It may not be the ARC....

[chip anderson]

Gentlemen:

I have found that many (most eventually) lenses, especially of the higher index variety have coating failure. At least half of these never had ARC, just Scratch cote. Used to count on 166 having same exactly at 11 months wear (just before the warranty ran out).
Anyone else have similar experience?

Chip

[Uncle Fester]

I avoid 1.66 whenever possible. I've completely given up trying to use them with AR. Any other index works better.

[Craig]

We do 100% ar and no no issues on any material. The product with the most failures is transitions by a mile; their scratch coating does not always like the Florida heat and it cracks buyt does not peel like an ar defect.
We are 10% 1.67 and have no ar issues, you might try a new lab!
Craig

[rdcoach5]

[QUOTE=Craig;401153]We do 100% ar and no no issues on any material. The product with the most failures is transitions by a mile; their scratch coating does not always like the Florida heat and it cracks buyt does not peel like an ar defect.
We are 10% 1.67 and have no ar issues, you might try a new lab!

I agree with Craig. We use 1.66 with no issues.

[fjpod]

Used to have that problem. I'm not exactly sure what solved it, whether our lab started using a better process or...we did switch labs a few times,...or maybe a combination of both.

[chip anderson]

Now the big question: Is the coating at one Ziess Lab better than another Ziess Lab? Is the coating at one Essilor Lab better than another Essilor lab?

Chip

[gunner05]

1.67 has fallen by the wayside for me. 1.60 has better optics and is only marginally thinner, and if thickness is THAT big of an issue, go for 1.70 which, again, has better optics than 1.67.

[James Handgrinder]

Now the big question: Is the coating at one Ziess Lab better than another Ziess Lab? Is the coating at one Essilor Lab better than another Essilor lab?

Chip

I would say they are different from labs, at least to a centain degree, even with the rigid code for operating those machines. It is people who are driving those machines after all. The coating center I deal with usally send the lenses back with aqua-ish color and once a while the color would be blue! I didn't want that color , neither did they. This is a big company (you can guess ) and it is their own lab not licensed. One girl working there kept forgetting not to clean poly lenses with acetone.
The a/r coating machines( should be a/r system) today are very good for quality production but people might not exactlly follow the procedures for whatever reason. otherwise there shouldn't be many problems with a/r on any index. Transition did have some problem with peeling off but I think they fixed that a few years back (I don't see much peeling on transition anymore).

[sharpstick777]

I agree with Craig. We use 1.66 with no issues.

I thought all 1.66 has been discontinued?

[sharpstick777]

Now the big question: Is the coating at one Ziess Lab better than another Ziess Lab? Is the coating at one Essilor Lab better than another Essilor lab?

Chip

Yes. In many cases individual labs have the choise of a heat or UV cured hard coat. UV curing is faster and less expensive, the the UV rays don't penetrate entirely through the material often leaving unreacted catalyst. Heat curing is longer, but heat will penetrate all the way through the hard coat.

In many cases the best hard coat should have the same ABBE value of the base material, and to reduce expenses many labs will substitue hard coats (the price of 1.74 hard coat will give you a panic attack). This is why Essilor brought most of their 1.74 production back to Dallas out of the local labs.

The combined effect of both is that hard coat quality has dropped, and AR quality will follow.

[rdcoach5]

Now the big question: Is the coating at one Ziess Lab better than another Ziess Lab? Is the coating at one Essilor Lab better than another Essilor lab?

Chip

There are definitely some learning curves in applying AR. It's like everything else- expertise is gained by experience.