Essilor confusion!

[Fezz]

Can one of you Essilor Devotees explain something to a wingnut like me who just doesn't get it.

I just received a mailing that introduces the new "Varilux Ellipse 360". Ok, I got that part. They go on to say "With a minimum fitting height of 13mm , they won't have to sacrifice optimal vision for a fashionable look.".


The minimum fitting height listed in the 2007 OLA Progressive Identifier is 14mm.


So...why the difference? Is there one? Is the "360" a different design than the regular Ellipse? If so..why call it the Ellipse?

Ok Essilor drones....help me grasp this one!

[For-Life]

I would assume Essilor is pushing it down to combat the Carl Zeiss Ultra Compact.

I would say it is the same design but probably with digitalization the company feels that the lens can lose 1mm. I would probably disagree, but this what the industry has become. Anything you can do I can do better.

[joptician]

I can't wait for frame trends to come back around to larger B measurements so our patients can have reasonable distance, intermediate and near zones. Then and only then life will be good and the roads safer.

It is really funny that lenses are a medical need and the parameters of that medical need are determined by FASHION! I just like to see the best I can. I guess that is why I can't give up the 3-piece for myself.

[hipoptical]

I'll wait for the drones to spew the rhetoric, but I can tell you from experience (in a meeting with Essilor "Big-Wigs" and tech-guys) that the reason they do these types of things has to do with what people will accept. If you have an old fitting chart for a Comfort, look at the minimum fit height- 23. Later on, they changed the charts, and you'll notice they said 22. Later on, another "new chart to replace your worn ones" would show the minimum to be 18. What changed in the lens? NOTHING. Following the example of Bill Clinton, they stated in the meeting I was in, that it depends on the meaning of "correct add power". The definition of "is" changed. What they said, exactly:
We found that the acceptable power for most patients is different than the prescribed power. The majority of wearers are comfortable with 85% of the prescribed power, and at 18mm the Comfort gives the wearer the 85% that is necessary."
If that is what they say about their Comfort, I'll bet that the same applies to the Ellipse 360. Close-enough is good enough.

Just doin' some electrical...
Oh-what are putting in, 220?
220-221, whatever it takes...(from Mr. Mom)

[Chris Ryser]

..................If that is what they say about their Comfort, I'll bet that the same applies to the Ellipse 360. Close-enough is good enough.

..................which is good so you can sell more of their lenses...............make more money and invest in their stock which they are splitting in 4 days.

[MarcE]

I'm no Essilor drone, but I do think they make good lenses.

All the previous posts I agree with. Same with the Compact Ultra. IMO, no way should it be fit at 13 or even 15mm, unless you want an unsatisfied patient. Same w/ Summitt CD, I wouldn't fit it less than 16mm. Kodak rep said that you can Unique at 13, but we don't recommend it.

My dr gets somewhat miffed if she finds only 85% of the add power in her Rx. It's wrong to her. I fit an Ovation (MFH=17) at 19mm and the pt complained about not having enough add. Dr found it to be 0.25 short on the add, so we will redo it w/ no credits in sight. If any essilor reps are listening, see what you can do for me.

I have noticed that on most Essilor lenses, I can't get the full add at ANY fitting height - even at 22mm on an Ellipse.

Here is my advise - use a smallfit (ellipse), picollo, or minuo (all short corridor) on all your fits less than 20mm high. Your pts will be happier and only the +2.25 and higher adds will miss the very slight shortening of the intermediate.

To Chris R: I know, I know. A PAL is a compromise.
I think they all cheat on the add except Shamir and the Image.

[For-Life]

MarcE, I do not think they mean 85% of the add power, but 85% of the add area.

I do remember when I received the first pair of Ellipse lenses in the office, the first thing I did is take it to the lensometer and check it out. It was bang on. 85% of 2.50 is 2.125, and that would be easy to see on the lensometer.

[hipoptical]

85% of the add POWER is what the Essilor folks said. They were very specific about that. The discussion was not about area, it was about useful power.

[bren_03825]

I don't know, but I can guess.....(probably wrong) :cheers:


maybe with the digital surfacing they think they can produce 85% of the add at 13 instead of 14.???

anyways, I'm going drinking
:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[orangezero]

perhaps on that PAL website we were talking about on another thread, we should list all the minimum fitting heights, what is acceptable now and what was acceptable when they first were introduced.

[For-Life]

85% of the add POWER is what the Essilor folks said. They were very specific about that. The discussion was not about area, it was about useful power.

But that would not work. In the exam room they are reading the same with +2.50 add as with their Ellipse lenses at +2.50. Like I said before, you would only get a +2.12 if that was total add power, which is not even acceptable for a +2.25

[LENNY]

Here is my advise - use a smallfit (ellipse), picollo, or minuo (all short corridor) on all your fits less than 20mm high. Your pts will be happier and only the +2.25 and higher adds will miss the very slight shortening of the intermediate.

I never had a problem fitting Sola XL or Adaptar at 20 high!

[hipoptical]

But that would not work. In the exam room they are reading the same with +2.50 add as with their Ellipse lenses at +2.50. Like I said before, you would only get a +2.12 if that was total add power, which is not even acceptable for a +2.25

It "works". How often are lenses dispensed, fitted, adjusted, re-adjusted? How often do dispensers "educate" the wearer about the differences between a standard PAL and a short Pal? What about first-timers going into a short- they don't even know what to expect? How many of you still offer Rx changes, only changing the add? the seg height? Non-adapt? None of those should even be offered with today's supposed "technologically-advanced-super-duper" lenses.
85% "works" for the majority. The rest are acceptable losses. Dispensers don't care, because you still expect the lab to pay for it, thinking the manufacturer will compensate the lab for the redo, but guess what? Doesn't happen anymore. The lab takes the hit. Essilor is gets off free, and you still think that they are doing you a favor. 85% is all you are giving if you fit the lens at the lowest recommended height, which is what many dispensers do. Let me ask this from you docs out there...
How many of you would be happy with your in-house lab giving everyone 85% of what you "prescribed" for reading? It happens every day, because nobody questions the Empire.
For-Life- of course it's not acceptable. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen every day (and with full-knowledge and blessing of the manufacturer).

[For-Life]

Hipoptical, I never have those problems. I never have to re-educate the customer, I never have to change the add only in an RX change (unless when the add itself, and not in the glasses, does not work), I fit first timers and previous wearers.

It is not a problem and has been very successful. But don't just take my word for it, take the others in this thread that jumped to say that the lens is great, not for its ability to fit in small frames but overall.

85 percent would always equal a non-adapt at certain RX's and that is not happening. That is why I still contend it is 85 percent of total add area and not total add.

[Judy Canty]

Once again, confusion saves the day. Anyone ready to cry "uncle" yet?

[hipoptical]

:)
For-Life... I believe that you don't have those problems. You are the type that proves the point. If you look back, I said I was there when the statement regarding 85% was spoken. It was said to me personally, with a coworker standing next to me, and an owner of another lab waiting to ask a question. There was no confusion, it's 85% of power. You don't have any issues because you fit well. "They" know that the majority are going to work, and that the ones that don't will be remade by labs. The number of non-adapts has declined over the years, yet is still too high. I believe it is due to the FACT that some wearers are only getting 85% of power. Anyone who runs or owns a lab, and pays attention to the reasons for non-adapts will tell you that I am right. Dispensers will never see it.
Call Essilor and ask to speak to the one honest tech they have. Ask them why the fit height changed on their lenses over the years. You can't ask your rep- they have no idea. Call and ask a tech, ask them if I'm right. Then call and ask a different tech. I double-dog dare ya!:D

[Fezz]

:)
all Essilor and ask to speak to the one honest tech they have. :D

Oh my, there is hope in the world. I feared that finding an honest tech...anywhere...was next to impossible!

[For-Life]

:)
For-Life... I believe that you don't have those problems. You are the type that proves the point. If you look back, I said I was there when the statement regarding 85% was spoken. It was said to me personally, with a coworker standing next to me, and an owner of another lab waiting to ask a question. There was no confusion, it's 85% of power. You don't have any issues because you fit well. "They" know that the majority are going to work, and that the ones that don't will be remade by labs. The number of non-adapts has declined over the years, yet is still too high. I believe it is due to the FACT that some wearers are only getting 85% of power. Anyone who runs or owns a lab, and pays attention to the reasons for non-adapts will tell you that I am right. Dispensers will never see it.
Call Essilor and ask to speak to the one honest tech they have. Ask them why the fit height changed on their lenses over the years. You can't ask your rep- they have no idea. Call and ask a tech, ask them if I'm right. Then call and ask a different tech. I double-dog dare ya!:D

I can't call a lab tech, I am retired, but it was explained to us by Essilor and other lens companies the other way. It is also based on verifying the lens through the lensometer which is pretty honest (especially since it is a B&L).

This is why I am waiting for one of the lens guys (Sola, Hoya, Essilor) to chime in on here.

[hipoptical]

Where in the lens are you reading? Just curious, because when we started checking lenses at the minimum fitting point, we discovered that it was less than optimum. Different brands, different results, but few were actually right on at the minimum height. If what I understand you to be saying is true, then I should be able to get the same result (as a wearer) in a Varilux Comfort at 23 or 19, which not only doesn't make sense, it isn't right. You may be able to verify the power at 19, but the usable reading area to the wearer is actually less, since the prescribed power is essentially cut off. This is why manufacturers came up with short-corridor lenses. When they figured you could get by with the wearer only looking through 85%, then minimum fit points suddenly became lower in most lenses.
Come on boys- chime right in. Why did the fit points change, if I'm wrong? Anyone can play, since most manufacturers did the same. We don't have to always talk about the Empire.

[For-Life]

Where in the lens are you reading? Just curious, because when we started checking lenses at the minimum fitting point, we discovered that it was less than optimum. Different brands, different results, but few were actually right on at the minimum height. If what I understand you to be saying is true, then I should be able to get the same result (as a wearer) in a Varilux Comfort at 23 or 19, which not only doesn't make sense, it isn't right. You may be able to verify the power at 19, but the usable reading area to the wearer is actually less, since the prescribed power is essentially cut off. This is why manufacturers came up with short-corridor lenses. When they figured you could get by with the wearer only looking through 85%, then minimum fit points suddenly became lower in most lenses.
Come on boys- chime right in. Why did the fit points change, if I'm wrong? Anyone can play, since most manufacturers did the same. We don't have to always talk about the Empire.

I am talking specifically about the Ellipse in the middle of the reading circle (at 14mm). The reason why I checked it out, because at first I was skeptical of a 14mm fitting height. Now, if you were to check the Ellipse at 20mm, you would most likely see distortion at the bottom, and not reading add.

[jrctx]

Is it getting hot in here? OK, where are the Zeiss and Essilor people to respond?

Oh, we only want the real and honest technical guys to respond not the marketing/sales people. Please identify your position within your post. I do agree with hip that the information from the tech guys is different than sales/marketing and do know the tech guys frustration with sales/marketing. I have heard it.

[For-Life]

I think it is calm in here, we are just confused on what is meant by 85 percent and need some help with it.

[hipoptical]

I am talking specifically about the Ellipse in the middle of the reading circle (at 14mm). The reason why I checked it out, because at first I was skeptical of a 14mm fitting height. Now, if you were to check the Ellipse at 20mm, you would most likely see distortion at the bottom, and not reading add.

That clarifies some things, thanks. I'll give you the Ellipse at 14; I think it's actually a decent Short lens. If you take the Ellipse out of the picture, what do you think about my point now? I'll say it this way...
If a lens that was once said to be 23mm minimum is checked at 19mm, what is the result?
If a lens that was said to be 16mm is checked at 14mm, what is the result?
Less power in both cases, logically.
Therefore, if a manufacturer says 19 is the new 23, and 14 is the new 16, then they are essentially saying that 85% of the power is "good enough".
Am I right?
This whole thing started trying to figure out why the "digital" Ellipse would be lower than then "standard". I still think it's because "close enough" is "good enough". Marketing is king... 13 sounds sooo much better than 14, especially when AO/SOLA/Carl Zeiss Vision/Now just Zeiss comes out with the Compact (still leader in the shorties) in the new "Ultra" short. Gotta compete somehow.... even if you need to stretch the truth.

[For-Life]

Oh, I am sure it does not apply to all lenses. I am sure the Comfort which was once set much higher would not workout. I also do not like using the Panamic under 20mm.

I also do believe that the fitting height for the Ellipse 360 is at 13mm, because that is the advertised (not marketed as marketing is defined as something else) fitting height of the Carl Zeiss Ultra Compact. Essilor did not want to lose out by 1mm, so it decided that it is close enough.

[Fezz]

I get a flier in the mail today from Essilor introducing the Ellipse 360, and in that flier, they state a 13mm fitting height. But, I glanced at the July 2007 issue of Eyecare Business, pg 60, and there it lists it at 14!


This is a classic example of one hand not knowing what the other is doing!



:hammer: :angry: :hammer: