Originally Posted by Chris Ryser
When I get back in the office on Monday, I'll run my own report from our Officemate software. We'll see if the reports have conflicting data.
When I get back in the office on Monday, I'll run my own report from our Officemate software. We'll see if the reports have conflicting data.
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Who is brainwashing.....................
Your feelings have nothing to do with facts, I have made a living in this as a supplier for the last 25 years, and started actively in this field of AR when you were still in your diapers.
But you continue to disregard the 11 years I spent in retail. When I sold thousands of pairs of AR during that time, I do not think that is small. So when you continue to tell us that we are brainwashed for things we have seen every day, it smells pretty awful
I agree with Chris?!
There is no AR on the market that I am aware of either, that has a hard coat "built into" the AR. We are back to substrate. "Top level" AR coatings (branded or not) are first prepared with a thermal cured hard coat.(even that may be changing soon BTW).that has nothing to do with the AR process OR the hydro process. It's simply the primer.
If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters
Laramy-K Optical
Chris, will you please start quoting statistics from this millennium. As noted in other threads on Optiboard, progressive lens sales exceed lined multifocal sales in the United States, and have for years. Numerous data sources are available for those who are in touch with the industry, and can provide you with accurate stats on progressives and AR.the statistics show that in the US, AR is about 21% of all sales and progressives are getting close to 50%, at 48% of all sales on multifocals.
RT
Ripper, I agree with you entirely. I've actually been saying the same thing on several previous posts. I've dispensed tons of Definity, Reveal, Supercede and am not impressed by any WOW factor. However, I will acknowledge that I believe that they deliver superior perfomance. For my own personal needs I have switched to freeform after testing many different progressives. I would love to see patients crying in gratitude and kissing my hands in the dispensing room, but alas that hasn't happened yet.
Statistic on sales of glasses..........................
RT...............As you are asking so nicely, I got a bit closer in this millenium, probably as close as one probably can get for the whole industry with the exception of that last item on AR which is 2009 which makes it very recent. As you could not correct it I will.
According to the results below progressives are now ahead by
4.2 % .....................................big deal and what a monstrous gain.
According to a consumer survey conducted by VisionWatch for
the 12-month period ending December 2006, of all eyeglasses
lenses sold in the United States:
50.8 percent were single vision lenses
26.7 percent were progressive lenses
22.5 percent were bifocals or trifocals
22 percent with anti-reflective (AR) coating ( updated 2009, to 34% see below)
14 percent as photochromic lenses that darken automatically outdoors
Among all eyeglasses sold in the United States during the 12-month period ending March 2006, approximately 6 percent were polarized sunglasses. — Vision Council of America, (VCA) Ophthalmic Retail Study.
Among all eyeglasses sold in the United States during the 12-month period ending March 2006, approximately 6 percent were polarized sunglasses. — Vision Council of America (VCA) Ophthalmic Retail Study.
The average American who wears eyeglasses purchases new glasses approximately every 2.1 years. — VisionWatch, 2006
A survey of 72,000 vision care consumers said that of those who purchased eyeglasses in the first six months of 2001, 43.2 percent paid between $100 and $149 retail, 31.9 percent paid under $100, and 24.9 percent paid $150 or more. — VisionWatch & Jobson Publishing LLC
________________________
Alexandria, VA (May 7, 2009) – The Vision Council has announced..........
“Current statistics show that anti-reflective usage in the United States is at 34 percent, far lower than the 70+ percent usage in Europe and 98 percent in Japan,” said John Quinn, chairman of The Vision Council’s Anti-Reflective Steering Committee.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35363
Last edited by Chris Ryser; 10-26-2009 at 03:42 AM.
Gee, if that were true, they would all have the same Bayer rating and all cost the same and they all would have trouble with crazing during edging.
Thing is, they don't, they don't and they don't.
I think there are differences, real differences between the competing AR coatings.
If you think about it, all cars are made from essentially the same stuff, so they are all the same, right?
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
Of course there are. Some have multi layers, use different or multiple metal oxydes and may use different intermediate coats for adhesion to the plastic lens, but the principle of application and the basic materials of the AR layers are the same.
Maybe I should also add that industrial AR coating applications in other non optical industries are of much higher volumes than the optical will ever be.
see my other post below.
Last edited by sharpstick777; 10-26-2009 at 08:43 PM.
See below, duplicated my own post.
Last edited by sharpstick777; 10-26-2009 at 08:43 PM.
The hydrophobic coating unintentionally improves durability of an A/R lens, as it gives particulates less to grab on to the surface. The quality and durability of the hydrophobic varies greatly between brands of lenses. The primary difference between Crizal, Crizal Alize, and Crizal Avance is the hydrophobic coat and each coating scores progressively higher in Colts RLS testing as a result. Crizal score 3.67, Alize 4.29 and Avance 4.76. Getting a coating to repel oil and water but stick to a lens, and be transparent is very tricky. Most use flourine but top coats vary immensly in both effectiveness and durability even using flourine. Its more than just flourine, its a complex arrangement of various polymers combined in a very specific applicative process.
The hard coat is not the first coat in most processes. it begins with a primer, then a shock coat (to allow the A/R and hard coat to expand and contract with the lens this is where crazing happens) and then the hard coat. Although the hard coat is primarily Silicon Dioxide, how the components are formed molecularly varies greatly as does the polymer suspension, and how that polymer is matched to the shock coat below, the A/R on top, etc. Its immensly complex, otherwise it would not have taken us 15 years to get to the point of having decent A/R's. Then you have UV cured vs. thermally cured hard coats... which in a whole nother subject.
There is much more than SO2 in an A/R process. If not we would still be using VSP Acuity Plus A/R. A hard coat is SO2 just like a car is steel and plastic.
Last edited by sharpstick777; 10-26-2009 at 08:42 PM.
We have trouble edging many of the slick coated lenses - but NOT any of the Crizal family including Avance.
The Essilor ARs have the "pad control system" which is the blue hue you see on a uncut lens. You aren't cleaning it of BEFORE edging, are you??
1 ............varies greatly between different brands
2.............above are all the same brands = ESSILOR
3.............forgetting the other competitive and independent brands.
This sounds again like the old un matched "Hymn of Glory to the Emperor Essilor", and reminds one of the brainwash advertising being done out there on this subject.
-------> 2009 less 15 years puts it to 1994, while there was Ar coating companies using this technology as of 1987 = 22 years.just for the record.
Furthermore there are companies that have been producing hydrophobic top coats that have antistatic and anti-fog properties for the last 19 years, which so far has not been invented by any of the Imperialistic corporations.
that is actually brainwashing. In reality, your lenses are slipping and falling off the machine, but Essilor has created such a haze, that we do not notice it happening. Customers cannot tell when there is no lens in their frame either (because the lens fell out of the edger and we put in an imaginary one), because Essilor has brainwashed them into thinking that there is so little glare.
I only chose Essilor because I have data across their line for comparison purposes. This data demonstrates the effectiveness of the top hydrophobic layer has on durability. My point is that it does matter what goes on top and there is no better illustration than the Crizal line because it uses the same TD2 hard coat and Colts data exists.
Despite my loathing of Evil Empire number 5, they do make a good A/R and give ECP's a wide range of choices.
When I started dispensing in 1992 I tried all of the A/R's at the time I could and found quality to be lacking and consistancy to be worse. I still remember receiving new lenses with A/R and pushing the AR off the lens with my finger (not finger nail, the soft portion of my finger). I'm glad it was my own personal pair.
Do you have any data of the older A/R's for comparision?
No statistic I have seen.............
I don't think there were any statistic on AR on plastic lenses at the time. In Europe they used mainly glass and that was no problem. In the mid eighties just about all AR applied on plastic lenses was falling or crazing off the lens.
When I advertised the first AR stripper in Vision Monday in 1986, I think it was, saying "take of the unsightly and damaged AR coatings off the lens in seconds" the sales manager of Essilor sent me a letter saying there was no such thing as an unsightly AR coating...................:D
The here have been big advancements ever since then.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks