Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PAL with virtually no markings?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    PAL with virtually no markings?

    We had a patient in who has the strangest lens, and we're all stumped what it could be. There is an add of SOME sort in there, which I read at ~ +1.25. But the jump/distortion in that zone is super pronounced and dramatic compared to my co-worker's 2.something add progressive. The only marking on the lens is an X (and just a plain X, not like a stylized or fancy font or anything) set low and temporally; there's no other symbols, text, or markings anywhere in the lens.

    Current theories: I thought possibly a blended bifocal, but there's no bump on the lens from what I can tell. Maybe a DAL? I don't know how prevalent those are at the moment, though. I think there's a digital BF or something? I see it from time to time on the dropdown menu for like Eyemed, but I've never actually seen one in person, so I don't know what that one looks like and whether it has a line or not.

    Anyone got any insight that may shed some light on this?

    #2
    Originally posted by juno View Post
    We had a patient in who has the strangest lens, and we're all stumped what it could be. There is an add of SOME sort in there, which I read at ~ +1.25. But the jump/distortion in that zone is super pronounced and dramatic compared to my co-worker's 2.something add progressive. The only marking on the lens is an X (and just a plain X, not like a stylized or fancy font or anything) set low and temporally; there's no other symbols, text, or markings anywhere in the lens.

    Current theories: I thought possibly a blended bifocal, but there's no bump on the lens from what I can tell. Maybe a DAL? I don't know how prevalent those are at the moment, though. I think there's a digital BF or something? I see it from time to time on the dropdown menu for like Eyemed, but I've never actually seen one in person, so I don't know what that one looks like and whether it has a line or not.

    Anyone got any insight that may shed some light on this?
    Usually on the progressive lenses an X stands for trivex or if its an essilor lens it is the varilux X. Is there any change in the corridor from distance down to the reading? If you see an intermediate area possibly could be a trivex progressive lens that wasn't stamped?

    If there is no change in the intermediate then yeah it is probably some kind of digital BF or maybe an anti-fatigue lens like an Eyzen +4.

    I have this bookmarked for looking at progressive lenses, especially important when edging a progressive/anti-fatigue lens to make sure of the correct drop:

    Comment


      #3
      We requested the X from our lab, and they made it the exact same way, so I guess it WAS a Varilux X. Was just really strange that it didn't even have reference markings in the lenses, or an add power for that matter

      Comment


        #4
        Check this out:

        I have this problem from time to time, and it is super annoying. I never worked with a lens generator that did these laser engravings so I have no reference point on how irritated I should get about this. The thing that annoys me most is that I almost always dispense them first and then have complaints from the wearer - it is

        Comment


          #5
          Yeah, I looked at that previously. This isn't a case of those markings being too light, they are straight up absent. The X is pretty easily read, so I should be able to pick up SOMETHING of any other laser etchings on there, but nada on both the previous lens, as well as this one

          Comment

          Working...
          X