Guess what

[amanda]

This morning I went again to the optical place I found last Saturady. The secretary who wasn't there last sat was there while the ownwer was busy inside. During the converastion with her, I asked whether it's true that high index can be used for rimless frame and she said no. She said it's trivex.

I swear on my father's grave that the owner said used the phrase "high index" could be used.

What's that optician telling me "Enough is enough. Trust your optician"? You should lose your license - if you have one - for saying that.

[amanda]

What's that optician telling me "Enough is enough. Trust your optician"? You should lose your license - if you have one - for saying that.

I meant who. I was forgetting the name.

[For-Life]

What's that optician telling me "Enough is enough. Trust your optician"? You should lose your license - if you have one - for saying that.

Well you should trust the optician to make the right decision for you. That is what they are paid for and that is why they are licensed.

Saying that, I would not say that you can trust every optician. You have to look for one to trust and move forward with them.

[QDO1]

This morning I went again to the optical place I found last Saturady. The secretary who wasn't there last sat was there while the ownwer was busy inside. During the converastion with her, I asked whether it's true that high index can be used for rimless frame and she said no. She said it's trivex.

I swear on my father's grave that the owner said used the phrase "high index" could be used.

What's that optician telling me "Enough is enough. Trust your optician"? You should lose your license - if you have one - for saying that.

You can galze what you want into whatever you want... is it suitable is another question.. Trixex, 1.6, polycarb - all suitable in a rimless. 1.56 / glass - unsuuitable, although glass was historiclly used. 1.67, CR39, 1.71, 1.74 - all OK, but the other suitable options are better.. The RX might alter the balance of the comprimise

[Snitgirl]

This morning I went again to the optical place I found last Saturady. The secretary who wasn't there last sat was there while the ownwer was busy inside. During the converastion with her, I asked whether it's true that high index can be used for rimless frame and she said no. She said it's trivex.

I swear on my father's grave that the owner said used the phrase "high index" could be used.

What's that optician telling me "Enough is enough. Trust your optician"? You should lose your license - if you have one - for saying that.

Help me understand because I want to make sure I read this correctly. You asked the "SECRETARY" about lens designs? If so, why that person vs the OPTICIAN?

[amanda]

Well you should trust the optician to make the right decision for you. That is what they are paid for and that is why they are licensed.

Saying that, I would not say that you can trust every optician. You have to look for one to trust and move forward with them.

If I trust no optician, would I be here asking questions?

[amanda]

You can galze what you want into whatever you want... is it suitable is another question.. Trixex, 1.6, polycarb - all suitable in a rimless. 1.56 / glass - unsuuitable, although glass was historiclly used. 1.67, CR39, 1.71, 1.74 - all OK, but the other suitable options are better.. The RX might alter the balance of the comprimise

You are the best:)- You (and a few others) always provide me with useful info.

I am serious about getting a rimless frame because I am tired of searching for a frame where I can put Panamic. Since my prescription is low (see below), what lens material would you suggest? Thanks.

Sph Cyl Axis
+1.00 -0.75 150
-0.25 -0.50 040 (Add +150)

[amanda]

Help me understand because I want to make sure I read this correctly. You asked the "SECRETARY" about lens designs? If so, why that person vs the OPTICIAN?

She is his secretary but also an optician. He is the owner and optician.

[QDO1]

If you are decided on a Panamic, then Ormil (1.61) or Airwear (1.59 polycarbonate). I would be happy with either. There ihas been a long protracted argument in the industry about which is better for a rimless, and im sure there will be a thread or two in the archives about that worth a read. (That is assuming Essilor offeres the same lens material options in the US as the UK... perhaps a US optician would chip in)

[For-Life]

If I trust no optician, would I be here asking questions?

nope, and you would be far ahead of the game and be able to see clearly.

[jbiggs114]

According to the material that I have on hand the Panamic is available in Airwear, Airwear Transitions, Airwear polarized gray & brown, Orma plastic 1.5, Orma transitions 1.5 brown & gray, Ormex Transitions gray, Thin & Lite and Thin & Lite 1.67. All will work in a rimless frame. The better optics will be in the 1.5 plastic since the abbe value is higher.
Panamic is also available in glass, which is NOT for rimless frames.

[Darryl Meister]

If you are concerned about impact resistance, polycarbonate and Trivex are your best options. However, for rimless suitability, I would actually rank 1.6 and 1.67 high-index urethanes over polycarbonate. These lens materials exhibit equal -- if not superior -- tensile strength in "pull tests" designed to replicate rimless frame stress, slightly better flexural strength (less tendency to "bend"), and greater chemical resistance than polycarbonate (solvents can attack the poly material at the drill points). However, all of these materials, including polycarbonate, are excellent choices for drilled rimless mountings compared to hard resin.

[HarryChiling]

Good call Darryl,

I used to not do rimless in anything but poly, but that is the brainless thing to do. Poly often leaves small cracks in the holes where drilling occurs and over time the lens gets cracks that start from the drill holes. This is preventable if you ream the holes out with a file, but most places I have worked look at me like it is a waste of time when I do that to a rimless. I love doing rimless in the 1.67 mterial, Tthe whole issue of the the smal cracks getting bigger is virtually eliminated, and like Darryl pointed out solvents particularly acetone, wich is commonly used in our industry destroys poly lenses and these holes that are drilled into the material leave it exposed and vurnerable at these points. I have seen more lenses cracked in the 1.67 index material, but it is from abuse not normal wear.

[amanda]

If you are concerned about impact resistance, polycarbonate and Trivex are your best options. However, for rimless suitability, I would actually rank 1.6 and 1.67 high-index urethanes over polycarbonate. These lens materials exhibit equal -- if not superior -- tensile strength in "pull tests" designed to replicate rimless frame stress, slightly better flexural strength (less tendency to "bend"), and greater chemical resistance than polycarbonate (solvents can attack the poly material at the drill points). However, all of these materials, including polycarbonate, are excellent choices for drilled rimless mountings compared to hard resin.

Thanks.

[amanda]

Good call Darryl,

I used to not do rimless in anything but poly, but that is the brainless thing to do. Poly often leaves small cracks in the holes where drilling occurs and over time the lens gets cracks that start from the drill holes. This is preventable if you ream the holes out with a file, but most places I have worked look at me like it is a waste of time when I do that to a rimless. I love doing rimless in the 1.67 mterial, Tthe whole issue of the the smal cracks getting bigger is virtually eliminated, and like Darryl pointed out solvents particularly acetone, wich is commonly used in our industry destroys poly lenses and these holes that are drilled into the material leave it exposed and vurnerable at these points. I have seen more lenses cracked in the 1.67 index material, but it is from abuse not normal wear.

Thanks for sharing the info.