Do you use the word distortion when discussing progressives?

[hcjilson]

Dear Wanda,

I quote the following from our posting guidelines:

Consumers are allowed to post on the Board, as long as the posts concern general eyecare related topics. However please be aware that any questions that involve diagnosing specific eyecare and eyewear problems are not appropriate for an online discussion forum. These kinds of questions should be discussed with a qualified eyecare professional who has examined you and is familiar with your situation. Posts asking for diagnostic help will be closed or removed.

Please do not use OptiBoard to conduct a personal vendetta against any company or individual. This will not be tolerated and these posts will be removed.

That, having been said, this post brings up some valid questions in view of the fact that most major progressive lens manufacturers offer non adaptation warrantees. My suggestion would be to have Wanda restate the problem in GENERAL TERMS, without mentioning any names, and let the discussion proceed from there, prferrably in a new thread. If a discussion develops here however, I will be most happy to split the thread into its own.

[Judy Canty]

Darn Harry, you just stole my thunder. It seems to be time once again to remind our posters(ALL our posters) about the guidelines. :finger:

[hcjilson]

You are not alone.......................only 47% of the population wear them. Probably many reason from "too expensive" to "can not get used to the lateral distortion".

Just get yourself a good pair of regular bifocals with a large reading segment and you will only have to getused to the up and down effect but you will be able to turn your eyes and see clear all the way.

What good for one is not so good for another. .....But your optician should have warned you.

Where are you getting your figures Chris? Is that of multifocal lenses or the entire spectacle wearing public. USA or Canada?,Europe, or Worldwide? Who publishes them? In my opinion they are decidedly on the low side!

The things you complain about are just not valid with the newer lens designs. You ought to give them a try! Who knows, you might like them.
What was the last pair of progressives you tried?

[loncoa]

I'm old enough to have use plenty of glass lenses (and still do). The idea that glass progressives have no distortion (or unwanted astigmatism, unwanted cylinder, "crap", "garbage", insert your euphemism here), is laughable. Unless you paid $400 for a pair and the Optician told you there's none in it, and its periphery is supposed to be limitless, that is. Then the laughing stops. Describe the optical error in the periphery of progressives however you want. But low non-adapt rates are always a matter of correct fitment, and correct education of the patient. The less you use industry propaganda to sell your product the better off you are. Use words your patient (and you) understand. If you judge that distortion is the honest way to describe it, use it. If you think saying sanitation technician is an honest way to portray a garbageman, by all means go ahead. And if you find that approach lacking, based on your results, then reexamine it and try something else. Personally I use the word error, and I explain to them that it is a limitation of progressive design (no matter what Essilor and Rodenstock say). I also tell them approximately how much there will be, and that these areas tend to fade in the patient's perception as time goes by. I show them the difference between separate pairs, bifocals, trifocals, and progressives, and let them make their own decisions. They nearly always like the progressives best, even given the limitations. I also recommend a second pair for their chosen hobby or work, like an Access for those who are on computer a lot, or SVR for people who like to read intensively for long periods of time. I explain that progressives are the ultimate jack-of-all-trades lens, and that they're not the ultimate master of any of these trades. I let them know that many people DO function constantly with only their progressives but that it's just not as nice as having that pair specifically for piano or whatever.
So, we have very few non-adapts, and we sell a lot of second (and third) pairs.

[Chris Ryser]

Where are you getting your figures Chris?

Answer:

Pete Hanlin, ABOM, LDO
Training & Development Manager
Essilor of America Lens Group
phanlin@essilorusa.com

:D :bbg: :D

[hcjilson]

Now answer the next question. Which was the last lens you tried.
By the way, if it's all spectacle wearer's 47% is substantial. In any event, my practice is about 85% progressive, (of multifocal sales) and I suspect in other area's it may not be as high. My clientele wants to see the best it can at all focal lengths and the progressive lens fills that bill. Believe it or not, they work!

[Chris Ryser]

........................................ Which was the last lens you tried.
By the way, if it's all spectacle wearer's 47% is substantial. In any event, my practice is about 85% progressive, (of multifocal sales) and I suspect in other area's it may not be as high.

Harry....................But it is not...........the figure is the percentage of all multifocal wearers, in the USA I believe.

If your practice is 85%, hopefully all satisfied customers, all the better for you and you can see yourself to be way above average, That's way you can afford to live next door to the famous clan.

I have tried out every type of bifocal under the sun............even in younger years, during my retail times, used to wear them just to be able to give our customers an exact description of the feel to adapt. (something every optician should try)

I have a few pairs of progressives, some even in modern little frames, wear them at parties when looks count, then even get compliments "that I finally look modern and with the times", but when I get home or the office I prefer my old slippers.

[Alan W]

I was taught by a Swiss optician a technique in explaining progressives that has been incredible. It involves placing a newspaper classified section in front of the patient with the progressives on. You can use a demo to show it also. The secret was letting the patient see for himself what you don't want to put into words. It was very simple to explain that in the central reading area it is clear as it should be and outside of that central reading area it is not as clear. There's a whole great system with this using interractive communications and graphics diagnoses the fit of the glasses, telling the optician what needs to be done (adjust pantoscopic curve, tilt, and sagital distance, up down, etc). I have the whole thing sitting in a box somewhere. If anyone wants it I'll dig it up and scan it in. Let me know at waxman44@verizon.net and I'll see what I can do.

[Chris Ryser]

I was taught by a Swiss optician a technique in explaining progressives that has been incredible.

Good point Alan, That is exactly how learned all aboout progressives back in Switzerland..........as you say you can demonstrate the width of the progressive part and reading segment. When the add increases the these clear parts will get smaller.

[SpexAppeal]

Hello Chris~

I'm so glad to be in the other percentage of the population then. I was just the opposite and thought it was weird to look through that magnified area on regular bifocals. When it was time for me to have glasses for close up vision as well as for my nearsightedness my optometrist held up both types of glasses. Bifocals and progressives. I knew in an instant that I would do anything not to have to wear those "old people glasses". And I'm here today to tell you that I didn't have to do much at all to make progressives my glasses of choice.

You are not alone.......................only 47% of the population wear them. Probably many reason from "too expensive" to "can not get used to the lateral distortion".

Just get yourself a good pair of regular bifocals with a large reading segment and you will only have to getused to the up and down effect but you will be able to turn your eyes and see clear all the way.

What good for one is not so good for another. .....But your optician should have warned you.

[SpexAppeal]

Hello Happylady~

And I have a +2.50 ADD and I also look out the sides of my very narrow lenses. And you describe it the same way I would. No, it's not quite as sharp but by no means so blurry that I can't see at all. And I actually learned to move my head more than my eyes back in 1994 when I got my first progressive lens glasses. Of course my add number was only +1.25 then. But even at double that I am still able to utilize the whole lens area.

Chris- if you were my optician and you came across so negative about progressive lenses when it was time for me to have a close up Rx I'm wondering if I would be wearing bifocals today! I was very fortunate to have my optometrist who just happened to dispense his own glasses always have a positive attitude from the get-go. It was a no-brainer. He just told me since I had never worn bifocals before that I was a perfect candidate for progressive lens glasses. And I believed him. He was right!

In a low add progressive that many people start with the sides do not seem distorted to most people. They seem not as clear or perhaps blurry. This is calling a spade a spade. Why use negative words? I am not hiding anything from my patients.

I wear a +2.00 add and I DO use the side areas of my lenses. No, it isn't as clear, but I certainly can see through it and it is better then no correction at all. Of course, for someone with little or no distance correction the side areas might not be better then their natural vision.

[Chris Ryser]

Hello Chris~
..........................................my optometrist held up both types of glasses. Bifocals and progressives. I knew in an instant that I would do anything not to have to wear those "old people glasses". ..................................my glasses of choice.

Perfect statement..................has worked in favour of progressives for 40 years...............giving up something and pay more to NOT look older

That is exactly why they became ans are popular.........noit because of their optical qualities,

Comparable to the middle ages when the chinese bent young girls toes upwards when they were young and could barely walk when they got older, but it was considered beautyiful and an upper class indication.

:bbg: :D :bbg: :D

[Judy Canty]

Progressive lenses = foot binding? Chris, get a grip!

[hcjilson]

Don't forget Judy, he hasn't told us which progressive he tried last. Like many of my own customers, he is probably not aware of the benefits of the newer design's-Definity and Physio 360. I would be most interested to hear his comments about progressives after he's tried them.

[Chris Ryser]

Don't forget Judy, he hasn't told us which progressive he tried last. Like many of my own customers, he is probably not aware of the benefits of the newer design's-Definity and Physio 360.

I would be most interested to hear his comments about progressives after he's tried them.

1) Judy is no more qualified to answer.................she's now Polycore and not Essilor

2) I Definity need some braces for my sore back and some Phyisio -180- therapy before doing what you suggest.

[Judy Canty]

Does that mean that my years of optical experience is somehow less accurate than yours? And if you must take a shot, at least spell it correctly.

[Chris Ryser]

Does that mean that my years of optical experience is somehow less accurate than yours? And if you must take a shot, at least spell it correctly.

!) Nothing against expirience with due respect.........................but I would never promote any presently direct competitors.

2) And for the shot, that was inexcusable.....should have known it..........have had dealings with them back to 25 years ago.

[Happylady]

I am sure we have all run into patients that perfer flattops to progressives. Not everyone likes the same thing. Chris is one of them, he likes his flattops in a larger frame and he is not interested in changing.

That is fine, but he seems to have problems understanding that others truly do not have the same reaction to progressives and flattops as he does. He believes that flattops are superior and the main reason people get progressives are vanity and because opticians push them.

I think that he believes that many if not most progressives wearers would perfer flattops if they tried both.

He says he has fitted hundreds of progressives with no rejections but that he will only sell them to patients that he considers perfect candidates and will not put them in smaller frames.

I find that plenty of people I don't consider perfect candidates love progressives and some patients that I would think would love them don't. I don't think we can tell for sure and if we sell only to those we consider perfect candidates we do a great disservice to many people that would love them if they tried them.

I also will not refuse to put them in smaller frames, why should I send my patients away to someone else? I always discuss what putting progressives in a smaller frame does and the negatives involved. Again, I find most people do fine with progressives in a smaller frame if the right progressive is used.

[Chris Ryser]

He says he has fitted hundreds of progressives with no rejections but that he will only sell them to patients that he considers perfect candidates and will not put them in smaller frames.

Dear Happylady,

I have been around for probably a few more years than you have. I was born into an optical family, learned the profession from the bottom up, 8 years of learning.

Oh, by the way that is were I come from and started out .................http://www.ryseroptik.ch/default.asp ............. and that is were I ended up so far .............. http://optochemicals.com, ............and there were many other optical expieriences in between.

I look at the optical retail and manufacturing industrie with different eyes than you do. I do have more interest's than just what and how many progressive lenses are sneaking on the market, but I enjoy a good argument.

You seem to have only as many different progressives as possible on your mind and have made it a fanatic subject on the optiboard. That is your opinion and is ok with me, but you also have to accept that there are counter points to any argument.

Being from the profession and preferring, for myself, another type of lens does not make me abnormal in everybodies eyes. I have my preferences and can afford to switch from whatever I want to, to something else.

I do know the profession and its market pretty well and can look at it from every side, not only from the retail end. I also enjoy that you do not agree with me..................that always makes for a good argument, without it the optiboard would be boring.

[Happylady]

Chris, I never called you abnormal. Like I posted, some people just perfer flattops. There is nothing wrong with that. I do notice that you don't actually refute what I said about how you feel about progressives and flattops.

I have a two year degree in Vision Care. I am a certifed Optometric Tech and a certifed optician. I have been an optician for over 25 years. That might not be as long as you but I've been around awhile!

I enjoy our discussions also.

[Ed_Optician]

I always tell patients that the best vision is right in front of you. I hold the reading card and move it to the side instructing them to follow with their eyes not by turning your head. If it isnt as crisp and shart as you like point your nose at it and find the right spot.

Ed

[loncoa]

I certainly concur that by fitting only those people you consider "no-risk", you are doing a disservice to, at the very least, hundreds of people in your community. You need to open your eyes and ears to the people you serve if you think the only reason people wear progressives is for vanity's sake or because they fell for the propaganda. I have (and this is no joke or exaggeration) thousands of patients that wear progressives because they hate the image jump of flat-tops, or they hate how high the line is on trifocals, or they like the (admittedly limited) intermediate area on the progressive. Non-adapt policy exists for a reason. The reason is because we (at least those of us who are willing to take a small risk of shipping, edging etc costs along with time spent) WILL find that some folks who look like a terrible progressive risk, simply weren't. And those are the folks who have missed out on something that could have enhanced their life, if we are too chicken**** or lazy to try.

[loncoa]

P.S. I've "only" been in the business for 16 years but I know quite a few folks who've been doing it for 40 years, meaning that they've had 24 extra years to get their head firmly entrenched in their butts. I also know people who are what you'd call true optical gunslingers who've been doing this for way less time than me, but seem to connect with people and their needs better than I can. So IMO time in the industry and how many letters you've got behind your name doesn't make everyone see better. But it could. Maybe.

[loncoa]

I think the jury's still out on whether things like "Physio-360" etc are the great advancement that Essilor and their ilk say they are. I'll let my patients educate me in that regard.

[Chris Ryser]

Very successfull and wealthy architect friend phoned me yesterday evening that she had bought..............got talked into........buying progressives in a very small frame at some LC store last week.

Got them ...............looked at plans back in the office, and says "could not see more than a width of about 5 inches. Brought them back.......gave the optician her piece of mind and made them change to SINGLE VISION.....and say's now I can see all of it.

End of story. :hammer: