A frame rep recently brought us literature. They are doing glass Rx lenses in their labs. Is there a market for hi priced glass lenses? The name Vuarnet still is a recognized name in this industry. I would love to take the plunge. Does anybody on Optiboard have an opinion?
Glass lenses definitely a plus.
I've seen their latest Rx work, and it is impressive. FF lenses, lenticular end edges.
very nice. Authentic Vuarnet quality.
B
Without question, mineral glass is viable and Vuarnet is still relevant.
I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain
Rx range may be super-limited, though. In a 60 mm effective diameter lens, how high can you go before they're impractically heavy?
Probably +4 with a 2 cylinder, but depends a lot on decentration, axis of cylinder, shape of the lens etc. The usual.
But it really depends on what the patient considers "impractical". If they have been wearing glass all their lives, then "impractical" is at a different level than someone who has never worn glass before.
Anyone wearing Rx glass is larger than a 50 eyesize is bucking for trouble.
I wish we had the 1960's nylon frame look that accompanied the glass in it's heyday, but we're geeked out with a 60's-style-with-70's-eyesize movement.
Are they currently fabricating spectacle crown glass FF and lenticular lenses?Originally Posted by Barry Santini
Really?? I wear glass flat tops in a 56 eye every day. My sunglasses (polarized glass) are in a 58 eye. My rx is roughly a -2.50 with a -1.00 cyl OU. No dents in my nose, no problems with sliding. A properly adjusted pair regardless of the lens material makes all the difference.
The only problems I've ever had are with frames that pinch behind my ears and I dumped those almost immediately.
And I made up a pair of sunglasses in a +1.50 for one of our OptiBoard members a few weeks ago, went into a RayBan Aviator, was about a 60 mm eye. Turned out beautifully.
Last edited by MikeAurelius; 09-18-2015 at 01:16 PM. Reason: Additional
We've seen your nose. It could support the span of the Golden Gate Bridge.
lolz
That might a bit of an exaggeration, I've always thought more along the lines of Roosevelt's nose (and we have the same mustache) at Mt. Rushmore.
Hi-1.60 Glass or dress glass, for those of us with diminutive facial features.
I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain
I took the Vuarnet plunge. I sold my first pair. A glacier of all things, PAL Photochromatic. $1,200. I haven't lost anything since telling Oakley to buzz off. I was an earlier carrier of Oakley. I guess Maui Jim will be the next one to put those demands upon my one business. When is it going to get easier?
Are you saying they are doing free form (digital) surfacing on GLASS lenses? Seems improbable to me. And what are "lenticular end edges"?
[QUOTE=Dr. Bill Stacy;514212]Are you saying they are doing free form (digital) surfacing on GLASS lenses? Seems improbable to me. And what are "lenticular end edges"?[/QUOTE
Why not, FEA does.
I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain
Glass aspheric lenses have long been a part of the precision optics industry, its only been the last 2-3 years where it has finally moved into ophthalmic lenses. The process was perfected in Europe and is moving into the US, where, admittedly, the call for glass is very low. As Paul says, FEA is making them.
I really doubt they can use anything like the commonly used digital processing of plastic lenses to do glass, because it would take forever to polish an aspheric glass lens with a flexible sponge, wouldn't it? Not to mention that the little diamond "jack hammer" might shatter the glass in the "roughing" process.
But I'm not interested in glass, so I'll let you guys figure that out. Still would like to know what "lenticular end edges" means.
Digital surfacing of glass uses the same brass diamond impregnated discs that regular processing of glass uses. There is no "jack hammer effect". The disc is about 37 mm in diameter, full impregnation, spins at about 25,000 rpm. Glass does not use a single-point or multi-flute cutter like a plastic lens would use. To do glass, digital generating has been around since about the year 2000 in the ophthalmic industry. In fact, depending on the lens generator, a fining step may not even be needed, depending on how slow the machine is set to cut the last few tenths of a mm off the lens surface. All that's been done is to modify the the generator program to run glass instead of plastic.
And surfacing is not done with a "flexible sponge", it is done with a rubber bladder, upon which has been mounted typical glass polishing pads.
Yes, the process will take longer than conventional glass fining, but the result is as good, if not better optics than the same lens done in plastic.
Lenticular ends is one of two things: either a prismatic myodisc at the temporal edge of the lens, or a continuous (step) back cut all the way around the lens edge that has been polished (or sometimes not). The design of the lenticular would depend on the frame style and the prescription power of the lens.
Heh heh, you said "rubber bladder" heh heh.
LOL, it's tough to work words like that into technical discussions!
If you say it fast ten times while spinning in circles, it stops drop-ins from asking for their PD's. It may require a clean up on aisle 7 but it works.
I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain
rubber baby buggy bumper!
Late to the party with my reply, but really how many patients have been wearing glass all their lives? The percentage of glass lens wearers must be low and one would think even that percentage must be getting lower and lower every year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks