No identifying marks...

**Now I See** · 08-08-2009, 12:10 PM

Hi guys and gals!

Do any of you know of any progressive lenses that do not have any identifying marks engraved on them?

Thanks in advance...hope you're all having a "Specs-tacular" day! ;)

**Jacqui** · 08-08-2009, 12:20 PM

A lot of the low-end imports are that way as are some freeform.

**KITT** · 08-09-2009, 07:17 AM

Essilor do a Generic Progressive Lens that just has a little circle and the add engraved in it but no variation on their usual 'e' symbol.

**Jacqui** · 08-09-2009, 07:45 AM

If these are edged lenses, the markings may have been edged off.

**Georg Mayer** · 08-10-2009, 01:36 AM

Any Progressiv without marking would be for the bin.
Try your slit lamp, it might be that the Hardcoat has filled the engravings, the slit lamp could still show it. Try a UV light, some Progressives have an invisible UV stamp. Use an old type slide projector or a beamer, set it up a healthy distance off a white wall (no slide in) and hold the lens close to the screen/wall, surface imperfections will show up, like a shadowscope.
Can't think of anything else.....wait, if it is a digital FreeForm it could also be that the Lab missed to apply the engraving before de-blocking.... is it a Digital Free Form?

Georg Mayer
Rodenstock - Munich

**Now I See** · 08-11-2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Jacqui

If these are edged lenses, the markings may have been edged off.

Originally Posted by Georg Mayer

Any Progressiv without marking would be for the bin.
Try your slit lamp, it might be that the Hardcoat has filled the engravings, the slit lamp could still show it. Try a UV light, some Progressives have an invisible UV stamp. Use an old type slide projector or a beamer, set it up a healthy distance off a white wall (no slide in) and hold the lens close to the screen/wall, surface imperfections will show up, like a shadowscope.
Can't think of anything else.....wait, if it is a digital FreeForm it could also be that the Lab missed to apply the engraving before de-blocking.... is it a Digital Free Form?

Georg Mayer
Rodenstock - Munich

Hi! :)

Sorry, I should have clarified....I would like to find one to use that doesn't have identifying marks. (although, I do want a good quality lens, and preferrably something that has a not-so-slick ARC available)...(yep, I want it all!! :D)

I'm just so tired of the "branding", the drama and obvious lack of interest in independents. I would love to find a lens that is a "sleeping-giant", so to speak. I'd like to find a manufacturer that isn't involved with gobbling anyone up....they put their nose to the grind-stone, produce a good product, is proud of it, and stands behind it.

Is it out there? Is it available in the USA?? Is it something I can afford to present to my patients??? I don't know, but if anyone has heard of anything, and is willing to share, I'd be interested in what you know.

**Robert Martellaro** · 08-28-2009, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by hipoptical

Mark the OC...

Therein lies the problem. Let's say the lens is produced with minimal levels of unwanted prism, about .2^ per lens in or out. Using the +.50 DS example, if you align the fitting cross with the OC, the lens position will be off by 4mm per lens. The same problem occurs on the vertical meridian. It gets even murkier with presribed prism, especially with the stronger minus or plus powers, because there is no prism reference point, hence no way to verify if the prism is correct as prescribed. Like Georg Mayer said at the beginning of the thread, "Any Progressiv without marking would be for the bin".

**Robert Martellaro** · 08-17-2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Heather A

Hi guys and gals!

Do any of you know of any progressive lenses that do not have any identifying marks engraved on them?

The absence of standardized reference marks would make it impossible to fit the lens properly, i.e. verify the fitting cross position to the ordered parameters and to the proper position in front of the eyes, verify Rx prism, unwanted prism, and the presence and degree of prism thinning (essential for single lens replacements).

**Borysko** · 08-17-2009, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro

The absence of standardized reference marks would make it impossible to fit the lens properly, i.e. verify the fitting cross position to the ordered parameters and to the proper position in front of the eyes, verify Rx prism, unwanted prism, and the presence and degree of prism thinning (essential for single lens replacements).

Thank you.

**AdmiralKnight** · 08-19-2009, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro

The absence of standardized reference marks would make it impossible to fit the lens properly, i.e. verify the fitting cross position to the ordered parameters and to the proper position in front of the eyes, verify Rx prism, unwanted prism, and the presence and degree of prism thinning (essential for single lens replacements).

I'm pretty sure Heather is only talking about the logo. You absolutely need the two circles. As long as you have proper documentation as to what the lens is on the patient's file, you can do everything with those two marks. You don't need the add stamped, you don't need the logo. The only problem I can see with having a PAL stamped like this is SOMEONE ELSE trying to figure out what the heck the patient has.

**Now I See** · 08-19-2009, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by AdmiralKnight

I'm pretty sure Heather is only talking about the logo. You absolutely need the two circles. As long as you have proper documentation as to what the lens is on the patient's file, you can do everything with those two marks. You don't need the add stamped, you don't need the logo. The only problem I can see with having a PAL stamped like this is SOMEONE ELSE trying to figure out what the heck the patient has.

Thank you, AdmiralKnight! :cheers:

**Robert Martellaro** · 08-20-2009, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by AdmiralKnight

I'm pretty sure Heather is only talking about the logo.

Okay.

The only problem I can see with having a PAL stamped like this is SOMEONE ELSE trying to figure out what the heck the patient has.

That's a problem for sure. Pretty hard to troubleshoot a lens when you're blind to the lens specs. For instance, a client complains of poor distance VA, and you find that the reference marks are level with th pupil. Knowing that most PALs have a 4mm drop you might think that the lenses were fit too high, problem solved! Well, not so fast- Seiko's lenses have the fitting cross even with the 180 line so these lenses were fit properly. The problem lies elsewhere.

The last thing I want to see is a whole flock of no-name PALs floating around the marketplace. I want/need more information, not less! Look at the information available on a Rodenstock PAL- lens design, material, Add power, base curve, etc. Carl Zeiss, Shamir, and others, show all of the above except base curve. These companies want you to know that what you get is what you ordered, and they're proud of it. I support these companies, and you should too, Logo and all.

**hipoptical** · 08-20-2009, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro

The last thing I want to see is a whole flock of no-name PALs floating around the marketplace. I want/need more information, not less! Look at the information available on a Rodenstock PAL- lens design, material, Add power, base curve, etc. Carl Zeiss, Shamir, and others, show all of the above except base curve. These companies want you to know that what you get is what you ordered, and they're proud of it. I support these companies, and you should too, Logo and all.

For the record, I disagree wholeheartedly, completely, and without reservation.