Which comes first lenses or A/R brand?

**oblique** · 06-23-2003, 12:57 AM

My question to those you on the dispensing/ordering front lines is this. Do you choose your progressive lenses first then the compatible A/R coating or the A/R first then the progressives?

**Judy Canty** · 06-23-2003, 08:20 AM

Always, always, always lenses first in my shop.

**Pete Hanlin** · 06-23-2003, 08:53 AM

Although I no longer work in a shop, I agree with Judy. As an old marketing campaign used to say- Its the lenses.

In my opinion, lens design comes before AR selection, material selection, or frame selection. If you have success with a particular PAL, then craft the frame and lens options around that design. Hopefully, the design you use has a wide range of material availability and options.

**Robert Martellaro** · 06-23-2003, 04:12 PM

After twenty years of clients complaining of AR coating failures, (at present over half of my clientele wear coated lenses) it is unlikely that I will use an AR coating process that will fail prematurely (less than 1.5 years). So I will qualify my answer this way; if there is the possibility of an AR failure due to lens brand/AR process incompatibility, and there is no critical compromise in function with the final product, I'll let the AR brand dictate the lens brand.

Robert

**chip anderson** · 06-23-2003, 08:33 PM

Is "What's AR ?" not an option on the poll questions?

**Bev Heishman** · 06-23-2003, 08:51 PM

I agree, lenses first. I have had very few failures with the lab we use and they have invested a lot of money. They offer 5 or 6 brands that I can think of. The regular AR brand in the 5 years I have used them has been top notch.

Care I feel is primary. I personally have used AR for at least 15 years and never had a failure on my own RX. Currently we are at 48% AR in our office. Well above industry standards with little use of the premium or brand/product recommendations. Sorry!

**oblique** · 06-23-2003, 10:52 PM

The reason I posted this thread is that in the northwest states there are some dispensers that are unwilling to try certain new premium progressive lenses because they did not want to move from thier favorite brand of a/r. I feel that most of the A/R coatings today are much better than they were even 5 years ago.

**Jeff Trail** · 06-24-2003, 11:34 AM

Oblique,

I don't think it is "better" AR as five years ago as BETTER application. Once we switched over into vacuum system and using a substrate as an industry wide policy THAN you saw leaps and bound in how it sttod up to the test of time, I remeber when I HATED seeing jobs come into the lab requesting AR because I knew they would be coming back in a few months. Now I look forward to coatings :)
A lab can lease Ziess coaters, UTMC just two name a few and the way it works is if you use the make up of those company coats in the stack you pay a fee on top of the other BUT they also let you use your own mix as long as it is not exactly like those without the fee.. same coater same chemical (more or less) usually not as many layers in the stack.
More or less any of the vacuum coats or spatter guns (ionized) are compatiable with every lens out here.. you may have a slight shift in the index of the coating to get a different base color (shimmer) with the ones that have an xtra hard shell coating being more durable (as in Crizal) but the down side is that these type of coats can NOT be stripped and re-done it needs a full lens replacement.
About the only thing I really do NOT recommend is adding a dip UV treatment to any lens that is going to be coated.. other than that I have cross coated about every lens material in every coating out here one time or another, as long as you remember to make sure you enter the index of the material being coated to the coaters so they can apply the correct mix to the stack I have had no problems.
BTW I have used Vivex (great company if you are on the West coast) UTMC, Reflection Free, Crizal, Zeiss ..and a number of "custom brands" from those labs that lease a coater.
One thing is correct and you hit it on the head, our product today is far superior to what we had to deal with before in quality of application... :)

Jeff "what do I clean this AR with ..lighter fluid?" Trail :)

**edKENdance** · 06-24-2003, 10:07 PM

Jeff, I have a question for ye. I understand the reason for not dipping a uv coat on a lens that's going for ar but is there a reason that uv can not be a part of the application in the ar coating itself? Mr. Reyser may be able to help with this as well.

edKENdance

**Jeff Trail** · 06-24-2003, 10:34 PM

First the end result would not compensate or even come close to doing so to adding an UV inhibitor into the AR stack..gee that would be a NIGHTMARE... as it is a lot of the coats now are stripping everything right down to the base material (removing factory hard coats etc., etc.) to have a secure foundation and maximum adhesion for the substrate.
That is almost like asking well if I get a new pair of shoes you think they would throw in a new hugo boss suite?
The amount of trouble it would create both in processing and trying to figure the index of the stack to cause of rejection compared to profit...the simple answer "HEL NO" ..:)
Most lens are available with a UV (factory) and with PAL's, Poly's and H.I. it is in probably 99.9 % to begin with ...
What can and can not be done and what is cost effective is usually two different things...

Jeff "give me AR or give me death" Trail

(ok the 4th is rolling up and feeling patriotic)

**Jim Stone** · 06-25-2003, 08:02 PM

Lenses

**Texas Ranger** · 06-26-2003, 10:37 AM

I'm with Robert; I've been a major AR proponent for 25 years, and until Crizal was introduced in '98, most AR'd lenses were a bit of a nightmare...so now, we are going to use lenses that can have Crizal AR process done, and that includes the majority of what we used before anyway. the point being, if you're going to do AR at at all, it better be something durable...so we go for the AR first about 98% of the time...

**Susan Henault** · 06-26-2003, 12:36 PM

No offense intended, to each his own -- but I cannot imagine choosing A/R before design. There are just too many quality A/R coatings out there now. Not ALL of them are limited to certain lenses -- or as in the case of a few, deliberately limited to control your choice of lenses.

**Texas Ranger** · 06-28-2003, 11:23 AM

Susan, hey, no offense taken...and I understand your feeling. but we started fitting Varilux PAL lenses in 1978, so for 25 years that's been our primary lens design fit in the office. and now 90% of our clients wear Comfort or Panamic design Vx lenses, so did we choose the lenses design first or the AR first, I suppose we chose the lens first, so I was wrong. but 95% of our clients wear Crizal....that's not a misprint...so what lens design or AR would we switch them to? I have perhaps 1 non adapt in every 200 Vx fittings, and everyone loves the Crizal....there are some lens designs like the ST bifocals in poly that they can't do in Crizal, so we use Zeiss AR on those...great AR too. There are other quality pal designs, Shamir, Rodenstock, Zeiss, Sola, Hoya, and we occasionally fit one, but then why fit other designs when you're fitting a pretty trouble free design?

**Henry** · 06-28-2003, 03:25 PM

edKENdance,

UV treatment is similar to tinting. During vacuum deposition of AR coatings, UV dyes will diffuse out ot the surface which the AR coating sticks on. This will cause adhesion failure for the vacuum deposited AR coatings. UV dyes cannot be part of AR coatings because all vacuum deposited AR coatings are ceramics. You know that you can not tint ceramics. The only way you can incorporate UV dyes into AR coatings is if the AR coatings are made of non-ceramics.

Henry

**edKENdance** · 06-28-2003, 03:46 PM

Thanks Henry.

You say the only way to incorporate UV into an Ar coat is if it is not ceramic based. The way the sentence is phrased leads me to believe that non-ceramic based AR coats exist. I know almost nothing about the processes that go into the fabrication of AR coating at it's base level but I would assume that a non-ceramic based AR would be much more prone to scratching and harder to care for?

**Henry** · 06-28-2003, 10:36 PM

edKENdance,

The AR coating is extremely thin coating. Scratch resistance of AR coatings only depends on the scratch resistant coating under AR coatings, not on AR coating itself.

Non-ceramic AR coatings do exist. They are more like scratch resistant coatings, and actually easier to take care. It is known that it is easier to take care of SR coatings than to take care of the vacuum deposited ceramic AR.

**Susan Henault** · 07-02-2003, 09:47 AM

Texas Ranger said:
I have perhaps 1 non adapt in every 200 Vx fittings, and everyone loves the Crizal....there are some lens designs like the ST bifocals in poly that they can't do in Crizal, so we use Zeiss AR on those...great AR too. There are other quality pal designs, Shamir, Rodenstock, Zeiss, Sola, Hoya, and we occasionally fit one, but then why fit other designs when you're fitting a pretty trouble free design?

Well, I think this brings us to the most common "objection" that any sales professional faces when out there peddling new stuff: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." :bbg:

Who could possibly argue that they have something "better", when a practice is currently using something that works extremely well, consistently? No one! There is no argument. Just about every quality eye care professional I know, values ONE thing above ALL others (especially when it comes to their progressive design of choice): IT MUST WORK WELL, consistently.

So, my next question has to be: If it could be said that all cutting edge progressives performed EQUALLY WELL, consistently -- on what then would you base your decision? What then do you most value?

"P" stands for progressive, so let's get progressive in our thinking:
-- PERFORMANCE: Already covered -- if all perform equally well, then what do you value most?
-- PRICE: How important are COGS to you; to remain competitive with your own retail pricing?
-- PROFITABILITY: How important are higher profit margins, particularly in PREMIUM product categories?
-- PRODUCT Saturation: Does it matter if your lens of choice is on the price list of the discount chain store?
-- PRESENTATION: How much does brand name recognition really matter? POP materials, ad slicks etc.?
-- PARTNERSHIP: How important is a mutually rewarding, consultative partnership with your supplier(s)?

Other factors that could also fall somewhere within the above categories are:
- A/R availability (as was brought forth in this thread)
- Range of product RX and material availability
- Sales rep that calls on you
- Special services (consultative support/CE credits for you and your staff etc.)
- Co-op program that pays a portion of your advertising costs or gets you cool stuff
- Consumer advertising by the manufacturer
- Is your wholesale lab affected by your choice? If so, how much does that matter to you (on a scale of 1 to 10)?

Once you rank these items in order of importance (which will be different for everyone), you will have a better idea of whether it is time to seriously reconsider your current product mix.

**Texas Ranger** · 07-02-2003, 10:58 AM

Susan,
You make some excellant points, and i'd like to go over them, since you seem to be implying that my current lens of choice, Varilux, and their company Essilor, may not meet these "P's" as weel as some other lens companies. Well, we discoussed "Performanne", and like I said, customer satisfaction is quite high; "Price", so tell me that the "other Premium" pal designs are going to save me a lot of money? and "Profit" is only relative to the difference between what we pay for them, compared to what we're able to sell them for, and net profit is that gross profit, less what our "overhead" costs are. So, the only way "Profit" is a factor here is #1. if we're ARE paying too much, and if it's not a desireable product by the client? by Product saturation, other "retail stores" having them on their price list. So, xyzm, retailer can sell them! big deal, they have to go through the distribution process, and most are selling them higher than our shop, making it even more desirable. Now, when our shop is "cheaper than xyzm optical, that's good right? I got a flyer from Sam's Club last week, promoting "Rodenstock Transitions" lens, with a "package price, and they weren't cheap, can't even imagine this? I have had great personal relationships with a couple generations of sales reps with Essilor/Varilux, rarely if ever see another lens rep...and co-op programs? the Essilor Edge program has and is awesome, as well as occasional extra programs. And I feel that Essilor has done more in the area of "consumer advertising" than anynoe in our industry, period! Think Crizal, Varilux, and Transitions....tremendous marketing ...oh, and product range, Essilor has no peer in that area!
I do not work for Essilor, but they "work for me!" and it's been a major factor in our shop's 26 year history...and it's still getting better, we just put in Eyeweb for measurements and are setting up our own "house-credit card" with them. So, I have absolutely nothing but the utmost regard for all of the supplier side of our industry, but it's like being in a great church, like I am also, where you feel safe, secure and know that you're doing the best you can do!

**Susan Henault** · 07-02-2003, 09:19 PM

Texas -- I absolutely did NOT intend to imply that Essilor is not taking care of you -- my only intention was to share that there are many factors to consider when choosing a supplier.

Over the years, I have found that the majority of ECP's (majority simply being more than half) have no process in place to regularly evaluate supplier relations, new product releases, or their own retail pricing or capture rates for that matter. In the past, the wholesale lab has played the role of the independent's primary source of new product information, not to mention assistance with various other consultative support. However, with the slow but steady onset of vertical integration, a large number of some of the best wholesales labs in the U.S. are no longer in a position to be the objective source of information they once were. I DO NOT say that to discredit ANY lab -- I stress again - some of the BEST labs in the U.S. are now owned by Hoya, Sola and Essilor.

This has presented a number of promising opportunities, as well as challenges for most of us. The past several years have been very exciting! Old alliances are changing, loyalty is waning and it's difficult to know who is your supplier versus your competitor! These things have all contributed to open the minds of many to consider "mixing things up" a bit, in terms of the products they dispense. Very FEW offices are using ONE supplier these days and my job is to find out exactly where the opportunities are to become "part of the mix".

My prior post was an outline of the many areas that are often neglected -- not necessarily neglected by the supplier, but neglected to be considered by ECP's in terms of importance. THANKS so much for your honest feedback -- I genuinely hope I did not offend you (by my prior post nor this one)!

**Lee Prewitt** · 07-07-2003, 01:47 PM

Oblique and Susan,

You both work for Shamir. Can you answer this question? Why can't Shamir get approval for many of the premium AR's like Crizal, Foundation, Vivix? Aren't all lenses made from the same substrate? Cr-39 is CR-39, 1.60 is 1.60 etc.

BTW, Lenses should always come first. They are the workhorse of the whole process.

**Susan Henault** · 07-07-2003, 05:47 PM

Lee Prewitt said:
Oblique and Susan,

You both work for Shamir. Can you answer this question? Why can't Shamir get approval for many of the premium AR's like Crizal, Foundation, Vivix? Aren't all lenses made from the same substrate? Cr-39 is CR-39, 1.60 is 1.60 etc.

Thanks for asking Lee -- First things first -- All lenses are not made from the same substrates. Yes, the trade name CR-39 does refer to the raw material used by most manufacturers, but you will note that some venders do not refer to their core plastic as CR-39 (which may indicate that they use another monomer). As for high index, there are various raw materials available, each having unique properties (spec. gravity, abbe, transmission etc.) yet similar index. Add to that the multitude of scratch resistant coatings/application techniques being used, and it is not hard to imagine why providing today's high quality A/R treatments has become such a precise science.

Regarding the availability of premium A/R coatings on Shamir products: Shamir progressive lenses have been approved for Vivix and Foundation (you may want to check with your suppliers again). Based on feedback from those coaters, we made some adjustments to our high index scratch coat with terrific results. As for Crizal, until recently none of our laboratory partners had the ability to apply Crizal coating "in-house". As a result, Shamir products have not been on the approved list. Because that has changed, and because we are now offering uncoated lenses to our lab partners -- Shamir products might very well be added to the Crizal list of approved lenses. We'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, thanks again for the inquiry!

**Pete Hanlin** · 07-07-2003, 07:43 PM

PRESENTATION: How much does brand name recognition really matter? POP materials, ad slicks etc.?
Actually, name recognition means a lot with consumers- which is why Coke has consistently outsold Pepsi over the years (except for one year in the 80's when Coke tried to change its taste to match Pepsi).

Brand name also matters when your brand is the one everyone compares themselves to- as a car maker once said, "Why drive something that is just as good as when you can drive the real thing?" (I forget the name of the carmaker- so perhaps it wasn't such a great campaign after all).

All I am suggesting is that we add that "P" also stands for "Promotion of Product Awareness." When a company spends literally millions of dollars to promote not only the product but the provider (ECP), there is inherent value to the brand. Also, by advertising a product (i.e., progressives and AR coatings) the market is being grown. That is, demand is created not just specifically for the brand- but for the product as well.

As always, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments and would add that the emergence of Shamir on the PAL market (as a larger player- you've been around for awhile now) can only help the PAL marketplace in general (competition is a healthy thing).

Consorting Pete ;)

PS- I'll check into the status of Shamir & Crizal compatibility and get back...

**oblique** · 07-07-2003, 10:33 PM

Lee Prewitt,

What else can I say? Susan seems to have said it all! My understanding as to why the premium a/r coatings were not yet approved for all high index lenses is because of the hard coating compatability. If a lens was available as non hardcoated and the monomer was compatible to the premium a/r, everything would be great.

Maybe Pete H. can help out on this one. Is the hard coat on crizal the main reason it out performs a reflection free lens?

**Pete Hanlin** · 07-08-2003, 02:03 PM

If a lens was available as non hardcoated and the monomer was compatible to the premium a/r, everything would be great. Maybe Pete H. can help out on this one. Is the hard coat on crizal the main reason it out performs a reflection free lens?
Lenses destined to become Crizal products are ideally received in an uncoated state. In fact, where a scratch coating does exist, it must be stripped as part of the process. This is precisely why it takes some time to validate a lens material/design for the Crizal process. If the lens is only available in hardcoated form, it must be determined if the coating can be removed in a manner that 1.) assures the coating can be removed completely (if even a small particle of coating remains and comes off later in the process, it contaminates the whole machine and stops production on that line), and 2.) that a quality finished product can be consistently produced.

Once the lens is stripped of any existing hardcoating, a hardcoating called Mithril- or TD2 is integrated into the surface. This hardcoating bonds itself into the surface of the lens and also provides the ideal surface for application of the multi-stack AR coating.

So, to answer oblique's query, the factor that makes Crizal superior to Reflection Free (or any other ARC that is added as a coating on top of a pre-existing scratch coating), is the integration of a completely compatible SRC and ARC into the surface of the lens.

The other aspect that gives Crizal a competitive edge is its hydrophobic top coating. Crizal has very high "wetting angles" (for those of you who fit contact lenses, you recognize this to mean it repels water, and in this case other contaminants as well).

I hope this provides some insight into the Crizal process. The key to a modern high-quality ARC is controlling the lens surface, the hard coating, the application, the stack, and the final hydrophobic coating. Keeping control of all of these requires a sometimes seemingly lengthy process of validating the lens surface of each product to be Crizal'd.