Drill mount glass lenses

[GOB]

Hi All,

I came across this site by chance and having seen all the excellent comments, I'm hoping for some helpful feedback.

Background:
A month or two ago one of my customers expressed her desire for rimless lenses. She is quite near-sighted (both eyes, -8.25) and even with the 1.74 she's looking at 4-5mm. By her own account, she'd been wearing thick frames to hide the edges for the last 5 or 6 years and wanted to try the super thin 1.9 hi-index glass lenses she'd "read about on the internet".

Firstly, no one in Australia (that I know of) would drill glass for a typical 3 piece rimless set. We don't stock 1.9 glass anyway. And even if we could, we would make sure that it was in a full frame.

Last night she walked in wearing a rimless, high index glass rimless frame. She ordered them from the net. Shipped in from Hong Kong. Damn the internet! The edge was slightly over 2mm, less than 3mm. Very small lense size, possibly 40-45mm. They looked great and the whole thing in the titanium frame was $A370. Less than one set of high index polycarbonates from me.

The problem:
I think they looked great. Should we consider doing this? Is it really that bad to drill glass? In my 4 years of experience, I've never even seen a glass lens. For me, it's an Old Wives Tale, "one upon a time they cut lenses of glass". Or is she in for a bad time if the lenses break or chip?

Some advice would be great for the next time she brings in her smug self.

[obxeyeguy]

Just curious here. What type of mounting exactly?? Screws and nuts, or some type of compression??

When I started, we drilled glass frequently, mounted with screw and nut, and also saw a fair amount of breakage. That 1.9 won't fly here in the US for safety regulations I believe, as the center had to be barely 1 mm.

My thought is, just because we can do it, doesn't mean we have to.

[For-Life]

1.9 is not strong and cannot be hardened. Who cares that the Internet did it? The key thing is this is not a problem that you need to implement into your organization.

[GOB]

From memory, it was a titanium frame with a two hole mount with plastic plugs on the back. I was a little scared to touch it.

As with most people who come asking for glass, I told her the reasons not to get glass (liability, availability, reliability, durability, safety) and she said she's an office worker, plays no sport and wears contacts to exercise. She also says she "takes good care of" her spectacles.

[rbaker]

Back in my day we only used plastic lenses for cataract glasses. Everything else was glass. We did have 1.8 glass available from Zeiss and we used a lot of it. In addition, drilled and notched rimless still represented about 25% of our lab work. Every once in a while someone would break a lens. No big issue. You see, back in those days everyone knew that if they were not careful they could easily break their glasses.

Today, I would not hesitate for a moment to fabricate and dispense a 1.9 index glass lens mounted in a Bal-Grip or 402-4 mounting.

[obxeyeguy]

Today, I would not hesitate for a moment to fabricate and dispense a 1.9 index glass lens mounted in a Bal-Grip or 402-4 mounting

Dick, I'm no where near as old as you, but wasn't the Bal-grip a notch type mounting?

[rbaker]

Yes

[Chris Ryser]

Balgrip had 4 notches and you would bend the top bar to follow the lens curve which provided a good construction. This system was followed and copied by many frame manufacturers in the 1950s. Very easy to mount and all was in glass of whatever index.

Drilling of glass was also no big deal and still is not in the countries where glass is still used.

The switch over to plastic is not only for safety reasons it does cost a fraction of what the manufacturing of glass lenses does.

[Jacqui]

This is going to show my age, big time. I'm like Dick and Chris, when I started everything was glass including cataract lenses. Drilled and notched a lot of them for Balgrip (B-31, etc) and AO, Shuron, Artcraft rimless. We used almost all crown and photochromic glass, a few high index (flint), and even some early polaroids. We never considered having any legal problems since people just took better care than they do now.

I don't think I would do some of these things with the new frames. The older ones were much better made and could be adjusted more to accomodate a lens that maybe wasn't quite right. The one piece design was just a whole lot stronger and more secure than these new cheapie three piece that are being sold today. We still do some drilled rimless in glass for the Amish and Mennonite patients, but these are 40+ year old frames and getting scarcer (unfortunately).

Now I need more coffee !!

[For-Life]

Balgrip had 4 notches and you would bend the top bar to follow the lens curve which provided a good construction. This system was followed and copied by many frame manufacturers in the 1950s. Very easy to mount and all was in glass of whatever index.

Drilling of glass was also no big deal and still is not in the countries where glass is still used.

The switch over to plastic is not only for safety reasons it does cost a fraction of what the manufacturing of glass lenses does.

there is a huge difference between 1.5 glass and 1.9 glass, though

[HarryChiling]

Just curious here. What type of mounting exactly?? Screws and nuts, or some type of compression??

When I started, we drilled glass frequently, mounted with screw and nut, and also saw a fair amount of breakage. That 1.9 won't fly here in the US for safety regulations I believe, as the center had to be barely 1 mm.

My thought is, just because we can do it, doesn't mean we have to.

I agree with this, I even watched on the discovery channel two guys with a show called Myth Busters, actually polish a turd. Now I've been throwing that expression around for years but I never thought you could actually polish a turd. Needless to say even though I saw that it was possible I am happy to report that my buffing wheel is turd free to this day and the plan is to try and keep it that way for the foreseeable future.

[chip anderson]

Harry I have seen countless lenses that had S*** for optics. And many that had S*** for polished surfaces. But you have given new meaning to the expression.

Chip

P.S. Don't trust MythBusters as an absolute authority on things. I watched the segment about not being able to get hammers or chisels to chip, flake and break. But my ocularist mentor, the honorable Vernon Lamb lost an eye to a piece of same flying off in a blacksmith (ferrier to you youngsters) shop.

[finefocus]

I have seen many posts here bemoan the current legal environment. In the old days, if you broke your glasses, it was your fault. Now, like it or not, a court may hold that the maker was at fault to some degree. If you drill an untemperable glass material, known to be more shatter-prone than other materials, you have put your house, your savings, your kid's education, and your food money on the line. Why would you do this? It's just not worth the risk.

[Chris Ryser]

If you drill an untemperable glass material, known to be more shatter-prone than other materials, you have put your house, your savings, your kid's education, and your food money on the line. Why would you do this? It's just not worth the risk.

Yes that is a risk..........................but limited to the United States Of America...............

The rest of the world is still normal and does not sue McDonalds for making hot coffee, or your sister in Law (optic an) for making you untempered glass lenses. Where the ambulance chasers advertise on the radio talk shows to sue everybody for anything. Where the green sues the the not so green for polluting his life.

However I have seen so many opticians in my lifetime with the tinting unit on 10 hours a day without ventilation and breathing hot ethylene glycol (neutralizer) fumes all day. But I guess you can not sue yourself , but maybe the supplier of the material.

But when you will get the new nationalized health care by the new Obama administration the lawyers will downgraded to give surgeons a slap on the hand in court that made a mistake. Health are will pay for glasses, but only one or two types of glasses like the English had 40 years ago, and there will be no more warranty and people can not sue the hell out of any optician.

By that time WalMart can reopen their lab if Essilor or Zeiss have not picked it up for a bargain.

[finefocus]

Yes that is a risk..........................but limited to the United States Of America...............

The rest of the world is still normal and does not sue McDonalds for making hot coffee, or your sister in Law (optic an) for making you untempered glass lenses. Where the ambulance chasers advertise on the radio talk shows to sue everybody for anything. Where the green sues the the not so green for polluting his life.

However I have seen so many opticians in my lifetime with the tinting unit on 10 hours a day without ventilation and breathing hot ethylene glycol (neutralizer) fumes all day. But I guess you can not sue yourself , but maybe the supplier of the material.

But when you will get the new nationalized health care by the new Obama administration the lawyers will downgraded to give surgeons a slap on the hand in court that made a mistake. Health are will pay for glasses, but only one or two types of glasses like the English had 40 years ago, and there will be no more warranty and people can not sue the hell out of any optician.

By that time WalMart can reopen their lab if Essilor or Zeiss have not picked it up for a bargain.

Yes, a mixed blessing. No more strike suits (I hope), but also less leeway for us to make reasoned judgements about eyecare. Malpractice suits serve a purpose, but like any pursuit that pays big money, will get perverted by the unmoral. So, do we regulate more, or just hand out the ammunition and let nature decide? Is anarchy the opposite of socialism? A free copy of "Lord of the Flies" to the first 50 callers.

[harry888]

Now back to the original subject, those glass drilled lenses:

They are OK now, but will they break or chip in 30 days? Who wants to adjust them?

Harry

[chip anderson]

De fun part is you have to take them apart to adjust and re-assemble if you don't want to chip or break them in the process.

Chip

[iiiiisoptom]

The problem:
I think they looked great. Should we consider doing this? Is it really that bad to drill glass? In my 4 years of experience, I've never even seen a glass lens. For me, it's an Old Wives Tale, "one upon a time they cut lenses of glass". Or is she in for a bad time if the lenses break or chip?

Some advice would be great for the next time she brings in her smug self.

Consider it like having a Taipan as a pet. It might look sleek and impressive, but one day it's going to bite you, and the consequences may well be ............................. severe
I wouldn't do it. Leave it up to the "internet" to adjust her glasses. If she asks you to, say that you are unable to adjust them, because they WILL break. If she asks why you couldn't do them, say that they fail to meet Australian Safety Standards, and therefore would be ILLEGAL for you to dispense. Let her take her grief to someone else.

[rdcoach5]

Now back to the original subject, those glass drilled lenses:

They are OK now, but will they break or chip in 30 days? Who wants to adjust them?

Harry

If they are properly mounted with the plastic bushings in the glass screws and cushioned at both ends of the drill mount, they are not that fragile. I used to wear photo-gray in the old Ron-Winne by Shuron for years in the 70's. The only time I broke one was when I forgot my sports frame while playing a rough basketball game. Getting slammed down to the court was a little too much for 1 lens.

[chip anderson]

RDcoach:

You can''t possibly mean you didn't lose and eye or attract a lawyer to attack that mean ole glass lens. At least a government agency should have arrived look our for an protect us all.
Must have happened back in the days when people were still smart enougn to be capable of looking out for themselves.

Chip

[rdcoach5]

chip, I didn't lose an eye but I did sprain an ankle playing basketball. And , no I didn't sue the other player for having his foot in the way when I came down on it. I did utter a string of profanity that you would have been proud of. Then we did what Fezz would have done. Drink BEER!

[Barry Santini]

Back in the day, I drilled, notched and grooved all types of glass, including 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 & (sometimes) 1.8 index.

Although I could do it with a new drill (I threw out my old glass drill 7 years ago)..I wouldn't dare today.

It's simply, IMHO, *not* safe in front of someone's eye, no matter how much skill and craftsmanship the finished product represents. For my money, it's really akin to the *straight pins *that the public would put in their temple hinges and bend to retain the earpiece until they could visit their optician. Talk about maing a "point"...

FWIW

Barry

[For-Life]

On top of safety, the 1.9 lens is just horrible. I love how we talk on this board about the poor optics of poly, but then are willing to jump at 1.9 glass simply because it is just glass.

[chip anderson]

Donno, but I think 1.9 has a lot of lead in it. Doubt that is a health hazard but it probably filters out a lot of radiation.

[For-Life]

Donno, but I think 1.9 has a lot of lead in it. Doubt that is a health hazard but it probably filters out a lot of radiation.

it does have a lot of lead in it. Probably filters radiation, but so little that it would not matter. Heavy as heck and very brittle (compared to 1.5).

and again, the optics are horrible. Tunnel vision.