Lenscrafters

[Gordo24]

Just found this forum and I see it is for professionals however I thought you all would be able to answer my question.

I recently purchased a pair of glasses at lenscrafters as my old pair was stolen and I needed a new pair very quickly. My prescription is -3.75 Right and -3.75 left. The lenscrafters rep sold me thier featherweight plus lenses. When I picked up the glasses I was a bit miffed to see how thick the (20 lighter, 30% thinner) lenses were. I noticed they also had a 1.67 lens that wasnt mentioned when I was picking out my lenses. Would the 1.67 be thinner than what I was given?

Thanks

[For-Life]

It would be thinner, how much thinner depends on frame size and decentration. It might be 0.001mm thinner ot .4mm thinner.

Most likely it would not be that much thinner. I usually do not use a 1.67 until at least a -5.00.

[OPTIDONN]

Depends on if the lenses were in stock. I remember that if we did not have the lenses in stock (finished lenses: lenses with the rx already in the lens) we would have to surface them (grind the rx into the lens). If we had a new tech or if the generator was off or even just human error the lens came out thicker than planned. But most likely it would depend on how centered the eye is in the frame. The further you pupil is from the edge of the lens greatly increases thickness.

[Lightbender]

The featherweight plus lens that is marketed by lenscrafters is a aspheric polycarbonate lens. Polycarbonate lenses have an index of refraction of 1.59. The lens with an index of refraction of 1.67 is much thinner than a lens with an index of refraction of 1.59, with a Rx of -3.75 in both eyes a lens with a 1.67 index would have been an over kill situation in your case. If your lenses appear thick it might be a case where the frame is much larger for you than it should be, or your PD is such that the lenses had to be decentered a lot. The smaller the distance between your pupils the more the lenses have to be decentered. I hope this helps you.

[DPalmer]

I can tell you right now if you want the 1.67 lenses it will most likely be a special order unless by some grace of god they actually have a pair and it will cost you some extra money . You do realize you can take them back without any hassle for 30 days from when you purchased them. Good luck with whatever you decide.

[shellrob]

I agree with above posts, I'm curious as to what the frame size is and what your pd is?

[Jubilee]

I can tell you right now if you want the 1.67 lenses it will most likely be a special order unless by some grace of god they actually have a pair and it will cost you some extra money . You do realize you can take them back without any hassle for 30 days from when you purchased them. Good luck with whatever you decide.

Actually LensCrafters now carries a large selection of Finished 1.67 in stock.

If you are unhappy, please utilize your 30 day satisfaction guarantee. They can help you select a more suitable frame, or upgrade you to the 1.67 if you want.

For instock options, you may find the 1.67 or the Featherwate Complete lens a better choice. The finished lens version of these products have a 1.0mm center thickness compared to the Featherwate Plus which has a 1.5mm center. Both of these products also have an anitreflective coating which will reduce glare, and allow more light to enter the eye. Giving you crisper vision. They also cost more.

AS was mentioned by several others in this thread, you really don't have an extreme script. The factor that increases edge thickness the most is the amount of decentration needed. The thinnest point on your lens is in front of your eye. When the eye isn't centered in the frame, extra thickness is the result. Certain frames, such as the narrow rectangular ones have a tendency to draw more attention to the edge.

You can also inquire about having them split the bevel. This puts a bit of the thickness in the front, allowing the frame to break up the total amount on the edge. While it doesn't decrease the overall thickness, it does minimize it.

So please utilize your 3O day guarantee, and let the staff have an opportunity to make it right for you.

Cassandra

[Cherry Optical]

Just found this forum and I see it is for professionals however I thought you all would be able to answer my question.

I recently purchased a pair of glasses at lenscrafters Thanks

Personally, that was all I needed to read before I understood the problem.

-If you want glasses quick, go get 'them'
-If you want glasses that you can see out of and look good, go to an Independent Eyecare Professional who uses an Independent Wholesale Lab. :D
-If you want the thinnest, flattest lens 'they' have available, go with the 1.67.

Adam

[For-Life]

For instock options, you may find the 1.67 or the Featherwate Complete lens a better choice. The finished lens version of these products have a 1.0mm center thickness compared to the Featherwate Plus which has a 1.5mm center. Both of these products also have an anitreflective coating which will reduce glare, and allow more light to enter the eye. Giving you crisper vision. They also cost more.


Cassandra

The ct thickness is probably the main problem. I thought most poly had a 1.0mm ct.

[drk]

I thought most poly was 1.5 to about 1.2?

1.67 will be overkill. Save the money.

Bet they're rimless, and that's why they seem "so thick"!

[edKENdance]

Just found this forum and I see it is for professionals however I thought you all would be able to answer my question.

I recently purchased a pair of glasses at lenscrafters as my old pair was stolen and I needed a new pair very quickly. My prescription is -3.75 Right and -3.75 left. The lenscrafters rep sold me thier featherweight plus lenses. When I picked up the glasses I was a bit miffed to see how thick the (20 lighter, 30% thinner) lenses were. I noticed they also had a 1.67 lens that wasnt mentioned when I was picking out my lenses. Would the 1.67 be thinner than what I was given?

Thanks

I'm a little befuddled as to why the salesperson put you into FW plus. No wonder the states sucks so bad with regards to AR.:angry::)

[Cherry Optical]

I thought most poly was 1.5 to about 1.2?

1.67 will be overkill. Save the money.

Bet they're rimless, and that's why they seem "so thick"!

Excuse me.....:drop:



As much as I love this industry, I don't want to have to work in a lab until I'm 85 peddling the cheapest lenses I can find!



One thing that bothers me is when people talk about overkill with lenses, as if they are doing some great service to help people save 40 bucks. Have you ever heard a car salesman (very reputable people I should add) tell you that you don't need the SuperCharger... the leather seats.... sunroof... or custom paint job? Better yet how many cars are in your household? How many TV's? Shoes?



:idea: If you want to save people money, petition to close a local Indian casino, write your state rep. and tell them you want a property tax freeze in your state, or explain to your friends how a car that gets 40 mpg saves you approx. $7 every 100 miles over a call that gets 18 mpg (that’s $7000+ over the life of the car!).



As a reminder, people wear their glasses 10+ hours a day, everyday! Please don't try to deter people from purchasing the thinnest, flattest, and lightest lens options. One thing no one can deny is that there is a noticeable difference between PC & 1.67 in a -375 OU prescription, not only in thickness, but in the curve of the lens. If you don’t believe there is a difference, you have been brainwashed and should seek immediate help. If you say there is only a "slight" difference… my point has been made. :hammer:



Remember: NEEDS -v- WANTS



Perhaps DRK has his/her money invested in Gentex? I don't. I have mine invested into making the very best possible lenses for our customers patient's.





Adam

[jediron1]

[QUOTE=Jubilee]Actually LensCrafters now carries a large selection of Finished 1.67 in stock.

If you are unhappy, please utilize your 30 day satisfaction guarantee. They can help you select a more suitable frame, or upgrade you to the 1.67 if you want.

I have never heard of such a ridiculous thing as a 30 day satisfaction guarantee.
Of all the trade shows I've been too and seminars they all said " don't put in the patients head they might have trouble with lenses or glasses or you will end up with trouble" Seems ridiculous to me, your just asking for problems where there
might not or ever have been any problems to begin with. May be I will ask Alice,
maybe she will know when she's 10 feet tall or possible the Rabbit. Is the sky really falling is that why we have a 30 day guarantee? Where's Dr.Freud?:shiner:

[edKENdance]

[QUOTE=jediron1]

Actually LensCrafters now carries a large selection of Finished 1.67 in stock.

If you are unhappy, please utilize your 30 day satisfaction guarantee. They can help you select a more suitable frame, or upgrade you to the 1.67 if you want.

I have never heard of such a ridiculous thing as a 30 day satisfaction guarantee.
Of all the trade shows I've been too and seminars they all said " don't put in the patients head they might have trouble with lenses or glasses or you will end up with trouble" Seems ridiculous to me, your just asking for problems where there
might not or ever have been any problems to begin with. May be I will ask Alice,
maybe she will know when she's 10 feet tall or possible the Rabbit. Is the sky really falling is that why we have a 30 day guarantee? Where's Dr.Freud?:shiner:

Interesting you should mention that. We did a job yesterday. A customers' first pair was off axis. The reason for using 2 more lenses was written on the job ticket. The job was re-done correctly but someone placed the tray with the job ticket with the "OFF AXIS" memo written in front of the customer. She was in the store for more than an hour having difficulty seeing through her lenses.

[jediron1]

Cherry first things first! Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Now that your calm, drk I thought was an OD he should know the difference between the two. I never heard of Poly going down to a 1.2 maybe you can enlighten us on that fact drk? ( or was that O.C. you were thinking about?) Cherry your right the car salesman never backs down unless you do, then he goes to the next level car. You always show your best first then work down from there. And what happened to lifestyle dispensing?
Should not this person be given at least the chance to have the best possible glasses instead of the run of the mill one's? I thought that was the main goal of The Evil Empire to fit everyone into $300.00 to $400.00 glasses? Just my 2 cents

Excuse me.....:drop:



As much as I love this industry, I don't want to have to work in a lab until I'm 85 peddling the cheapest lenses I can find!



One thing that bothers me is when people talk about overkill with lenses, as if they are doing some great service to help people save 40 bucks. Have you ever heard a car salesman (very reputable people I should add) tell you that you don't need the SuperCharger... the leather seats.... sunroof... or custom paint job? Better yet how many cars are in your household? How many TV's? Shoes?



:idea: If you want to save people money, petition to close a local Indian casino, write your state rep. and tell them you want a property tax freeze in your state, or explain to your friends how a car that gets 40 mpg saves you approx. $7 every 100 miles over a call that gets 18 mpg (that’s $7000+ over the life of the car!).



As a reminder, people wear their glasses 10+ hours a day, everyday! Please don't try to deter people from purchasing the thinnest, flattest, and lightest lens options. One thing no one can deny is that there is a noticeable difference between PC & 1.67 in a -375 OU prescription, not only in thickness, but in the curve of the lens. If you don’t believe there is a difference, you have been brainwashed and should seek immediate help. If you say there is only a "slight" difference… my point has been made. :hammer:



Remember: NEEDS -v- WANTS



Perhaps DRK has his/her money invested in Gentex? I don't. I have mine invested into making the very best possible lenses for our customers patient's.





Adam

[jediron1]

edKENdance]

Interesting you should mention that. We did a job yesterday. A customers' first pair was off axis. The reason for using 2 more lenses was written on the job ticket. The job was re-done correctly but someone placed the tray with the job ticket with the "OFF AXIS" memo written in front of the customer. She was in the store for more than an hour having difficulty seeing through her lenses.

As you know I was not referring to screw-ups by your own lab as reason for the
policy. You know exactly what I meant.:shiner:

[edKENdance]

Seriously didn't. Your post was cryptic. The customer saw the note saying off axis and thought there was something wrong with the glasses. Ok, maybe it was my post that was cryptic. :cheers:

[Robert Martellaro]

I thought most poly was 1.5 to about 1.2?

1.67 will be overkill. Save the money.

Bet they're rimless, and that's why they seem "so thick"!

DrK,

I believe that finished poly is available in 1mm (probably 1.2mm in low powers), 1.5mm, and 2.0mm CT.

Sometimes it's not possible to use extremely thin centers even on lenses as strong as -3.75 because the superior and inferior edges of the lens would be too thin for grooved rimless, or because of lens flexure with full metal frames. This is especially true with frames with a very narrow B measurement. Using a 1.67 lens in this situation would be a waste of money because it will have to be surfaced to allow more "beef" for grooving or for stability at the thin edges, and with 1.67's higher density the lenses would be heavier than less expensive low density materials (poly, trivex, spectralite). Less for more so to speak.

However, I'll use 1.67 at this power in drill mounts to minimize temporal thickness for the reason you stated...Minus looks thicker in rimless compared to full metal frames.

Regards,

[jediron1]

DrK,

I believe that finished poly is available in 1mm (probably 1.2mm in low powers), 1.5mm, and 2.0mm CT.

Sometimes it's not possible to use extremely thin centers even on lenses as strong as -3.75 because the superior and inferior edges of the lens would be too thin for grooved rimless, or because of lens flexure with full metal frames. This is especially true with frames with a very narrow B measurement. Using a 1.67 lens in this situation would be a waste of money because it will have to be surfaced to allow more "beef" for grooving or for stability at the thin edges, and with 1.67's higher density the lenses would be heavier than less expensive low density materials (poly, trivex, spectralite). Less for more so to speak.

However, I'll use 1.67 at this power in drill mounts to minimize temporal thickness for the reason you stated...Minus looks thicker in rimless compared to full metal frames.

Regards,

Robert it's funny you said:" Sometimes it's not possible to use extremely thin centers even on lenses as strong as -3.75 because the superior and inferior edges of the lens would be too thin for grooved rimless "

I had a gentleman come in to my store about 13 years ago and asked if I could duplicate what he was wearing. I said let me examine your glasses and I will let you know.
He was wearing Zeiss glass progressives center thickness on the OD was .8
and on the OS 1.1 OD was -6.25 and OS was -6.75 with slight cyl. Edge thickness was only about 2.5 OD and 2.8 OS. (this was in a 62 eye with 16 bridge frame) I was amazed. I asked him where he got them. He said when he was in West Germany he had a pair made, he said it took about a week he thought that was long, oh ya they were A/R also. So Robert still think you can't get them that thin?:shiner:

[Robert Martellaro]

Robert it's funny you said:" Sometimes it's not possible to use extremely thin centers even on lenses as strong as -3.75 because the superior and inferior edges of the lens would be too thin for grooved rimless "

:shiner:

I stand by my statement.

Up until about three years ago I would use Zeiss 1.9 index non-tempered glass with CT's around 1mm for some of my high minus (adult) clients. Sure, you had to get the OMD and client to sign waivers but at least you could make a nice looking -15.00. Not any more, unless you live outside of the USA.

Regards,

[OPTIDONN]

Well Cherry I agree 100% with drk. I don't think its fair to lump us with together with used car salesmen. Many patients are grateful if we can save them money and thats why they keep coming back to us. We don't SELL to our patients we help them CHOOSE the best eye wear for thier life style. Just because a lens has a high index or is more expensive does not mean that its better. I just got a pair of 1.67 with Crizal Alize and I am not a fan I still love glass, cr-39 and spectralite. I do understand what you mean. There is a business aspect involved (if there wasn't we wouldn't be here).

[jediron1]

OPTIDONN]
Well Cherry I agree 100% with drk. I don't think its fair to lump us with together with used car salesmen. Many patients are grateful if we can save them money and thats why they keep coming back to us. We don't SELL to our patients we help them CHOOSE the best eye wear for thier life style. Just because a lens has a high index or is more expensive does not mean that its better. I just got a pair of 1.67 with Crizal Alize and I am not a fan I still love glass, cr-39 and spectralite. I do understand what you mean. There is a business aspect involved (if there wasn't we wouldn't be here).[/QUOTE]

You and Robert should sit down and take a deep breath and calm down! It's an opinion not the end of the world. What ever happened to chicken little.:shiner:

[OPTIDONN]

ooh jediron it does sound like I'm kind comming off angry! I didn't mean it to. It sounds differant in my head when I'm typing than when I read it.

[Cherry Optical]

Cherry first things first! Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Now that your calm, drk I thought was an OD he should know the difference between the two. I never heard of Poly going down to a 1.2 maybe you can enlighten us on that fact drk? ( or was that O.C. you were thinking about?) Cherry your right the car salesman never backs down unless you do, then he goes to the next level car. You always show your best first then work down from there. And what happened to lifestyle dispensing?
Should not this person be given at least the chance to have the best possible glasses instead of the run of the mill one's? I thought that was the main goal of The Evil Empire to fit everyone into $300.00 to $400.00 glasses? Just my 2 cents

Thanks. I read what I wrote last week... I must have been a bit stressed at the moment. Compared to remodeling the bathroom this weekend, this whole optical industry is a piece of cake.



Just to clear something up, I didn't mean to lump us together with car salesmen, other than the fact that we are all in sales... whether you want to be or not.



I still do stand behind my opinion that a -375 OU would look great in a 1.67-1.74. WWJD?



Adam

[jediron1]

Thanks. I read what I wrote last week... I must have been a bit stressed at the moment. Compared to remodeling the bathroom this weekend, this whole optical industry is a piece of cake.



Just to clear something up, I didn't mean to lump us together with car salesmen, other than the fact that we are all in sales... whether you want to be or not.



I still do stand behind my opinion that a -375 OU would look great in a 1.67-1.74. WWJD?



Adam

1. Of course it would look better in 1.67-1.74 but is that what the patient wants or needs?


2. WWJD would have healed there eye's, remember the spittle in the eye?:bbg: