Minimum fitting height for Piccolo?

**Happylady** · 11-29-2006, 07:07 PM

With a +1.00 add can the Piccolo be fit at 14.5 and still give a decent reading area?

**chip anderson** · 11-29-2006, 07:19 PM

Probably pretty low, people with a +1.00 add haven't really admitted they need bifocals yet anyway, so they won't notice a little less magnification than they should have.

**Happylady** · 11-29-2006, 07:42 PM

Normally I would use the Ellipse, but she is really needing to watch her money and the Piccolo is cheaper on VSP then the Ellipse. I don't use the Piccolo much, but I understand it is a very good progressive for small frames, but I couldn't remember the minumum fitting height. Is it 14 like the Ellipse or is it more?

She is coming back tomorrow and I want her to be happy with the glasses. If it won't work I can help her pick out a slightly larger frame or convince her to spend $20.00 more for the Ellipse.

**Jubilee** · 11-29-2006, 08:09 PM

Actually even at 14 high, the width of the piccolo's reading area is wider than the ellipse. The Ellipse's strong point is the distance...

I have done the 14.5 and 15 high's with the piccolo with no problems.

**MarcE** · 11-29-2006, 09:14 PM

In Optometry journal (2006) 77, 23-39; Sheedy et. al. showed that as low as 14.5 mm the width and the area of the reading zone of the Piccolo is greater than or equal to the Ellipse.
My own opinion is that Shamir lenses do not "cheat" on the MFH by allowing 85% of the add like other mfgs do. Therefore Shamir's MFH are higher for the same lens design even though the corridor is the same, e.g.
Ellipse MFH=14
Picollo MFH=16 (but has a wider reading zone at 14.5 than the Ellipse)

Genesis MFH=19 (Sheedy suggests it should be 18)
Panamic MFH=17 (Sheedy suggests it should be 18)

Use the Piccolo. The patient will be happy, and that's $20 that Essilor won't have to buy the next independent lab in order to push their overpriced lenses to make a greater profit to buy the next lab to push . . .

Or you could use the Ovation Smallfit. Same lens as Ellipse? $20 cheaper!

**Happylady** · 11-29-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by MarcE

In Optometry journal (2006) 77, 23-39; Sheedy et. al. showed that as low as 14.5 mm the width and the area of the reading zone of the Piccolo is greater than or equal to the Ellipse.
My own opinion is that Shamir lenses do not "cheat" on the MFH by allowing 85% of the add like other mfgs do. Therefore Shamir's MFH are higher for the same lens design even though the corridor is the same, e.g.
Ellipse MFH=14
Picollo MFH=16 (but has a wider reading zone at 14.5 than the Ellipse)

Genesis MFH=19 (Sheedy suggests it should be 18)
Panamic MFH=17 (Sheedy suggests it should be 18)

Use the Piccolo. The patient will be happy, and that's $20 that Essilor won't have to buy the next independent lab in order to push their overpriced lenses to make a greater profit to buy the next lab to push . . .

Or you could use the Ovation Smallfit. Same lens as Ellipse? $20 cheaper!

I would have to check VSP to see if the Smallfit is on their list, the regular Ovation is. I would have used that if the frame was bigger.

Thanks everyone, this board is great.

**Judy Canty** · 11-29-2006, 10:49 PM

Try Polycore's Micro and everyone will be happy, including whom ever is watching the bottom line...

**Laurie** · 11-30-2006, 12:18 PM

is the recommended fitting height for the Piccolo.

As others posted, you will still get good results lower, but the manufacturer's recommendation is 16mm.

: )

Laurie

**Fezz** · 11-30-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by MarcE

Use the Piccolo. The patient will be happy, and that's $20 that Essilor won't have to buy the next independent lab in order to push their overpriced lenses to make a greater profit to buy the next lab to push . . .

Or you could use the Ovation Smallfit. Same lens as Ellipse? $20 cheaper!

The Ovation is made by Essilor also.