AR Specs, just the facts!

[Cherry Optical]

I think I might compile the data and keep it to myself, that would give me a competitive edge over my competition.

......and it would give you something to do other than complain about improved products that you are not going to ever sell!

Everyone can make their own opinions, but Cherry Optical lives ours. It is extremely important to have coatings that perform, especially when promoting and processing Free-Form technology. If the coating fails, the whole lens fails. If the coating is too hard to process in-house (slipping, twisting, whatever) it is too risky to promote and manufacturer.

IMHO it's all about coatings that are easier to process and will not fail. All the Crizal products, HiVision products, and Kodak CleAR (directly from Signetek) outperform all other coatings. You are allowed to believe what you want (and we all know you do) but ONCE AGAIN I will offer you the opportunity to come and see first hand the importance of high performance coatings. Additionally, how the coatings are applied. If I tried to put AR on lenses at my lab it would be laughable compared to how Essilor, HOYA, Signet Armorlite, and even Zeiss apply there coatings at their labs. I liken the difference similiar how a Ford Escort is slapped together on an assembly line compared to how a Mercedes is put together. The process makes all the difference.

If we were selling and processing low dollar, low profit no-name PALs and commodity items made up the majority of our work I could see the need for a low price, 'no frills' AR coating. But when we are selling lenses that have a wholesale price higher than Harry's retail price we need a coating that we can rely on.

How about this for a test: We've tried about a dozen different coatings over the years and have been burned by the vast majority. What does burned mean, you ask? It means the coatings failed and needed to be returned. That meant money in the trash can for either us or the coating facility, neither of which is good for the overal market. No more burning burning money - only making high quality lenses here.

Different strokes for different folks, right?

Adam

[braheem24]

I liken the difference similiar how a Ford Escort is slapped together on an assembly line compared to how a Mercedes is put together. The process makes all the difference.

Considering a Ford is more reliable then a Mercedes I would like to add that no matter how it's processed if the engineering behind the product is flawed you still end up with an inferior product.

Mercedes used to have the most loyal customer base and was know to "Over-Engineer" thier cars, now they're selling cars based on thier name recognition and putting out trash.

There's no reason why someone should feel offended by Harry asking to see independet testing whether you may think he might sell them or not has nothing to do with the issue.

[Cherry Optical]

There's no reason why someone should feel offended by Harry asking to see independent testing whether you may think he might sell them or not has nothing to do with the issue.

Trust me...

I'm not offended by Harry. He is the one that brought this upon himself. And, since he already knows that he is never going to sell the 'premium' products he gets a big "who cares" from me. Apparently he already knows everything. The real reason he wants the information is to try to validate his own opinions, not to learn anything or change what he sells.

Harry, if you were able to have someone conduct these tests and found that the marketing is not all B.S., would it change your habits at all? Would you begin selling an AR coating that is more expensive than what you are currently buying lenses and coating for if you found it the new coating tested considerably better? If your answers are NO and NO, then again, who cares?

I've posted this before: If you want to put a coating up against a Crizal coating I can facilitate the testing through Essilor. Granted it would not be an 'independent lab' but they would test it the same exact way they continually test their own product.

In regards to the Escort..... You are kidding, right? Maybe in FL the cars hold up better but I don't see too many 85-98 Escorts still on the road here in WI. Found On Road Dead. I do however see plenty of older Mercedes on the road and in used car lots. Maybe I spelled the words wrong: F-O-R-D E-S-C-O-R-T and M-E-R-E-C-E-D-E-S. Who knows! Perhaps you have already seen Ford and Mercedes assembly lines...

I'd love to see the consumer reports comparisons (which do exist) between the two.

Adam

[HarryChiling]

Adam,
You presume to know what I sell and purchase, you have spoken to me a total of twice about certain products that I want. Our office does 80% if not more MVC and they want what's covered, the rest of my clients are comprised of patient that want premium beyond your comprehension. Our office has fabricated frames from raw materials, our office has cut custom shapes (some even hand routed, not edged), we set stones from swarovoski crystals to real diamonds inn lenses and frames. I promise each of these patients the best and I back that up with product performance not marketing.

You are wrong in thefact that I don't sell FF, I just don't purchase it from you or rave about it. I have an order of Ice Tech lenses on order now and just yesterday dispensed a definity. The difference is I let opticians try the stuff firt and then let me know if the designs were good or, guess what from what I have heard the Physio 360 is garbage, but the marketing doesn't indicate that, so I made shrewd move in not offering that product, how many opticians do I know that got burnt with that lens enough, but I have heard good things about the definity and icetech products and they have been on the market long enough for me hear enough about them.

The coatings, again I could care less, I know what I know and I'd like to know more, but I have enough marketing material that I am confident I know what all you literature on the product say, BTW we use Crizal for patient that pay for it. It is ashamed that your lab positions itself as a provider of education, yet you feel "who cares" about someone who is asking for education.

The truth of the matter is that yes I like the coatings that I use and I will continue to use them untill it doesn't make financial sense tot the practice, does that mean there is no room for other coatings, NO. But it does mean that I don't want just any coating and I want to know all the performance characteristics.

BTW, I have already told you I have a full schedule this year, I would love to come out and see your operations, hell a few months ago I spent a boatload of money flying out to a lab just so that icould see a FF generator in action. So I could truly talk about it and also so I can truly tell you what's bull and what's not.

Also I am still working on mapping lens designs and have so far meet resistance from all but one manufacturer or lab, I am in the process of purchaseing thes designs for this myself which has been slow and expensive and the response I know will be that the sample size wasn't large enough, but guess what I will do it anyway. So Adam either you step up, or you step aside, but the question was simple and was not directed to you, so if you truly feel this worked up put me on your ignore list and avoid this thread.

[Cherry Optical]

It is ashamed that your lab positions itself as a provider of education, yet you feel "who cares" about someone who is asking for education.

Yes Harry, who cares about you?

All of the education we provide is nothing more than 'marketing materials' in your mind, right?

I am glad you ordered a pair of ICE-TECH lenses. Good for you. I am also Glad you sold a pair of Definity's. Additionally, I now understand that 85% of your patient's are managed care and that you sell rhinestones and diamonds. I support you in all that you do.

Why don't you send me some samples of the AR you like so much and I will have it tested? You don't need to come to Green Bay for that and I could even send you a prepaid UPS label. I'm sorry I can't get Colts to test the products for us for free but I can ask Essilor to test them the same way they test their own products.... Or is that not good enough for you?

This is going to be my last request to try to help you in your quest. **** or get off the pot, Harry.

Adam

[braheem24]

In regards to the Escort..... You are kidding, right? Maybe in FL the cars hold up better but I don't see too many 85-98 Escorts still on the road here in WI. Found On Road Dead. I do however see plenty of older Mercedes on the road and in used car lots. Maybe I spelled the words wrong: F-O-R-D E-S-C-O-R-T and M-E-R-E-C-E-D-E-S. Who knows! Perhaps you have already seen Ford and Mercedes assembly lines...

If you're in the market for an 85-98 Mercedes go right ahead they're the best built cars in the world, however I would watch out for some '98 models as they bagan to convert them into Dodges by that year.

If you're in the market for a reliable 2008 car and have to choose between Ford and Mercedes, then Ford would win hands down in reliability.

...and you can check consumer reports on that ;)

[HarryChiling]

Adam,
The data is already there, why can't it just be available. You think that you are going to contact essilor and they are going to think who is this genius that wants to compare AR's, one of the products I sell is an essilor product so they will be able to tell you what the comparison would be.

This is the goal, if you have data like the bayer on any of the products you offer then post it, if you have any other data, then post that too. By just thefacts I meant let's not get this thread caught up in opinions. It would be nice to see so much data in this thread about all the various AR's that the moderators put a sticky on it and keep it at the top.

Also keep in mind that the various tests are going to allow opticians to cater the AR more individually to the clients specifications and need. What good is a coating that is easy to clean if it scratches easy and I am rough on my glasses, also consider that statement inreverse what good is a AR that is super scratch resistent if the thing is a bear to clean. I am guessing that every AR will have a different category that they perform better in, once the data is out in the open as a optician I can say "I recommedn XYZ coating for durability, but if you want easy to clean go with QRS".

It's similar to putting together a spec sheet on what's available and in what material and what range. Sometimes I can't orde my favorite lesn because it's not available in the materials and options that the patient want so then I offer them something else.

If you really want to test the lenses, than OK give me an address and I will try and get some lenses together to send to you, but let me warn you they will be numbered with no identification and I will include a Crizal products as well as other products, but if I pay for lenses outta my pocket again and essilor pays to have them tested, I need to know that the raw data will be available and not just an interpretation of the data. If it's a deal consider me a sh*tter. :d

[Kyle]

Perhaps I missed it in the thread if so, thanks to all for reading...

One of the most incredibly important factors that is notoriously MISSING from AR comparisons is how each test rates for the varying MATERIALS available.

Sorry, (all you number touting, spoon fed, AR representative) folks, your data doesn't mean squat to me if you can't give me a benchmark that can either be legitimately compared across all materials/vendors available (unlikely) or at least can be related by material within one vendor's products (i.e. Teflon on Sola products, by product).

Case in point: UTMC (remember that???). Decent on a Percepta CR39, but HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE on Percepta 1.6. I could spot that lens from across the room!!!

Oh, and then there's that bit about Crizal being "craze-proof", or so the rep told me while I handed her a pair that had spiderwebbed on a patient so badly I could hardly understand how they were able to drive to my office.

I'll not call names here, but the simple fact is that yes, despite all efforts, opticians are jaded in part because of so many supposed miracle products being rammed down our throats. To get on such a high horse and condemn ANYONE for asking for fact-laden information is asenine.

That said, to suggest that lens manufacturers produce marketing materials for the sole purpose of duping us ECPs is perhaps equally if not more myopic: if more McTicians cared about the details as much as Harry or any of the rest of you do, I would imagine the marketing environ to be far removed from what it is - at this point dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, which isn't very high off the ground, people.

To reiterate my original point: to say a lens has an excellent Bayer rating tells me nothing if the accompanying information is not present.

Even a spider's web, to recoin an earlier phrase, intricate as it is, is only anchored by a few, very salient, non-sticky threads. Let's get rid of the flypaper frilly talk.

Ironic that we should all want for greater transparency on something of this nature...

kk

[HarryChiling]

Nicely said Kyle, have no doubt that the marketing material is correct, but some also fail to mention other attribute that we consider part of a premium AR. For instance you brought up crazing, that would be independent of the bayer ratign so even if a company produces data showing that the bayer rating is high, what about crazing, what if the heal test showed poor performance. If I were marketing the product and I knew that the lens had performance in the bayer category but crazed pretty easy I would not market it as "the toughest delicate AR on the market", I would market it as havign a really high bayer rating and leave the rest off. It's only deceptive if you lie about it which I don't believe is happening.

I think that this subject deserves some attention and I was hopign that a collaborative effort woud produce more than just the work of one could produce. Maybe I will havea talk with a ew people I knwo and hit the phones for more info direct from the hoses mouth. The list of data from my second post on this thread was from company sites and variousother company literature so the data is definately out there, but no one has compiled it for comaprison yet, which I think would be a great resource.

[MarcE]

If you're in the market for an 85-98 Mercedes go right ahead they're the best built cars in the world, however I would watch out for some '98 models as they bagan to convert them into Dodges by that year.

If you're in the market for a reliable 2008 car and have to choose between Ford and Mercedes, then Ford would win hands down in reliability.

...and you can check consumer reports on that ;)

True. I read it in the Wall Street Journal about a year ago. BMW and Mercedes had 5 of the 10 WORST cars based on initial quality, including the flagship S-Class. One Cadillac was in the mix.

Honda, Toyota, Nissan (including their luxury brands) had a monopoly on the Best 10 w/ one Buick (LeSabre, I think) and one Ford being the only American-made vehicles.

I understand your point, Adam. But I want to know that I'm not buying a Mercedes or worse a BMW when it comes to AR. That's a waste of money (high price and low quality). I felt that way when I used CleAR. Most of those were failures.

I want to know that I am buying a Lexus (high price, high quality) or a Toyota (Mid price, high quality)

[rdcoach5]

Who cares who has the highest Bayer rating? If the highest Bayer rated lens crazes, and your Pt has to go without glasses for a week until lenses can be shipped from Dallas-they won't be happy.Our local lab makes their own Anti-reflective coating that suppoedly has a higher Bayer rating than the leading national A.R. That's not why we use it. Our pts like it, it's easy to care for and clean. And, if there rarely is a problem, our local lab quickly makes all new lenses at no charge for 2 years.If we really need it, we get same day service. That's better than any Bayer rating.
Bob Taylor

[For-Life]

Who cares who has the highest Bayer rating? If the highest Bayer rated lens crazes, and your Pt has to go without glasses for a week until lenses can be shipped from Dallas-they won't be happy.Our local lab makes their own Anti-reflective coating that suppoedly has a higher Bayer rating than the leading national A.R. That's not why we use it. Our pts like it, it's easy to care for and clean. And, if there rarely is a problem, our local lab quickly makes all new lenses at no charge for 2 years.If we really need it, we get same day service. That's better than any Bayer rating.
Bob Taylor

Especially since the ones with a 5.0 rating do not get people returning them scratches. It is like comparing titanium and aluminum for weight, they both pass the test.

[bhess25]

i guess the manufacturers know how crappy their respective AR realy is and dont want to say anything about it.

hell there might be one out there that isnt advertised as well and is the best of the best...and if thats the case i would be willing to take money from my own pocket to help that company advertise and knock out the big guns that spend all theyre money in advertising and sh*t on R&D!!!

[Cherry Optical]

85-98 Mercedes go right ahead they're the best built cars in the world

LoL

http://escortfocus.com/html/history.html

I'll take your word on the new Fords. We both agree a Mercedes was a better car than the Ford Escort during the period of time the Escort was manufactured. The point of the whole thing was that the process involved in producing a product is extremely important to the consistent quality and performance of said produced product.

Adam

[Cherry Optical]

If you really want to test the lenses, than OK give me an address and I will try and get some lenses together to send to you, but let me warn you they will be numbered with no identification and I will include a Crizal products as well as other products, but if I pay for lenses outta my pocket again and essilor pays to have them tested, I need to know that the raw data will be available and not just an interpretation of the data. If it's a deal consider me a sh*tter. :d

Sweet! I am glad to see we are on the same page. Additionally, we have plenty of different ARs available at Global Optics and I will send in every AR I can as well. I will contact the director of market quality and technical specifications and see how many samples they are willing to test and what data will be made available.

I am glad you are a ****ter. I will **** with you. When it's -10 (-25 with wind) it's really not a bad to have someone **** in the outhouse before you.

Adam

[Cherry Optical]

Who cares who has the highest Bayer rating? If the highest Bayer rated lens crazes, and your Pt has to go without glasses for a week until lenses can be shipped from Dallas-they won't be happy.

Coach,

This sounds like you are speaking from personal experience. If you love the product you are talking about but don't like the fact you had to order it from a 'America's lab' in Dallas, TX you could order from a distributor.... from Green Bay - home of the real "American's Team."

It doesn't take us a week to get them and we don't have to order them from Dallas. We're an option if you enjoyed the product - I know we enjoy working with it in our lab and selling it.

Adam

[bhess25]

hmm i think our largest local lab is hoya!:D

wonder if itll take me 5 days to get stuff from them...i guess i could just go pick it up!!

hey Adam, did you get a chance to get that tour set up for me?

-Billy

[Jubilee]

Who cares who has the highest Bayer rating? If the highest Bayer rated lens crazes, and your Pt has to go without glasses for a week until lenses can be shipped from Dallas-they won't be happy.Our local lab makes their own Anti-reflective coating that suppoedly has a higher Bayer rating than the leading national A.R. That's not why we use it. Our pts like it, it's easy to care for and clean. And, if there rarely is a problem, our local lab quickly makes all new lenses at no charge for 2 years.If we really need it, we get same day service. That's better than any Bayer rating.
Bob Taylor

Well I went the route of the independent as well. I love Interstate's ARxHP and I think it was every bit as good, if not better quality than the ones stated above and the service from the lab has always been excellent. However, I wonder how long it is going to be offered, since they became an "Essilor partner lab" earlier this month...

They are already advertising nothing but the Essilor coatings and I was told yesterday that their AR machine was being "tweaked" to process the new Crizal Advance ...

Hence the reason why I am looking at the other options out there.

[For-Life]

i guess the manufacturers know how crappy their respective AR realy is and dont want to say anything about it.

hell there might be one out there that isnt advertised as well and is the best of the best...and if thats the case i would be willing to take money from my own pocket to help that company advertise and knock out the big guns that spend all theyre money in advertising and sh*t on R&D!!!

Well I have used Teflon, UTMC, Crizal, Crizal Alize, Nikon HCC, Nikon HCC ICE, Hoya Super Hi, Hoya Hi, Seiko, RF, Trio, CHC, Pentax and some independents. I also know what coatings my customers use and where they get them from.

There is a strong reason why I pick one coating above all. It has nothing to do with name or company. It has everything to do with the lack of crazed returns I get from it. I also notice the brands and coatings people on this board use. Then I notice who posts in those threads about crazed and scratched lenses.

[bhess25]

Well I have used Teflon, UTMC, Crizal, Crizal Alize, Nikon HCC, Nikon HCC ICE, Hoya Super Hi, Hoya Hi, Seiko, RF, Trio, CHC, Pentax and some independents. I also know what coatings my customers use and where they get them from.

There is a strong reason why I pick one coating above all. It has nothing to do with name or company. It has everything to do with the lack of crazed returns I get from it. I also notice the brands and coatings people on this board use. Then I notice who posts in those threads about crazed and scratched lenses.

im lost...where were you going with that?

[DragonLensmanWV]

LoL

http://escortfocus.com/html/history.html

I'll take your word on the new Fords. We both agree a Mercedes was a better car than the Ford Escort during the period of time the Escort was manufactured. The point of the whole thing was that the process involved in producing a product is extremely important to the consistent quality and performance of said produced product.

Adam

Well, to be fair, you were the one who specifically brought up the Escort, which in truth was not a real good car, though it led the world in sales for awhile.
And since we were comparing new coatings, it's only fair to compare new Mercedes and Fords.
All that has exactly squat to do with AR coatings. Who in their right mind would compare a WW II -era single layer AR coat to the new ones?
I fully realize that if such secret info as all the parameters of the various AR coatings were to fall into the hands of us ignorant opticians who sell them, the world as we know it would be irrevocably changed -NOT!
Since we are the ones who sell and have to deal with the repercussions, should we not be allowed to access all data and make our own decision rather than to just swallow hook line and sinker whatever a lab tells us?
Yes, I realize that if such a substantial (and very needed) database were available to all who wanted it, then the various coating companies would gleefully seize upon any weakness exhibited by any coating, in whatever minor datum, as proof positive that their coating is so far superior to all others. Egotistic is the keyword of "superior" coatings. We should be able to see that, say:
Coating A - has greater contact angle, but crazes the instant it's heated.
Coating B -doesn't craze when heated, but lower contact angle.
Coating C - doesn't craze, has better contact angle but lower transmission.

We should be able to choose which one we use with ALL the info available, not just what is oh-so-graciously doled out to us in tiny dribs and drabs.

[FVCCHRIS]

But I have to go back to Dick's post and agree with him on the whole matter....

In order for any testing to have value the metrics must be:

• Provided by a single independent lab.
• Be performed under precisely the same parameters.
• Be performed on a truly random sample of lenses.

I don't think that there is any way that all of the coating vendors would cooperate with such a test. That being the case, some independent body, be it a school, trade organization or trade magazine would have to pony up the cost, which I am sure would be substantial. There is no chance of that happening so I guess you guys will just have to use your wallets and customer acceptance to guide you through the coatings maze. Isn't that the procedure with just about all of the products that you use?
.

We all know( or ought to by now ) what works and what doesn't. There is a huge difference in the quality of available A/R coats out there and I simply prefer to use(and pay for) the ones that don't come back! JMHO

[Peter Z]

Many of you have brought up some valid points like A/R performance on different lens products ie: Poly versus 1.67 tests are just that test and don't always equate to what happens to products worn by our customers.

Essilor Crizal is probably the simplest and oldest design coating in the market today. 4 basic layers comprising coating materials that have been around for 30 years. The new part is the hardcoat technology they use and of course the top coat. Zirconium and Quartz have been in use in the coating business for over 50 years. By the way there are only two companies that make the super hydrophobic material in its raw form. Essilor didn't invent it and it is available to all if they know where to look for it.

The true test of a coating is how it looks after being worn by patients over a period of 2 years. That is what really matters. If the bayer is 7 or 8 and you get 20% returned for crazing what good is a high bayer number? Customers don't want to return defective product and we don't want warranty returns.

What causes most failures in coatings has been the lack of use of hardcoats on both sides of the lens ( and even today there are labs out there that provide A/R coatings on non-hardcoated lenses) and using coating processes that had too high a stress level like many Ion Assisted products did back then.

Our understanding of coatings and lenses has improved over the last 5 years. There are many good coatings in the market today and it is not just the high priced branded products.

[MarcE]

There are many good coatings in the market today and it is not just the high priced branded products.

Bingo! Just like our customers, we want great value. I don't want to pay the Mercedes price for a Chevrolet. I can name a coating that falls into this catagory.

I have a coating that I use that has a Chevrolet price tag and Toyota quality. Meaning that it is very, very good and priced lower than it should be.

I know of 2 Lexus type quality coatings, but you have to pay the Lexus price tag. That is not bad. I just don't know of any great values in the "great AR" catagory.

For-Life, I pay attention to postings also and I know which one you use. I agree, it's the best, but limited availabilty.

[thep]

The real "secret" to an AR coat is more in the process than in the name. No mater what brand you use, if corners are cut and/or times reduced to rush a job through or increase capacity...VOILA ... AR failure. They have "recipies for a reason. Follow them and you have consistantly good product.