Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Minus lenses in grooved rimless frames

  1. #1
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948

    Minus lenses in grooved rimless frames

    What are folks using when filling semi-rimless frames with minus scripts? Stock 1.67 at 1.0CT is too thin for grooving and surfaced 1.67 looks almost as bad as CR-39. If a patient insists on semi-rimless, is poly the only cosmetic choice?

  2. #2
    You should be a little more specific. Thickness depends on power and eyesize/decentration.


    You can surface a 1.67 with enouph edge thickness to look good, while still looking better than platic. Poly is nice for not chipping. Trivex is nice but not at high minus.

    It all depends. If the frame is centered properly a high minus stock 1.67 should be fine.

  3. #3
    One of the worst people here
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    8,331
    Essilor had a promotion one day where they gave us a pair of 1.67 D Alize's and give us the right lens for free (so half off). Always, what ended up happening is that I was getting the 1.67 D Alize with that promotion in a progressive (Panamic, Comfort, or Ovation) for cheaper than the CR-39 price. So when that promotion came around it made sense to offer it at the cheaper price, so I did a few 1.67's at a -1.00 and +1.00 (with a 2mm edge of course). I found that 1.67 is my favourite material for grooving. Even on the very thinnest I found that the flat front helped it go through nice and easy and when done it was a very clean groove.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Just because you can grind a material to a thin center there is no law that says you have to. If the edge is too thin, beef the center.

  5. #5
    BEEF THE CENTER!!! I love it!:cheers:

  6. #6
    RETIRED JRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    862
    Why would a 1.67, surfaced lens, end up looking like Cr-39? Typical minus CT for CR is around 2.1mm, while a 1.67 can show somewheres around a 1.5mm ct. All other things being equal (base, aspherical/spherical front, power, etc.) they should not look the same.

    Most labs use fairly complex computer systems to figure the required edge thickness for grooved lenses - regardless of power. If a 1.0ct stock lens is too thin - which it certainly can be on weak minus... grind the lens. The computer system should calculate the thinnest CT (on any material index) to produce a groovable edge point.
    If your current lab grinds a 1.67 material that ends up looking like a CR-39 of equal power, talk to them about it.
    J. R. Smith


  7. #7
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948
    Quote Originally Posted by mrba
    You should be a little more specific. Thickness depends on power and eyesize/decentration.
    Let's say up to a -5/5.50, 48 eye with 1-3mm decentration.
    Quote Originally Posted by JRS
    Why would a 1.67, surfaced lens, end up looking like Cr-39? Typical minus CT for CR is around 2.1mm, while a 1.67 can show somewheres around a 1.5mm ct. All other things being equal (base, aspherical/spherical front, power, etc.) they should not look the same ...

    If your current lab grinds a 1.67 material that ends up looking like a CR-39 of equal power, talk to them about it.
    Our lab won't grind 1.67 that thin. Perhaps the answer is to think about other sources when stock isn't an option?

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder Texas Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    1,433
    First I can't imagine that a pt would pay the high price of a 1.67 alize` lens in a low minus power, and assuming they had some reason to, most any minus rx with a 1.50 ct is going to be think enough to groove, unless it is quite a shallow b or a lot of decentration; we have an advantage here in that we have a National Optronics 6E that has a goover in the unit, so no sweat. grooving those thin lenses on a hand, auto-groover would be tough, but that why we upgraded to the 6E four years ago, saved us a lot of lenses...

  9. #9
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948
    Texas Ranger,

    Unfortunately, a number of the frames are shallow. We retail Seiko 1.67 SV at $160 SRC $245 ARC; is that low? Of course, everyone who wants a rimless frame expects the lens to look like the demo no matter how much you tell them it won't. Most say that's fine then flip out when they get them.

  10. #10
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    CT
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    38
    Jo,

    Our lab is surfacing 1.67 to 1.2 CT unless it's a short 'B'. When it's a shallow frame it's sometimes necessary to beef up the CT in order to get a 2.0 minimum ET for nylors.

    I also like the Indo Superfin 1.52 for nylors and 3-piece mounts when thickness isn't an issue.

    Dottie

  11. #11
    Bad address email on file sjthielen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    98
    We got a new santinelli with the auto groover, What a gem that has been when grooving that 2.0 edge thickness or lower.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What makes a safety frame safe?
    By Jedi in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-03-2011, 09:39 AM
  2. glass lenses & rimless frames
    By Pam in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-05-2004, 10:23 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2003, 04:06 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-14-2002, 12:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •