Poly: Best Interest or Holding Back?

**Joann Raytar** · 10-08-2003, 08:43 PM

There is an advertisement for a company's lens sale running on television right now. One of the questions asked is "can I get thin and light lenses right now?" The answer is "yes."

Eventhough we feel we are acting in a patient's best interest by not recommending poly at lower and mid-range powers, are we actually holding a wanted technology back by not informing the patient about poly?

Is it our place to decide that a -1.25 wouldn't appreciate the light weight qualities of polycarbonate? Many patients don't like glasses do begin with; do we risk the possiblity of alienating our customers/patients by not offering a very thin and light lens? If a patient gets poly, or any other new technology lens, somewhere else and likes it, they may never return.

Any thoughts?

**LENNY** · 10-08-2003, 09:12 PM

I think soon Poly will soon become the only lens that optical stocks!

**chip anderson** · 10-08-2003, 10:00 PM

Never forget that all materials (especially poly) have some drawbacks when compared to other materials. Glass provides a highly superior set of optical qualities, scratches less and lasts a whole lot longer without chemical/light deterioration. Each time you "upgrade" or lighten the weight you give up something for whatever you gain.

Chip

**Joann Raytar** · 10-08-2003, 10:09 PM

Chip, your right. You see that especially with progressives; add a pro and pick up a con.

There are times when we would not recommend certain products at all; however, should we be opening up our recommendations as long as we inform patients of the pros and cons and don't over romanticize or villainize a lens?

**Chris Ryser** · 10-09-2003, 03:05 AM

Has anybody on this thread ever investigated and reflected on

why manufacturers are pushing poly more and more?

Does anyone know how they are produced ?

Some Answers:

Equipment:
1) Have molds made
2) Get injection molding machine and hard-coating dip system.

Production:

Moulding 20 - 30 lenses in a rack every few minutes.
Automatic hard-coat process on line.

Conclusion to end result:

Manufacturing technology in injection moulding is so far advanced today that there is no difference in the end result between a button on your shirt or a polycarb progressive lens.

**jofelk** · 10-09-2003, 06:25 AM

From the lab we do not generally in the position of recommending materials to patients.
We were just discussing the topic of materials this morning and the numerous problems that are appearing.
Our accounts are having material and progressive OVERLOAD! What lense comes in what material and does it come in a progressive? We are making numerous phone calls to straighten out orders.Everyone w
Everyone wants to have the newest and best material.
It must be near impossible for the optician to keep track of it all. We have a hard time in the lab.

**optigoddess** · 10-09-2003, 08:52 AM

Jo -

I think this is a good topic.

I am "pro poly" and have no qualms about helping the customer/patient with making an informed, educated decision.

I guess the main reasons I am highly advising poly (or trivex/phoenix if I had that option available but I don't ... "corporate doesn't allow it ...")

1) built in uv400 protection that doesn't leach or fade with time

2) damn dirty airbags in autobags ... I've seen some really messed up people come in to replace eyewear when they have been in an accident! ouch baby, WAY ouch!!!

Karen

**Judy Canty** · 10-09-2003, 09:19 AM

This may be the best arguement yet for properly utilizing your lens center, if you have one. We are the experts and it is our job to present all the options and then make recommendations, not to just give 'em what they saw on TV and move on. Perhaps we are moving away from "FeatureAdvantageBenefit-ing" and toward "CostBenefit-ing" our product mix from lenses to frames to add-ons.

**hip chic** · 10-09-2003, 09:48 AM

Jo wrote: Is it our place to decide that a -1.25 wouldn't appreciate the light weight qualities of polycarbonate?

Jo~

I asked myself that same question a while ago and now after educating my customers and seeing the results the answer is NO...NO, it is NOT our place to decide that a -1.25 wouldn't appreciate the light weight qualities of polycarbonate...nor is it our place to decide that a 40 year old doesn't have to protect her eyes with an impact resistant lens...it is not up to us to decide that only children should have this luxury.

I have always been a firm believer in communication....in educating the consumer...of the pros and cons of any product and letting them make the ultimate decision. I know that's what I would want.

hip chic

**Eddie G's** · 10-09-2003, 02:23 PM

Why are POLYCARB lenses still more expensive than plastic lenses?

I'm selling 90% plastic.
Am I doing the wrong thing?

Eddie G's

**Joann Raytar** · 10-09-2003, 06:27 PM

Eddie G's said:
Why are POLYCARB lenses still more expensive than plastic lenses?

I'm selling 90% plastic.
Am I doing the wrong thing?

Eddie G's

Are the bulk of your patients in SV or SFSV and multifocals? We don't find stock poly to be that much more and we don't charge our patients all that much more for it.

Poly progressives appear to be a different story. Our cost for a poly progressive is much higher than plastic so our multi-focal poly pricing is a little bit higher.

**LENNY** · 10-09-2003, 07:04 PM

If you compare the brand name CR-39 to no name Poly they are the same in price!
Unless i have a special discount on my Lighten Ups!

**Johns** · 10-09-2003, 07:54 PM

I purchased a new car Saturday (first "new/new" in 12 yrs.). Not once during the sales presentation did the salesmen ask me if I wanted an airbag, or if I wanted an engine that was designed to be more fuel efficient. I didn't ask for either. I got both. I paid for both. I'm not unhappy that I have them both...

The opticians in my offices are the experts. We most certainly offer polycarbonate to everyone, and reccomend it to many. If not us, then who ?

**Joann Raytar** · 10-09-2003, 07:54 PM

Even many of the name brands aren't that much more but house brands are definitely less expensive.

**CEO** · 10-09-2003, 08:15 PM

Earlier in this thread the comment was made:

"Manufacturing technology in injection moulding is so far advanced today that there is no difference in the end result between a button on your shirt or a polycarb progressive lens."

My entire life has been spent manufacturing lenses of all types, including polycarbonate, and I would like to comment on the above statement.

While there are some areas of polycarbonate manufacturing that are fairly automated, for the most part it is still an extremely difficult and complex task. In the example used, polycarbonate progressives, none of these are made with the types of "30 Cavity" molds described anywhere in the world. These lenses and molds are very complex and nowhere near the simplicity of making buttons, for example.

While finished polycarbonate is certainly more automated than semi-finished, the industry has struggled with yields and coating problems since the inception of polycarbonate lenses. If it were so easy, and so automated, this would clearly not be the case.

I have made glass, mid/high index, hard resin, polarized, photochromic, and just about every other type of lens you can think of. I cannot say that polycarbonate is significantly easier than any of the other types. Theoretically, I can see the point that is being made, but in practice, it just ain't so.

**Joann Raytar** · 10-09-2003, 08:19 PM

CEO,

How does the process enhance lens quality?

**CEO** · 10-09-2003, 08:25 PM

Jo,

I am afraid I don't follow the question, what do you mean, improve the lens quality? In what way.

**Joann Raytar** · 10-09-2003, 08:34 PM

Would a molded lens be more optically precise than a lens cut with a lathe?

**Rick Strong** · 10-10-2003, 03:51 AM

hip chic said:
Jo wrote: Is it our place to decide that a -1.25 wouldn't appreciate the light weight qualities of polycarbonate?

Jo~

I asked myself that same question a while ago and now after educating my customers and seeing the results the answer is NO...NO, it is NOT our place to decide that a -1.25 wouldn't appreciate the light weight qualities of polycarbonate...nor is it our place to decide that a 40 year old doesn't have to protect her eyes with an impact resistant lens...it is not up to us to decide that only children should have this luxury.

I have always been a firm believer in communication....in educating the consumer...of the pros and cons of any product and letting them make the ultimate decision. I know that's what I would want.

hip chic

I agree 100%
Rick

**Jim G** · 10-13-2003, 11:53 AM

Having been intimently involved in establishing one of the first poly manufacturing plants, I'll just add my 2 cents worth.

Chris, it ain't that easy. The quality control for buttons isn't quite the same as it is for lenses. Not do they need to be hardcoated.

Let's take Vision Ease as an example. Were molding and coating lenses that easy, would VE have had the supply problems experienced over the last couple of years?

Try manufacturing a single vision metal mold, let alone an aspheric, D-seg or particularly a PAL. Extremely difficult--and expensive--to produce the pristine surface and exacting curves necessary for a quality lens. Oh, don't even allow a microscopic scratch or you'll have to start all over.

Also, try to hold compression while cooling material with different diameters as the result of differing base curves front and back. Also, make sure that you have a clean-room environment as the smallest particle of dust will look like a pebble in a lens.

Oh, and I know you're a coating expert, keep contaminants and static electricity at bay while dipping a lens, at a defined rate to eliminate coating waves.

Lastly, this simple process only requires a capital investment of over a million dollars just to get started.

Jo, to your question re: molded vs. lathe. Providing everything is calibrated and correct, there really shouldn't be any difference that you could tell optically. A microscope might be able to discern some differences in the surface but certainly not enuf to affect vision.

**Susan Henault** · 10-18-2003, 12:58 PM

I have a completely different take on the appropriateness of recommending polycarbonate to consumers. Oddly enough, I would be more inclined to position poly to patients within the core prescription range typically assigned to CR-39, basically between +2.00 and -2.00D. Even though the cost of poly is now so close to CR-39 that you COULD offer it for a very small add on, the fact remains that compared to CR-39, poly is thinner, lighter, has built in UV, scratch coat and oh yes, did I mention that it is also virtually bullet proof? I believe most consumers would be willing to pay an additional $40 or $50 out of pocket for those 5 benefits alone.

Outside that core prescription range, I believe a more diversified approach is wise. Yes, poly is still an option -- but depending upon the patient and their Rx, high index might be more suitable. Although more expensive, some high index materials offer a significant advantage (over poly) in terms of thickness and/or visual performance. I do not understand why many (independent) ECP's continue to niche poly into the "high index of choice" category. In my personal opinion, the goal ought to be to make poly the "material of choice", and still have the "high index of choice" category comprising 10% of sales. The chains have essentially achieved this, except that they do not have the additional "high index" niche. As noted by someone earlier in this thread, "corporate does not allow..." those special order items. THIS is where independent ECP's can use the overwhelming product availability that WS labs offer, to set themselves apart, or create a little separation/distinction from retail chains.

I cannot stress enough that these are MY opinions and are not necessarily a reflection of my (new) employer. ;)

**Chris Ryser** · 10-18-2003, 02:25 PM

Jim G said:
Having been intimently involved in establishing one of the first poly manufacturing plants, I'll just add my 2 cents worth.

Chris, it ain't that easy. The quality control for buttons isn't quite the same as it is for lenses. Not do they need to be hardcoated.

Jim,

I so glad I made you came out the bush. You don't show up that often lately.

Maybe you and me could invent a hard coat machine for buttons, and then we could make some big bucks promoting hard-coated scratch proofed buttons for one reason or another. Maybe we could also invent some quality control and standard requirements for buttons