Lens Casting Systems

[Jayrcn]

The MD's I work for had an idea to purchae a lens casting system for their dispensary. After researching the system, I recommened that they not purchase it, due to thickness concerns, light transmission, brittleness, and cost effectiveness. Recently, the MD's decided to look into another system that is similar. Does anyone have experience with this working with a similar systems, either good, or bad. Thanks!

[AWTECH]

Any system either traditional surfacing or casting requires a real commitment to the process. Many people selling equipment leave you with the impression that it operates almost by itself. I would first want to know if these Doctors know others who have such a system and are successfully using it or is this something they have read about in trade journals and have decided it is a great idea?

Are you currently surfacing lenses or just finishing? There are enought labs available to successfully outsource to and the savings is often not as great as it appears once you consider the remakes time invested, employees time needed etc.

My advise it to be careful before you buy any technology and equipment you do not fully understand.

[fjpod]

Any system either traditional surfacing or casting requires a real commitment to the process. Many people selling equipment leave you with the impression that it operates almost by itself. I would first want to know if these Doctors know others who have such a system and are successfully using it or is this something they have read about in trade journals and have decided it is a great idea?

Are you currently surfacing lenses or just finishing? There are enought labs available to successfully outsource to and the savings is often not as great as it appears once you consider the remakes time invested, employees time needed etc.

My advise it to be careful before you buy any technology and equipment you do not fully understand.

DITTO

[Jacqui]

Any system either traditional surfacing or casting requires a real commitment to the process. Many people selling equipment leave you with the impression that it operates almost by itself. I would first want to know if these Doctors know others who have such a system and are successfully using it or is this something they have read about in trade journals and have decided it is a great idea?

Are you currently surfacing lenses or just finishing? There are enought labs available to successfully outsource to and the savings is often not as great as it appears once you consider the remakes time invested, employees time needed etc.

My advise it to be careful before you buy any technology and equipment you do not fully understand.

DITTO

[PAkev]

If today's casting technology were available 20yrs ago I think more folks could justify the investment. However, It seems to me that in an era of unprescedented lens product availability, casting puts A LOT of limitations on your ability to offer patients the best lens for their specific optical demands.I saw a demo a few months ago and found that although the casting technology is no respector of lens design (SV, FT, or PAL) it would end up costing more per job since I could buy SV stock and FT uncuts all day long for less than half the cost of casting. It turns out the two options they did offer with the casting process (AR & photochromatic) were also competitive with conventional uncut pricing.

I still think there needs to be some refinement in the casting process before the masses of retailers begin investing in the technology.

[DocInChina]

When I was in practice in the US I purchased 2 different casting systems...the first being Vision Sciences which went out of business 12+ years ago. That was a thermal casting system using CR39. It was a time consuming process and the lens quality was poor. Additionally the lenses softened during the summer months and patients came back requiring redos. Nevertheless, it proved to be a profitable system with those limitations.

7 years ago I had purchased an Optical Dynamics System. It too had limitations of lens design and the only lenses I chose to cast were Progressives and photochromic FT's. There is a definite learning curve but the cost savings was apparent. They now have 3 PAL choices....the older design (22mm corridor), and short corridor and a third design which I cannot recall its features at the moment. They also have an AR coating system that works in unison with the casting. I have no idea about its quality but since I was a fan of their system without the 3 PAL options I am sure it has only improved.


Outsourcing has its advantages but you cannot control the time once you outsource. The foot print for a casting system is relatively small. If your practice does a significant amount of 3rd party as well as progressives then I believe a casting system would fit the bill. Additionally it allows you to offer promotions (2nd pair discounts, offer a second pair photochromics, etc) in a relatively economic way.


I also strongly suggest that you support the independent labs. Speak with one locally or one that offers good support. Your independent lab is indispensable to your business. Casting or in-house surfacing will help improve both your top and bottom line.

DocInChina

[RGC_man]

To avoid repeating myself...

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14038

[ziggy]

I have seen a lot of casting systems, and have never seen one that I would buy. Cole, Lux and Wal-Mart all three tried to do the ODC system and LOST millions. You can put in a small full service system if they want to make their on jobs, but unless your doing A LOT of jobs it's not worth the investment.

[Johns]

I can't think of a poorer investment than a lens casting system. I always thought that if the systems were that good, why don't our labs use them?



Because they're not that good.