How many warranty claims are too many? Is there a better supplier?

I have been using Luxar and Luxar u AR coatings for a number of years from Optik k&r . I find the coatings scratch easily and often break down. The break down is noticeable where the patients eyebrow or cheek touch the lens. The coating does not do well when in contact with perspiration. The coating also seems to peel away from the edge of the lens after a few years. The lab has stood behind the 2 year warranty. Although it is a nuisance for the patient to return. The warranty jobs also costs me more staff time and wear and tear on my edger. Currently 25 to 30 % of my daily orders are warranty claims. Does anyone else find these percentages at their practice or are these returns excessive?

Secondly, if your returns are less, which supplier has a coating with better durability?

Thanks Mandy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mandy

I have been using Luxar and Luxar u AR coatings for a number of years from Optik k&r . I find the coatings scratch easily and often break down. The break down is noticeable where the patients eyebrow or cheek touch the lens. The coating does not do well when in contact with perspiration. The coating also seems to peel away from the edge of the lens after a few years. The lab has stood behind the 2 year warranty. Although it is a nuisance for the patient to return. The warranty jobs also costs me more staff time and wear and tear on my edger. Currently 25 to 30 % of my daily orders are warranty claims. Does anyone else find these percentages at their practice or are these returns excessive?

Secondly, if your returns are less, which supplier has a coating with better durability?

Thanks Mandy

---

Returns due to manufacturer quality breakdown are usually 1% if you're dealing with a good reputable supplier. With return rates that excessive, you must also consider the soft costs involved in processing the returns; not to mention the time involved (yours and patient's), what your patients are thinking and relating the poor quality to your practice's reputation.

Remember a satisfied patient tells three people about their positive experience. An unhappy disgruntled patient will tell ten.

Start looking for a new supplier and ask them what their return rates due to quality are. There are also quite a few suppliers that offer tremendous value, so take the time and balance it all out before making a decision.

Agreed. That rate is way too high. I'd start looking.

Yes too high. A safe and easy alternative is Crizal, that should put an end to the problems. However, the main thing you want is an AR that includes a dip coated hard coat underneath. Better scratch resistance and better adhesion of the AR stack to the lens.

It's inexpensive but you get what you pay for. I have been using them for over a year now. The only thing that keeps me using them is their pricing is affordable, and warranty/returns are extremely easy. Plus their online ordering system is top notch in my opinion. It's too bad the quality is satisfactory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mandy

Currently 25 to 30 % of my daily orders are warranty claims. Does anyone else find these percentages at their practice or are these returns excessive?

Secondly, if your returns are less, which supplier has a coating with better durability?

Thanks Mandy

---

If you continue this way, your warranty claims will have raised to 50% of your sales in another year.

End result is = loss of customers.

Im Located here in Ontario aswell and have used both Nikon and Hoya. Both companies I have a very low warranty return rate with because they have high quality coatings. I would also suggest trying to avoid putting patients in frames that touch their cheeks or eyebrows

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc17777

Im Located here in Ontario aswell and have used both Nikon and Hoya. Both companies I have a very low warranty return rate with because they have high quality coatings. I would also suggest trying to avoid putting patients in frames that touch their cheeks or eyebrows

---

Private message me please. I have a cost effective quality solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Brown

Private message me please. I have a cost effective quality solution.

---

I am not looking at changing the labs I use. Thanks though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc17777

I am not looking at changing the labs I use. Thanks though

---

It didn't involve changing labs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mandy

The break down is noticeable where the patients eyebrow or cheek touch the lens. The coating does not do well when in contact with perspiration. The coating also seems to peel away from the edge of the lens after a few years. The lab has stood behind the 2 year warranty.

Secondly, if your returns are less, which supplier has a coating with better durability?

---

Mandy, You just said yourself were the damage comes from.............at the edge of the lens.

This has nothing to do with quality of the coating, it has to do with having no protection at the lens edges, where all the dirt, sweat, cosmetics and a lot more accumulates over a couple of years and more.

These products will eventually eat their way between the original AR coating and the bonding hardcoat at the rim, and start to create the delamination process.

There are some silicone sealers available, that would seal the open rim against the invasion of dirt particles that could be applied at the point of sale, or you could advice the customer to come by every six month to a year, to have the lenses removed from the frame and the rims properly cleaned and your problem would go away by itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Ryser

There are some silicone sealers available, that would seal the open rim against the invasion of dirt particles that could be applied at the point of sale, or you could advice the customer to come by every six month to a year, to have the lenses removed from the frame and the rims properly cleaned and your problem would go away by itself.

---

seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nadeem

seriously?

---

Actually you have one more choice. Start using glass lenses and you have a total and perfect bond of the AR coating with the lens, being of the same material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanLiv

Yes too high. A safe and easy alternative is Crizal, that should put an end to the problems. However, the main thing you want is an AR that includes a dip coated hard coat underneath. Better scratch resistance and better adhesion of the AR stack to the lens.

---

Dip Coating is a better alternative, for sure, but it comes with a cost. A high quality and affordable AR involves a solid ultrasonic and degas process, regardless of spin or dip. From what I glean from the original post regarding delamination and scratching leads me to believe that this provider does not degas lenses prior to AR coating, and/or the final SiO2 layer is too thin. This is a common issue with low cost ARs. Another issue is the quality of the hydrophobic coating. Again, a good hydro can be costly, but well worth the initial COGs in the long run. Time and labor are the most costly controllable expenses, after all.

Case in point, I have a set of lenses that I routinely test. This set was coated 7 months ago and the hydro is still in tact. I test the effectiveness with a Luminolor permanent marker, and after 7 months, the marker wipes off easily with a dry cloth. No chemicals necessary. I also have a pair of Crizal that were received at the same time, and I need to use ink remover to remove the same Lumicolor marking. The Crizal is dip coated, and our AR is placed on a spin coat.

Our workflow consists of resting our spin coat for an hour prior to the ultrasonic cleaning, then degassing for an hour, leaving the lenses in the oven until just before applying the AR. Once the AR is applied with an in-chamber hydro, the lenses then sit for an hour before sending them to bench. We spare no expense for our Hydro.