Before suing your boss from your fingernail cancer from scraping poly edged lens clean or your optician for your poorly fitting sunglasses that ride on your cheek and caused your cheek cancer...
Will the lawyers not look further up the food chain to the company that has pushed poly to become the leader in the industry at every opportunity?
A red herring and much ado about nothing. It's business as usual.
I don't know if all Lenscrafters work like our friendly neighborhood polymonger, but we consistently beat prices for needless poly up-selling. I can only hope Prop 65 will reduce poly selling for the benefit of people's sight and tech's health. Not being in Cali, I am super tempted to still post signage to increase awareness. Poly is a junk product and 90% of the public doesn't think to research Abbe values, let alone chemical risks. As consumers- we don't know what we don't know. That is why opticians exist: to help consumers to make educated decisions.
Have I told you today how much I hate poly?
Poly is NOT a junk product. It's a great, great product.
Get real. Really real.
Poly is NOT a junk product. It's a great, great product.
Originally Posted by drk
Perfect drk it is not.
It is a good as a soft drink glass you can purchase 15 of them for $ 1.50 at the SuperMarket and is an injected product of the same material.
Optical Polycarbonate lenses are also injected between 4 and 6 pairs at the time every few seconds. Glass had to be surfaced both sides, and CR 36 is made with a a monomer that has to be cured for hours in the mould.
Even your pick nick forks an knives are made with Poly, and so are some plates.
Eyeglass lenses are made with the same material than every other cheap plastic item=====> the big difference = Pricing
Chris those cups and forks are made with polystyrene not polycarbonate. If you are going to say they are both thermal plastics - well lead and gold are both heavy metals why not call them the same?
You are much smarter than this Chris, why are you saying red solo cups are made from the same material as optical polycarbonate.
Like almost everything else out there it's cheap at the initial level. I think a drum of optical grade poly is less than $2,000 a drum and would make 3,500 to 5,000 lenses. It's turning it into something useful and getting it to market that costs.
Then there's our mark-up. But how many threads have talked about that conundrum???
Ah, ah, ah!
Never "markup"!
Materials supply at cost + professional dispensing fee!
A rose is a rose is a rose
and
A turd is a turd is a turd.
I like the purity of your statement, but telling a patient something like "The glasses are $100 and the dispensing fee is $200 just doesn't sound right.
I also don't like "Your total price for frames, lenses, and dispensing is $300, but I think that's the most common presentation.
I would prefer "Your price for frames is $100, Lenses $100 and dispensing services $100" Also, this kind of breakdown works for insurance claims, so long as the frame and lenses are marked up sufficiently to exceed the benefit maximums.
The amounts above are totally hypothetical and fictional examples only.
I prefer I can fix your vision issue for $500, Go nitpick with someone who is mediocre at their job.
I get that. It just means that you will not be doing any insurance work. It's ok with me. I do take insurance and have to be more open about my pricing, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with mediocrity.
Right on. Cut the BS. Your new glasses will set you back $500.00, OK! Stand up and act like a man.
Silly statement. Machismo has nothing to do with pricing paradigms, nor does mediocrity or excellence. $500 or $1200 can get you crap or fine eyewear regardless of how the pricing breaks down.
But this has wandered far from the prop 65 title, so I'm leaving it here for a more appropriate thread, something like "Pricing eyecare with insurance and without".
I'm confused why poly is a "junk product" and generally has the worst reputation of any lens discussed on this board. Yes, the abbe value is poor, but so is any high index product, which isn't as impact resistant as poly. Yes, poly is thicker than high index, but trivex is also thicker than poly. What material is best suited for a -7.00 monocular patient that wants the thinnest and safest lens they can have?
As a rule poly w/ excellent ar. Assuming of course proper OC placement.
But it's the frame that matters more in that rx.
The thing that many may have experienced (and gives a bad name to the product) is the WIDE range of production qualities of Poly. Airwear to Resolution to the cheapest of stock lenses to Digitally Surfaced poly that cuts off 90% of the stressed material. These are all slightly different products though all polycarbonate from the same drum. The process of molding and/or surfacing lenses is where so much goes wrong.
I've seen digitally surfaced poly that was unbelievable clear and had no stress in it under a polariscope, and I've seen high grade AR stock lenses with areas of the lens so filled with stress distortion that the wearer was noticing it and telling me, low and behold when I check on a polariscope there is a defect in the lens - exactly where they said it was. Also the lack of chemical resistance sucks.
Can you please explain how digital surfacing reduces poly lens stress?
I am under the impression that lens sizing is the major factor, but I don't think that has anything to do with surfacing.
Digital Poly with Avance' Rico Suave' does not reduce cancer risk.
Keep your eyes on the ball people.
Squirrel!
I am not talking about lens stress from sizing, that is also a real issue and one that is at its worst with thin centered lenses for sure! I am talking about lens stress from the injection moulding process. Take some (well)surfaced lenses and put them next to some cheap stock lenses - look for distortion areas. The surfaced ones will hopefully have much less. This is because the layers of the blank that have the injection molded stress have been "surfaced" away during processing, and if lucky you can have a poly lens that has no injection molded stress at all.
As far as digitally surfacing poly being better - I only mean that the controls going into digital surfacing in a high end generator should hopefully leave a cleaner blank than those being surfaced poorly. There is plenty of poorly "digitally" surfaced stuff these days maybe I just should have said well surfaced, including traditionally.
I've actually been really impressed with the digitally surfaced poly I have seen out of a few great independent labs lately. It almost looks too clean to be Poly.I am easily distracted. Back to the edger, Sorry Braheem....
Air is too thin up there, You're forgiven.
PS, If you're talking about bifrengence it is not fixed with digital processing.
To each his own. I can't think of a scenario where I am going to suggest poly unless it is a matter of a high RX and Pt needs it as cheap as possible, or it is a lens I can't get in the materials I perceive as better.
Cr39, trivex,and 1.6 have higher Abbe values.
Cr39 is cheapest.
Trivex has better strength for drills and stress.
1.6 is thinner without compromising frame options (grooves).
These are opinions, but ones I share with an intelligent and experienced group of optical professionals.
Besides.... poly just doesn't look as clean.
Have I told you today how much I hate poly?
Before suing your boss ...................
Will Prop 65 be the downfall of the Monopoly that has pushed that trash material?
In the 1970s LC used to make parents sign a paper to hold them not liable for injury, if the would not purchase polycarbonate lenses for their kids in case there would be an accidental injury by having an accident.
Today they can seal the edges which costs a few cents to do and you are home free.
For whatever price you sell it, it is still the only lens that has come out of an automatic moulding machine for stock lenses and the manufacturing cost is minimal.
However it has been built up to large hype and has become
one of the more expensive types of lenses. (see all the OptiBoard postings on it).
I am and I thought that the birefringence caused by the injection molding is mostly surfaced off the blank and thats why well surfaced poly always has much less birefringence when observed in a polariscope?
As far as the monopoly - one could only hope that it will send people away from those places. I will (probably) always offer Poly because if you are a -6.00 who is broke I can get you a lot of bang for your buck there. But I rarely ever push people towards it.
I am awaiting Lenscrafters and Wallyworlds results post prop 65. Will it just be ignored? Places like mine that can fit absolutely any lens material/design/coating to a patients needs wants will hopefully be able to take care of a newly educated public. I am interested to see what these threads have to say in 6 months.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks