C-10, you took the words right out of my mouth. So many Opticians rush to a ft, becuse they either don't know how to fit a progressive correctly and /or correctly troubleshoot any problems after dispensing. This is why 53% of the presbyopes wear ft vs progressives. Not enough competent Opticians to fit them correctly.Originally Posted by C-10
So Chris, you have said many times that all progressives are pretty much the same. Why will you not tell us what progressives you have personally tried?
if use PALs to first time wearer at ADD 250
must use only very good PALs like PANAMIC , DEFINITY , RD Impression ILX Xs
in your patient should use Impression ILT Xs very good when drive he will
see clear from right end to left end
a bit face down and read but for computer use is ........:idea:
:drop: :drop: :drop: :drop: :drop:
Right now I gave a pair of PANAMIC which seems to work alright...........I can see................can read.............perfect adjustment. I have surfaced and tried many brands in my lab, and I am not old fashioned and I believe my record in R&D of new products proves that.
You got a good point in that statement..................but still dont admit that everything in this world has its place. I just love to have a clear vision across my whole desk and still be able to see my computer screen.
And you guys would and could not provide that to me, because you would insist selling me something that would be contrary to my personal needs.
I am not the only crazy one in this world that prefers............what you call old, finished, gone, cheap old technology............because it is technologically better suitable in my case and probably thousands of others.
A one way arritude of not admitting that there are many other ways to achieve the best result in every individual case, is driven narrow mindededness or pure greed.
Of course all designs are different from eachother. If they were all the same, Dr Sheedys report would be 3 lines long. The art of the Optician is matching the best product(s) to the patients visual, physical and social needs
Chris, if you walked into my office and wanted ft's, you would get them from me. I'm not going to try to change your mind at all or talk you into a lens you don't want. Now, if you were to walk in my office needing bifoals and not knowing what you need or want, then yes progressives is what you will get. We could go on all day and have in the past about this subject. The fact remains, progressives are not for everyone and will not work for everyone, but it does take the correct fit to even have a fighting chance.
Your right here
selling any product if the person can not use or will not work for them dosn't help anyone.If a client feels you sold them something that was not right they wil never come back.
Thank you both of you.................so we finally reached an agreement
:cheers:
ABSOLUTLEY!!!!!!!:cheers:
I agree,too. I even sold an executive trifocal to a woman last year. She loved them!
But it is important for patients to understand what is available so they can make a good choice. Going back to the orginal patient, if he had gotten progressives 10 years ago when his add was only a +1.25 chances are he would have adapted easily.
Good chance .......................
Yes he would most probably have adapted easily, knowing all the facts and being able to face them knowingly.
At that add he has a much wider field of vision and an easier adaptation period. On the other hand you just invite trouble when selling them to a first time user that has a high addition.
Production of the Definity was slowed by the move from Roanoke to Dallas but the Definity outsold its projections by leaps! Essilor advised 1,000 at the National Sales Meeting last week in Phoenix to support existing Definity accounts and give production time to ramp up once the equipment from Roanoke is all in place. Maureen Cavanaugh is National Sales Manager of Definity at Essilor and I wish you could have seen the sales curve once Essilor took over from J&J! Turnaround is an uncertain, since it's affected by frame-to-come and how efficient the dispenser was. Check the Definity.com website.
Just an opinion
Hi Chris. I respect your opinion (they're like noses: we've all got one) and am glad you like your Panamics, since they're harder to fit than COMFORT, which have the lowest non-adapt of any PAL. Of course, every lens has spherical aberrations--even spherical SV! Light reflects off any surface or none of us could see anything, and light reflected off front and back surfaces of any lens and refracted through any lens at different points of reference produce aberrations. Check out the :cheers: Robert Louis Stevenson quote: "There is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us, that it behooves all of us not to talk about the rest of us."
In the optical business we don't have the luxury of combining lenses as telescope makers do, so we have to make a single lens do what optics say it can't. No progressive (ashperic by definition) is perfect, nor is any spheric lens. Check out http://physics.about.com/cs/optics/g...calaberrat.htm
by a Google search on "spherical aberration:" A perfect lens or mirror (either converging or diverging) would have a hyperbolic curvature of its face(s).
Feornot, I am curious where you got your imformation that the Comfort has the lowest non adapt of any progressive. I notice that Varilux doesn't push this lens and recommends it only for current Comfort wears that are happy with their glasses.
My brother wears a Comfort and when he tried the Panamic he didn't like it. My first progressive was a Comfort but with a +1.25 add it was a no brainer. I haven't tried it since. I have also had a Panamic with a +1.75 add and I did like it.
Why do you say the Panamic is harder to fit?
Re COMF PAL lowest PNA: it's got to be in an old study somewhere in my attic (that's not my head, honest, although there are assuredly cobwebs in both). The COMFs been out there since 1994 so it's gathered a lot of study. I've just never forgotten that study. But then I admit the "n" size in most optical studies is really low, barely ever statistically significant, I'm afraid (sorry again: my science background). In the optical business we tend to try PALs once and switch--once burned, twice shy--but in science that one-trial decision tree doesn't hold any water. We do this because it's cost-driven, I think (we get one PNA free) or because pts confront us and retail's really hard;).
The COMF design was extremely forgiving. You could fit it wrong and pts still loved it. COMF is at the peak of its revenue stream, Bob Colucci, president of Essilor IDD said in Dallas a month or more ago, so it could still be around as long as the VIP and the SNL! PANAM's design is a more sophisticated algorithm and in the standard 2-add PANAM's channel's wider than COMFs and just as soft as COMF: I get to talk to the Varilux technical people (because they let me and take my calls).
That statistic (53% wear ft's) seems quite high:drop: ...I own a business in western Canada in a senior citizens mall(primary clientelle) and I would say our percentages are significantly lower.I switch happy flat top wearers, daily, to progressives.Even last week, I had an 85 year old lady walk out of here wearing her first progressive, an ellipse no less:bbg: . Attitudes have been changing, amongst Opticians in the past 5- 10 years as we slowly conquor the public's fears of non adapt, armed with MUCH improved lens technology.
I love this new forum!! :cheers:
Old people NO problem..........................
That is nice for you pockets............and obviously you must be a good salesman to do it.
Maybe your happy flat top customers are in a stage were they dont see the difference any more. Could be a ne way of making money...............sell pals to the real old ones..............they have to money and dont see the difference.
:D
In many cases the seniors come in with their kids who are wearing pals. If a senior is sure footed and of sound mind I simply present the options. The success or failure hinges greatly on the optician's thoroughness at showing the senior the correct use of the lenses during the pickup. Our success rate on pals in this office is 93%. I can't remember the last time I had a non adapt....
I am really only selling the nikon i , and Varilux products including Ipseo, which I have only recently aquired an Ipseo Vision Print System....2 months ago.:o
Q 10, I never said "I put this patient in a bifocal or a trifocal." That was a question I was asking what people were "suggesting" Happylady do with this patient. You really shouldn't take quotes out of context.
Last edited by sharon m./ aboc; 02-01-2007 at 02:36 AM. Reason: Added
sharon
wrong thread.
sharon
wrong thread. ok it is the right thread the above message was for Q 10.
sharon
Hi happylady,
Becaus he tried the traditional PAL he has experience on that. He will compare what you fit to him again. I suggest office PAL and convinced him wear it in the working area (I hope he is not outdoor workman).
The reason is compare to traditional PAL the side blur vision will be much less.
The up and down position will not affect much for office PAL because distance is blur already.(must explain carefully and make sure pt understand)
The intermediate and reading area will much wider than traditional PAL.
hope this help
:cheers:
Everyone, this thread is over a year old!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks