Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: 1.67 or poly?

  1. #1
    Master OptiBoarder pseudonym's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    648

    1.67 or poly?

    The buyer insists on semi-rimless.

    Rx is OD: +3.00 OS: +6.50

    My choices are poly or 1.67.

    Tell the truth- this job is going to look awful no matter what we choose, isn't it?

    What would you do? I don't have to phone in the FLEX order until tomorrow. Any ideas appreciated. I don't want to have to refund him for doing something I already told him was inadvisable.

  2. #2
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    55
    No problem if the decentration isn't too much (less than 3mm) , choose a deep oval shape IF A = 50 THEN B > 32, have you considered the induced prismatic effect/ magnification from the 3.50D anisometropia? forget poly though 1.60-42 a better choice.

  3. #3
    Master OptiBoarder pseudonym's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    648
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Shaw OD View Post
    No problem if the decentration isn't too much (less than 3mm) , choose a deep oval shape IF A = 50 THEN B > 32, have you considered the induced prismatic effect/ magnification from the 3.50D anisometropia? forget poly though 1.60-42 a better choice.
    Decentration is practically nil. Thank goodness his pd was 34/35. Never thought of that. The frame he HAS TO HAVE is rectangular, though.

    Thanks very much, doc.

  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    north of 49
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,002
    Of your two choices......I would choose the 1.67, over the poly. This job can look good if it is not a shallow B dimension, and has little decentration, like Peter pointed out.(excuse spittle on screen).

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Me, I would put 167 In O.S. and something with much lower index in O.D. There is no law that both lenses must be of the same material. Do this all the time to get decent cosmetics and weight, never had a problem. Many opticians seem to think this is a forbidden technique for some reason. It's fine. Still small lens size with little or not decentration is a good thing too.

    Chip

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder pseudonym's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    648
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson View Post
    Me, I would put 167 In O.S. and something with much lower index in O.D. There is no law that both lenses must be of the same material. Do this all the time to get decent cosmetics and weight, never had a problem. Many opticians seem to think this is a forbidden technique for some reason. It's fine. Still small lens size with little or not decentration is a good thing too.

    Chip
    Well, uncut, I hope they can make it look good in 1.67- we'll see. Chip, I thought of using the dreaded poly for the right lens, but whoever designed our software didn't.

    We are lucky we can put in differing seg heights. And god forbid you have to put a plus lens in one side and a minus in the other. It informs you that you have put a plus in one side and a minus in the other and asks you if you are sure you want to do such a strange thing...repeatedly. It won't let you go any further with the order until you have clicked yes yes YES.

    I miss the days of pen and paper.

  7. #7
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Birmingham
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    280
    I think 1.67 is a no brainer and general consensus. Not only will 1.67 be thinner but the optics especially in the left eye will be far superior than poly. It's a shame he picked out semi rimless. It always seems that the high pluses in the world want semi rimless and the high myopes want the wraps. Just curious, what base curves are you going to use?

  8. #8
    Doh! braheem24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    KOCF & 89ft ASL
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    3,843
    Ideal would be 1.60 8base OD, 6base OS with matching CTs.

  9. #9
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    ALEX VA USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    107
    I agree with brahee m24. This will help with magnification. If you could change to full metal this would also help on thickness keeping it at least 1mm dec from patient pd and frame size. You are the optician make the change and explain that to your patient as to why.
    Donald D Price

    Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry

  10. #10
    ABOM Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by braheem24 View Post
    Ideal would be 1.60 8base OD, 6base OS with matching CTs.
    I was thinking the same thing as I was reading through the thread. Iseikonic lenses.
    Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA

    “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    I'd prefer 1.6 for the Os, and trivex for the OD, w/ff design SV, of course.

    B

  12. #12
    Master OptiBoarder pseudonym's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    648
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    I'd prefer 1.6 for the Os, and trivex for the OD, w/ff design SV, of course.

    B
    I wish I had some of the tools you are offering, but I don't. I cannot specify base curve. I went with Chip's suggestion of using differing materials and will keep the old fingers crossed that it works out. It was a royal PIA to work it out with the lab, and I hope they don't get their right and left mixed up. The man said he has never had a pair that didn't make him feel cross-eyed.

    It's true what was said above about people always wanting the frame that is least suitable. Sometimes I let them pick a few and tell them the computer says the unsuitable frame won't cut out, sorry. But this guy absolutely wouldn't budge on the semi-rimless.

  13. #13
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    960
    Anytime you find yourself in a situation where you ask yourself poly or XXX, chose XXX. Anytime.

  14. #14
    ABOM Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Speed View Post
    Anytime you find yourself in a situation where you ask yourself poly or XXX, chose XXX. Anytime.
    Not anytime.
    Drill mount: Poly or CR-39?
    Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA

    “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Pseudo: Aways capitalize God!

  16. #16
    ABOM Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson View Post
    Pseudo: Aways capitalize God!
    If the christians had come up with a more original name for their god than "God" this wouldn't be a problem. It's the equivalent of calling your kid Kid or your dog Dog. Muslims don't have this issue, they call their deity Allah. Jews have Yaweh, Greeks have Zeus, and so on and so forth. Atheist jokingly have Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whatever the case, it depends on how the writer intended the usage, not how you take it, as in : I am responsible for what I say, not what you understand.

    "One issue which seems to cause some consternation between atheists and theists involves a disagreement over how to spell the word "god" - should it be capitalized or not? Which is correct, god or God? Many atheists frequently spell it with a lowercase 'g' while theists, particularly those who come from a monotheistic religious tradition like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Sikhism, always capitalize the 'G'. Who is right?
    For theists, the issue can be a sore point because they are sure that it is grammatically incorrect to spell the word as 'god,' thus leading them to wonder if atheists are simply ignorant about good grammar - or, more likely, are deliberately trying to insult them and their beliefs. After all, what could possibly motivate a person to misspell such a simple word - and one used so frequently? It's not like they break grammar rules as a matter of course, so some other psychological purpose must be the cause.
    Indeed, it would be rather juvenile to misspell God simply in order to insult theists. If such an atheist had so little respect for another person, why even waste the time writing to them in the first place, much less deliberately trying to hurt them at the same time? While that may actually be the case with some atheists who write the word 'god' with a lowercase 'g,' it isn't the normal reason why atheists spell the word in this manner.
    To understand why, we need only observe the fact Christians don't capitalize the 'g' and write about the Gods and Goddesses of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Is that an attempt to insult and denigrate those polytheistic beliefs? Of course not - it's grammatically correct to use a lowercase 'g' and write 'gods and goddesses'.
    The reason is that in such cases we are talking about members of a general class or category - specifically, members of a group which gets the label 'gods' because people have, at one time or another, worshipped its members as gods. Any time we are referring to the fact that some being or alleged being is a member of this class, it is grammatically appropriate to use a lowercase 'g' but inappropriate to use an uppercase 'G' - just as it would be inappropriate to talk about Apples or Cats.
    The same holds true if we are speaking very generally about Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Sikh beliefs. It is appropriate to say that Christians believe in a god, that Jews believe in a single god, that Muslims pray every Friday to their god, and that Sikhs worship their god. There is absolutely no reason to capitalize 'god' in any of those sentences.
    On the other hand, if we are referring to the specific god-concept that a group worships, then it may be appropriate to use capitalization. We can say that Christians are supposed to follow what their god wants them to do, or we can say that Christians are supposed to follow what God wants them to do. Either works, but we capitalize God in the latter sentence because we are essentially using it as a proper name - just as if we were talking about Apollo, Mercury, or Odin.
    Confusion is caused by the fact that Christians don't typically ascribe a personal name to their god - some use Yahweh or Jehovah, but that is pretty rare. The name they use happens to be the same as the general term for the class that being belongs to. It's not unlike a person who has named their cat, Cat. In such a situation, there could be some confusion at times as to when the word should be capitalized and when it shouldn't. The rules themselves may be clear, but their application might not be. Christians are accustomed to using God because they always reference it in a personal manner - they say that "God has spoken to me," not that "my god has spoken to me." Thus, they and other monotheists might be taken aback at finding people who don't privilege their particular god concept and so reference it in a general manner, just as they do with everyone else's god. It's important to remember in such cases that it is not an insult simply to not be privileged. "
    http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...talization.htm
    Last edited by Wes; 04-22-2012 at 01:20 PM.
    Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA

    “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein

  17. #17
    Master OptiBoarder pseudonym's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    648
    I have no beef with God. I'm always asking Him to save me from His followers.

  18. #18
    Master OptiBoarder AngeHamm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    2,370
    For the record, "Yahweh" isn't a name.
    I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.

  19. #19
    ABOM Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by AngeHamm View Post
    For the record, "Yahweh" isn't a name.
    Please elaborate.
    Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA

    “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein

  20. #20
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    new york
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    3,749
    oh boy, religion in a poly/Hi-index thread...(should I have capitalized H?). going to get some popcorn. IBTL ( for the unitiated, Google it....there I go with those capitals again).

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Failure to capitalize God when refering to the God of Abraham, isn't an insult to his followers, or a gramatical error, it's and insult to God.

    Chip

  22. #22
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    new york
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    3,749
    What does an insomniac, atheist, dyslexic do??





    stays up all night worrying about the existence of dog.

  23. #23
    ABOM Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    3,194
    You didn't capitalize Dog!

    Oh, and the atheist doesn't worry about it. The agnostic does. ;)
    Last edited by Wes; 04-22-2012 at 01:19 PM.
    Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA

    “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    On semi-rimless there isn't any reason one of the lenses (preferably the lower power) can't be CR-39. It's only drilled rimless we are having trouble with.

    Chip

  25. #25
    ABOM Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson View Post
    On semi-rimless there isn't any reason one of the lenses (preferably the lower power) can't be CR-39. It's only drilled rimless we are having trouble with.

    Chip
    More bad advice to put CR-39 in semi-rimless. There are many reasons not to do this. Chipping and flaking, causing poor lens retention, resulting in lens loss, customer dissatisfaction, multiple remakes, and worst-case-scenario: lawsuits resulting from flakes getting into eyes.
    Please don't give me the tired old line about how good your skills are and that if us youngins knew how to drill and groove it wouldn't be a problem. BS. My skills are just fine, thanks, but they don't extend to following my patients 24/7 to make sure they don't sit or step on the glasses or sleep in them or drop them on hard surfaces, all of which are disastrous for semi-rimless CR-39.
    Also, old ways aren't necessarily better just because they're old. We have newer more appropriate materials. Use them.
    Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA

    “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. The NEWER Poly vs. The OLDER Poly???
    By jonah in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-18-2011, 01:57 AM
  2. Poly and CR 39
    By kdavenport in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 04:31 AM
  3. Poly TransitionS vs Poly Life Photogrey,DARKER?
    By medicalretina in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 03:39 PM
  4. Stock lenses available CR-39, poly & poly AR
    By MarcE in forum Optical Marketplace
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-02-2007, 12:58 AM

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
  •