Credit for AR lenses

[LENNY]

Do you people get a full credit on non adapt or scratched progressives with AR coating.
I started to have problems with my lab not willing to give me credit on AR for the reason not owning the ar machine!
I found out that is not true but thats what they want me to know.
What happendes around the country???

[PAkev]

Lenny,



PAL non adapts and AR scratch warranties are like paying taxes. We like to live in neighborhoods with nice schools, parks, roads, etc. and pay taxes regardless if we use them or not. Similarly the cost is usually built into the lens products we buy and sell.

Patients returning with PAL non adapts and scratched lenses take your time, additional wear and tear on lab machinery, and most importantly cause an inconveinence on the customer which sometimes diminishes the goodwill which you work hard to maintain and grow. It's nice to know the warranties are there if we need them but they can become costly to everyone when not used appropriately. Everytime those lenses are packaged up and sent somewhere, it cost you time and money. It also cost your lab (in this case the middleman) time and money to continue the paperwork trail. you may wish to consider a few alternatives. Perhaps go right to a lab with AR facilities and ask for a statement of their warranty policies. I am not inferring you are selling substandard eyewear but perhaps springing for a better quality PAL or AR process right out of the gate will justify a cost savings of partial credits.

Bottom line is we all have to make some money to keep the world turning. When warranties are not abused everyone saves money and lives happily ever after.

Two more pennies
Kevin

[John R]

LENNY said:
I started to have problems with my lab not willing to give me credit on AR for the reason not owning the ar machine!
I found out that is not true but thats what they want me to know.
What happendes around the country???

So you are saying that the lab is Missinforming or lieing to you about the fact that they have coated the lenses themselves?
If it is true that they have not Ar coated the lenses then they will have to pass the claim on the whoever coated the lenses, and if they are not will to stump up a credit. Then its a bit unfair to expect the lab to credit you.
TIme to re-read the small print on the "scratch warranties" to see just where you stand.

[Pete Hanlin]

Returns (both frames and lenses) consitute a problem no matter how you look at them. No one wants them, no one wants to take the blame for them, and no one really wants to pay for them.

Now that we've stated the obvious, let's keep that in mind as we discuss the issue of AR coated returns. The question is "Who really pays for the return?"

The ECP isn't going to pay for it, because they have their supposed "guarantee." The lab doesn't want to eat the cost, because they operate on a slim enough margin as it is and often can't recoup the spoilage from the manufacturer of the lens or the applicator or the coating. The manufacturer of the lens isn't going to credit a return on an AR'd job (in most cases), because the return involves something that was done to the lens AFTER it was sold to the lab account (and therefore the lens is not truly defective from the manufacturer's point of view).

So, returns on AR are a *******-child that no one really wants to claim as their own... I think the "optimum" way around the problem would be to purchase a lens that was manufacturered, processed, and coated by the same company. Naturally, I would suggest that Crizal is just such a lens (but, in the interest of objectivity, I suppose one could argue that SOLA has the capability to fill this requirement as well- if you work for a lens manufacturer that manufactures, processes, and coats lenses feel free to chirp in).

Even though a lot of the Crizal jobs are done on Essilor Lenses (and all of them are done by Essilor Processing Centers), it is still difficult to maintain an efficient warranty program. There are just so many variables in how/why lenses are returned that it is simply hard to create a bullet-proof return policy.

If getting credit on returned AR jobs is a very high priority on your list, I would suggest linking up with one of the labs (currently four, I believe) who actually process Crizal-coated jobs (i.e., Milroy in Tampa, FL) for your AR work. Get in touch with the lab's rep and press them for EXACT procedures and info on the return of Crizal coated jobs and you should have the ideal situation for having returns processed (understanding that any AR return policy is going to be less than ideal).

Naturally, if you are working with a Varilux-approved independent or ELoA lab, you should also have very little difficulty on working through the Crizal returns process with them as well.

Pete

Disclaimer: In case you are new to the board and are unaware, I am an Essilor employee (and therefore my recommendation of EOA or ELoA products should be viewed with this in mind).

[chip anderson]

The reason this is a problem is like I have been saying: "This ain't ready for the general population yet." AR coatings do not hold up in the normal lives of the average man and therefore should not be pushed on those that do not have need for them, no matter how much more money we get for selling them.

A guarantee is nothing compared to a product that doesn't break.

Chip

[Pete Hanlin]

The reason this is a problem is like I have been saying: "This ain't ready for the general population yet." AR coatings do not hold up in the normal lives of the average man and therefore should not be pushed on those that do not have need for them, no matter how much more money we get for selling them.
Wow, I'm not sure I can agree with you on that one, Chip. I would consider myself kinda average with a somewhat normal life (but I guess that all depends on the definitions of "average" and "normal" ;) ), and my AR holds up at least as well as the scratch coating on my non-AR coated glasses.

I wear my AR glasses while changing the oil, mowing the yard, and doing all the other average things. I don't sit in front of a metal grinder all day (though come to think of it I did wear them just last weekend while I ground down a piece of metal to make some speakers fit in my car), but how many "average guys" really do? I even do stuff with them that we don't usually recommend (mess with chemicals for the pool, etc.).

From your observations, what is it about AR lenses that make them unsuitable for the average man? I agree that there are some things you can't do with AR lenses (and placing them on the dashboard of a car in the hot Florida sun is one of them), but I don't believe modern AR lenses really require all that much special attention.

As for "pushing them on people," customer surveys show that 76% of Americans consider AR either "important" or "very important" when the characteristics of AR are described (and yeah, I know that surveys and statistics lie, but that's pretty much the same figure I observed in real life practice). Furthermore, the rest of the planet seems to be enjoying AR coatings without significant complaint, so why is it that it is only inappropriate for North Americans?

I'm not in sales (could'a fooled ya, huh?), but even from a purely technical perspective AR lenses simply make sense. Why would I want a lens that produces ghost images, reduces the transmission of light, and all the other things that non-AR coated lenses do?

[yzf-r1]

Pete,

"so why is it that it is only inappropriate for North Americans"

Well, the take up in the UK from my observations is pretty poor, especially in the elderly population. They see it as an unnecessary addition to their lenses, they complain about how easily the get dirty, even how the get frieked out by the green reflections!!!

One of the reasons for the low take-up is probably that the National Health Service here only pays for the cost of a basic lens, and that translates to cr39 uncoated. Until coated lenses start to be called "basic lenses", i think the problem will remain. People simply dont want to pay the extra cash

I think the take-up in Japan is quite good though. (any japanese optiboarders to pick me up on that?)

yahya

[LENNY]

OK I got the idea!
But DO YOU people get credits on AR coated jobs or not?
From your experience?

[m0002a]

I completely agree with Chip that AR coatings are oversold. When selling AR, you may see an initial increase in profits, but warranty claims and customer satisfaction problems will often offset that.

There is pervasive trend in the industry to up-sell to the customer without ever explaining any of the disadvantages. Few opticians explain that very high index lenses (and polycarbs) typically have lower abbe values, or that AR coatings are fragile. I don't know if this is just ignorance or intentional deceit, but I have heard many opticians deny the abbe issue with high index/polycarb lenses and deny any problem with the fragility of AR coatings.

I am not suggesting that opticians should never sell very high index lenses, or that AR coatings never be recommended. Rather I believe that the industry should be more truthful when dealing with the customer and explain the downsides of these options, and then let the customer decide. I believe that this is the best way to build a business in the long run. If customers can't depend on their opticians to offer them good advice in consideration for the higher prices they charge, they will soon find their customers going to Wal-Mart.

[Pete Hanlin]

There is pervasive trend in the industry to up-sell to the customer without ever explaining any of the disadvantages. Few opticians explain that very high index lenses (and polycarbs) typically have lower abbe values, or that AR coatings are fragile. I don't know if this is just ignorance or intentional deceit, but I have heard many opticians deny the abbe issue with high index/polycarb lenses and deny any problem with the fragility of AR coatings.
I suppose I see the point about abbe values (though I'd like to know how many non-adapts, or even complaints, you get that can really be traced to low abbe value). I honestly can't see how you can call Crizal a "fragile" coating, however! Heck, a Crizal coated CR-39 lens is as (or more) scratch resistant than our regular non-Crizaled FSV resin lens!

Right up till I left the dispensing side of things 3 months or so ago, almost every single vision job I sold was FSV polycarb AR. I received very few of the lenses back, and (IMO, this is the proof in the pudding) at least 90% of the patients I sold it to once eagerly requested it on their subsequent pairs.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but calling modern AR coatings (be they Crizal, or something like SOLA's Teflon) "fragile" is misleading. Just out of curiosity, how many dispensers on this thread actually wear non-AR coated lenses? I have one pair without AR, and I'd almost rather not wear glasses than put up with the annoying reflections I get from that pair.

As for the "disadvantages" of some high index products, I think the extremely flat base curves on some of these products is a much more substantial "disadvantage" than abbe value. I would completely agree, however, that many "opticians" push commissioned items without regard for the actual needs of their patients (customers, clients, whatever).

Finally (sigh), yes- I did receive credit for my AR returns (of course, we only averaged one or two a month) when dispensing. What is the usual cause of the return, btw (scratching, delamination, etc.)?

[m0002a]

I am not suggesting that AR coatings and high index/polycarb should never be recommended or that they are not right for many people. I am only saying that there may be disadvantages (no matter how small) to these products. These disadvantages should be explained to the customer so they can make an informed decision.

I have personally had severe problems with polycarb lenses on a high plus Rx. In my opinion, polycarb should not be used for such Rx's. Many will counter that high plus is a small percentage of Rx's. Yes, but when you ask opticians, point blank, if there is ANY problem with using polycarb on high plus Rx, almost all will tell you that there is absolutely no problem.

If one were to ask opticians whether conventional AR coatings are more fragile than non-coated lenses, most (but not all) will say they are just as durable as non-coated lenses. A cursory reading of messages on this thread, and a related AR thread on this board belies that claim. If Crizal is really much more durable than conventional AR coatings, then you should be agreeing with the assertion that conventional AR coatings are fragile.

I have no problem when an optician recommends a high index lens for those that need it (even for cosmetic reasons), but many opticians will deny that there is ANY loss of abbe value as the index goes up. I have posed this question, point blank, to many opticians and not received the correct answer. The benefits of a high index lens may offset the disadvantages, but there is some additional distortion.

Most people don’t complain simply because they don’t know any better. There was another thread on this forum where an optician is being sued because someone was given the wrong lens in one eye that was so far off he could barely see anything. It wasn’t until 6 months later that the he told his parents.

When opticians start making a lot of false statements, either through ignorance or deceit, the credibility of the entire industry is compromised. Ultimately, as product choices become more complex and discount stores become even more prevalent, customers will only stick with traditional opticians if they can offer the knowledgeable advise they desperately want. If Wal-Mart and other large discounters end up dominating the retail business, they will squeeze the manufacturers like you can’t even imagine.

[chip anderson]

Pete: I don't really want to antagonise you more. But you ain't a typical member of the public. You are a lensman. Most of your thoughts go to lenses. This is normal in our profession. I used to cringe when I heard a reject contact lens snap, as I knew how much time an labor (it was more labor intensive then) went into it.

A mechanic in interested in getting the nuts and bolts the right tightness in the right place at the right time. A painter is interested in getting the paint the right smoothness and not getting any where it doesn't belong. These are all natural but not these people are not going to worry about his high tech lenses first. An academic might, as he doesn't do a lot more with his hands, he doesn't sweat, and he doesn't get dirty. If you sell AR across the street from the University, things are different than Cannery Row.

A good portion of the public lives/works on Cannery Row.

Chip

I used to fuss (and still do a lot) with contact lens manufacturers who try to impress me with how thin they can make a lens. If you are fitting a fifty year old aphakic woodcutter. He can't see when the lenses are out, he is used to handleing heavy hard things and will break the flanges off the super thing flanged lenticular lenses about every third day. You gotta fit the patient not the technology.

[John R]

If one were to ask opticians whether conventional AR coatings are more fragile than non-coated lenses, most (but not all) will say they are just as durable as non-coated lenses.

Dont you wonder why?
If the customer is educated into how to look after their glasses, there should be not problem with Ar coats. I dont treat mine any diffrent sinse i started wearing arc. In fact i dont like wearing glasses without now.. I have a pair (Pentax) that was worn everyday for 5 years including work and diy round the house and car. Sure they have scratches now but with proper care the will be as good as anything else..
You have got to get into the habit of educating your customers that you must look after your glasses...Just like they would with a new car.....
Yahya, If Uk opticians were to charge a relistic price for the coats then you would see a much bigger take up. Not the over inflated prices they do now....Never mind Japan just look over the channel to mainland europe. They just luv Arc on everything...

[Pete Hanlin]

I have personally had severe problems with polycarb lenses on a high plus Rx. In my opinion, polycarb should not be used for such Rx's. Many will counter that high plus is a small percentage of Rx's. Yes, but when you ask opticians, point blank, if there is ANY problem with using polycarb on high plus Rx, almost all will tell you that there is absolutely no problem.
From what I've seen as I've met "opticians" in the course of my travels, I probably have to give you this point. I make no secret that I think poly is the material of the present and future. IMO, it is simply one of the overall best products available to the average consumer. As with ANY material or product, however, you have to recognize its limits. High plus (and to a lesser degree, high minus) Rxs have no business being put in poly.

I have no problem when an optician recommends a high index lens for those that need it (even for cosmetic reasons), but many opticians will deny that there is ANY loss of abbe value as the index goes up. I have posed this question, point blank, to many opticians and not received the correct answer. The benefits of a high index lens may offset the disadvantages, but there is some additional distortion.
Once again, I agree with you. Truth is, most "opticians" don't even know what the term "abbe value" really means (other than its "bad"). I think this goes back to the arguments of the educators on this board who advocate mandatory education standards for our profession.

Most people don’t complain simply because they don’t know any better.
ABSOLUTELY correct, and this was the exact argument placed before the governor's office as to why Opticianry in Florida should not be deregulated. When it comes to vision, most people assume they just need to "get used" to whatever vision they get through their glasses. The phrase "Give it a week, you'll get used to it" is true. Unfortunately, sometimes patients put up with getting used to things they shouldn't be dealing with if lenses were properly made/fit/designed.

I don't really want to antagonise you more. But you ain't a typical member of the public. You are a lensman.
A lensman... I like the sound of that. Actually, this has been the first truly stimulating thread in a little while on this forum, so antagonise away! Even though I do work in an ivory tower, so to speak, I definitely expose my glasses to the rigors of the everyman's life! Heck, I have two vehicles that need maintaining an 8 year old, a 6 year old (plus, I'm simply careless and leave my glasses in places they shouldn't be).

Just to make things clear, I haven't always advocated the use of AR treatments. I remember the poor quality of some of the early ARs out there. I also remember seeing the ads for Crizal (you know, the one with the fella who has been moto-crossing and has a pristine pair of Crizal lenses on an otherwise dirty face) and thinking "What a bunch of PR c*r*a*p!" Since then, I've dispensed, worn, and studied the process, and my opinion on ARs changed. I would recommend a Crizal coated lens to ANY man (or woman) for whom I would recommend SRC CR-39. The stuff is simply that tough.

So, I agree with a lot of what both of you are saying. Yes, there are some real numbskulls out there who have no freaking clue what they are recommending. Yes, there are AR coatings out there that are pretty much worthless. However, AR in its current form is appropriate and beneficial to, I'll say, at least 90% of the population and I believe it should be intelligently recommended to most patients (meaning presented in a way that accurately describes what it is, what it does, and how it affects the durability of the lens).

As far as contacts go, Chip... I pretty much have always despised the things. I can't argue, however, that- for some people- they are a much better alternative to eyeglasses (I still think fitting people in soft EW lenses should be a misdemeanor, however).
;)

[Jeff Trail]

Having an AR does nothing for abbe value problems anyway (chromatisism) as I have heard many "opticians" and techs tell me over and over it does help :-) when actually you should be considering placing the ar as an option because OF the index of the material. As you increase index of refraction you lose light tranmittence due to the material.. if any one is interested it's figured by a formula called Fresnal's equation. Compare a cr39 to a 1.60 you actually lose close to 10% of light going from that cr39 to 1.60 so the AR brings it back up to and above the tranmittence rate of the cr39.
AR's are 10 times better than they were just 5 or 10 years ago... and with common sense on the dispenser part they are very durable when ordered correctly and applied correctly. A couple of problems I see most often is most optical people think that AR is AR no matter where they get it, when in fact you should ALWAYS include the material of the lens should supply UNCOATED lens whenever possible for coating and NEVER dip UV a lens or add a dip scratch coat before getting it AR's.. those few simple things will make the life of the AR extend a lot further.(no crazing and flaking)Also use AR applied in a ionized coating system..yes there are still some of the older coaters out there.
As for selling the AR, as long as you actually talk to your patients (or customers if you prefer) and get a feel for what they want ,expect and where they are using the lens than it's easy to handle, I never sold any to anyone around where working conditions were not the best (outdoor rough and tumble, air borne gases or caustic gases etc., etc.) never had any trouble...
As for getting dirty, more so than uncoated, that is a slight misnomer, it does not get any dirtier you just notice the smudges and oil and dirt more because it is not masked by the uncoated surface :-)

Last but not least..Lenny, no lab is going to credit you any add on, they are only going to give you credit for what they get credit for and that is the price of the uncut blank.. now they will strip and recoat at no charge.. but not both.. that's not economical.

Jeff

[Jim G]

Contrary to what many of you have expereinced, MOST AR coating labs WILL warranty their coatings against both delamination and scratching for at least a year. My old lab warranteed them for the life of the Rx.

Is AR more "delicate" than a naked lens? Probably BUT, given proper care and feeding, not significantly so. Remember, the coating itself is extremely thin, comparable to about 3" of snow on top of the Empire State Building. It is however, glass-like in hardness as typically the top layer is SiO2--glass! The problem generally occurs when this extremely hard layer is compressed because of the softer lens material and breaks thru (thin ice effect) resulting in scratching.

Crizal, UTMC, Zeiss Foundation, Hoya (somethingorother), and a bunch of others all mate the ARC with an optimized hardcoat to provide an extremely durable coating. These coatings also give much better, extended warranties (even lifetime).

Jeff brought up some good points but I'd like to elaborate a bit:

If you don't want to mess with one of the "optimized" (and more expensive) coatings mentioned above, consider using a lens with a factory applied hardcoat; if surfaced, have the lab apply their backside hardcoat BEFORE AR coating. This is not quite as good as the optimized coatings but SIGNIFICANTLY better than using a "naked" lens. As he noted, the office version dip "hard coats" are typically silicone based and terrible for applying AR.

The ultimate mating of ARC is with a glass lens. Nothing comes close--sorry Pete, not even Crizal--to the durability and scratch resistance of AR on glass. I'm still wearing mine daily.

Use extreme care with UV dyes. The dye will actually "eat" hardcoats (it's very caustic) and, if too much is used, will migrate out of the lens and attack an AR coating resulting in crazing and delamination. Please consider a lens with UV attenuation built in (poly, Trivex/Phoenix, 1.6, 1.66 etc.) rather than adding a UV dye

Let your AR coater know the lens material and manufacturer. Some materials and hardcoats require special processing.

Clean the lenses thoroughly. Labs, please don't let your lenses sit overnite out of fining or polishing without cleaning first. Also, PLEASE keep your wax blocks clean; change per manufacturers directions. Even the expensive and sophisticated cleaning systems used by most AR coaters can't remove all that stuff. Essilor has gone back to alloy in their labs 'cuz of the problems with wax contaminating the lenses.

Is AR for everyone? Probably but, some will naturally be better candidates than others. One area often overlooked are the elderly where their aging lenses actually cut down on the light transmitted to the retina; an ARC can restore much of that and is really appreciated.

Oh, another area that is occasionally oversold is when it is claimed that AR removes the bothersome reflections from night driving. It removes the reflections from the lenses and improves the already lower light transmission BUT, it don't do nottin' for a dirty windshield.

As noted above, AR coating's do nothing for chromatic aberration but, higher (minus) powers do result in the use higher percentage of high index lenses with their resultant decrease in light transmission, higher % of reflections and flatter, more reflective, front curves--all perfect reasons to use AR...irrespective of the Abbe value!

Lastly, and you all know this better than I, take a little time to explain the care and feeding of an AR coat when dispensing. My wife couldn't keep an AR coating on her lenses and it drove me nutz until I saw her one morning applying hair spray with her (+5.00) glasses on.

[yzf-r1]

Excellent post Jim!!!

You have reaised some very good points...many of which should even be migrated to the Tips and Tricks thread.

BTW, The Nikon Hard Clear Coat. Is this an AR coat on top of a hard coat, a hard coat on top of an AR coat, or a hard AR coat???

Is it possible to get a hard coat on top of an AR coat???

Just curious

yahya

[Steve Machol]

The AR is always on top of the hard coat, otherwise you would destroy the anti-reflective effect of the AR coating.

[TammyD]

A quick note from the consumer point of view...

I've only been in the industry for a couple of years. Before that, neither I nor any of my many glasses-wearing family members had ever even heard of anti-reflective coatings. Now that we know what we were missing, most of us are getting AR lenses in spite of the extra expense and the extra effort required in caring for them. Why? Because glare on lenses made it so that I didn't really know what my mom's eyes looked like, just like she hadn't really known what her mom's eyes looked like. They are the windows to the soul, and the shades were always drawn! I know we refer to this as a "cosmetic" reason, but I think it really goes much deeper than that. It is a communication issue.

Tell the whole truth- pros, cons, and all- but PLEASE make sure that your practice gives people the opportunity to make this decision for themselves!

[hip chic]

Lenny~
If you're still out there...seems as though your original question kind of got lost in the shuffle.
I do business with two labs. Neither has AR Coating equipment. Neither will give me credit for the AR Coating on lenses (progressive lenses) returned for non-adaptation. Nor will they give me credit for the additional amount they charge for edging to a metal or rimless frame or a tint charge or any of the other "extras". I only receive credit for the base lens.

[LENNY]

Thank you Chic!
I think that WAS the original question.
I guess i am used to a good stuff.
For the last 7 years i had no problem in getting credit for AR.

[Jim G]

My first paragraph above: "Contrary to what many of you have expereinced, MOST AR coating labs WILL warranty their coatings against both delamination and scratching for at least a year. My old lab warranteed them for the life of the Rx."

You should check around. My old lab probably charged more upfront but replaced the Rx, complete, no questions asked. There are others out there that do the same. Guess it's the ol' K-Mart or Nordstroms issue again...

[sarahr]

Jim G said:
As noted above, AR coating's do nothing for chromatic aberration

Oh yes it does. That rainbow looks much prettier through an AR coat;)

Pete, just what is the warranty on a crizal lens in the UK, I'm too harsh on people perhaps, but I've never returned a lens for being scratched. I stress scratch RESISTANCE and very few people actually complain. I have sent the odd lens back for other faults though.The extra cost involved would be much more easily justified if a scratch warranty was available. If it is available It's probably been hushed up in the area where I work.The majority of the population are farmers, and their specs certainly see some action!

[hip chic]

Actually...I think I AM doing business with the Nordstroms of optical labs. When I compare their pricing to other labs, they are high...which is ok with me because the quality is also very high. Obviously, the "credit on AR Coated lenses" issue is a whole different story.:(

[John R]

Jim G said:
My first paragraph above: "Contrary to what many of you have expereinced, MOST AR coating labs WILL warranty their coatings against both delamination and scratching for at least a year.

That seems to be the practice (from the AR coaters) over her in the UK, you get a 1 or 2 year warranty on delamination, but not for scratching...