Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #101076

Complaint Review: EyeglassCellar.com - Precise Eyeglass Repair - Cincinnati Ohio

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Orange County California
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • EyeglassCellar.com - Precise Eyeglass Repair 230 Northland Blvd., Cincinnati Ohio 45246 Cincinnati, Ohio U.S.A.

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

I mailed two eyeglass lenses to eyeglasscellar.com for (anti-reflective coating) repair using their online form for such which states a $30 fee. I received the two lenses back by mail but both of the lenses were in an unusable condition: large uneven blurry sections - it appeared that large parts of the anti-reflective coating had not been removed and I was unable to clean it off.

I contacted the shop operator by phone and he said he did the work himself. He said it was impossible that the lenses were in the described condition. I told him it was obvious that he did not check his work because indeed the lenses were as described and unwearable (previously only small areas on the top portions had the anti-reflective coating worn down and the lenses had been highly useable). He remained insistent that it was impossible that he had made a mistake while at the same time he suggested that I may be seeing a "scratch proof layer" on the lenses that was below the anti-reflective coating (which was not correct as subsequently the remaining anti-reflective coating did come off with remover and the lenses are clear).

He also said that my lenses were "polycarbonate" which he recommends not buying because of bad physical properties. He told me I needed to return the lenses to him and I told him that the risk of doing so along with the postage costs would make this a bad decision by me. We agreed on a compromise of a $20 refund to be mailed to me (it was up to me to try to salvage the lenses). He said he had not cashed my ($30) check yet and asked me if I wanted to send another check for $10 and have him destroy the $30 check, or if I wanted to wait for him to cash my $30 check and then refund. I said I would wait. At the beginning of July, I phoned him (he answers the phone himself) and he said that all his "payments" were in his "end of the month" mail. I said thank you, no problem. Over a week later I phoned him (same guy) and identified myself. He then immediately hung up on me.

Gary
Orange County, California
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/28/2004 07:12 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/eyeglasscellarcom-precise-eyeglass-repair/cincinnati-ohio-45246/eyeglasscellarcom-precise-eyeglass-repair-homefusenetprecise-ripoff-screwed-up-eye-101076. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
4Consumer
3Employee/Owner

#7 REBUTTAL Owner of company

the owner rebuttal is incorrectly listed .

AUTHOR: Dale - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, September 11, 2011

Please update the reply I made ,as it has been for years as the owner. The reply is now included with my happy customers section with no Listing from the owners response. Thanks

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

Another Happy Customer

AUTHOR: Esther - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, May 04, 2008

I have had dealings with Eyeglass Cellar, and I was very happy with the results. They fixed my glasses perfectly and I was therefore able to get another whole year of use out of them before I had to have my prescription changed. I fully intend to use their services again.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Consumer Suggestion

a matter of proper cleaning and care of them

AUTHOR: S. - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, December 16, 2005

Anti reflective coating is a wonderful thing. It gave me back the ability to drive at night. The key word here is "coating". It is something added over your lenses. That means it can be removed. Anti reflective coatings will make the lenses appear smeared if they get any small amount of body oil from your face or hands on the lenses. It is only a matter of proper cleaning and care of them.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

Happy Customer I sent my glasses to eyeglass repair

AUTHOR: P - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, April 15, 2005

I just wanted to say that I sent my glasses to eyeglass repair Cincinnati Ohio a week ago Wed. and they sent them back to me the following Thursday with the coating removed, and the glasses in perfect condition. The optician in Albany who made the glasses told me that the coating can't be removed once it's put on, and that I needed to purchase new lens for $150.00.

I left the glass in the drawer for a year until I found eyeglass repair Cincinnati Ohio on the internet. I can't tell you how happy I am with finished product. I feel like I just a new pair of glasses for $30.00. In fact I just mailed out another pair today for repair.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

Interesting concept, "anti-reflective coating"....interesting but impractical IMHO....

AUTHOR: Adolph - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, April 13, 2005

About two years ago I received a new eyeglass prescription and ordered glasses. When I picked them up, the staff told me I received an extra cost option free, by mistake. That was my introduction to "anti-reflective" lenses.
.
The display on the counter was positioned so a standard lens and an antireflective lens would both display the fluorescent lights on the ceiling. Remarkable difference, but I immediately wondered what need existed to make use of the surface of the lens as a "mirror".
.
Crappy glasses nearly drove me nuts. Had to clean them several times daily,and they never looked REALLY clean. The 'reflective' quality of standard lenses ever being a problem doesn't exist. The antireflective treatment just ruins an otherwise satisfactory set of eye glasses.
.
New NON "antireflective" lenses ordered forthwith (no charge) and put in service.
.
Just my $02. on what I consider an unworkable, undesirable extra cost option.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Anti-Reflective coating removal--NOT Removal and re-application

AUTHOR: Dale - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, April 13, 2005

I received Garys lenses along with our "Mail In Service Form",A form that provides us with customer contact, payment and return information.

Gary had written instructions to "re-do anti-reflective on lenses".(Please visit our website
listed above for simple and specific details on
this service)Re-do of anti reflective coating on
old lenses is not a standard available service option.

I called Gary using the daytime number provided
to advise him I would only be removing the defective coating as described in the web page. Gary was not available,so I proceeded to explain the situation on his answering machine.I explained that if I did not hear from him by the end of the day I would proceed with the removal procedure to promptly return his lenses.I did not receive a return call and proceeded.

The result of the process was perfect,and lenses
were returned. After receiving his lenses,Gary
called and unfourtuinally and admittedly expected
to have the coating removed and replaced.
The web site specificlly describes the process as
removal.I perform this service hundreds of times
a year and Gary is the only one ever to make this
assumption.I offerd Gary the option to re-apply
the coating for the normal fee of 50.00,He declined.

I a written correspondence between myself and
Gary,I recieved the following statement:

"Dale phoned me,ahead of time to alert me that he would not be reapplying the anti reflective coating but only be removing it.I did not return his phone call because having no anti-reflective coating would be fine and indeed I was embarrassed to have misread his service. The 30.00 fee was on par with prices I have paid for anti-reflective coating in the past(30.00-40.00 additional when buying new glasses)although recently I had thought that prices may have increased.Also,I think that removing and replacing anti-reflective coating (I've had it done on two occasions several years ago)is more common than only removing it."

Gary clearly had expected to have his defective coating not only removed but also replaced.
Gary will likely respond that replacement is
not the issue.

In his above complaint he describes his lenses
as unuasble. In the second paragraph he states
he used a "remover" and they are now clear.
If coating replacement was not the issue,and they are now clear and useable,what exactly is his complaint? Could it be that I did just not return his money just because he requested it?

I am sorry about the misunderstanding on Garys
behalf. I do not ,in any way have an obligation to compensate him for his lack of reading comprehension of this clearly described service.

If gary happens to reply to this rebuttal,I
hope he would please describe the "remover"
he used to make his lenses Clear.
Perhaps the areas Gary was referring to were
his own fingerprints.Simply applying soap
and water and gently wiping with a soft cloth
will remove that.

If anyone has questions about the services we
provide,please call our toll free number above.

Thank You
Licensed Optician

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Anti-Reflective coating removal--NOT Removal and re-application

AUTHOR: Dale - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, April 13, 2005

I received Garys lenses along with our "Mail In Service Form",A form that provides us with customer contact, payment and return information.

Gary had written instructions to "re-do anti-reflective on lenses".(Please visit our website
listed above for simple and specific details on
this service)Re-do of anti reflective coating on
old lenses is not a standard available service option.

I called Gary using the daytime number provided
to advise him I would only be removing the defective coating as described in the web page. Gary was not available,so I proceeded to explain the situation on his answering machine.I explained that if I did not hear from him by the end of the day I would proceed with the removal procedure to promptly return his lenses.I did not receive a return call and proceeded.

The result of the process was perfect,and lenses
were returned. After receiving his lenses,Gary
called and unfourtuinally and admittedly expected
to have the coating removed and replaced.
The web site specificlly describes the process as
removal.I perform this service hundreds of times
a year and Gary is the only one ever to make this
assumption.I offerd Gary the option to re-apply
the coating for the normal fee of 50.00,He declined.

I a written correspondence between myself and
Gary,I recieved the following statement:

"Dale phoned me,ahead of time to alert me that he would not be reapplying the anti reflective coating but only be removing it.I did not return his phone call because having no anti-reflective coating would be fine and indeed I was embarrassed to have misread his service. The 30.00 fee was on par with prices I have paid for anti-reflective coating in the past(30.00-40.00 additional when buying new glasses)although recently I had thought that prices may have increased.Also,I think that removing and replacing anti-reflective coating (I've had it done on two occasions several years ago)is more common than only removing it."

Gary clearly had expected to have his defective coating not only removed but also replaced.
Gary will likely respond that replacement is
not the issue.

In his above complaint he describes his lenses
as unuasble. In the second paragraph he states
he used a "remover" and they are now clear.
If coating replacement was not the issue,and they are now clear and useable,what exactly is his complaint? Could it be that I did just not return his money just because he requested it?

I am sorry about the misunderstanding on Garys
behalf. I do not ,in any way have an obligation to compensate him for his lack of reading comprehension of this clearly described service.

If gary happens to reply to this rebuttal,I
hope he would please describe the "remover"
he used to make his lenses Clear.
Perhaps the areas Gary was referring to were
his own fingerprints.Simply applying soap
and water and gently wiping with a soft cloth
will remove that.

If anyone has questions about the services we
provide,please call our toll free number above.

Thank You
Licensed Optician

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now