"3 out of 4 of our opticians don't recommend AR coatings"

[HarryChiling]

Harry, I am surprised that you offer Higher Indexes over AR. In my opinion a -4.00 with AR in CR-39 looks much better and thinner than the same RX without AR in Poly or 1.6. It may not look thinner from the sides, but definitely from the front.

As for dirt on the lenses, use Alize, Super Hi, Carat Advantage. I find that AR scratches less (if you use a quality AR) versus non-AR lenses. Residual colour? Much better than the horrible white, coke bottle glare. Again, some of the cheap AR's have ugly residual colour. You are correct about cost and turn around time.

I do want to point out something extremely important here. This is not directed to Harry (because I do not know what you sell), but everyone. When we cheap out on AR coatings and use a less expensive brand, this is where we get the complaints about residual colour (tree green), ease of clean, and scratches. Charge the slight difference more and really give your patients quality.

More proof that not all ARs are the same.

It is interesting you should mention the cheap vs. the good AR. My office just recently started to use Triumph (cheap AR or so it's called) and I have a bottle of hydro coat from Chris on the way. If we were to ignore the fact that this is a business and I do have certain expectations that my clients expect of me and I have certain expectations from my labs. I need fast consistent turn around time, the better coatings DON'T offer that. I need cheap as we take every b*st*rdiz*d insurance plan in our office (franchise store with tons of MVC), which the better coatings don't offer. From past experience in our office the same things I am hearing here are the points that the various reps brought up to our office and during these times we grossed a pretty penny, but netted lint balls (remember franchise they get a piece off the top, because they have expectations from us). Since we have switched to lower cost products (not lower quality IMO) we have grossed less, but netted greater profits and are finally starting to reach the previous gross sales and seeing better profits.

Its like trying to get a round peg to fit in the square hole. It just doesn't fit our office. It is amazing how many people have pictures hanging in their homes with regular frames, when you can buy frames that have AR coated glass.

The better AR's have compatibility issues which limit your choice of lens or coating. Plus the fact that I have yet to find one lab that will coat my product with these premium AR's even if it is on their compatibility list. They want to surface the work as well. (profit motivated) If I don't make money on the lenses or coatings I can't offer the level of service I want to which is what truly seperates me from the other 3 opticians.

this is where we get the complaints about residual colour (tree green)

Tree green or green for that matter is the sign of a true hustle. Green is the widest band on the visible spectrum to hit, it's like throwing darts at a elephant from two feet away. The zeiss coating actually has an interesting color (blue) harder to produce since that particular band is narrower and it reflects blue waves which are more harmfull to the eyes than green. Why is blue no the widest used color instead of green. Profits, it is harder to match than the green so the benefits are out the window and manufacturers continue to use the green. Another example the invisible AR that gets mentioned every now and again. Reduced reflectance, but not as good as even the crappier coatings yet the minute a company comes out with it the hype will outweight the benefits and people will start using it. So in true capitalistic fashion I too must weigh the benefits vs. the cost.

[For-Life]

Harry, you are grossing higher current profits. I have not dealt with that AR, so I cannot comment on it. But I know in the past we have used cheaper ARs that have provided us with a greater immediate profit. Problem is that they hurt the long term profit, which is the returning customers. I would rather sell a better coating at a lower profit, and have the patient bring in 3 or 4 new clients due to its duriability and ease of clean (it has happened).

I have used Chris' hydrophobic solution. I have used several of Chris' products. I tint in house with his Micro-Tints. I use the same system to sometimes apply my own scratch coats. I use his crack preventing solution for my poly drill mounts. I use his mark away solution. I recommend those all and love it. But I have to say that his easy to clean coating is not even close to Alize, Teflon, Carat Avantage and so forth. I would compare it more to the old Hydrophobic coating on the regular Crizal.

Does it take longer? Yes, but my patients do not care. If it is not ready for them immediately (not one hour, immediately), there is no difference between 3 days and one week.

[ADO]

I can't offer the level of service I want to which is what truly seperates me from the other 3 opticians.[/quote]


Harry, it has been a year since I have been on your end of the business, but most of the insurance companies we worked with had levels of AR. The had a standard AR that had a set price, and they had a premium AR that was usually 20% off of retail. I know most EyeMed plans were set up this way. It also worked the same way for progressives. We almost always upgraded to the premium so we could get the better coating or progressive for our patient. It also made it so we could afford to sell the better products. A 20% discount is very tolerable compared to most set pricing.
Are the insurance plans still set up this way?

[HarryChiling]

I can't offer the level of service I want to which is what truly seperates me from the other 3 opticians.


Harry, it has been a year since I have been on your end of the business, but most of the insurance companies we worked with had levels of AR. The had a standard AR that had a set price, and they had a premium AR that was usually 20% off of retail. I know most EyeMed plans were set up this way. It also worked the same way for progressives. We almost always upgraded to the premium so we could get the better coating or progressive for our patient. It also made it so we could afford to sell the better products. A 20% discount is very tolerable compared to most set pricing.
Are the insurance plans still set up this way?

Simple response, NO. Some of the eyemed plans are starting to ask what brand progressive when submitting. Also if a patient calls eyemed and asks why they were charged a higher premium for the AR than their plan states, good luck trying to explain to both eyemed and the patient that you provided them wiht a better coating. Once again in a perfect world would love to offer just the better coatings and in a perfect world the lower quality coatings would have been discontinued, but they are here and are strong because their is a market for them.

[Fezz]

I often wonder why a company like Essilor offers so many AR coatings under so many names. Ex. Crizal, Crizal Alize, Triumph, Komodo, Ultra Glare Free, Reflection Free, etc. etc. etc. IMHO, a company looses a lot of credibility when they blow so many horns. I guess its the same as many of the progressives=re-packaged, re-hyped, re-marketed, re-BS'ed!

[HarryChiling]

I often wonder why a company like Essilor offers so many AR coatings under so many names. Ex. Crizal, Crizal Alize, Triumph, Komodo, Ultra Glare Free, Reflection Free, etc. etc. etc. IMHO, a company looses a lot of credibility when they blow so many horns. I guess its the same as many of the progressives=re-packaged, re-hyped, re-marketed, re-BS'ed!

Can't really knock 'em it seems to be working. You get PO'd with Essilor and you start using Varilux prodcuts, you get PO'd at Varilux and you start using Nassau products, doesn't really matter when it all feeds the same coffers.

[chip anderson]

I don't know both Hoya and Zeiss AR's have residual color and I have had patient's complain of both. I wouldn't describe either as cheap.

Chip

[Happylady]

It is interesting you should mention the cheap vs. the good AR. My office just recently started to use Triumph (cheap AR or so it's called)

I won't use Triumph AR. Unless it has been changed in the last couple of years it doesn't hold up. It scratches and crazes. I almost never have a Crizal, Hi Vision, or Zeiss lens craze unless abused but I saw it all the time with Triumph. It might take a few months....but watch out!

[Johns]

Tree green or green for that matter is the sign of a true hustle. Green is the widest band on the visible spectrum to hit, it's like throwing darts at a elephant from two feet away. The zeiss coating actually has an interesting color (blue) harder to produce since that particular band is narrower and it reflects blue waves which are more harmfull to the eyes than green. Why is blue no the widest used color instead of green. Profits, it is harder to match than the green so the benefits are out the window and manufacturers continue to use the green. Another example the invisible AR that gets mentioned every now and again. Reduced reflectance, but not as good as even the crappier coatings yet the minute a company comes out with it the hype will outweight the benefits and people will start using it. So in true capitalistic fashion I too must weigh the benefits vs. the cost.

I've never heard it explained this way, but it all makes sense.

Thanks:cheers:

[MarcE]

I won't use Triumph AR. Unless it has been changed in the last couple of years it doesn't hold up. It scratches and crazes. I almost never have a Crizal, Hi Vision, or Zeiss lens craze unless abused but I saw it all the time with Triumph. It might take a few months....but watch out!

I haven't seen it with Triumph, but have been using it for only 7 months. I have seen many issues w/ SET and Carat. I haven't seen issues w/ Crizal, but ask the labs about that. The labs I talk to point out that at least in the beginning the reason Crizal was better was all in the inspection process, not that it is a better coating. The reject rate was very high and still is pretty high. I guess that is good to catch the problems before they are dispensed, but a wholesale lab has to eat a set of lenses somewhere, and the patient has to wait longer and the costs are higher. I think all the ARs are better than they were 2 years ago, especially the stock lenses.

For me, Transitions are the least profitable (but I don't surface). And the least satisfying to patients. I am SOO tired of hearing about "these lenses don't turn dark like my other ones", when of course they do. Maybe it's that damn AR that has increased the light transmission by 9.4%

Harry: Since you say that the average patient will stop at 2 options, why don't you try this. "Mr Patient, This lens package (1.60 w/ AR) will be best for your lens prescription, now what 2 options would you like? I suggest prescription sunglasses as your first option":bbg:

[mike.elmes]

Most Camera lenses have a green residual reflection. My Nikon does, and so does my Olympus. I have 6 pairs of premium progressive AR lenses, all but one has a green residual. The one that doesn't is an Essilor ellipse with a D'Alize AR coat. Its ok, but according to essilor it has .2% less reflection.....hmmm I wonder if that is percieveable to the human eye?

My point regarding AR....can you buy a camera, binocular or telescope, much less ANY optical devise including a disposable camera that doesn't come with AR on every lens?

[For-Life]

Most Camera lenses have a green residual reflection. My Nikon does, and so does my Olympus. I have 6 pairs of premium progressive AR lenses, all but one has a green residual. The one that doesn't is an Essilor ellipse with a D'Alize AR coat. Its ok, but according to essilor it has .2% less reflection.....hmmm I wonder if that is percieveable to the human eye?

.4% less :p 99.2 versus 99.6

Is it detectable by the human eye? Yes, but only if you really, really focus, and are really, really pick. Saying that, the blue coating just disappears cosmetically. I could not believe it when I first saw it. I had people in the office who were getting mad, thinking I was lazy and did not edge the lenses. They thought the frame had no lenses in it, while sitting in the tray.

[Chris Ryser]

:

• You can see the dirt on your lenses more clearly (often times this drives people nuts)
• Scratches easier (than a lens without AR coating)
• Risidual Color (very few complaints, but every now and again I still get these)
• Cost (as an option it is the least profitable in our store compared to other options)
• Turnaround (takes the control of time out of my hands)

I can only congratulate Harry for his open stand on this issue, for the lst few years we have been seeing only songs to the glory of AR coatings, and most of them directed toward the products of the large corporations.

[mike.elmes]

I can only congratulate Harry for his open stand on this issue, for the lst few years we have been seeing only songs to the glory of AR coatings, and most of them directed toward the products of the large corporations.

The glory of AR coatings lies in the improvement of acuity under low light, and the reduction of eyestrain associated with a reflective lens surface under bright lighting conditions...this is why eyeglass wearers continue to buy it, and I continue to recommend it to almost everyone.

[For-Life]

most of them directed toward the products of the large corporations.

yes, I would rather by a Honda Civic than anything from Lada.

[HarryChiling]

The glory of AR coatings lies in the improvement of acuity under low light, and the reduction of eyestrain associated with a reflective lens surface under bright lighting conditions...this is why eyeglass wearers continue to buy it, and I continue to recommend it to almost everyone.

And that's great, but if we don't talk about the very real issues with AR, who's going to want to improve it. 10 years ago opticiasn would agree that all AR's scratch easy today they would say which AR are you using. I am glad their are improvements, but it's not perfected yet. So it seems 3 out of 4 opticians prefer AR which is contrary to the first post that started the thread.

Now were talking improved VA and less reflections. I don't have one piece of literature that coves this, but I can pull out a ton of stuff that says it reduces glare and halos. Guess what else also reduces glare, tint, transitions, Physio with WAVE technology. Reduces glare boild down to selling snake oil to our patinets. Improved VA is a great selling point, reduced reflections is also a great selling point.

I just saw an ad today in a trade rag that rates Super Hi as being close to glass when tested for scratch resitance. Teflon, Alize and the rest were only half as SR and the regular AR's were only a quarter as resistent. On the bottom of the graph it says:

* data on file.

I am curious how many believe that Super Hi makes a lens as scratch resitant as GLASS? What methodolgy was used to test the coating? Who performed the testing?

[Happylady]

I haven't seen it with Triumph, but have been using it for only 7 months. I have seen many issues w/ SET and Carat.

Give it a few more months. Not all of them will fail, but enough. What problems have you seen with SET and Carat? I use SET as my standard AR on VSP and Davis jobs and it seems okay. It does scratch easier then the better ARs but rarely does it craze. It is much better then Triumph in my opinion. So far Carat seems good.

[Leo Hadley Jr]

I know I am very late on this topic but I want to say that after wearing a premium AR coat for the last 10 years, I could never go without it.
I was recently testing some lenses without AR and all I could focus on was my own eyes looking back at me. I dont know how people can see without AR. I dont care what the cost is, I need the best AR available.

[RT]

I am curious how many believe that Super Hi makes a lens as scratch resitant as GLASS? What methodolgy was used to test the coating? Who performed the testing?

Colt's Laboratories performed the Bayer Abrasion testing that is quoted.

[Judy Canty]

I'm more inclined to accept the results of Colts' Real Life Simulation testing over Bayer Abrasion. New coatings demand new methods of evaluation, IMHO.

[HarryChiling]

Colt's Laboratories performed the Bayer Abrasion testing that is quoted.

Thanks RT and Judy,

Judy thanks for the additional test. Their are more than a few tests that are relevent to AR:

1. Lifetime Properties
2. Bayer Test
3. Anti Static
4. AR Craze Heal
5. Boiling Salt Water - AR
6. Ease of Cleaning
7. Eraser Test
8. Steel Wool Abrasion
9. Thermal Shock

I wonder how the coating holds up in all the other tests. It would be interesting to see a big picture of all the coatings in relation to each other when comparing all the standards. My guess would be that all the various oatings would perform very similar if all the different tests are compared to each other.

[Judy Canty]

You're welcome. The Colts Real Life Simulation is actually 5 tests including Haze Transmittance, Luminous Transmittance, AR Cloth Rub, Tumble Test and Cycle Humidity Oven/Crosshatch Adhesion (CHOCA).

[RT]

Harry, you can be sure that major AR manufacturers run all those tests. Some tests are run daily as part of the ongoing quality control required to produce good coats. But it is hard to express the results of a whole battery of tests in an easy-to-consume number. That's what's appealing about tests like Bayer Abrasion and Real Life--they express the results as an easy to understand number.

Of course, what results could we publish that you'd believe? As I remember it, you're sending lenses off to be scanned in a pretty non-rigorously designed test because you don't trust the manufacturer's data. And clearly you doubt the Bayer results that you saw and questioned them here. So what would really convince you?

[HarryChiling]

Harry, you can be sure that major AR manufacturers run all those tests. Some tests are run daily as part of the ongoing quality control required to produce good coats. But it is hard to express the results of a whole battery of tests in an easy-to-consume number. That's what's appealing about tests like Bayer Abrasion and Real Life--they express the results as an easy to understand number.

Of course, what results could we publish that you'd believe? As I remember it, you're sending lenses off to be scanned in a pretty non-rigorously designed test because you don't trust the manufacturer's data. And clearly you doubt the Bayer results that you saw and questioned them here. So what would really convince you?

I don't trust the manufacturers data in that case, because as they say they choose the most perfect blank to map, but often thats not the blank my patient gets. The same with the AR, I am sure that a battery of tests are performed, yet the only data we get is the bayer. I am glad we get the bayer, but if you tests perform better in one test over another than you will obviously advertise that data, and another manufacturer will advertise another test result, because their lens performs better in that test.

That is the same reason that I am sending lenses off to be mapped, non rigorously. Because I can't rely on manufacturers to give me objective data to make comparisons. Which company are you refering too when you say we? I trust the numbers if they come from an independent testing agency like colts, it would also be nice to see the data for all tests performed not just the tests that are beneficial for the specific lens.

[rdcoach5]

Almost 100% of my customers who are myopic love the vision, if not the durability of A.R. I would say 3/4 of my hyperopic customers have said that they saw no difference between their A.R. coated lenses and their uncoated lenses.
Bob Taylor