 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2006Coating PEELING off??? (Lenscrafters)
We've bought glasses from Lenscrafters for over 25 years now, and they've always been very sharp and durable, lasting 4-8 years before replacement, and even then, we just replace them because the prescription changed. My last couple of glasses from them, however, gives me reason for concern. After about a year, the coating starts PEELING off. It starts right at the very edge. When it starts, you can see a very tiny row of "ripples" right on the edge of the lens - we're talking very tiny, less than .5mm wide - running for about an inch or so along the edge of the surface. Over time, it spreads around the circumference of the lens, and you can see a line gradually moving inwards, where the coating is literally peeling or flaking off. It's pretty hard to see, you have to hold it up to the light and look real close. My current glasses are a year and a half old, and the line has moved inward about 1/8" from about half the circumference. Note: these are NOT scratches. It is peeling or flaking. My last pair did this, and after a couple of years, about half the surface of the lens was peeled off. I bought a new pair about a year ago, and now THEY are doing it, and I have been super-careful to clean them with a lens cleaner and soft cloth, only occasionally using a tissue. The new manager at the LC where I bought them is an idiot: long, greasy hair over his shoulders, dirty tennis shoes, baggy pants... where do they HIRE these people????!!! He just said well, if you clean them with water and a soft tissue or cloth, "that coating'll come right offa there." He wouldn't discuss it further. These are Featherwates, WITHOUT the AR coating, which is too soft. I always tell them I want maximum scratch-resistance, which includes some kind of anti-scratch coating. I need the Featherwates because my prescription is pretty thick: -5.75/-5.50 w/astigmatism. Now my wife needs to replace hers. She bought hers at LC *8* years ago, and has abused them horribly. She does medical work, and constantly wipes them with her scrubs or lab coat, yet they STILL look like she bought them yesterday! Not a scratch on them! Given my experiences the last 3 or 4 years, I'm worried that now she's going to have the same problem I've had. Her prescription is unremarkable: OD -2.0 sphere, OS -1.5 -.5 cylinder, add +1.5. Can anybody give us a tip here? For reasons I won't go into, we'd like to stay with LC, but this "peeling coating" problem really bothers me. What the heck is going on? Thanks, Ron M. email: ronNOSPAM@peacefulhills.net ("reply to:" above won't work) bstevens@rock.com wrote in news:1164117864.816946.226270 @f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Can anybody give us a tip here? For reasons I won't go into, we'd like > to stay with LC, but this "peeling coating" problem really bothers me. > What the heck is going on? Vote with your feet. You have a customer service issue, which is that your lenses didn't last their expected lifetime, and you weren't offered any satisfaction. Why would you go to a provider you're unhappy with?  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply On 11/21/06 6:13 AM, in article Xns98825DD4810A1scottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4, "Scott Seidman" <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote: > bstevens@rock.com wrote in news:1164117864.816946.226270 > @f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lenses didn't last their expected lifetime, and you weren't offered any > satisfaction. Why would you go to a provider you're unhappy with? The only way to get truly durable coatings is to use real glass lenses and deposit the coating by evaporation with the lenses heated to high temperature. I do mean durable. Good coatings deposited that way just will not come off unless you really work at it. Poor technique, of course, can change a good process into garbage. By hot, I also mean very hot, 250°C minimum for single layers of magnesium fluoride on glass. It is very difficult to find a place that will do that these days. If you find one, let me know. There are coating laboratories charging high prices that will make hard coatings but it is not economically feasible for spectacle lenses. Bill -- Fermez le Bush > The only way to get truly durable coatings is to use real glass lenses > and deposit the coating by evaporation with the lenses heated to high > temperature. That said, put a number on the expected lifetime of a lens. As a consumer, my number is two years. If a coating fails before that time through no fault of my own before two years, I would expect the optical shop to do more than say "that's life". SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > The only way to get truly durable coatings is to use real glass lenses and > deposit the coating by evaporation with the lenses heated to high > temperature. I don't know where you have been living, but the newer A/R coatings like Crizal are incredibly durable, and come with a minimum of a two year warranty. It all had to do with finding the right coating for the particular polymer substrate. DrG On 11/22/06 7:45 AM, in article 1164210322.142457.201980@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: >> The only way to get truly durable coatings is to use real glass lenses and >> deposit the coating by evaporation with the lenses heated to high [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > DrG I once got a Crizal coating. I was surprised that it lasted two years. But after two years, it deteriorated rapidly. Have you had any experience with modern hot coatings such as used on high quality camera lenses or laser rods? Typical materials used are magnesium fluoride, silica, titanium dioxide (not always very durable), silicon monoxide, thorium fluoride and various other metal oxides. These are tested with rubber erasers and Scotch tape. Will Crizal pass such tests? With the trend toward plastic lenses, hot coatings are not feasible. Bill -- Fermez le Bush > Have you had any experience with modern hot coatings such as used on high > quality camera lenses or laser rods? Typical materials used are magnesium > fluoride, silica, titanium dioxide (not always very durable), silicon > monoxide, thorium fluoride and various other metal oxides. These are tested > with rubber erasers and Scotch tape. Will Crizal pass such tests? Without a doubt. I clean my glasses with paper towels just to convince myself. The coating is still intact. DrG On 11/22/06 5:42 PM, in article 1164246128.604052.96180@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: >> Have you had any experience with modern hot coatings such as used on high >> quality camera lenses or laser rods? Typical materials used are magnesium [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Without a doubt. I clean my glasses with paper towels just to convince > myself. The coating is still intact. Paper towels should be a snap. Erasers test durability and Scotch tape tests adherence. Bill -- Fermez le Bush > Paper towels should be a snap. Erasers test durability and Scotch tape tests > adherence. Ya, well we generally try to discourage using erasers and scotch tape on lenses. 3M used to provide a kit with a piece of steel wool to demonstrate the toughness of their anti-scratch coating. Maybe we need to revisit that little gimmick. On 11/28/06 7:39 AM, in article 1164728378.360764.207550@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: >> Paper towels should be a snap. Erasers test durability and Scotch tape tests >> adherence. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > demonstrate the toughness of their anti-scratch coating. Maybe we need > to revisit that little gimmick. With hard hot coatings on glass, discouragement would not be necessary. Bill -- Fermez le Bush > With hard hot coatings on glass, discouragement would not be necessary. I hate to say this, but I think you might be a bit out of step with the times. Polymers are much lighter than glass, and are also safer. DrG On 11/30/06 3:41 PM, in article 1164930075.940853.312910@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: >> With hard hot coatings on glass, discouragement would not be necessary. > > I hate to say this, but I think you might be a bit out of step with the > times. Polymers are much lighter than glass, and are also safer. > > DrG I will admit to be a stick-in-the-mud. I still like old fashioned hardware stores. Book stores where you can handle weird books. I liked fly fishing before it was yuppified. Besides, there still are coating houses that make superbly durable coatings. They just do not find their way onto ophthalmic lenses. Bill -- Fermez le Bush > I will admit to be a stick-in-the-mud. I still like old fashioned hardware > stores. Book stores where you can handle weird books. I liked fly fishing > before it was yuppified. I can relate. I still don't use a food processor. I remember a great bookstore in Evanston, Illinois called Great Expectations. There used to be another good one here in Dallas, called Major's Scientific Books.....Ah, well. > Besides, there still are coating houses that make superbly durable coatings. > They just do not find their way onto ophthalmic lenses. No doubt, but the cost for ophthalmic goods would probably be too high. Judging from the tone of this NG, most people want cheaper, not better. DrG > No doubt, but the cost for ophthalmic goods would probably be too high. > Judging from the tone of this NG, most people want cheaper, not > better. My bad. I should have said cheaper AND better, but sometimes the two are mutually exclusive. DrG On 12/1/06 4:42 AM, in article 1164976962.405695.160500@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: >> Besides, there still are coating houses that make superbly durable coatings. >> They just do not find their way onto ophthalmic lenses. > > No doubt, but the cost for ophthalmic goods would probably be too high. > Judging from the tone of this NG, most people want cheaper, not > better. I am sure that the real problem is that dispensing opticians do not want a hot vacuum coating station around. In the old days, almost anyone could do the hot magnesium fluoride coatings. The true key to success was to clean the glass well. When the coating was the correct thickness, it had a distinctive bluish purple color so that the need for a thickness monitor was eliminated. My guess is that conversion to plastic eliminated all hot coating. Bill -- Fermez le Bush > On 12/1/06 4:42 AM, in article > 1164976962.405695.160500@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Bill > -- Fermez le Bush I ditched glass lenses forever when I started high school in 1976 (-6.50, -7.75). Who the heck wants to wear heavy things like glass lenses and take a chance on getting splinters in the eye from breakage? Glass lenses for high end optics like cameras I can understand, but even my mother finally switched away from glass when the glasses started falling off her face from the weight. Dennis >We've bought glasses from Lenscrafters for over 25 years now, and >they've always been very sharp and durable, lasting 4-8 years before [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Note: these are NOT scratches. It is peeling or flaking. My last pair >did this, and after a couple of years, about half the surface Front or back surface? If it's the front it's potentially a defect in the lens blank- that's the lens manufacturers coating. If it's the back surface, the coating is applied by Lenscrafters, assuming the lenses were not finished blanks (Rx pre-ground off the shelve). >of the >lens was peeled off. I bought a new pair about a year ago, and now THEY [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >water and a soft tissue or cloth, "that coating'll come right offa >there." He wouldn't discuss it further. They should be cleaned with water, and soap. A clean cloth without fabric softener or tissues without or with very little lotion is ok too. >These are Featherwates, WITHOUT the AR coating, which is too soft. I >always tell them I want maximum scratch-resistance, That would be glass- try and get that at Lenscrafters! >which includes some >kind of anti-scratch coating. I need the Featherwates because my >prescription is pretty thick: -5.75/-5.50 w/astigmatism. Try Hoya's 1.70 index lenses. Thinner than poly (not lighter in weight though) with better optics, and is also unavailable a LC. Lenscrafters pushes poly because they own Gentex, one of the two poly manufacturers. >Now my wife needs to replace hers. She bought hers at LC *8* years ago, >and has abused them horribly. She does medical work, and constantly >wipes them with her scrubs or lab coat, yet they STILL look like she >bought them yesterday! Not a scratch on them! Hold them up to a light source. You'll find plenty of scratches. >Given my experiences the >last 3 or 4 years, I'm worried that now she's going to have the same >problem I've had. Maybe. Are her lenses cr39 or poly? >Her prescription is unremarkable: OD -2.0 sphere, OS -1.5 -.5 >cylinder, add +1.5. > >Can anybody give us a tip here? For reasons I won't go into, we'd like >to stay with LC, but this "peeling coating" problem really bothers me. >What the heck is going on? Some of the problem may be environmental, poly is extremely sensitive to chemicals. >Thanks, >Ron M. > >email: >ronNOSPAM@peacefulhills.net >("reply to:" above won't work) Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa, Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman Thanks for all the comments, not that they really change anything. Obviously, LC has changed its processes. My whole family has bought glasses there, always the Featherwates Plus, and until the last 3 or 4 years, they've lasted as long as 8 years. Sure, they might get virtually invisible scratches on them from normal wear after a few years, but in general they stay looking perfectly new. The "peeling" I've described is on the front, and starts about 12 months after buying them. One person said poly is sensitive to chemicals. Would this include chemicals like the standard blue Windex glass cleaner? I've used that a number of times to clean them; could that be a factor? What about dishwashing liquid? Thanks again, Ron M. >Thanks for all the comments, not that they really change anything. >Obviously, LC has changed its processes. My whole family has bought [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The "peeling" I've described is on the front, and starts about 12 >months after buying them. Ok, I've seen this with Vision Ease lenses, mostly from two to five years ago. I don't know if it's a flaw in the product or if the labs are processing them incorrectly. For me, it was one more nail in the coffin for poly. Ask for Trivex, and no surprise, that's not available at LC also. >One person said poly is sensitive to chemicals. Would this include >chemicals like the standard blue Windex glass cleaner? I've used that a >number of times to clean them; could that be a factor? What about >dishwashing liquid? Hot water and soap. Dish liquid, Ivory, most any soap that is free of lotion and abrasives. Do not use household cleansers on the frame or lens. >Thanks again, >Ron M. Your welcome. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa, Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > Hot water and soap. Dish liquid, Ivory, most any soap that is free of lotion and > abrasives. Do not use household cleansers on the frame or lens. It looks like this may have been the culprit. In all 3 of the glasses this "peeling" has happened with, I have frequently cleaned them using a small bottle of Windex I keep in my office. A guy at LC said to avoid any chemicals containing alcohol or ammonia; they will definitely get the coating started coming loose, starting at the edges as mine did. Dishwashing soap MIGHT be OK, but it's hard to say, because so many of them contain perfumes, antiseptics, and a bunch of other chemicals. Ron M. >> Hot water and soap. Dish liquid, Ivory, most any soap that is free of lotion and >> abrasives. Do not use household cleansers on the frame or lens. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Ron M. Much, much diluted) Dawn soap -- does that have either alcohol or ammonia in it? (Has no smell, at least no ammonia-smell). Is what I use for my *glass* lenses. So, what about Dawn on plastic/whatever? David >One person said poly is sensitive to chemicals. Would this include >chemicals like the standard blue Windex glass cleaner? I've used that a >number of times to clean them; could that be a factor? What about >dishwashing liquid? Poly is mildly sensitive to (91% isopropyl) alcohol and quite sensitive to acetone. I've had no problems using glass cleaner on poly. [snip] >Lenscrafters pushes poly because they own Gentex, one of the two poly >manufacturers. Does GENTEX still manufacture/sell their "Profile" aspheric poly lenses? I remember they sent out something like a +4.00 blank in a CD case just to show how thin it was. I just haven't seen our local lab use them in ages (if I order aspheric poly, I usually let the lab choose and they've been using Tegra's lately). >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >use them in ages (if I order aspheric poly, I usually let the lab >choose and they've been using Tegra's lately). It's unlikely they'll use Gentex if they're not an "Essilor lab". My lens book shows that the Profile is available in 14 BCs from +.25 to +8.00. To be sure, a +4.00D looks better on a 5 base than a 8 base, the use of asphericity does not improve the vision- it just allows the use of flatter curves without compromising the off-axis optics. Regards, Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr > These are Featherwates, WITHOUT the AR coating, which is too soft. I > always tell them I want maximum scratch-resistance, which includes some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Her prescription is unremarkable: OD -2.0 sphere, OS -1.5 -.5 > cylinder, add +1.5. I think it's rather obvious that your wife's coating is factory applied. Your lenses, because of the prescription, are surfaced, and the coating is applied in the lab. DrG Nope, we got hers at LC, just like mine. Featherwates Plus. One difference is that she has NEVER used glass cleaner on hers. She has, however, used 91% alcohol, which is supposed to be a no-no....? Can somebody please clarify this thing about using alcohol? Ron > > These are Featherwates, WITHOUT the AR coating, which is too soft. I > > always tell them I want maximum scratch-resistance, which includes some [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > DrG > Nope, we got hers at LC, just like mine. Featherwates Plus. One > difference is that she has NEVER used glass cleaner on hers. She has, > however, used 91% alcohol, which is supposed to be a no-no....? Can > somebody please clarify this thing about using alcohol? You evidently misunderstood. "LC" purchases their lens blanks. Stock lenses can be purchased from the manufacturer with the coating already applied to both sides. But, in higher prescriptions, the lenses are ground, or "finished" on the back surface by the lab, with the SC applied afterwards. Fewer problems generally arise with factory-applied coatings as opposed to coatings applied by finishing lab. Why does your wife use 91%? The next time around, make sure not to order polycarb, and make sure that your lenses have a finish such as Alize, Crizal, or Zeiss Carat. You'll pay more, of course. DrG |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.