Is this optician correct?

[Lewy]

there are a few issues there


there is a "Varilux Comfort Small" which is available in the UK and genuinly is a short corridor lens, not to be confused with the "Varilux Comfort", which has a full length corridor

There is a lot of argument about the propper fitting heights for the full sized Comfort, and I fit them as a absoloute minimum of 22, but have found that 24mm is much better

Comfort Small is still a comfort lens with the same corridor length, it has been surfaced into an oval shape 60 x 40mm, to improve the substance without having to resort to precal, it still has a minimum fitting height of 18mm.

see http://www.essilor.co.uk/lensinfo/pd...20Brochure.pdf

for further details.

Lewy

[QDO1]

Comfort Small is still a comfort lens with the same corridor length, it has been surfaced into an oval shape 60 x 40mm, to improve the substance without having to resort to precal, it still has a minimum fitting height of 18mm.

see http://www.essilor.co.uk/lensinfo/pd...20Brochure.pdf

for further details.

Lewy

We have made Varilux Comfort even better for shallow

frames using a new uncut shape and markings.

Varilux Comfort lenses are now available in a version

specially adapted for use in shallow frames.

previously i quoted essilor (from thier site before the recent change)

Essilor][/b]

We have made Varilux Comfort even better for shallow frames using a new uncut shape and markings. Varilux Comfort lenses are now available in a version specially adapted for use in shallow frames. Varilux Comfort has been designed with a short progression to maximise postural comfort. Reading starts 12mm below the fitting line where 85% of the addition is reached.

in this thread: http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14423

It was understood from the rest of that document that the quote was from that the progression length was changed. the document is possibly unavailable now

[Lewy]

King,

Unless they have changed the design of the comfort small, I had it from Jacques Desselais, that it is the same design. This was told to me when it first came out. I am happy to double check with him on Monday but having worked under him, he had no reason to say otherwise.

Lewy

[QDO1]

King,

Unless they have changed the design of the comfort small, I had it from Jacques Desselais, that it is the same design. This was told to me when it first came out. I am happy to double check with him on Monday but having worked under him, he had no reason to say otherwise.

Lewy

I stand to be corrected, but I was informed by the rep that the lens design was altered to be a short corridor, and the info on the Essilor site seemed to co-incide with that. Whats really interesting is that the Small has virtually dissapeared off the site

If they just re-marked up the lens with yellow markings with the near point moved up, then Essilor have basically constantly lowered the advised minimum fitting height of the lens, which started at 24mm when it was first released, and rapidly dropped to 22 .and now is set at 18 mm which woud be a total farce

[GoodAsGold]

Sorry to be so boring, Shellrob. As you noticed, I haven't posted in a couple days or more. I think most of my questions have been answered and I thank you for that. My optician's assistant called today saying that a couple Charmant frames came in for me to try on. I'll also take in a few printed photos of others I like. After that, the rest is up to just picking the nicest frame and best lens. When I get them, I'll be sure and let you know what they are.

Once again, thank you and sorry for my redundant questions and for coming across as annoying. Didn't meant to.:o

Not a bad idea CHris. I'll tell you, I agree wit hj because its getting old seeing the same questions over and over again and the same people asking 50 questions about the pair of glasses they haven't purchased yet. It's crazy on here and only seems to be getting worse. The consumer forum is a must. Don't get me wrong, I thing this forum is great and yes people should be for come here for some direction or basic information, but geez, how many questions do they have to ask before going and buying their glasses. Some trust in the Optician should be a given or else why go to an Optician at all, they have all the info now that they're 50 questions have been answered????? Just venting. I know we don't have to answer every question that's asked but it's the same questions that I see when I pull up the forum and normally the same person asking them. Lately I've been seeing a select few on here asking every possible question imaginable about buying glasses. Nothing pertaining to my job so I leave. It's boring. Again, just my vent.

[Lewy]

I stand to be corrected, but I was informed by the rep that the lens design was altered to be a short corridor, and the info on the Essilor site seemed to co-incide with that. Whats really interesting is that the Small has virtually dissapeared off the site

If they just re-marked up the lens with yellow markings with the near point moved up, then Essilor have basically constantly lowered the advised minimum fitting height of the lens, which started at 24mm when it was first released, and rapidly dropped to 22 .and now is set at 18 mm which woud be a total farce

King,

I believe it is all down to the competition between manufacturers and trying to get one over each other. As you say, the small has been taken off the Varilux site but can be found on the Essilor.co.uk site. Both lenses to me apear to be the same but I shall be checking it out and will confirm with you. Who is your rep by the way? Ours is a new guy, Tanwir. It takes a while to get to know a new face I believe and I haven't made my mind up yet about him. Is it me or have Essilor's reps over the last few years been lacking in technical information. I still seem to know more then them! I guess I am a sad anorak who likes to know the products inside out.

Have a good weekend.

Lewy

PS. I don't know if I have asked you this but does Basil Bowen Brookes still work with Alan Culver or has he finally retired? Basil was a smashing chap and had his own practice in Wards End when I was on the road with Essilor. If you do see him, give him my best regards.

[Lewy]

King et al,

Have just spoken with my contact at Essilor UK. Comfort and Comfort Small ARE both the same design. The only difference is that the Small lens has been "semi precalled" into an oval shaped uncut to help minimse the centre substance for fitting into a shallow frame. It will not take the place of a precal lens, but for speed and ease of ordering it is available in a 60mm x 40mm oval. Just like ordering say a 65mm or 70mm Comfort without taking into account frame dimensions etc.

Hope this is of help,

Lewy

[rsandr]

King et al,

Have just spoken with my contact at Essilor UK. Comfort and Comfort Small ARE both the same design. The only difference is that the Small lens has been "semi precalled" into an oval shaped uncut to help minimse the centre substance for fitting into a shallow frame. It will not take the place of a precal lens, but for speed and ease of ordering it is available in a 60mm x 40mm oval. Just like ordering say a 65mm or 70mm Comfort without taking into account frame dimensions etc.

Hope this is of help,

Lewy

I thought the same a while ago but it seems QD may be right, from Essilor..


We have made Varilux Comfort even better for shallow frames using a new uncut shape and markings. Varilux Comfort lenses are now available in a version specially adapted for use in shallow frames. Varilux Comfort has been designed with a short progression to maximise postural comfort. Reading starts 12mm below the fitting line where 85% of the addition is reached.

[Jim G]

I'm coming in late here but I don't believe the add was mentioned...and that, in my humble opinion, is the major determining factor in satisfaction w/ short/mid/long corridor lenses.

A person w/ an add of +1.50 or less probably doesn't use the intermediate much except for transitioning to the near so the length is somewhat academic tho a short corridor is much more user friendly. An add of +2.50 or more is heavily dependent upon the intermediate and fitting heights/corridor lengths are a MAJOR decision point.

In between, is where most users fall: lower adds (+1.75 ) may easily adapt to a 22 now 18 mm corridor. The higher adds (+2.25) probably won't. The +2.00's can go either direction depending upon previous experience and/or viewing needs.

FWIW.

[GoodAsGold]

Jim,

Interesting. I happen to have an Add of +2.50, but I also am ready to have narrower frames now. I have worn a Comfort lense with a 19 seg. height in a larger frame for the past 7 years and it's looking very old fashioned. My druthers would be to not have to wear glasses and go back to my old contacts. But, since that's not an option, at least I would like to look a bit more fashionable. So are you saying that a short corridor lens in a slimmer frame might prove to be too difficult to adjust to given my Add? Or, as was the case when I bought my first pair of hard contacts 37 years ago..."Where there's a will, there's a way"? I really do want to make this work. I'm not talking about those ultra-skinny frames that resemble thin reading specs. I'm thinking more about a frame that measure perhaps 46/47ish-18 to 20ish-135 or 140ish with a B vertical measurement of 27 or 28 (give or take a number). I definitely want to be under 30, though. I'm talking about a nice oval-egg shaped, titanium frame that actually allows my eyebrows to show. :)

Although I will NOT purchase them at this website, here are some photo examples of the frames I'm talking about:

Charmant Titanium TI 8516 eyeglasses eyewear
Charmant Titanium TI 8523 eyeglasses eyewear
Marchon Marchon 653 eyeglasses eyewear
Modern Optical Today eyeglasses eyewear (not this actual frame, but I like the shape. I tried this on in person.) My goal is to find one very close to this one, except in titanium.

I'm coming in late here but I don't believe the add was mentioned...and that, in my humble opinion, is the major determining factor in satisfaction w/ short/mid/long corridor lenses.

A person w/ an add of +1.50 or less probably doesn't use the intermediate much except for transitioning to the near so the length is somewhat academic tho a short corridor is much more user friendly. An add of +2.50 or more is heavily dependent upon the intermediate and fitting heights/corridor lengths are a MAJOR decision point.

In between, is where most users fall: lower adds (+1.75 ) may easily adapt to a 22 now 18 mm corridor. The higher adds (+2.25) probably won't. The +2.00's can go either direction depending upon previous experience and/or viewing needs.

FWIW.

[chip anderson]

goodas: Why is going back to your contacts not an option?

[Jim G]

It really depends upon your daily vision demands. With a +2.50, which by the way is where I'm at, we need a whole bunch of intermediate help. The 18" to 3' range cannot be adequately served by a short corridor PAL. Period. If that is a priority in your vision needs then you're destined to a long(er) design. If that is not a priority, and you're looking for fashion, then many of the shorter corridor PAL's should suffice.

It's really quite simple. The more near power we need, the more intermediate vision we need. Only you can make the compromise.

[GoodAsGold]

I first wore hard and then Gas Permeables since '69 with no problem...but as soon as I became presbyopic around age 43, I found it annoying to be wearing distance CLs. Not only that, my eyes are drier and they feel like sand now with CLs in. Just not comfortable anymore. I tried the Gas Perm mono vision set-up and my brain just couldn't adjust to that. And, again, they just plain HURT. So, I succumbed to progressive lens glasses and to wear them full time. I used to wear my CLs now and then for something important. But, I even gave up on that some time ago. :( Tis a shame. I believe my eyes are one of my nicer features, too. At least they used to be! I actually haven't seen them clearly in awhile without my glasses on! ;)

goodas: Why is going back to your contacts not an option?

[chip anderson]

Goodas: Have you not heard of bi and tri focal as well as progressives, all are available in hard and HGP lenses (of course they are very new, I made my first one in '58).


Chip

[GoodAsGold]

I've heard mixed reviews about those, Chip. Also, I'm beginning to wonder if my eyes are just too dry now to wear HGP contacts. I've never worn soft lenses except for once. An optometrist who was temporarily sharing space in our OB-GYN dept where I worked as a nurse let me wear some "demos" around the office for awhile. They felt weird. But, then I was used to Gas Perms or even harder. Maybe in time and with my own Rx, I could acclimate to the soft.

What do you think? Do they make soft lenses that would be better for folks like me whose eyes seem to be irritated by harder CL now? Or are they just as irritating as the Gas Perms? Hey, I would gladly give them a try again if I knew they not only would correct my presbyopia, but also feel half way decent in my eyes. I do not like wearing glasses all day. But, it beats bumping into things.

Thanks.

Goodas: Have you not heard of bi and tri focal as well as progressives, all are available in hard and HGP lenses (of course they are very new, I made my first one in '58).


Chip

[chip anderson]

I think the motivation droops as the hormone level droops in the patient. I also think the skill levels for custom fitting rigid lenses are rapidly disappearing.

The best lens for what you describe as your problem would be rigid bifocal, or rigid trifocal, or rigid progressive (aspheric) bifocals. But they must be custom fitted by a competent person and you must be willing to wear them every day (7 days a week) a reasonably consistant number of hours.

Chip

[GoodAsGold]

LOL. I think you've got an excellent point about the correlation between adaption and decreasing hormone levels.

When you say "rigid" do you mean the Gas Permeable? In other words, not the actual hard as we once knew them, I hope.

I agree that they would need to be fitted by someone who is very competent. And, I remember back when I first got my original hard lenses. You never saw a more motivated patient. I was 18. :) It was a literal overnight change for me. One day I was off sitting alone wearing my '60s style specs. The next day with my new contacts inserted, I was sitting at the "football players'" lunch table playing cards with the "popular crowd" at the community college. Instant self-esteem. All my hormones were intact, as well. :D

A side note about contacts: Even back when I got my first pair, I always seemed to have a contact that "slipped" up or floated high. The CL guy was telling me that I needed to fully blink more. Years later when my last optometrist fitted me with new ones (over 7 years ago), he mentioned something about the shape of my eye, making it more of a challenge to fit them so they didn't float up. (I can't tell you the exact terminology he mentioned.)

I think the motivation droops as the hormone level droops in the patient. I also think the skill levels for custom fitting rigid lenses are rapidly disappearing.

The best lens for what you describe as your problem would be rigid bifocal, or rigid trifocal, or rigid progressive (aspheric) bifocals. But they must be custom fitted by a competent person and you must be willing to wear them every day (7 days a week) a reasonably consistant number of hours.

Chip