Double layer.........................
Of course cost has something to do with it. I could assume that they add a double layer, or if they already do, they add a triple layer and everytime it cost's more material and mainly labor.Originally Posted by optical24/7
Besides above mentioned "FEZZJOHNS multiplyer" is only for beer money...........what about if they would be CHAMPAGNE fanatics ?
essilor is not charging any worse for its level of products compared to the competition.
And keep in mind that Essilor has actually spent money to procure this product. Something its competitors have not done
Essilor Finalizes Satisloh Acquisition - 13.10.2008
Press ReleaseCharenton-le-Pont (October 13, 2008 – 8:30 a.m.) – Following fulfillment of all the conditions precedent, Essilor has now completed the acquisition* of all outstanding shares of Satisloh Holding AG, the world leader in prescription optical equipment.
Essilor Finalizes Satisloh Acquisition
Satisloh designs and markets antireflective coating units and surfacing machines, as well as consumables, for prescription laboratories. It reported €161 million in revenue in 2007 and employs more than 400 people around the world.
(*) On June 16, Essilor announced that it had agreed to acquire Satisloh from Swiss company Schweiter Technologies.
---------------------
Essilor International is the world leader in ophthalmic optical products, offering a wide range of lenses under the flagship Varilux®, Crizal®, Essilor® and Definity® brands to correct myopia, hyperopia, presbyopia and astigmatism. Essilor operates worldwide through 15 production sites, 270 lens finishing laboratories and local distribution networks.
The Essilor share trades on the Euronext Paris market and is included in the CAC 40 index.
(ISIN: FR 0000121667; Reuters: ESSI.PA; Bloomberg: EF FP).
------------------------
Investor Relations and Financial Communications
Véronique Gillet – Sébastien Leroy
Phone: +33 (0)1 49 77 42 16
No, that is way too severe! I like Fezz, we can't do that to him.Can't we give him another chance?
What's with the more labor, if the product is already stacked and loaded in the "vapor coating machine" surely opening the little window, putting more powder to be vaporized and pushing the button can't be that much of a labor cost.
Chip
You all are right...they should be charging LESS for Avance. That way more people will order it and they will make more money.
Bayer Rating = a quantifiable scientific measure. It should be a consistent measure given a sufficient sample of lenses.
Crizal is the best = a garbage statement that is anecdotal.
I have seen many offices where the opticians doesn't know the difference between an AR and a UV, but they would hands down say that Crizal is the best. Their are many who have never even tried other coatings so their is no baseline measure. Crizal may be the best but their is no evidence of that being presented here or anywhere else.
I would be interested in Bayer Ratings, Adhesion, and any other measure on all coatings and mosts ads show a little asterisk on the bottom of the ad along with data available at request however I have yet to convince any company to actually release this data.
NONE OF THESE COMPANIES WANT OR THINK OPTICIANS ARE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO COMPARE THE DATA.
Good Boy Harry.........................at least you say what you think. :cheers:
I personally prefer the Crizal Alize coating but the increase in price per lens that has it on is enough to send me as white as a sheet but I guess its the premium you pay for a good coating. For most lenses though I use a coating company called Sinclar Optical I like their ULTIMAR coating its a reasonable price and good quality too, plus if they break a lens they take responsibility for it unlike some other companys that I will not mention just incase i'm done for slander lol. My info isn't much use to you though I guess being as these are english companies I'm talking about.
Yes, my opinion is partly anecdotal but not completely. I have tried and personally used MANY different ARs. I don't think regular Crizal is the best, there are many as good as Crizal. I think Crizal Avance is the best that I have used. That is NOT a garbage statement.
Have you tried it?
Yes, my opinion is partly anecdotal but not completely. I have tried and personally used MANY different ARs. I don't think regular Crizal is the best, there are many as good as Crizal. I think Crizal Avance is the best that I have used. That is NOT a garbage statement.
For one thing it's contact angle is 116 degrees. Hoya Hi Vision's is about 110 degrees. The steeper the contact angle the easier water, dirt, and oil wipe away.
Have you tried it?
So you are telling me that if I sell 1000 pairs of one product and have 20 come back crazed, and 1000 pairs of another product and have 2 come back crazed, that I am wrong that the latter one is better?
Gee, my customers must be wrong too.
THAT IS PRETTY EASY DATA TO COMPREHEND
Alright then. Lets try to break down your points one at a time shall we?
1. In a public forum, there are always opportunities to make and have very informative conversation with one another. That does not mean it ever needs to turn disrespectful to one another, a company or product. Several posts of late certainly appear to me to push the limits in this regard. I also have experienced for well over a decade now, several discussion forums in which agreeable discussion can and does take place, and have learned much from these exchanges. Often more so than from the back and forth of sharply dissenting opinions. Since we're not face to face, it can be easy to misread or misinterpret ones true intent - which I believe requires us all to maintain an extra level of vigilance regarding what and how we post.
2. Obviously. You have no clue who I am, what my background is, who I work for now, who I've worked for in the past, or what my skill set or training in optics, lenses and lens processing is. I can not and DO NOT fault you for that of course. That's not fair to you. You know only what you can guess (educated I am sure) and assume based on my and others limited posts here on this board. It is both unfair (to ANYONE here) and unwise to pursue such sweeping comments - towards anyone. It does seem, that given your position with your company, that perhaps there is a chipped shoulder towards larger optical companies - Essilor perhaps in particular?
3. Everyone has a pseudonym? Of COURSE we do. That's the way these boards are set up generally, and it is wise not to broadcast all of one's personal information on a public message forum. Surely you know this good sir. This seems to be rather common knowledge these days. The insult comes not from someone disagreeing, but rather from terse posts that can be viewed as getting dangerously personal in nature. Just asking for a bit of moderation is all.
4. Since you have no true means of effectively knowing how long I, or indeed most of the posters on this board have been working with lenses and lens treatments and processes, it is not really appropriate to throw out how long one has been doing something into this discussion in order to try and gain some advantage. You should certainly be proud of the fact that you have gained skill and knowledge over your tenure in this industry. I am too of course! :) But the moment you try to use that to gain any advantage over another you do risk loosing credibility with others.
5. There are certainly many consumers of lens products as well as manufacturers such as yourself of many varied lens treatments and options that frequent these boards. This is an amazingly rich and complex community and I value the input and conversation to be had here immensely and always come away a little wiser at the end of the day for it. And Chris, please let me be very clear on this point, I value your input as well - very much in fact. If we ever have the chance to meet, the pints are on me. :cheers:
I ask this (I sincerely hope) as a friend and fellow lens monkey - PLEASE be mindful in the tone of posts in future.
All the best - and I really MEAN that!
Brian~
Unless I miss-understand as I often do. Bayer rating is just a measure of abrasive resistance. Important but only a small part of the puzzle.
There is heat expanshion. There is squeeze (tension in frame). There is flexure. There are probably a dozen factors involved on why these coatings fail, craze, get dull, scratch or whatever. I just don't think that we are aware of all of them or that artificial test can simulate real life conditions with enough accuracy to make the claims that are made for any AR or a lot of other products.
Chip
What you are refereing to is a trial with a sample size of 1000. The variable you have no control over is the group of people you dispense one to over another, lets say for instance that the group that goes with the cheaper of the two tends to work blue collar jobs (ie mechanic, construction, etc.) and the group that can afford and purchases the better coating is predominately white collar (ie accounting, physicians) and lets say that industry data shows that blue colar workers tend to scratch their lenses 50 to 1 over white colar workers, now you interpret those results.
Bayer ratings is data.
a statement based on you experience of Crizal is anecdotal at best unless you can provide answers to how your trial was set up and how you controlled your variables.
My statement was in response to this.what ever it is it is just a guide that doesnt mean much, when i actually had the gizmo with the rubber against a lens and rubed the lens i found out that the way that particular batch was proccesed made a very large difference, pick a number between 1 and 500 it's probably in there some place
Your statement here shows that you know it is gonna be more than bayer ratings involved in the characteristics of what is considered a good AR. Bayer is one of those characteristics, and it is rated in such a way that it should be repeatable given a adequate sample size.Just because a Hummer is bigger, does not mean it is more appropriate. At that point, there are other factors to consider.
Hi Harry,
I agree that some quantifiable measure of lens durability certainly seems called for in the industry. I would add that it would mean much more to me if I had data supporting this same abrasion resistance OVER TIME. As many lenses start out great...but some don't fare so well after even a short while of regular day to day use and cleaning.
To my knowledge, the only chart I've seen to resemble this somewhat was that which was released with the Avancé product at it's release. It was, if memory serves, a series of stress studies done by Colts Laboratories http://www.colts-laboratories.com/. It was by no means all inclusive to be sure, nor will it ever be the final word on product quality, longevity or durability over time. But it was SOMEthing. And information - even when presented in the form of promotional material can be useful.
I'm all for buying local whenever possible, and love to give the advantage to the little guy when I can. But there is something to be said for the big guys. They've got money, and they've got brains (they can pay to hire brains). And they are certainly aware that if they make a shoddy product, word will spread faster than fire. I give them credit where it's due I believe, and in the case of Avancé, I do believe that Essilor got it very right.
Best as always,
Brian~
Brian,
A test exists that is designed to simulate the durability, I believe it exposes it to extreme weather for some time, colts laboratories has the technical details of this test and others. While there may be 10-20 different performance tests for AR any particular manufacturer is only going to focus on the ones that make their product look squeaky clean. If all the results were released then a real world comparison can be done based on the patients weaknesses with their AR, if adhesion is a issue for a particular patient a higher bayer rating may mean that the coating would be more likely to craze due to thermal expansion. I think that AR can be treated very similar to progressive lenses where we pick the coating based on the needs of the patient or at least categorize them based on thier strengths. To do this we need data not the interpretation of data.
Agreed. But do you see this day ever coming to all of us here in the trenches? Realistically I mean...
Bri~
Never, but it doesn't mean we can arbitraily pick a winner without a contest was the point I was trying to make. Sure the statement I made was meant to jar those into reading it and taking notice, but the statement about bayer rating being unimportant was just as jaring to me. Two polarized views going head to head. :hammer: vs. :hammer:
While yes, if we offered the one AR brand versus the other at the same time, and one was cheaper, that could be true. What happened, instead, is we were offering the same price (because they were higher brands) and offered to the same people. If I sold Brand A and Brand B to the same person, at the same price, and the patient wore them every day (of course, Brand B would be replacing Brand A probably after two years), and one brand out lasted the other, that is an indication. Now, if those results are repeated with a high number of patients, then that is a clear indication.
Now when I try several mainstream brands and several independent and several cheap ones, and I get the same results. Then when I try Crizal and it is not only successful, but it changes my expectations of what an AR coating should be, then I think the results are obvious.
Yes, it may be anecdotal, but it is also working. So while it may be anecdotal, until you can prove that Crizal is no better than the other ones, then that is all anecdotal.
Chris that's what I have been told.
I understand what you are saying but again we can't judge someone a winner by default because no one wants to set up or participate in a contest. Crizal may be better for your particular circumstances and I can't refute that, but it can't be determined as the best untill we have some sort of litmus test to judge them all by.
One person mentioned scratch resistance, one person mentioned long term durability, I mentioned adhesion. Too many variables to say one is the best at them all. Crizal is the best at EVERYTHING YOU NEED.
Those hammers made me think of Floyd's Wall tour! LOL I think if the marching hammers were used to smack lens after lens, we could use that as a good test! Just so long as we're not wearing said lenses at the time - we don't need to be 'comfortably numb'! ;)
B~
What I am saying is if you are writing a paper or magazine, fine. But when it is in practice, I will take valuable recommendations.
I guess my problem is I am tired of being told on this board over and over again that I am wrong about Crizal. I mean people are actually telling me that what I have experienced did not happen.
stock lens synergy,somo. custom repel plus,claris hd,ultra. essilor does not have a lock on great ar's.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks