Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Did Essilor sneak some new fitting heights in the chart?

  1. #1
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    PA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    33

    Question Did Essilor sneak some new fitting heights in the chart?

    I am pretty sure that Essilor said in previous availability charts that the Ellipse lens minimum fitting height was 13mm. Now getting calls from our Essilor lab saying the minimum fitting height is 14mm, and has always been???



    ------
    Michele ....

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    north of 49
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,002
    2007 published range for Ellipse was a range!----14 to 18, in 360 version 13 to 17 mm.

    2010 360 published @ 13....Regular Ellipse @13, 14 mm.

  3. #3
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    St. Joseph, Michigan
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    244
    I found a 2009 edition progressive identifier by the OLA, and it shows 13,14 height, but a note that says "see index", whatever that meant. We've always understood 14 height as the minimum for Ellipse, and even at that height there is the disclaimer that you are only getting 85% of add power. We tell our dispensers to use 15 as "our" minimum height.
    The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.

  4. #4
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    PA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    33

    Ellipse FH

    Thank you for the info. thought I was losing it...you are right about increasing the min. I have found the same with the physio...in fact at 18-19 still have patients complaining reading is sooo low in lens they cannot find the sweet spot.

  5. #5
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,251
    Ellipse has always been 14 and Physio 17 for absolute minimums. These have been given to us by a number of reps - and unless I'm way off, I think Pete has verified that a few times here on the boards as well. Bearing in mind of course, that a MM here or there usually isn't a make or break...but when you're that close to minimums it *might* be.

    @atumneyes - out of curiosity (and since I've been fitting Physio from the beginning with no issue), are you sure you're measuring your patients as they actually wear their frames? Please know I'm not trying to question your skill or experience - just an honest question. And if so, and you're still hearing that the reading area is 'too low'? If so, you may wish to give the short corridor a try instead when your heights drop into that 17mm range +/-. Just a thought.

    Best!

    Bri~

  6. #6
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Scotland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    69
    I wouldn't worry to much now, as it will probably disappear soon anyway. I see you are losing the Panamic at the end of May, well the Panamic and Ellipse both disappeared here at the end of december. It's proving to be a real PITA shifting the dedicated Panamic wearers onto something else.

  7. #7
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Lyon, France
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    52
    In France, Panamic was retired in 2006 and Ellipse in 2009.
    Now we sell Physio & Physio Fit (measurement with Visioffice) with 17mm height or the same but in a "short" version with 14 mm height

  8. #8
    Optician Extraordinaire
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Somewhere warm
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,130
    I was told that with the Physio and Physio Short that it is very important to fit them pupil center and not drop it a millimeter.

  9. #9
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,251
    Pupil center should be the standard regardless if the lens design is worth anything. If you're having to drop or alter your measurements in any way to coax the lens to work properly...I'd suggest you start to look for a better lens.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Progressive lens fitting heights ? ? ?
    By skirk1975 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 12-28-2020, 11:16 AM
  2. progressive lens fitting chart
    By GOS_Queen in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 01:13 PM
  3. different fitting heights?
    By mead in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 11:00 AM
  4. Unequal Fitting Heights
    By Metronome in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 08:49 AM
  5. PAL fitting heights vs width of corridor
    By mullo in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-04-2005, 07:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •