'm not aware of it's Bayer rating, but regardless of what it's initial numbers are, the long term test data indicates it holds up far better than any other A/R lens currently available.  It does seem this may well be the case a little over a year from now and beyond (the 2 year mark since it's release)

Cost: Avancé is actually cheaper than two other 'premium level' A/R lenses available from our current lab. (As well as three other labs we've used as well.)  It isn't the least expensive option, but for our patients, it is the best.  Offering anything less is not the way we've chosen to conduct our practice.

Warranty: Essilor stands behind their lens - for the "life of the prescription", as few or as many times as needed.  Period.  We have never needed to use this warranty for anything other than a few minor scratches (maybe five times total...two of which were elderly patients that had fallen while wearing their glasses), but never for any failure of the A/R lens itself.

It is not going to be the A/R lens of choice for every dispensary or practice, but it works exceedingly well for us.  Our patients love their Avancé lenses and are beginning to ask for Avancé by name on return visits.  We have not had this level of success with any previous A/R product.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Crizal Avancé with Scotch Guard.*
> 
> *It is not going to be the A/R lens of choice for every dispensary or practice, but it works exceedingly well for us. Our patients love their Avancé lenses and are beginning to ask for Avancé by name on return visits. We have not had this level of success with any previous A/R product.*


After having read this long post singing the song of glory for "*Crizal Avancé with Scotch Guard."* I am wondering if you work  for the company that makes it or if you are on special spiff program..

If customers are asking for a special expensive product,in today's economy  they have already been heavily infested by brainwash publicity.

----------


## For-Life

> After having read this long post singing the song of glory for "*Crizal Avancé with Scotch Guard."* I am wondering if you work  for the company that makes it or if you are on special spiff program..
> 
> If customers are asking for a special expensive product,in today's economy  they have already been heavily infested by brainwash publicity.


Nope, it is really that good

Chris, recently I was waiting for Essilor to release its new Single Vision lens.  They took forever.  So I went to one of its competitors.  It is mainstream, but I will not mention which one.  The lenses are always dirty and do not clean up as well as Avance.  It is very noticeable.

For years, we were using other mainstream brands of AR.  I never used Crizal, because I just never liked the hype associated with it.  Then for some reason we started to use it.  In the past, I thought our AR returns for crazing were normal.  Then I switched to Crizal and realized that people were not coming back with crazed lenses.


These are facts.  They are not that of someone who is brainwashed or someone who works for Essilor.  Heck, I do not even own shares in the company.

----------


## Uilleann

> After having read this long post singing the song of glory for "*Crizal Avancé with Scotch Guard."* I am wondering if you work  for the company that makes it or if you are on special spiff program..
> 
> If customers are asking for a special expensive product,in today's economy  they have already been heavily infested by brainwash publicity.


No.  I work for a small private practice in Salt Lake City.  We are no different from the thousands of other small private practices in the USA or Canada.  We have to earn our patients trust and loyalty the same as everybody else.

I do NOT work for ANY lens manufacturer or supplier.

I never have.

You, however, do.

Please get your facts straight before launching into public forum attacks on someones credibility before you have any facts.

The original poster asked what we feel is the best A/R lens available.  I responded appropriately to that inquiry.  I backed up my response with the reasons the product we choose to use has worked so well for us.  I will respectfully ask you to refrain from future guesses as to my - or my patients - credibility in product selection or level of satisfaction with said products in the manner you appear to do so often.

Thank You.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Crizal Avancé with Scotch Guard.*
> 
> *There are several reasons this is our go-to lens product. First and foremost, we do not "SELL A/R COATED lenses". We DESIGN "A/R LENSES". This is a small and simple point, but one that is becoming more and more important to differentiate between. The newest A/R lenses are using bonding processes that bear little resemblance to methods used in years past. It has become an integrated part of the lens as a WHOLE, and I strongly feel with these lenses you are doing your patients a dis-service not to make that distinction.*


In a public forum, points are made by participants and if everybody else would agree there would be no discussion whatsover. So I do not agree with your point and said so.

The reason is that the opinion stated is one sided without giving other brand names nor coating companies a chance to be good, mediocre or even bad.
Obviously you do not design AR coated lenses lenses and did state a reason about bonding processes being so different than ever before. Actually these are not the bonding processes, but rather the materials used, and they are available on the market, you just have to find them.





> *No. I work for a small private practice in Salt Lake City. We are no different from the thousands of other small private practices in the USA or Canada. We have to earn our patients trust and loyalty the same as everybody else.*
> *No. I work for a small private practice in Salt Lake City. We are no different from the thousands of other small private practices in the USA or Canada. We have to earn our patients trust and loyalty the same as everybody else.*


 
Most participants make statements on a forum under a pseudonym and nobody knows who they are or what they are, and then should not feel insulted when somebody disagrees.




> *Please get your facts straight before launching into public forum attacks on someones credibility before you have any facts.*


I have been involved in AR coating systems just about full time (25 years) to know some of the real facts. I could go into more details.

And as the last point I could never have attacked anybodies credibility as I have made a comment to an unknown pseudonym that made a statement that triggered an opinion.

There are many AR coating lab technicians, owners and other interested parties on Optiboard that could come with their own points of reason why also their products are good or as good as the one promoted in the particular post or there will be no discussion.

----------


## Happylady

I have to agree with For-Life and Uillean. Avance is really really good. I have used all sorts of AR. I've used all the Zeiss ones, Hoya, Teflon, and a number of others.

I have had no problems with Zeiss, Hoya, or Teflon, or Crizal coatings crazing. The better Zeiss, Hoya, Teflon, and Crizal coatings are also scratch resistant. 

But even Crizal Alize, Hoya Hi Vision, and Zeiss Carat Advantage quickly lose their easy cleanability. Within a few months they get harder to clean and get dirty faster.

Avance is so easy to clean and really stays clean. It is better new then all of the other ones I have tried and so far it seems to really hold up. The warranty is outstanding!

I am upset that I can't easily sell it to my VSP patients. I figured out the cost difference between Alize and Avance for a patient this week and getting the Avance would have cost her about $90.00 more. :(

----------


## Fezz

> I am upset that I can't easily sell it to my VSP patients. I figured out the cost difference between Alize and Avance for a patient this week and getting the Avance would have cost her about $90.00 more. :(


There have been many good points made in this thread. I pulled this comment out to pose a question:

I wonder how much extra the Avance costs to produce than the Alize.

I'm guessing $.03, maybe $.04 more.

----------


## optical24/7

> There have been many good points made in this thread. I pulled this comment out to pose a question:
> 
> I wonder how much extra the Avance costs to produce than the Alize.
> 
> I'm guessing $.03, maybe $.04 more.


 
Cost has nothing to do with it. Essilor uses the "FezzJohns multiplyer" to figure what they sell it for!

:cheers::cheers:

----------


## Fezz

> Cost has nothing to do with it. Essilor uses the "FezzJohns multiplyer" to figure what they sell it for!
> 
> :cheers::cheers:


 
:cheers::cheers:

Then why aren't they paying any props to us? Shouldn't we be getting a royalty fee, commission, free lenses, or something? A official "Atta Boy" would be nice!


(Please Essilor, do not unleash your hordes of thristy lawyers on us! The above is meant in jest. It was Optical 24/7 who started it!)

----------


## Happylady

> I wonder how much extra the Avance costs to produce than the Alize.
> 
> I'm guessing $.03, maybe $.04 more.


I have no idea. I can't really discuss prices and costs in this thread. But Essilor did do a lot of research to develop Avance, that certainly cost some money.

Have you tried it yourself?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *................how much extra the Avance costs to produce than the Alize.*
> 
> *I'm guessing $.03, maybe $.04 more.*


 
I did not know it was thaaaaaat much.  :hammer:

Fezz..............Shame..........Shame........on you for talking cost prices :finger:

You should be convicted to spend a minimum of 3 hours in the next Tavern that sells only soft drinks.

----------


## Fezz

> You should be convicted to spend a minimum of 3 hours in the next Tavern that sells only soft drinks.


 
*NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

:drop::cheers::cheers: :cry: :cheers::cheers::drop:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Cost has nothing to do with it. Essilor uses the "FezzJohns multiplyer" to figure what they sell it for!*


Of course cost has something to do with it. I could assume that they add a double layer, or if they already do, they add a triple layer and everytime it cost's more material and mainly labor.

Besides above mentioned "FEZZJOHNS multiplyer" is only for beer money...........what about if they would be CHAMPAGNE fanatics ?

----------


## For-Life

essilor is not charging any worse for its level of products compared to the competition.

And keep in mind that Essilor has actually spent money to procure this product.  Something its competitors have not done

----------


## Chris Ryser

*Press Release 
Essilor Finalizes Satisloh Acquisition 
*_Charenton-le-Pont (October 13, 2008  8:30 a.m.)_  Following fulfillment of all the conditions precedent, Essilor has now completed the acquisition* of all outstanding shares of Satisloh Holding AG, the world leader in prescription optical equipment. 
 
Satisloh designs and markets antireflective coating units and surfacing machines, as well as consumables, for prescription laboratories. It reported 161 million in revenue in 2007 and employs more than 400 people around the world. 

(*) On June 16, Essilor announced that it had agreed to acquire Satisloh from Swiss company Schweiter Technologies. 
--------------------- 
_Essilor International is the world leader in ophthalmic optical products, offering a wide range of lenses under the flagship Varilux_®_, Crizal_®_, Essilor_® _and Definity_® _brands to correct myopia, hyperopia, presbyopia and astigmatism. Essilor operates worldwide through 15 production sites, 270 lens finishing laboratories and local distribution networks. 
The Essilor share trades on the Euronext Paris market and is included in the CAC 40 index. 
(ISIN: FR 0000121667; Reuters: ESSI.PA; Bloomberg: EF FP). 
_------------------------ 
*Investor Relations and Financial Communications 
Véronique Gillet  Sébastien Leroy 
Phone: +33 (0)1 49 77 42 16 
*

----------


## Happylady

> Fezz..............Shame..........Shame........on you for talking cost prices :finger:
> 
> You should be convicted to spend a minimum of 3 hours in the next Tavern that sells only soft drinks.


No, that is way too severe! I like Fezz, we can't do that to him.    :Eek:  Can't we give him another chance?

----------


## chip anderson

What's with the more labor, if the product is already stacked and loaded in the "vapor coating machine" surely opening the little window, putting more powder to be vaporized and pushing the button can't be that much of a labor cost.

Chip

----------


## Happylady

You all are right...they should be charging LESS for Avance. That way more people will order it and they will make more money.

----------


## HarryChiling

Bayer Rating = a quantifiable scientific measure.  It should be a consistent measure given a sufficient sample of lenses.

Crizal is the best = a garbage statement that is anecdotal.

I have seen many offices where the opticians doesn't know the difference between an AR and a UV, but they would hands down say that Crizal is the best.  Their are many who have never even tried other coatings so their is no baseline measure.  Crizal may be the best but their is no evidence of that being presented here or anywhere else.

I would be interested in Bayer Ratings, Adhesion, and any other measure on all coatings and mosts ads show a little asterisk on the bottom of the ad along with data available at request however I have yet to convince any company to actually release this data.

NONE OF THESE COMPANIES WANT OR THINK OPTICIANS ARE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO COMPARE THE DATA.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *NONE OF THESE COMPANIES WANT OR THINK OPTICIANS ARE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO COMPARE THE DATA.*


Good Boy Harry.........................at least you say what you think.  :cheers:

----------


## Yomandinga

I personally prefer the Crizal Alize coating but the increase in price per lens that has it on is enough to send me as white as a sheet but I guess its the premium you pay for a good coating. For most lenses though I use a coating company called Sinclar Optical I like their ULTIMAR coating its a reasonable price and good quality too, plus if they break a lens they take responsibility for it unlike some other companys that I will not mention just incase i'm done for slander lol. My info isn't much use to you though I guess being as these are english companies I'm talking about.

----------


## Happylady

> Crizal is the best = a garbage statement that is anecdotal.
> 
> I have seen many offices where the opticians doesn't know the difference between an AR and a UV, but they would hands down say that Crizal is the best.  Their are many who have never even tried other coatings so their is no baseline measure.  Crizal may be the best but their is no evidence of that being presented here or anywhere else.


Yes, my opinion is partly anecdotal but not completely. I have tried and personally used MANY different ARs. I don't think regular Crizal is the best, there are many as good as Crizal. I think Crizal Avance is the best that I have used. That is NOT a garbage statement.

Have you tried it?

----------


## Happylady

> Crizal is the best = a garbage statement that is anecdotal.
> 
> I have seen many offices where the opticians doesn't know the difference between an AR and a UV, but they would hands down say that Crizal is the best.  Their are many who have never even tried other coatings so their is no baseline measure.  Crizal may be the best but their is no evidence of that being presented here or anywhere else.


Yes, my opinion is partly anecdotal but not completely. I have tried and personally used MANY different ARs. I don't think regular Crizal is the best, there are many as good as Crizal. I think Crizal Avance is the best that I have used. That is NOT a garbage statement.

For one thing it's contact angle is 116 degrees. Hoya Hi Vision's is about 110 degrees. The steeper the contact angle the easier water, dirt, and oil wipe away.

Have you tried it?

----------


## For-Life

> Bayer Rating = a quantifiable scientific measure.  It should be a consistent measure given a sufficient sample of lenses.
> 
> Crizal is the best = a garbage statement that is anecdotal.
> 
> I have seen many offices where the opticians doesn't know the difference between an AR and a UV, but they would hands down say that Crizal is the best.  Their are many who have never even tried other coatings so their is no baseline measure.  Crizal may be the best but their is no evidence of that being presented here or anywhere else.
> 
> I would be interested in Bayer Ratings, Adhesion, and any other measure on all coatings and mosts ads show a little asterisk on the bottom of the ad along with data available at request however I have yet to convince any company to actually release this data.
> 
> NONE OF THESE COMPANIES WANT OR THINK OPTICIANS ARE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO COMPARE THE DATA.


So you are telling me that if I sell 1000 pairs of one product and have 20 come back crazed, and 1000 pairs of another product and have 2 come back crazed, that I am wrong that the latter one is better?

Gee, my customers must be wrong too.  

THAT IS PRETTY EASY DATA TO COMPREHEND

----------


## Uilleann

> In a public forum, points are made by participants and if everybody else would agree there would be no discussion whatsover. So I do not agree with your point and said so.
> 
> The reason is that the opinion stated is one sided without giving other brand names nor coating companies a chance to be good, mediocre or even bad.
> 
> Obviously you do not design AR coated lenses lenses and did state a reason about bonding processes being so different than ever before. Actually these are not the bonding processes, but rather the materials used, and they are available on the market, you just have to find them.
> 
> Most participants make statements on a forum under a pseudonym and nobody knows who they are or what they are, and then should not feel insulted when somebody disagrees.
> 
> I have been involved in AR coating systems just about full time (25 years) to know some of the real facts. I could go into more details.
> ...


Alright then.  Lets try to break down your points one at a time shall we?   :Rolleyes: 

1. In a public forum, there are always opportunities to make and have very informative conversation with one another.  That does not mean it ever needs to turn disrespectful to one another, a company or product.  Several posts of late certainly appear to me to push the limits in this regard.  I also have experienced for well over a decade now, several discussion forums in which agreeable discussion can and does take place, and have learned much from these exchanges.  Often more so than from the back and forth of sharply dissenting opinions.  Since we're not face to face, it can be easy to misread or misinterpret ones true intent - which I believe requires us all to maintain an extra level of vigilance regarding what and how we post.

2. Obviously.  You have no clue who I am, what my background is, who I work for now, who I've worked for in the past, or what my skill set or training in optics, lenses and lens processing is.  I can not and DO NOT fault you for that of course.  That's not fair to you.  You know only what you can guess (educated I am sure) and assume based on my and others limited posts here on this board.  It is both unfair (to ANYONE here) and unwise to pursue such sweeping comments - towards anyone.  It does seem, that given your position with your company, that perhaps there is a chipped shoulder towards larger optical companies - Essilor perhaps in particular?

3. Everyone has a pseudonym? Of COURSE we do.  That's the way these boards are set up generally, and it is wise _not_ to broadcast all of one's personal information on a public message forum.  Surely you know this good sir.  This seems to be rather common knowledge these days.  The insult comes not from someone disagreeing, but rather from terse posts that can be viewed as getting dangerously personal in nature.  Just asking for a bit of moderation is all.

4. Since you have no true means of effectively knowing how long I, or indeed most of the posters on this board have been working with lenses and lens treatments and processes, it is not really appropriate to throw out how long one has been doing something into this discussion in order to try and gain some advantage.  You should certainly be proud of the fact that you have gained skill and knowledge over your tenure in this industry.  I am too of course!  :)  But the moment you try to use that to gain any advantage over another you do risk loosing credibility with others.

5. There are certainly many consumers of lens products as well as manufacturers such as yourself of many varied lens treatments and options that frequent these boards.  This is an amazingly rich and complex community and I value the input and conversation to be had here immensely and always come away a little wiser at the end of the day for it.  And Chris, please let me be very clear on this point, _I value your input as well - very much in fact._  If we ever have the chance to meet, the pints are on me. :cheers: 
I ask this (I sincerely hope) as a friend and fellow lens monkey - PLEASE be mindful in the tone of posts in future.

All the best - and I really MEAN that!

Brian~

----------


## chip anderson

Unless I miss-understand as I often do.  Bayer rating is just a measure of abrasive resistance.   Important but only a small part of the puzzle.
There is heat expanshion.  There is squeeze (tension in frame).  There is flexure.   There are probably a dozen factors involved on why these coatings fail, craze, get dull, scratch or whatever.   I just don't think that we are aware of all of them or that artificial test can simulate real life conditions with enough accuracy to make the claims that are made for any AR or a lot of other products.

Chip

----------


## HarryChiling

> So you are telling me that if I sell 1000 pairs of one product and have 20 come back crazed, and 1000 pairs of another product and have 2 come back crazed, that I am wrong that the latter one is better?
> 
> Gee, my customers must be wrong too. 
> 
> THAT IS PRETTY EASY DATA TO COMPREHEND


What you are refereing to is a trial with a sample size of 1000.  The variable you have no control over is the group of people you dispense one to over another, lets say for instance that the group that goes with the cheaper of the two tends to work blue collar jobs (ie mechanic, construction, etc.) and the group that can afford and purchases the better coating is predominately white collar (ie accounting, physicians) and lets say that industry data shows that blue colar workers tend to scratch their lenses 50 to 1 over white colar workers, now you interpret those results.

Bayer ratings is data.

a statement based on you experience of Crizal is anecdotal at best unless you can provide answers to how your trial was set up and how you controlled your variables.




> what ever it is it is just a guide that doesnt mean much, when i actually had the gizmo with the rubber against a lens and rubed the lens i found out that the way that particular batch was proccesed made a very large difference, pick a number between 1 and 500 it's probably in there some place


My statement was in response to this.




> Just because a Hummer is bigger, does not mean it is more appropriate. At that point, there are other factors to consider.


Your statement here shows that you know it is gonna be more than bayer ratings involved in the characteristics of what is considered a good AR.  Bayer is one of those characteristics, and it is rated in such a way that it should be repeatable given a adequate sample size.

----------


## Uilleann

> Bayer Rating = a quantifiable scientific measure.  It should be a consistent measure given a sufficient sample of lenses.
> 
> Crizal is the best = a garbage statement that is anecdotal.
> 
> I have seen many offices where the opticians doesn't know the difference between an AR and a UV, but they would hands down say that Crizal is the best.  Their are many who have never even tried other coatings so their is no baseline measure.  Crizal may be the best but their is no evidence of that being presented here or anywhere else.
> 
> I would be interested in Bayer Ratings, Adhesion, and any other measure on all coatings and mosts ads show a little asterisk on the bottom of the ad along with data available at request however I have yet to convince any company to actually release this data.
> 
> NONE OF THESE COMPANIES WANT OR THINK OPTICIANS ARE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO COMPARE THE DATA.


Hi Harry,

I agree that some quantifiable measure of lens durability certainly seems called for in the industry.  I would add that it would mean much more to me if I had data supporting this same abrasion resistance OVER TIME.  As many lenses start out great...but some don't fare so well after even a short while of regular day to day use and cleaning.

To my knowledge, the only chart I've seen to resemble this somewhat was that which was released with the Avancé product at it's release.  It was, if memory serves, a series of stress studies done by Colts Laboratories http://www.colts-laboratories.com/.  It was by no means all inclusive to be sure, nor will it ever be the final word on product quality, longevity or durability over time.  But it was SOMEthing.  And information - even when presented in the form of promotional material can be useful.

I'm all for buying local whenever possible, and love to give the advantage to the little guy when I can.  But there is something to be said for the big guys.  They've got money, and they've got brains (they can pay to hire brains).  And they are certainly aware that if they make a shoddy product, word will spread faster than fire.  I give them credit where it's due I believe, and in the case of Avancé, I do believe that Essilor got it very right.

Best as always,

Brian~

----------


## HarryChiling

> Hi Harry,
> 
> I agree that some quantifiable measure of lens durability certainly seems called for in the industry. I would add that it would mean much more to me if I had data supporting this same abrasion resistance OVER TIME. As many lenses start out great...but some don't fare so well after even a short while of regular day to day use and cleaning.
> 
> To my knowledge, the only chart I've seen to resemble this somewhat was that which was released with the Avancé product at it's release. It was, if memory serves, a series of stress studies done by Colts Laboratories http://www.colts-laboratories.com/. It was by no means all inclusive to be sure, nor will it ever be the final word on product quality, longevity or durability over time. But it was SOMEthing. And information - even when presented in the form of promotional material can be useful.
> 
> I'm all for buying local whenever possible, and love to give the advantage to the little guy when I can. But there is something to be said for the big guys. They've got money, and they've got brains (they can pay to hire brains). And they are certainly aware that if they make a shoddy product, word will spread faster than fire. I give them credit where it's due I believe, and in the case of Avancé, I do believe that Essilor got it very right.
> 
> Best as always,
> ...


Brian,

A test exists that is designed to simulate the durability, I believe it exposes it to extreme weather for some time, colts laboratories has the technical details of this test and others.  While there may be 10-20 different performance tests for AR any particular manufacturer is only going to focus on the ones that make their product look squeaky clean.  If all the results were released then a real world comparison can be done based on the patients weaknesses with their AR, if adhesion is a issue for a particular patient a higher bayer rating may mean that the coating would be more likely to craze due to thermal expansion.  I think that AR can be treated very similar to progressive lenses where we pick the coating based on the needs of the patient or at least categorize them based on thier strengths.  To do this we need data not the interpretation of data.

----------


## Uilleann

> Brian,
> 
> A test exists that is designed to simulate the durability, I believe it exposes it to extreme weather for some time, colts laboratories has the technical details of this test and others.  While there may be 10-20 different performance tests for AR any particular manufacturer is only going to focus on the ones that make their product look squeaky clean.  If all the results were released then a real world comparison can be done based on the patients weaknesses with their AR, if adhesion is a issue for a particular patient a higher bayer rating may mean that the coating would be more likely to craze due to thermal expansion.  I think that AR can be treated very similar to progressive lenses where we pick the coating based on the needs of the patient or at least categorize them based on thier strengths.  To do this we need data not the interpretation of data.


Agreed.  But do you see this day ever coming to all of us here in the trenches?  Realistically I mean...

Bri~

----------


## HarryChiling

> Agreed. But do you see this day ever coming to all of us here in the trenches? Realistically I mean...
> 
> Bri~


Never, but it doesn't mean we can arbitraily pick a winner without a contest was the point I was trying to make. Sure the statement I made was meant to jar those into reading it and taking notice, but the statement about bayer rating being unimportant was just as jaring to me. Two polarized views going head to head. :hammer: vs. :hammer:

----------


## For-Life

> What you are refereing to is a trial with a sample size of 1000.  The variable you have no control over is the group of people you dispense one to over another, lets say for instance that the group that goes with the cheaper of the two tends to work blue collar jobs (ie mechanic, construction, etc.) and the group that can afford and purchases the better coating is predominately white collar (ie accounting, physicians) and lets say that industry data shows that blue colar workers tend to scratch their lenses 50 to 1 over white colar workers, now you interpret those results.
> 
> 
> Bayer ratings is data.
> 
> a statement based on you experience of Crizal is anecdotal at best unless you can provide answers to how your trial was set up and how you controlled your variables.


While yes, if we offered the one AR brand versus the other at the same time, and one was cheaper, that could be true.  What happened, instead, is we were offering the same price (because they were higher brands) and offered to the same people.  If I sold Brand A and Brand B to the same person, at the same price, and the patient wore them every day (of course, Brand B would be replacing Brand A probably after two years), and one brand out lasted the other, that is an indication.  Now, if those results are repeated with a high number of patients, then that is a clear indication.

Now when I try several mainstream brands and several independent and several cheap ones, and I get the same results.  Then when I try Crizal and it is not only successful, but it changes my expectations of what an AR coating should be, then I think the results are obvious.

Yes, it may be anecdotal, but it is also working.  So while it may be anecdotal, until you can prove that Crizal is no better than the other ones, then that is all anecdotal.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Good Boy Harry.........................at least you say what you think. :cheers:


Chris that's what I have been told.

----------


## HarryChiling

> While yes, if we offered the one AR brand versus the other at the same time, and one was cheaper, that could be true. What happened, instead, is we were offering the same price (because they were higher brands) and offered to the same people. If I sold Brand A and Brand B to the same person, at the same price, and the patient wore them every day (of course, Brand B would be replacing Brand A probably after two years), and one brand out lasted the other, that is an indication. Now, if those results are repeated with a high number of patients, then that is a clear indication.
> 
> Now when I try several mainstream brands and several independent and several cheap ones, and I get the same results. Then when I try Crizal and it is not only successful, but it changes my expectations of what an AR coating should be, then I think the results are obvious.
> 
> Yes, it may be anecdotal, but it is also working. So while it may be anecdotal, until you can prove that Crizal is no better than the other ones, then that is all anecdotal.


I understand what you are saying but again we can't judge someone a winner by default because no one wants to set up or participate in a contest.  Crizal may be better for your particular circumstances and I can't refute that, but it can't be determined as the best untill we have some sort of litmus test to judge them all by.

One person mentioned scratch resistance, one person mentioned long term durability, I mentioned adhesion.  Too many variables to say one is the best at them all.  Crizal is the best at EVERYTHING YOU NEED.

----------


## Uilleann

> Never, but it doesn't mean we can arbitraily pick a winner without a contest was the point I was trying to make. Sure the statement I made was meant to jar those into reading it and taking notice, but the statement about bayer rating being unimportant was just as jaring to me. Two polarized views going head to head. :hammer: vs. :hammer:


Those hammers made me think of Floyd's Wall tour!  LOL  I think if the marching hammers were used to smack lens after lens, we could use that as a good test!  Just so long as we're not wearing said lenses at the time - we don't need to be 'comfortably numb'!  ;)

B~

----------


## For-Life

> I understand what you are saying but again we can't judge someone a winner by default because no one wants to set up or participate in a contest.  Crizal may be better for your particular circumstances and I can't refute that, but it can't be determined as the best untill we have some sort of litmus test to judge them all by.
> 
> One person mentioned scratch resistance, one person mentioned long term durability, I mentioned adhesion.  Too many variables to say one is the best at them all.  Crizal is the best at EVERYTHING YOU NEED.


What I am saying is if you are writing a paper or magazine, fine.  But when it is in practice, I will take valuable recommendations.

I guess my problem is I am tired of being told on this board over and over again that I am wrong about Crizal.  I mean people are actually telling me that what I have experienced did not happen.

----------


## ezrich

stock lens synergy,somo. custom repel plus,claris hd,ultra. essilor does not have a lock on great ar's.

----------


## Uilleann

> ... essilor does not have a lock on great ar's.


This is certainly true.  However, it must also be said they've got a solid stake even so.  This is in fact _a very good thing_ - along with all the other lenses thay others have excellent luck with!

----------


## chip anderson

Does Colt's run it's Bayer test at room temp?  At both hot and cold extreems for the human animal?   Does the abrasive resistance change with stress from edging, mounting in frame?  Gasoline fumes in the air?
There are just too many things that might affect the results for one to say that product has been tested in all enviornmental situations.  True they are not testing Thalidomide here, but.....

Chip

----------


## Uilleann

> Does Colt's run it's Bayer test at room temp?  At both hot and cold extreems for the human animal?   Does the abrasive resistance change with stress from edging, mounting in frame?  Gasoline fumes in the air?
> There are just too many things that might affect the results for one to say that product has been tested in all enviornmental situations.  True they are not testing Thalidomide here, but.....
> 
> Chip


I dunno what their environmental variables are they use.  Could be specified by the lens manufacturer, could be some industry standard.  All the other data would be nice to see, but I believe that the added cost of real world studies - not to mention the actual time involved to do so properly (meaning OUR standards!;)) would push the cost of testing ANY optical product so high as to not be viable in any circumstance.  Coming from a field directly related to aerospace and knowing how extensive the testing is there on just about everything - it was still a simple piece of foam that brought down Columbia.  There just isn't a realistic means to test EVERY eventuality.  I think we all know and I would even go so far as to say so do most consumers/patients, that no material is infallible or indestructible.

I for one love to watch lenses shatter after a nice short bath in LN2...along with other things that break nicely when super-cooled.  :shiner:  Even the best A/R lenses aren't a match for THAT!  (nor for direct solid rocket motor exhaust at less than a foot distant.)  LOL  Yeah...we've had some fun!  Tesla coils also do some neat tricks with plasma as well. And while I haven't quite mastered writing my name with 200,000 volts of electrical goodness...I have made some neat designs!  :bbg:

----------


## HarryChiling

> Does Colt's run it's Bayer test at room temp? At both hot and cold extreems for the human animal? Does the abrasive resistance change with stress from edging, mounting in frame? Gasoline fumes in the air?
> There are just too many things that might affect the results for one to say that product has been tested in all enviornmental situations. True they are not testing Thalidomide here, but.....
> 
> Chip


Chip,

The tests such as Bayer and the many others are industry apporved standards, when someone gets on here and quote a pamphlet that says crizal is tougher than most premium AR's what happens is some engineers sit in a room with a buch of test results that they pass to someone that can speak to them and that guy takes and filters the various tests and results and puts them in not too technical jargon and then the marketing department takes that and comes up with "Crizal is tougher than most premium AR's".  Things sometimes get lost in translation so I am the type that likes to hear the horse neah if I can.

Lifetime properties is the test performed to determine the ability of a hydro coat to withstand repeated cloth rubs.

AR Craze/Heal is to determine the ability to withstand temperature

Boiling salt water is to determine it's abiility to withstand crazing

Cross hatch and cross hatch boiling water is used to determine adhesion

cycle humidity oven cross hatch determines again adhesion

cycle humidity QUV accelerated weathering and crosshatch designed to replicate enviornmental conditions

Ease of cleaning there is a test called that for guess what

enviornmental durability is designed to replicate the enviornmental impact on AR coatings.

I'm not saying that any of these test will help anyone figure out what coating is the best, but it's sure helped the manufacturers determine the best course in improvements to their coatings.  Can you imagine calling the doctors office and asking for an Rx only to hear the focal length of the proper lens would be about an arm and a half long. :hammer: We need standards to gauge things by and their are test set in place which could help compare the various ARC's on the market and most major manufacturer's ahve already run these test and have the data.  They have no problem interpretting the data fro you, but no one wants to give you or me the raw data and when I ask the response I get is "you wouldn't know how to compare it", "it's more complicated that just the numbers", a bunch of double talk.  So we are left with anecdotal evidence and For-Life is left chooseing the best way he can and I am sure it was done by trial and error, choose a coating and see how many come back.  As an opticians I would liek to see more data to take a more educated approach to choseing coatings, but manufacturers have decided to limit me to trial and error.  Not fair, so is life.

----------


## Fezz

Here is what I am gathering from all of this:

I think it is very important to believe in the products that you recommend. It is through trial and error, use of various brands, use of various materials, and wisdom gained from others that you can develop a knowledge of, a trust and a belief in a product. We all have different settings that we work. Some settings are much more open to trial of various product than others. There are some offices that put more emphasis on the warranty aspect, some that put more emphasis on the cost, etc. I think you have to develop YOUR trust in the product that you dispense.

But...do not get stagnate and blinded by that trust. Be open to new ideas and new options and continue to improve your knowledge.

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## Lee H

Well said Sir Fezz:cheers:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I ask this (I sincerely hope) as a friend and fellow lens monkey - PLEASE be mindful in the tone of posts in future.* 
> *All the best - and I really MEAN that!* 
> *Brian~*


Brian........Thanks for your post. Having been an active member of the OptiBoard for the last six years I have made a few statements that sounded a bit rougher than they should have been, however they are not made in bad intent.

Over the many years I have been in this business, I have made the full circle. Having been in the retail, the frame wholesale, the optical lab and last, but not least, my business developing and making products for lens surface treatments, During those past times I did accumulate a fair amount of experience over 360 degrees.

I believe I was the first one on this Board to pop up under my own name and identity and have never regretted of doing so. 

When I read post's that made in a one way manner, actively stating that nobody else can even close to some corporations product without giving the little guy a chance, it triggers my instict to stand up for the others.

All the best to you too.  :cheers:

----------


## OpticianVlad

Crizal Avancé is the one I use most often and I am very happy with it.
But I haven't tried all of them out there, so to be honest I haven't tested all of them.

At LC I used the RF with Scotchguard which is terrible.  They call it the Featherwates Complete with Scotchguard. It crazed all the time.

----------


## Spazmonkey

I use Clarion XS and Crizal Alize. My main problem is heat control. They tend to spiderweb or crack.

----------


## Fezz

SpazMonkey,

Welcome to Optiboard!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## melthemadhatter

I like Crizal Avance with Sctochguard. Komodo Extreme isn't bad either

----------


## jjm_1965

> At LC I used the RF with Scotchguard which is terrible.  They call it the Featherwates Complete with Scotchguard. It crazed all the time.


I still have my Scotchguard from my previous employer.  Mine did not craze, but it is harder to keep clean than anything else I have ever used, ironic for a product that's supposed to be easier to clean.  At least pizza sauce does not stick to it LOL.

I have not tried Crizal Advance with Scotchguard yet, but I imagine it is better.

----------


## eryn

Super Hi Vision from Hoya gets my vote. It's what I wear and what we use for the majority of our patients. 

:cheers:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Mine did not craze, but it is harder to keep clean than anything else I have ever used, ironic for a product that's supposed to be easier to clean.*


All slick coats do wear off after a while. They are so thin and wear off from cleaning. Never mind the name or brand of it they are all made from the same basic material.

However they can easily be renewed.

----------


## jroyholmes

Our lab uses Claris HD for our Shamir, Seiko and Indo Free Form jobs. So far no complaints. Ask your Shamir rep what they think of it.

----------


## rdcoach5

Toledo optical offers an excellent AR called Acclaro. I don't see any difference from the definity jobs that require Crizal. But, you can't beat Toledo's warranty. 2 no fault replacements in a 2 year period. The customer's lens got scratched when his dog ate his glasses and just call for a replacement. If you leave your glasses on your dash in 90 degree weather and the lenses craze, just call and Toledo sends out brand new lenses. Very simple and convenient.

----------


## bigjeffro

Hey guys, 
I know that this thread is a little old, but it just seemed like the right place to post... One of my techs is taking classes and has a question that she cannot find an answer to. I guess this one goes up to the old-timers in here, what kind of a/r would you put on glass? I know that there are all kinds of glass lenses known by name to all of you that used to dispense them (certain photochromics by their intensity levels) but I have never heard of a particular A/R coating that was meant for glass... Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jeff

----------


## chip anderson

AR coatings are glass.  They adhere to and last much longer on glass than they do on plastic (with proper care) as they are not heat sensitive as those applied to plastic.  Plastic and glass expand and contract at different rates, glass and glass expand pretty much at the same rate.
It is true without proper care these may scratch more easily but are not likely to just deteriorate over time, especially short (three years) periods of time.

Chip:cheers:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I guess this one goes up to the old-timers in here, what kind of a/r would you put on glass? I know that there are all kinds of glass lenses known by name to all of you that used to dispense them (certain photochromics by their intensity levels) but I have never heard of a particular A/R coating that was meant for glass... * 
> *Thanks,*
> *Jeff*


Leitz Germany made their LEICA camera lenses with AR coatings in the mid 1930's. These camera lenses where the best in the world at that time and there were no plastic lenses.

Opticians in Europe started to sell AR coated glass lenses in the mid to late 1950s. Also sunglass lenses with a layer of metal oxides which gave them a uniform color, also on glass.

While in North America the plastic lens came into fashion in the mid 1970s, the first AR coated on plastic popped up in the early 1980s and were pretty bad because they were applied directly on the plastic lens surface which is not compatible to AR coating material which is SIO2 (silicone dioxide) = glass. 

Glass coatings will not properly adhere to plastic. It needs a coating in between, that is compatible to adhere on one side with the plastic and on the other side with the SIO2.
On glass lenses you haven't to fully compatible products and do not need the in between coating, which many call a hard coat, which it is not, it is media for better adherence.

The only difference in AR coatings are the multi layers where each one makes his own recipe and says it is the best of all. But basically they are all made in the same principle.

Furthermore AR coatings are used and made in huge quantities outside the optical field and for many other reasons and other prices.

----------


## Happylady

> Hey guys, 
> I know that this thread is a little old, but it just seemed like the right place to post... One of my techs is taking classes and has a question that she cannot find an answer to. I guess this one goes up to the old-timers in here, what kind of a/r would you put on glass? I know that there are all kinds of glass lenses known by name to all of you that used to dispense them (certain photochromics by their intensity levels) but I have never heard of a particular A/R coating that was meant for glass... Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff


I have put AR on glass lenses. I used Zeiss coats.

----------


## nevio

Hi all,old timer coating? we used magnesium flouride, silicon dioxide was used as a base layer in an effort to keep the coating on the lenses, for films that would'nt stay on the lens(remember blue tinted glass) blue lenses came about(glass old days)because one of the tech's on the machine forgot to put yellow(sillicon dioxide i belive) on a green color batch i wish i had a dollar for every (blue)lens we recoated see for more info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireflective_coating

----------


## Cyborg

Which premium, multi-coat AR coatings would your recommend for photochromic (PGX, PBX) glass lenses and why? Same question for clear glass lenses?  Does anyone recommend going without AR on photochromic glass?

----------


## For-Life

Glass and AR work better than plastic and AR, since it will not craze like plastic.  Thus, most people stick with the cheap coatings when dealing with glass.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

How are you going to temper the glass lens after putting AR on it? Answer - you're not going to be able to temper the lenses. But if you edge them, temper them, THEN send off for AR, that might work IF:
the lab actually agrees to  do it

or

there can be problems putting edged lenses into the AR holder rings so a lot of labs won't do it.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Last edited by Ecliptic; 06-30-2008 at 03:45 PM.  

......................:bbg:

----------


## Mizikal

Most of the time I find that people want glass because it is more durable and I find that the A/R coat tends to scratch easier then the lens.I usually advise against it.

----------


## Cyborg

It's funny you mentioned that, Mizikal. For those who want it, glass is hard, abrasion resistant and durable. A quality photochromic glass lens to the consumer seems to already have some AR qualities engineered into the product due to the photochromism. At least they think so. 

I'm not sure you want to put on coatings that will scratch more easily, require more care and eventually go bad if not kept up properly. If you put on a quality basic AR, that may be enough, though going without anything might be simpler for them. 

If they want a premium multi-coat, what would you go with that has the least potential for trouble down the road? I've considered suggesting the big names like Essilor's Crizal Alize, Zeiss' Super ET or Carat Advantage, HOYA's SuperHiVision EX3 or smaller independent names like iCoat's Stainless (all of which are compatible with glass to my understanding), but I'm still not settled on any of these. Any suggestions? Further, would you only front-side coat the lens?

----------


## RT

Cyborg:

Premium AR coats such as HOYA SHV EX3 are engineered specifically for organic (i.e. non-glass) lenses.  As such, they are generally not available on glass.  In addition to the anti-reflective stack, those premium AR coats include layers designed to enhance adhesion, hardness, impact resistance.  Some coatings match the physical properties of the coating to the underlying substrate, eliminating some of the old historical issues that Chip mentioned.

As noted by another poster, you may be limited in your choice of AR coats to using a coating lab and process that allows for the lens to be edged prior to coating if you are in the US.  Hardening of the lens has to occur after edging, but before coating.

----------

