For reference for this report, I am going to re-print the cognizant portions of ANSI Z87 standard, which is the nationally recognized standard for all safety eyewear marked with the Z87 mark. I will leave out the portions of the standard which do not apply or are irrelevant to this discussion. It should be noted that although this standard is voluntary, every single safety manufacturer (except one, see commentary below) in the United States adheres very strictly to this standard.

ANSI Z87 states (in part):

2. Scope and Purpose.

2.1 Scope. This standard shall apply to those occupational and educational operations or processes where eye and face hazards exist. These include, but are not limited to, machining operations, material welding and cutting, chemical handling, and assembly operations.

This standard DOES NOT apply to hazards related to X-Rays, gamma rays, high energy radiations, microwaves, radio-frequency radiation, lasers and masers, and sports.

8. Spectacles.

8.4 Optical Requirements for Plano Spectacles.

8.4.2 Prismatic Power. Plano lenses intended to be used as replacement parts (I reference this paragraph as the lenses used by any manufacturer can be placed into any available frame. The next paragraph is designed for “cast in place lenses”, not individually manufactured lenses) shall be tested in accordance with Section 15.4.2. (This refers to a standard test, and can be easily replicated with any “lensometer” found in most optical manufacturing facilities and any optical shop.) The lenses shall be measured with the design viewing axis coincident with the telescope axis and the prismatic power shall not differ from the design value by more than 1/16th (0.0625) prism diopter in any direction.

8.4.3 Refractive Power. Spectacles shall be tested in accordance with Section 15.4.3 (again a standard lensometer may be used). The refractive power, in any meridian shall not exceed plus or minus 1/16th (0.0625) diopter. The maximum astigmatism, the absolute difference in power measured in the two extreme meridians, shall not exceed 1/16th (0.0625) diopter.

8.9 Special Purpose Spectacle Requirements. Special purpose spectacles shall meet all requirements for spectacles except transmittance (Section 8.4.6). In this context, special purpose spectacles are designed as such because they contain lenses that: are to be used for particular visual tasks, such as glass-blowing and checking melt in metal or glass furnaces (italics are mine, for emphasis); are photochromic; or do not correspond to shades specified in Table 1. For further explanation, see Section 6.5

8.9.1 Marking. All special purpose lenses shall be marked with “S” or, in the case of photochromic lenses, “V” following the manufacturer’s trademark. For example, a special purpose lens provided by manufacturer “K” would be marked as follows: “K-S”

********** End of relevant sections of ANSI Z87.

We recently acquired a pair of Phillips Safety Boroscopes, Shade 3 in the Black Titanium Safety frame. This pair of glasses was obtained through a contact who purchased them directly from Frantz Art Glass and Supply. This transaction took place during the month of October, 2003.

The glasses were received in good condition. They were cased in a clear plastic rectangular box with a “frame keeper” so they would not fall to the ground in case they slipped off the wearers face.

We inspected the spectacles after removing them from the case. The frame is a “No Name” unbranded Z87 safety frame, style 700T, in size 51-19/145. The spectacle itself was in good condition. Adjustable silicone nose pads and standard temple covers.

There were two obvious problems seen on inspection. The first was quite obvious, the lenses were edged at least 1 mm oversize, causing a sizeable gap in the eyewire closure. This, over time, will cause the screw to loosen and back out, causing the lens to pop out of the frame. The second problem is that although the frame is a Z87 frame, the lenses are safety thickness and hardened, the lenses were not marked with the manufacturer’s logo as is required under ANSI Z87 standards.

We then tested the individual lenses. Our findings:

Right Lens: Severe wave (surface distortion) on the outer periphery of the lens, approximately 10 mm from the horizontal edges of the lens. ¼ Prism Base Down and In. Power read +0.12 -0.25 Axis 27. I was unable to find the true optical center of this lens.

This lens fails the ANSI Z87 test for Prism. The standard (above) calls for no more that 1/16th (0.0625) Prism Diopters in any direction. This lens also fails the ANSI Z87 test for Refractive Power. The standard (above) calls for no more than 1/16th (0.0625) diopter spherical power deviation from plano power and no more than 1/16th (0.0625) diopters of astigmatism (cylinder) power.

Left Lens: Severe wave (surface distortion) on the outer periphery of the lens, approximately 13 mm from the horizontal edges of the lens. ¼ Prism Base Out. Power read 0.00 -0.12 Axis 10. I was unable to find the true optical center of this lens.

This lens fails the ANSI Z87 test for Prism. The standard (above) calls for no more that 1/16th (0.0625) Prism Diopters in any direction. This lens also fails the ANSI Z87 test for Refractive Power. The standard (above) calls for no more than 1/16th (0.0625) diopters of astigmatism (cylinder) power.

Next, we examined the physical structure of the lens itself. A good “Maltese cross” was noted in both lenses indicating that the lenses had been heat tempered. It was immediately apparent that the lenses had been tempered in too hot of an oven. There were clear marks where the holding prongs in the oven had distorted the surface of the lens.

The lens itself is of an interesting optical design. On the front surface of the lens, it has a horizontal axis curve of 5.00 diopters. The vertical axis has a curve of 6.50 diopters. This is typical of “new style” sunglass manufacturing to allow for the extreme curvature of wraparound sunglasses. The back surface of the lens had corresponding surface curves of 5.00 diopters and 6.50 diopters.

This type of lens is called a “bi-toric” lens, and its use was primarily designed by Edgar Tillyer at American Optical in the mid 1950’s as a way to combat certain types of magnification problems (known as isekonia, or anisekonia) that were apparent in a small minority of the population. Its (bi-toric lens) use, for the most part, was discontinued in the late 1960’s due to extraordinary problems in the manufacturing and dispensing of such eyewear. The chief problem was (and is) the alignment of the axis on both the front and back of the lens. Any deviation of more than ¼ of a degree of axis, front to back, results in unwanted power and prism in the lenses, and “losing” the optical center, particularly on plano power lenses. The lenses I inspected optically show the very typical problems AO (and other lens manufacturers) experienced with this particular lens design. It has been perfected in lenses cast in plastic and polycarbonate; however, the manufacturing requirements of glass lenses make it a less than desirable lens design.

Lastly, we tested the thickness of the lenses. The right lens measured 3.65 mm thick and the left lens measured 3.7 mm. This is thicker by at least 0.5 mm than most safety thickness lenses.

Phillips Safety (and their distributors) has been making statements on their websites and advertising materials that “this revolutionary product is 70% lighter than conventional laminated products…” recently changed to “this revolutionary product is greatly lighter than conventional laminated products…” after complaints by myself and my attorney.

To test this claim, we took a standard AGW-203 and a standard AGW-286 lens off the shelf and edged them to the exact shape and circumference as the Phillips Safety lens. We then measured all three lenses on an Ohaus Triple Beam Balance. Here are the results:

Weight expressed as a percentage:

We are currently in the process of obtaining a spectral transmission chart of the Phillips Safety lens and will publish our findings when it becomes available (of course, it will be copyrighted so it cannot be used without our permission).

Product commentary

The following commentary is provided to the reader in “plain English” detailing why the issues noted above are important to the potential purchaser of the Phillips Safety product.

The frame is not black as advertised, but rather a gunmetal color. This would certainly be a disappointment to someone who wanted a truly black frame.

The “keeper” did not have any apparent way to tighten the cord so the spectacle would not slip down the nose of the wearer.

The case itself is an inexpensive clear case that wouldn’t do much to protect the surface of the lenses from scratches as the inside of the case is much larger than the spectacles, and the spectacles would bounce around inside the case.

While the product offered by Phillips Safety is certainly lighter, by at least 12 percent, the phrase “greatly lighter” is certainly a gross exaggeration of the true facts, especially when comparing like products, such as the AGW-203 filter.

More importantly, though, are the manufacturing and quality aspects of the product.

I am somewhat troubled by the fact that although Phillips Safety is certainly aware of ANSI Z87, they do not apply the standard to their own products. I am amazed that they continue to refuse to mark their filters, as is required by the standard. For my company, it is a matter of pride in our workmanship and quality, not to mention voluntary adherence to the National Standard. What does Phillips Safety have to gain by not marking their product?

As far as the optical quality of the filters I tested goes, they are absolutely out of specification to ANSI Z87. Most people, in my opinion, wearing these lenses would experience vision problems and headaches within an hour of putting them on. Although it is possible that we tested a bad pair of filters, the random nature of the purchase makes the probabilities of such an occurrence quite small. People wearing spectacles with induced prism would experience a “pulling” sensation as his/her eyes were drawn in the direction of the induced prism in each lens, in this particular case, down and to the right. Additionally, the refractive power in the right eye will cause some distortion in vision, especially in someone who has good near and far vision. The net result will be an uncomfortable sensation that will only stop by taking the glasses off.

Mechanically, I noted the “gapping” problem with the eyewires on both lenses. Since these spectacles are typically made in batches, the operator of the edging machine may not habe been testing circumference and fit during the edging process. It appears to me that the person who inserted the lenses never bothered to correct the problem and just “slapped” the lenses into the frame. To give Phillips Safety the benefit of doubt, it could have been a bad pair, but the randomness of the purchase would appear to make the probability of that quite small.

Now, to give Phillips Safety the benefit of doubt, they may NOT be aware of the national standard, although on their website they state the following:

“Phillips Safety Products is a New Jersey based international manufacturer of safety eyewear and protective eyewear. We produce only the highest quality glass safety lenses and manufacture many types of eye protection frames. Our competitive pricing and attention to quality, and comfortability sets a standard for our competition.”

I'm left wondering if the product I recieved and examined fell into the above parameters.

Follow up note: Phillips Safety has been given the opportunity to respond to this review/commentary. When and if they reply, I will gladly post the reply here.

December 30, 2003, Additional follow up: It has been about 6 weeks since this review was published. To date there has been no answer from Phillips, nor has there been an offer to replace the obviously defective product. In the meantime, we have acquired some additional Phillips Boroscope products from another of their distributors. We received a pair of their so-called "Economy Safety Spectacles" as well as a pair of clip on frames with the Boroscope filter. Neither pair had the bi-toric curve on the front and back surface as noted above, however, more seriously, all four lenses had a recorded power of -0.25 diopters and each lens had at least 0.125 diopters of prism power in a variety of directions. The seriousness of this lapse in quality control cannot be overstated. If a person does not normally wear corrective eyewear and puts a pair of these spectacles on their face, they will have a very uncomfortable experience as noted above. Additionally, Phillips still has not placed their trademark on the lenses as required by ANSI Z87.