OAKLEY - absolute rip off

he can't answer - radio silence dark ops this weekend........ collecting trolleys in sainos car park...

Frogskin alternative that will actually confirm to safety/uv standards?

Cheers

Oakley must be far from the worst offender of price over inflation in the eyewear industry though.

Yeah they cost a lot but you are at least getting the UV and impact protection in the lenses, the good quality materials and design in the frames etc.

'Designer' frames for prescription eyesight correction lenses are little more than a few grams of plastic and the cost can be many fold that of a pair of Oakleys and that's before you evenb get lenses put in them.

More on Luxotica/Oakley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdq2rIqAlM

I sell Oakley glasses.

They are made in China and arrive in bags with Chinese writing on, despite being distributed via an Italian company. The 'Made in USA' stamp baffles me, maybe assembled there, probably by min wage earning Mexicans.

The £5 fake ones on ebay are identical frames (I bought some old Jawbones)and I suspect they are seconds as they tend to be less well finished, though the lenses are immediately identifiable as very poor quality (faux iridium mirror finish scratches very easily) though the non-mirror lenses are fine.

Even the cheapest sunglasses are likely to be 100% UV protective as the cheapest lens material (polycarbonate) happens to be uv blocking.

Hmmmm - my optician in Shenzhen tells me 95% of the frames he gets are from the factory. The machine 'accidentally' gets left on at the end of the shift and a few hundred frames are churned out once a week.

As you say' most of the world's frames are made in Shenzhen or Guangzhou and stamped 'made in Italy' which is where the lenses are popped in and allows them to be marked as such. He said the exception was Raybans and Oakleys - his were knock off frames. That might just be because he doesn't have to contacts in those factories.

So far I've steered away from snide sunglasses because I assumed the lenses would lack protection and stuck with clear lenses. But what you're saying makes it sound like it might be worth a punt.

Oakley must be far from the worst offender of price over inflation in the eyewear industry though.

Pretty much my thoughts.

Yes there are some ultra premium versons, but not all of them cost a fortune and they are generally excellent quality (although rarely look good).

Ray Ban for eg I don't get at all. I always used to rate them because they were a good price point of style, lense quality and price. The last pair I bought were €75. Now they'd cost £150. (and please no one start talking about how the "originals" were so much better, when they weren't and the lenses weighed so much the glasses never sit right).

But the point is you can buy perfectly decent non/lower brand glasses if you want. The choice is yours.

tifosi are pretty good for the money

Bloc are also great if you want budget sports glasses with good lenses.

Or tkmaxx out of season.

with premium brands at always up to 60% off, tkmaxx is never out of season in our household

pats back pocket of cheaply made maxx diffusion line premium brand jeans

I've had a few pairs of fake oakleys, the frames aren't quite the same, they do the job but feel like knock offs. Also the lenses are rubbish, they make it harder to see anything when it's sunny, not easier.

If there's one thing I'll never not spend money on, it's glasses.

The damage done by moody lenses is almost always irreparable.

The cheap knockoff frames are not the same as the real deal in my experience. The fakes obviously look similar, but the plastic(?) feels much lighter with no bend to it and the rubber on the nose/ear piece don't actually feel like rubber. You're left with a frame that's likely to snap with uncomfortable contact points and plastic lenses that do fuck all.

Moody lenses? So what are they made of? What's their uv protection? What are the effects of excess uv exposure? Almost always irreparable? Under which circumstances are they repairable?

I think he means the damage from wearing glasses that you think are offering UV protection but in fact don't is irreparable.

Given the tint the wearer is less likely to squint and thus overexpose their eyes to UV.

I know, but remember that polycarbonate is the cheapest and shittiest lens material, it's poor optically and prone to scratching due to its soft surface. Poly is used for safety specs, riot shields and motorbike visors due to its impact resistance but it's uv protection is a handy secondary bonus. Oh, and it's renamed by Oakley to plutonite so punters think they've got something special.

They haven't.

It's the same material used in a pair of £5 beach sunglasses and incidentally, the fake oakleys which also offer 100% uv protection.

Still, you won't get a tan in a riot.

I really liked my army surplus ones, until some prick ripped them off from round my neck during a brawl in a pub, stamped on them, and broke a tiny bit of rubber from the end (otherwise they were unscathed, but I don't want to wear floor-glasses).

Quite happy with the el cheapo Kuota ones off ebay some time back. As much as dad loves his rip-off genuine Oakleys, I don't whimper if mine get scratched up.

Many thanks for the suggestion.
Duly ordered and they arrived this lunchtime.
Fit easily over my prescription glasses.

You get that Hollywood jewish film studio owner vibe to boot.

Has this thread been derailed from the piss taking into a genuine discussion of sunglasses? Or do my eyes deceive me?
(I thank you)

I'm certain PC swine ^ has tanned some undesirables in social disturbances...

It's the same material used in a pair of £5 beach sunglasses and incidentally, the fake oakleys which also offer 100% uv protection.

Still, you won't get a tan in a riot.

Black and Tan maybe?

I am always socially disturbed/undesirable.

indeed, turned earnest - back to the bravo two zero references please..