There have been a few threads lately that have got me really thinking about the mass confusion over *Free-Form* progressives. Some posters have alluded to how easy of a sell they are, how basic the optics and math really are, how we should all be demonstrating how fantastic these lenses are. I stand by my statement that:
"How can we expect a patient to understand the technology when many of us do not understand it?"
I want to point out an example of the confusion that exists with *Free-Form* progressives. If the lens companies and the laboratories that process these *Free-Form* lenses can not be on the same page...................how can we?
I will use Seiko as an example, because I was reading a bunch of their material and CE information this morning.
The Seiko website lists the following seg heights for their lenses:
Succeed-17, 19
Succeed WS-15, 17
Supercede-16, 18
Supercede WS-14, 16
I will use two labs that are claiming to be all digital and that process these lenses in house, to show the descrepancies that exist!
Lab#1
Succeed-?
Succeed WS-One sheet lists two minimums! 14, and 15!
Supercede-13*
Supercede WS-13*
*Minimum for both designs!
Lab#2
Succeed-15*
Succeed WS-15*
Supercede-14
Supercede WS-14
*"15mm fitting height for both designs"
As a sidenote: Both labs sent me information about the Supercede that states that Trivex and Trivex Transitions are an option. I called lab#1 and tried to order one..............well, they don't have it yet! So...why promote it I ask...........? I haven't called lab#2 yet, but their price and availability sheet is dated December 2008, and Trivex is listed.
So....what do you believe? Who is right?
Bookmarks