low 16 height progressive

[mrba]

Pete missed my point completely,
I guess I should respond at least in how what I said was referenced...

I have been told In Germany and France for instance opticals often work for the manufacturer. I will confirm this with an optician friend in Paris, and if I am wrong I will delete this part of the post.

Also I was saying that the fact that manufacturers do lab work world wide IS IRRELEVANT, and it is simply because the US market is different.

If you are not aware of the differences in US market and US customer expectations I will let that speak for itself.

[jediron1]

skirk1975 said:
I have had great success with the Shamir Piccolo. I have fit countless people at 16mm high and I don't think I have ever had a problem. It is well priced also. Hoya Summit CD and Rodenstock XS also have good product at this height.

Well I have seen quite a few of those 16mm fit lenses with people coming into my office complaining they have to pick up there head to see and even when they do they have such a small area that it is uncomfortable to wear. So I am very happy to have all you continue to fit those 15 and 16mm heights and I will continue to reap the rewards of people complaining that they can't read with those 15 and 16mm fit lenses. Please keep fitting
them my business is booming because of them!:drop:

[Texas Ranger]

I don't suppose i've had the opportunity to fit a "short corridor" pal design, and have pretty much stuck to a 19mm minimum on Panamics. Sure to some degree the "fashion" aspect of frame "styling" has "wagged the dog". but I think it our(opticians) job professionally to inform(educate) our clients about the "good and the bad" of why we might recommend certain lens designs. but the main problem with presbyopes in small "B" frames is that when they look down to read, they must drop their head down to move the reading area down, or look under the frame, a rather awkward price for fashion; if they're a myope, why not just put a SV lens in the frame and let them read under it? but, we need to advise the pt that that is what they will be doing. I think i'd fit Chris with a Nikon Online pc lens for that big desk, instead of the FT-35s. I just got the info yesterday on the Vx Ellipse, (supposed to be available today...?) I have no idea about it's cost, it's only in Cr-39(for now), I just got a new price list from thier lab, and it's not on it? strange... I do have a pair of Definity lenses and they seem quite nice, and I wear the Nikon Online lenses from 8:30 to 6:00 every day in the office, with the top 1.50 weaker than the bottom, a lot like the old read-rite lens of old that looked like an inverted ultex...hip chic is right, educating the pt to let THEM make an informed decision is critical...in the people amaze me dept. lady was in with some of these "competitor" glasses: -250-1.00x90 2.00 add, pupils at 23mm in a frame with a B of 35; seg ht of no-line that she's been wear for two yrs= 30mm, she said that if she dropped her head a bit and looked out the tpo of the lens, it helped with her driving! so, I feel that until there are people fitting lens that "care" about what they are doing, the lens design discussions are moot!

[Chris Ryser]

Texas Ranger said:

..................................I feel that until there are people fitting lens that "care" about what they are doing, the lens design discussions are moot!

You got a point

[keithbenjamin]

Pete Hanlin said:
I know Essilor doesn't employ dispensing ECPs or force them to use our products

No, they just strong-arm their "independent" distributer labs into recommending and selling Varilux above everything else to those ECPs.

But hey, I guess all's fair in love and ...marketing?


It was mentioned how the AO compact was the first of its kind and a pioneer in the area of low fitting progressives. It is interesting to note upon the release of the Compact, certain other manufacturers' recommended fit heights magically dropped from 22 or 24 to 18 overnight. If you want to know which ones, take a look at your old Progressive Lens Identifiers.

[jediron1]

I was wondering why keithbenjamin was getting so hot in the collar with Pete, then I went to" Laramy-K Optical Laboratory: Quality Uncut Ophthalmic Lenses" and found out why. Varilux and
Laramy-K don't get along to well. Thats ok as long as we are all
playing on an equall playing field. This is just my thought but it seems Laramy-k has a bone to pick with Pete and Varilux which
from what I could gather is a little bogus at best.
:drop:

[mrba]

I doubt you are correct. It is obviously profitable for Kieth's lab not to sell Varilux product. I would assume they have begged for Laramy to sign a contract stateing that they would sell Varilux as "the best" choice.

Laramy K has morals I guess, wish I could say the same for Varilux.

[keithbenjamin]

MRBA,

Thanks for the kind words although "begged" is probably a stong word. We're not THAT big, yet. ;)

Jediron,

We have no bones to pick, certainly not with Pete. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut. We just happen to take our independence seriously. We're in the information business as much as anything. If asked, we will always recommend the lens that we feel best suits the purpose, regardless of the manufacturer, price, or profit. That may be a Rodenstock, a Hoya, a Shamir, a Younger, a Zeiss, a Sola, or even an Essilor, but unfortunately it won't be a Varilux. Not because we think Varilux is a bad lens. We don't. We provide availability information on Varilux to our customers that use it. You can look at our Progressive Lens Chart online to see that.

It's just that there are a lot of other good products out there and we weren't willing to sign a contract that WE felt would compromise our integrity. Now, was that a smart business decision? I don't know. Seems we could probably boost our production by at least 20% by distributing Varilux, which is huge, especially these days, but that's the choice we made. We certainly don't fault other labs that have made the decision to distribute their product. A Varilux contract is big deal in the industry and means a significant amount of income. Maybe other labs haven't been asked to sign the same contract we were asked to sign. We do, however, have a lot of contact with other labs and know that many of them, while greatful for the income, lie awake at night knowing, if Varilux were to pull their distributorship, they'd be out of business, plain and simple. Seeing Essilor expand their lab business, certainly doesn't help them sleep any better. Not to say Varilux is alone in this. Everyone knows questionable practices are rampant throughout the optical industry. And we're not claiming to be perfect. We just try to steer clear of as much of it as possible, run our business as ethicaly as we know how, and try to provide our customers and their patients with the best information and product to suit their needs. Maybe we're too idealistic, but as I said above, for better or worse, that's the path we've chosen.

-KB

[jediron1]

keithbenjamin there was to ill will intended in my response. I was
just responding from reading your responses you made on this
thread about the Varilux product and there distrubution. Now I happen to wear the Varilux lens and find it far superior to any of the other lenses I have tried. I have tried at least six different brands and still came back to the Varilux. It is far superior in all areas. I understand your stance and you are entitled to it. I also believe in the philosophy you expoused in giving the patient the
best possible lens for there situation. It probable came down from reading your reply to a misunderstanding on what you really
meant in your other posts.
:bbg:

[mrba]

jediron1 said:
I was wondering why keithbenjamin was getting so hot in the collar with Pete, then I went to" Laramy-K Optical Laboratory: Quality Uncut Ophthalmic Lenses" and found out why. Varilux and
Laramy-K don't get along to well. Thats ok as long as we are all
playing on an equall playing field. This is just my thought but it seems Laramy-k has a bone to pick with Pete and Varilux which
from what I could gather is a little bogus at best.
:drop:

Laramy K and Essilor are on by no means on an equal playing field... Which speaks to the brilliance of Laramy K if you ask me!

:finger:

[Pete Hanlin]

I'm going to try to stay focused on addressing the technical issues that have been raised in this thread. Suffice it to say, however, that I don't feel that Keith has been taking any "shots" at Essilor/Varilux.

Naturally, when you are the owner, the "business" becomes especially personally relevent. Its not surprising then, when a lab owner has strong convictions about the state of the laboratory market in the US.

That said, I would like to address a few points...

That may be a Rodenstock, a Hoya, a Shamir, a Younger, a Zeiss, a Sola, or even an Essilor, but unfortunately it won't be a Varilux. Not because we think Varilux is a bad lens. We don't. We provide availability information on Varilux to our customers that use it. You can look at our Progressive Lens Chart online to see that.
With the exception of possibly Hoya, I believe most Independent Varilux Distributors deal with most if not all of the products mentioned (Hoya- like Essilor- has a limited distribution network). Even Essilor-owned laboratories provide lenses from other manufacturers. Like any such agreement, the Varilux distributor contract has provisions and responsibilities- for both Essilor and the distributing laboratory. The contract doesn't keep a laboratory from using other manufacturer's products.

It was mentioned how the AO compact was the first of its kind and a pioneer in the area of low fitting progressives. It is interesting to note upon the release of the Compact, certain other manufacturers' recommended fit heights magically dropped from 22 or 24 to 18 overnight. If you want to know which ones, take a look at your old Progressive Lens Identifiers.
I can name one- Varilux Comfort. The original fitting recommendation for Varilux Comfort was 22 (or 24, I wasn't here then). The current minimum fitting height is 18. I can tell you the design hasn't changed- so what has?

The answer is that the definition of "minimum fitting height" has changed. In 1994 (when Comfort was introduced), the tiny oval frame shape hadn't yet reached its current popularity. Frames were rounder and a bit larger. The minimum height you can fit a Varilux Comfort and receive the optimal benefit of the entire reading area is 22mm.

Today, frames have become exceptionally small. As a result, the "minimum fitting height" has now been defined by opticians as the "minimum height at which the patient has enough area to read." At 18mm, Varilux Comfort provides about 5.5mm of comfortable reading area. So, while an 18mm height isn't optimal, it does permit the design to work as well as- better in most cases, actually- than a lens originally marketed with a shorter fitting height recommendation.

Truth be told, most of the "short corridor" lenses on the market have an "optimal" fitting height that is considerably higher than their advertised "minimal" fitting height. Just analyze the design and you'll see my point. Even the advertising for many of these PALs demonstrate the product at a height considerably above the MFH recommendation.

There are some exceptions, and since this thread started out on the subject of short corridors, I'll mention them. The Rodenstock Life XS is quite short. Next to Varilux Ellipse (available this Monday- the 12th), it is the shortest progression on the market. Seiko also has a short progression.

[mrba]

I believe that contract requires that the distributors of Varilux promote it as their first and best choice lens. I think that Doctors should know that, when their labs give them advise. Don't you all think that opticals expect honest advise instead of advise given "under contract"?

Please note I have seen these contracts at other labs which doesn't mean all distributers are under the same contract. I also did not quote an actual contract verbatim.

[keithbenjamin]

Like any such agreement, the Varilux distributor contract has provisions and responsibilities- for both Essilor and the distributing laboratory. The contract doesn't keep a laboratory from using other manufacturer's products.

That's correct Pete, the Varilux contract certainly doesn't prevent the distributing lab from using other manufacturer's products. It is however, explicit in stating the distributing lab must recommend Varilux product when asked and is restrictive about the distributor lab taking part in other manufacturer's promotions, unlike other manufacturer's contracts. That's what we weren't able to abide by. It's not that Varilux doesn't make a good lens, but no manufacturer makes lenses that are ideal for all situations.

It's also not that we wouldn't want to distribute Varilux. It would certainly make a number of our customers happy and would probably bring us even more customers, it's just that we couldn't sign the contract, couldn't get any wiggle room in it, and we have to live with it (but at least we can sleep at night).


Interesting bit of information on the recommended min fit height. Although I'm wondering who the opticians are that define "recommended minimum fitting height." They must work at Essilor. :bbg:
I've noticed that some manufacturers have stuck to their 22's, 23's and 24's.

-KB

[Chris Ryser]

Having been around Varilux since it's inception around 1955. My father was one of the first opticians to be presnted with a trial pair by the then president of SL (ESSILOR).

It was always stipulatd to give a perfect height as Pete ha s statet in above posting.

I personally think it is the greed and competitive inststinct of the opticians to sell these progressives that the public wants mounted into these mini frames. Opticians are worried that the customers goes to the competition who will sell this more or less useless pair of glasses with a reading portion that measures 5.5mm

Now having said my piece of mind we can start fighting again about seg heights rather than Varilux contracts.

[Pete Hanlin]

Interesting bit of information on the recommended min fit height. Although I'm wondering who the opticians are that define "recommended minimum fitting height." They must work at Essilor. I've noticed that some manufacturers have stuck to their 22's, 23's and 24's.
If you are suggesting there should be an objective, clear definition of a minimum fitting height, I am with you 100%. In fact, it would make my job considerably easier (and I'm all for easy).

Given all the progressions on the market- and all the methods different manufacturer's use to mark the lenses- I try to go by lens functionality. With that as a measure, all I can offer is that Varilux Comfort- in my opinion- should work as least as well as most of the short corridor PALs down to 17 or 18mm. I've already stated that I personally wouldn't want to be fitting patients this low anyway, but if people are going to do it you have to tell them what works and what doesn't I suppose.

As for recommending lenses as first choice and all, look... I suppose you just have to believe in what you're selling. I know some fine professional people who sell Rodenstock, Shamir, SOLA, Hoya, etc. and earnestly believe it to be the best. That's great- if you can't believe in what you sell, you shouldn't be selling it. Fortunately, I believe pretty strongly in Varilux and Essilor products- and I think there are some pretty good bases for the beliefs.

Does that mean I would never recommend some other manufacturer's product in certain cases? Of course not- I've recommended Blended bifocals several times over the past couple years (Essilor doesn't make Blended bifocals). Overall, however, I'm hard pressed to think of too many scenarios where Essilor doesn't make a product that is either the best or comparable to the best for the patient's needs.

As my dad says though- "Opinions are like _________, everyone has one." (Fill the blank in however you see fit. ;^)

Pete "we'll both sleep well tonight- and that's the way it should be" Hanlin

[jediron1]

I'll just say what I have been saying to all you who want to fit at 17 and lower, please keep it up, my business is booming because
of your fitting techniques. I just had a woman in today who was complaning that she had to pick her head up to read and that it hurt her neck. I went on to EDUCATE her on the relevance of having lenses placed that low. But she said I paid big bucks for these and they told me everything would work, well it didn't and I was there to grab the business and do some EDUCATING of my own. The price of you selling those progressives so low is just enriching my bottom line. I THANK YOU ALL!:bbg: :D

[Chris Ryser]

Wisdom stands at the turn in the road and calls upon us publicly, but we consider it false and despise its adherents."

-Kahlil Gibran, "Between Reality and Fantasy"

[Robert Martellaro]

Harry,

I'm presently wearing a Concise at 19mm (B= 28mm -4.50 add 2.25). I placed an ink line at 16mm to see if I could read comfortably, and J1 was sharp and clear. I actually had to tip my head slightly to see the line. However, the "new" bottom of the frame was very obvious and disconcerting. Essentially unwearable.

When I see a 16mm fitting cross height my immediate concerns are that the frame is not, or can not be adjusted "in and down" sufficiently, and if it is, the B is so narrow that the client will see the top and/or bottom of the frame (tunnel vision), enough so that it will be extremely uncomfortable.

After optimizing the frame fit I ask the client if they notice the top or bottom of the lens, if it would be something that would be irritating, and if so bump the B measurement by changing the frame size and/or shape. I've yet to make a PAL at 16mm after informing the client of the vertical field of vision concern, 17-18mm seems quite common though.

Robert

[mrba]

jediron1 said:
I'll just say what I have been saying to all you who want to fit at 17 and lower, please keep it up, my business is booming because
of your fitting techniques. I just had a woman in today who was complaning that she had to pick her head up to read and that it hurt her neck. I went on to EDUCATE her on the relevance of having lenses placed that low. But she said I paid big bucks for these and they told me everything would work, well it didn't and I was there to grab the business and do some EDUCATING of my own. The price of you selling those progressives so low is just enriching my bottom line. I THANK YOU ALL!:bbg: :D

... Or maybe she was under powered in the add. What was the desighn?

[mrba]

Pete Hanlin said:
As for recommending lenses as first choice and all, look... I suppose you just have to believe in what you're selling. I know some fine professional people who sell Rodenstock, Shamir, SOLA, Hoya, etc. and earnestly believe it to be the best. That's great- if you can't believe in what you sell, you shouldn't be selling it. Fortunately, I believe pretty strongly in Varilux and Essilor products- and I think there are some pretty good bases for the beliefs.

Alright pete I'll bite. Why is Varilux better than everyone else? We want reasons not spiel please. It's time, let us have it.

[jediron1]

Nice try mrba. Add was +2.50 and it was a Sola design:hammer:

[mrba]

jediron1 said:
Nice try mrba. Add was +2.50 and it was a Sola design:hammer:

I was unaware sola had a short corridor? Not sure if 2.50 add means pt wasn't under plussed?

[Pete Hanlin]

I would list the reasons for my belief in Varilux products under the following groups: R&D, Distribution, and Consistency.

Regarding R&D, Varilux designs are created through a solid conceptual process called the "Dioptric Loop," which is comprised of the following steps:
Designation of "Merit Functions"- Based on results gathered from years of wearer studies and clinical trials, merit functions- or the expected performances of design- are created by the designer. A computerized program calculates a design that will match the design functions through application of the data within the survey databases.
Creation of molds- Once a design is proposed, molds are created to reproduce the design on test lenses. Molds are expensive to create and the design is time consuming. Basically, molds are being created to produce a lens design that will never be sold.
Verification of molds- It does no good to test if the molds haven't accurately replicated the intended design. Essilor has a rather impressive facility for measuring the surface powers of molds and lenses.
Test lens production- Lenses are produced in quantities sufficient for wearer studies.
Wearer studies- Wearers across the Rx range evaluate design performance in several areas related to the original merit functions.
Compilation of data- The input from these wearer studies is compiled and used to measure the actual design performance against the original merit functions. Once the performance is evaluated, the designer adjusts the design to better meet the merit functions. At this point, the process starts again and new test lenses are created, and so on and so on.

In the end, the process may be slow and expensive- but by utilizing a large number actual wearer experiences I believe it is reasonable to assume the designs are proven by the time we launch them. I'm sure other manufacturers spend resources and time- and perhaps engage in somewhat similar processes- in the development of their designs. However, since the manufacture and fabrication of ophthalmic lenses is Essilor's only business, quite a large sum of money is invested in R&D to retain a competitive edge in the market. Based on my tours of the Essilor R&D facilities, if there is a more extensive R&D program out there, I'd certainly enjoy touring it.

Regarding distribution, Essilor has invested in the infrastructure necessary to consistently provide ordered products. In Columbus, Ohio, the main distribution center stocks something like 23 million lenses. Over the past 16 months, they have had zero "no ships." In other words, if you place your order before the daily deadline, if the lenses are in stock they will go out that same day. The people who work at the distribution center are nothing short of amazing. There will always be backorders (although the percentage, which is closely tracked, is amazingly low considering the volumes shipped), but I would venture to say there are few companies that do a better job of distributing their products consistently and accurately.

Finally, it comes down to consistency. I am not here to disparage the quality of any other manufacturer. However, as the manager of Essilor's Market Quality department, I can say that the quality of Essilor lenses generally compares rather favorably with most of the other products out there- and we measure both ours and their quality pretty much constantly.

So, to summarize, I believe in the effectiveness of Varilux products because a.) the quality of the R&D process used to create the designs, b.) the quality of the infrastructure used to distribute the product worldwide, and c.) the ability to consistently produce the same design from lot to lot.

Beyond the actual product are the resources Essilor dedicates to educating both the eye care professional and the consumer about PAL lenses. Naturally, the consumer advertising is geared towards the promotion of our own product (it would be rather silly if it were not), but overall the general effect is a greater awareness of PAL technology- and that has a side effect of increasing the total market, not just Essilor products.

Regarding education of professionals, Essilor invests considerable resources in training both dispensers and laboratory technicians. The Laboratory University I oversee may not be the only program of its kind, but I would imagine it is certainly one of the few opportunities laboratories have to send their managers out for an A-Z review of how to manage a lab- from HR through surfacing and finishing and equipment selection.

In case its difficult to tell, I enjoy working for Essilor / Varilux and am extremely proud to make my small contributions to the overall success of the company. I suspect you are also quite proud of your business, and that's great. I would suspect that an employee of any other lens manufacturer could probably make a case for the superiority of their design, distribution, and quality control processes as well. From my vantage point, however, there are some pretty logical reasons for Essilor's performance in the PAL and AR market in the US- and most of them have very little to do with marketing or contracts.

[jediron1]

Look mrba, the product was a Sola. The whole point of my reply
was people are fitting these to low and even with the short corridor ones they still don't have the freedom and reading ability
that you do in a longer corridor lens. I still want my competition
to keep fitting them, because as I SAID BEFORE I M DOING A BOOMING BUSINESS IN REFITS. So mrba put that in your pipe and smoke it, because it seems your smoking something. Ha HA :hammer:

[mrba]

jediron1 said:
Look mrba, the product was a Sola. The whole point of my reply
was people are fitting these to low and even with the short corridor ones they still don't have the freedom and reading ability
that you do in a longer corridor lens. I still want my competition
to keep fitting them, because as I SAID BEFORE I M DOING A BOOMING BUSINESS IN REFITS. So mrba put that in your pipe and smoke it, because it seems your smoking something. Ha HA :hammer:

And my point is that the progressive was a sola and therfore probably not a short corridor. Hence, as soon as your competition gets saavy to short corridor progressives, you will be in the smoke at 22 hi