Yuku free message boards

With the approval and encouragement of Wonka, I am returning to refute certain allegations that I have misrepresented my products as well as putting to rest certain mis-statements and half-truths written about my products.

I will respond to questions but ignore attacks and flames.

Bird makes the following claim (above):

"the top half of the bifocals that the A dude makes are NOT SUITABLE FOR BORO as they are just 94s on the upper portiion and covered 92s on the bottom"

and this:

"the old glasses I had of his were 186s which are not labled unsuitible for boro yet don,t even have the equivilent of a shade number either as the coating is so thin, let alone a #2"

The top half of an AGW-286 is the exact same as an AGW-186 - the exact same lens that Bird is saying is good at the very top of this thread (quoted here: "and tell him you want to order the 8807 and the KG3 glass from X-Cell (already laminated together), and cut into your frames or their frames. This will give you the same lens as I use "). Now, what has changed in the six or seven weeks since the original post was made? And why do you believe that the AGW-186 filter is unsuitable for working borosilicate? Borosilicate filters do not have to have a shade number attached to them to be safe. As long as you are aware of the limitations of each particular filter, and you know what you are working with you will be safe.

Now, my AGW-186 filter is AUR-92 glass and a KG-3 equivalent glass type. I have always said that this particular filter is for use ONLY with clear borosilicate. I have never said that the AGW-186 is a suitable lens for working anything other than clear borosilicate. This lens was originally designed for scientific glassworkers, who work pretty much exclusively with clear borosilicate.

So, why do we offer a split lens? Customer demand. Out of every 100 pair of borosilicate glasses we sell, 98 are split lens designs and 2 are full coverage lens designs. Why? Because people like split lenses. They offer the exact same protection, except that people can see through the upper portion of the lens before the colors start to flare.

I won't get into a debate as to whether didymium or AUR-92 is a better base filter - that is a personal decision that you must make. We sell our AGW series with AUR-92 because we believe that it is a superior filter to didymium - it removes more sodium flare at the same thickness of glass, it offers better color temperature recognition, and appears to be gentler on the eyes than didymium (that at least is what the majority of our customers tell us).

Every person is different. The more time that goes by, the more differences we see in people who work hot glass. Some can stand higher temperatures than others with the exact same eye protection. Some can look into intense sodium flare all day long and not see spots afterwords. Some cannot. We have done a very unscientific survey and of all our customers that responded, we found that by far and away, the people most likely NOT to need (or wear) a lot of eye protection are those of Mediterranian or African descent. Dark/olive skin and brown eyes. Those who seem to need more protection than others are those who are blond/red haired and blue/green eyed. The rest of us seem to fit somewhere in the middle.

Remember also that borosilicate as an art material has only been available and worked in any quantity for about 10 years or so. This is the very minimum time required for IR eye injuries to begin to appear. IR damage to the eye is cumulative. The higher and longer the exposure, the more the damage builds up. It may take longer for some than others, but nonetheless, it does occur. It may take 5 years for one person, and 25 years for another. Right now, I have a database of about 1400 glassworkers (those who have purchased eye protection from me). Off the top of my head, I can think of about 20 people or so on that list who have some type of eye injury from improper (or no) eyewear. The hazard is real, not made up. Sure, that number is small, but again remember it takes time for IR injuries to make themselves apparent.

As far as my personally working glass, I have found it helpful to be able to discuss eye protection and know what someone is talking about when they say they are doing gathers, fuming or inside-out, or what have you. I have at least a working knowledge of art glass and how it is made and by what techniques - both at the bench with a torch and at the furnace/glory hole. I believe it is very important to be able to relate to my customers' needs and demands. That way, I can create a filter specifically for that person instead of just making the exact same lens that another company does.

The price of my products seems to be one of bird's chief complaints. Several people on this board have complained of 'production pieces' cutting their livelihoods (like $2.00 spoons) and yet when it comes to a pair of glasses (of which they will perhaps buy only one or two pair for all the time they work glass), they want the $2.00 spoon. I don't get it. Apparently its ok when the money is coming out of your mouth, but not someone else's.

Bird wrote this a bit later:

"Well, if you wait, so they tell me, there will be a couple companys coming out with mass produced versions of these, which will cut the cost BIG TIME"

I've seen a photocopy joke "Price, quality, or delivery. Pick any two." I think you can figure it out.

I've never forced anyone to buy my glasses. If you don't like the prices I charge - do what bird figured out. Make yourself a pair of ghetto glasses. This isn't his idea, I've been telling people about this for several years now.

You are all grown ups. You can make decisions for yourself. Don't buy into half truths about products written by people who don't know how the products are made and what they are made from and have never seen the inside of an optical shop.

As a brief example of costs, I just brought in a new line of frames for my "Value Line" which will feature all of my filters, but with lower cost frames, and a limited warranty. The bill for the frames was $10,000. A company cannot expand its business or do research or offer new products on $2.00 spoons. Think about it.

nobonz makes the comment above that Colombian Bifocal wanted $250 for the AGW-186 equivalent filter lenses, and then Bird commented that he was glad that they were quoting the same price.

The funny thing is that my price for lenses only is $250.00! You'll find it on my website on the Lens Replacement page www.auralens.com/lensreplacement.html

The optical business is not all that big. For example, X-Cel Optical is just down the street from me, about 2 miles. Colombian Bifocal, Sound Optical, and Opticraft are all customers of mine. Why? Because my company makes the lenses that they need for their customers.