User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/7/2004 8:41:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Up for the Nite crew
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:28:48 AM EDT
[#2]
Oakley tightly controls the retail prices on their products, and will pull the accounts of retailers that don't comply. Thus, if you find somewhere that is selling Oakleys at a discount, especially a large one, they're probably fakes.
-Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:32:39 AM EDT
[#3]
Possibly a dealer going out of business?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:56:07 AM EDT
[#4]
Look for the CM mark on the inside of the frame. If it does not have it then they are fake. Around here fake oakleys are going for $5-10.00. I have a pair of e-wires that are real and cost my wife $180.00 at the local sunglass hut. This is a case of you get what you pay for. I would think that your m-frames were fake or you were extremally lucky and stumbled on one hell of a deal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 4:53:48 AM EDT
[#5]
There's a local flea-market around here that sells oakley's for like $5.00........ We call 'em Joakleys..... Best damn copies I've ever seen, even has the 'Oakley' name
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 4:55:47 AM EDT
[#6]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 5:01:11 AM EDT
[#7]
Oakley will sell to military and LEO their SI line for about 50 percent off, but you have to have a min order of $200. Allot of items and lens choices are not in their SI line catalogue, however if you call them they will quote a price for you on them of the none listed items.
Military exchanges often have good prices on Oakleys, last year the MCX at Lejeune was selling Polarized Oakleys for 29.95, AAFES about once ever six months has a 30 percent off sale on its Oakleys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 5:03:02 AM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 5:04:32 AM EDT
[#9]
Cheap + Oakley = FOakleys = Fake Oakleys
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 5:46:36 AM EDT
[#10]
I had a pair of Staight Jackets from the Sunglass Hut and a pair ($5) from a Vegas street vender. The markings were identical everywhere but the $5 pair lasted about two weeks and I've been wearing the real Jackets off and on for about three years. You get what you pay for.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 6:27:12 AM EDT
[#11]
I love the Oakley pro-m frame design but I have broken to many of theri sunglasses in the past. I now buy exclusively fake Oakley's. This the one website that I usually buy from:
Relica Sunglasses There are many others out there, you just have to google fake oakley's. They seem almost as good as the real thing just at a lot lower price. I bought my latest two pair for $20 each. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 6:43:15 AM EDT
[#12]
One downside to buying the fakes is that you have no idea whether or not the lenses actually block 100% of UVA and UVB like Oakleys, or whether the lenses meet/exceed the military standard for ballistic protection.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 6:45:38 AM EDT
[#13]
I can really tell a difference between the clarity of the lenses with fake and original Oakleys. Only original ones for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 7:56:18 AM EDT
[#14]
What in the hell can you possibly get from a pair of $180 sunglasses?? Can you honetly say a $180 pair of Oakley's is better than a $5-10 pair of Smoakley's? They are all made of plastic, and all of 'em will break if you step on them, but to say one pair is better because you paid $180 for them is a little insane... Kind of like saying Colt makes a better AR because it costs more... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 7:59:32 AM EDT
[#15]
Hold on while I get some popcorn, & beer. I ben here before. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 8:01:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Well most of Oakley's price is profit (notice they sell to military and LEO at 1/2 the price and still making a profit) but they are still good glasses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 8:24:02 AM EDT
[#17]
I thought the lenses would fit the better fakes. Why couldn't you just put the real lenses in and still have cheaper glasses?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 9:03:16 AM EDT
[#18]
I bought my M-Frames at Dillion Percision. That's the Blue Press! And yes I got the Polorized lenses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 10:10:18 AM EDT
[#19]
One of the reasons Oakleys probably cost so much is due to the cost of the lawyers they have to hire to protect their designs and patents. Anytime the frames break, even after warranty, Oakley will replace the frames for $19. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:07:59 AM EDT
[#20]
I couldn't find any polorized oakleys for less than 100 so i settled for guard dogs eyewear, sidecars for 90. they are pretty cool check them out at there website guard dogs eyewear, tell me what you guys think
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:28:20 AM EDT
[#21]
Distortion free optical clarity and protection from the truly harmful UVA and UVB rays from the sun. Rite-Aid sunglasses won't hack it. Sorry. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:31:35 AM EDT
[#22]
I guess those of us who require eyewear are just screwed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:32:20 AM EDT
[#23]
Unless replacement eyes are cheap, don't wear cheap sunglasses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:39:14 AM EDT
[#24]
Even the $10 ones with the "UV Protection" sticker on the lens?? Plus, all of the Smoakley's I have seen were distortion free. Face it, there all cheap plastic. You just choose to pay 10x more. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:42:04 AM EDT
[#25]
Keep telling yourself that kid..... I'm not sure you would know distortion, or lack thereof, if it bit you on the ass. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:43:53 AM EDT
[#26]
Price fixing is illegal (for whatever that's worth). My understanding is that they can only mandate a minimum advertised price, which is why you have to "call for price" on a lot of high-end goods. jafager |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:45:38 AM EDT
[#27]
So where would I go about getting a pair of perscription Oakleys? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:45:43 AM EDT
[#28]
The point above that Jarhead_22 makes is extremely important. I know my old eyes are worth the dollars I spent on the real McCoy's, are yours? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:46:46 AM EDT
[#29]
Force Recon vet Pat Rogers says that even Bolle sunglasses have distortion. Oakleys are the best in his years of experience. If they're good enough for Force Recon Marines, they're plenty good enough for me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:48:00 AM EDT
[#30]
Any doctor's office who deals with custom frames should be able to help. Two guys I play ball with use M-Frames with prescription lenses for ball. They also have metal frame prescription Oakleys that are clear as their usual glasses. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:50:04 AM EDT
[#31]
I have a set of prescription metal frame Oakleys that I got from my eye doctor earlier this year. Pretty pricey. When I wear contact lenses I use Oakley M frames or Half Jackets. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:53:34 AM EDT
[#32]
The ironic thing is that I tend to wear my cheap sunglasses under more stressful conditions than my good ones.
I can't bring myself to wear a $100 pair of sunglasses on the beach where sand is flying everywhere. Nor do I wear them when doing strenuous activities like whitewater canoing as I don't want to lose $100 in a split second when I hit a wave wrong. Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 11:59:48 AM EDT
[#33]
Wrong. If they do not like the price the retailer has set, they in turn can quit selling to that retailer. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:01:27 PM EDT
[#34]
Really? What do they cost? I doubt I would wear them often anyway, but it would be nice to have a pair of sunglasses that look like sunglasses, I have a pair of perscription sunglasses in Rayban WayfarerII frames, but my wife claims that they look like the galsses that blind people wear. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:02:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Well, Shivan, you have won the "Moron Comment of the Day" contest. Congratulations! But don't worry, I'm sure you will be able to outdo yourself in no time at all. Distortion is subjective to the individual. Some people have better eyes than others. Apparently you must be the premier judge of distortion, or at least you proclaim to be. Sunglasses are sunglasses. A $10 pair of UV protected sunglasses give you the same level of protection as a $180 pair of Oakleys, and I challenge anyone to prove that statement wrong. If it hurts your feelings to find out a $10 pair of glasses are just as good as a pair 10x more, then apparently you are just a little too sensitive and insecure. But, if you want to pay that much for them, be my guest. Just don't me so audacious as to suggest I don't know what distortion is, nor am I able to spot it. It basically shows what a dumbass you are. Good luck with your witty response! |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:09:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Standards of distortion are not subjective. Sorry. Try again. They may be subjective to the individual wearer, just as adjustment on a rifle scope's diopter may vary from shooter to shooter. However, the baseline, or zero, is a measurable constant. There are folks on this board who know quite a bit more about these things than I, and it's comforting to know that they would agree with me -- not you. Sunglasses are NOT sunglasses. In fact, until recently, the only way to achieve the optical clarity of Oakleys and other poly lensed glasses was to invest in ground glass eyewear. BTW, Oakleys also come in several metal alloys that are pretty damn sturdy. Though, I'm sure you knew that.....plastic is plastic ------ er, except when it's metal.....right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:13:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Most high-end products have a minimum retail price set by the mfr. This is to try to keep the retailers in business by giving them enough of a margin. Internet sales, a great thing for us consumers, is driving storefronts out of business. My FFL was telling me that there's some 'net outfit somewhere was selling Leupold scopes for 10 bucks over what Leupold charges HIM. There's no way a store can survive off a $10 margin on a $900 scope. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:37:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Both of those statements are very wrong. Break down a buy a real pair and maybe you'll figure it out. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:37:49 PM EDT
[#39]
Well, I have to say your response bordered on intelligent this time. Distortion is subjective, and it is dependant on the indivicual. Sure, you may be able to achieve your baseline of zero, but will everyone be able to visually tell minute variations from zero distortion? Probably not. You can make things as clear or "distortion" free as you want, but it makes no difference to someone who can't distinguish between the two. I'm sure you can understand that. Oh, it is comforting to know people will agree with you and not me, especially if that makes you feel more secure. I would be willing to bet that most people (>90%) would not be able to tell the difference between actual Oakley lenses and copies. But don't get me wrong, if you want to pay $100+, be my guest. Actually, why don't you just come out and say you like buying expensive sunglasses? It really doesn't matter to me, and it might help you with your sunglass insecurities. As far as the metal framed Oakleys, they are still no sturdier than most metal sunglasses. They all break, for the most part. Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining about expensive sunglasses. My GF actually bought me a pair of $300+ Maui Jim's, and I wear them all the time. The have the memory frames, and you can bend the hell out of them and they just pop back in to shape. Since I own a pair of expensive sunglasses, does that make me "cooler" now? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:43:37 PM EDT
[#40]
people who think that good eyewear should cost over 100$ are high on crack.
oakley sunglasses are like bose stereos. the price you pay is 10% for the product and 90% for marketing. honestly, i'd rather buy no name glasses that meet ANSI or other impact specs (i.e. wont shatter) and block UVA/B and pay the 25-40$ they cost versus throwing away 50-75$ on footing the bill for someone elses marketing expenses to maintain their "brand image" i used to swear by oakleys but i honestly grew tired of sending my 150$ plastic glasses back everytime they broke. granted they were replaced for free, but i spent as much on postage as anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:48:48 PM EDT
[#41]
Actually the ONLY reason I own Oakleys vs. any other brand is because they offer superior protection from the sun while allowing me to switch lenses to adapt to whatever I am doing. I use the M-Frames and have 5 or 6 lenses of varying tints. I also have the Half Jackets that came as a set of three lenses and offer polarized lenses. Not very many other manufacturers offer their distortion-free clarity, and UVA and UVB protection while giving you a durable and lasting package. The fact you now claim to own a pair of $300 Maui Jim's just shot your argument out of the water. Sunglasses are sunglasses, remember? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:51:46 PM EDT
[#42]
So you buy your corrective lenses at the flea market too right, because its the same thing, right? right? 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:54:40 PM EDT
[#43]
I don't think they need to be any certain price, I was willing to pay for a set of glasses that I could adpat to whatever use or activity I was doing that day -- from clear lenses to 9% transmission lenses without having to keep a bunch of different glasses around.... I use mine for playing softball, volleyball and flag football. I broke one pair of 5 year old M-Frames while body surfing in Va Beach. Dove through a wave and the earpiece cracked a little.... I've never broken another pair. I guess if you are a clutz, or prone to losing stuff, then maybe Rite-Aid $2 specials are your thing.... I don't buy Oakleys to be "cool", they were the only sunglasses to offer the package of things I was looking for....mainly interchangeability and protection. YMMV.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:55:50 PM EDT
[#44]
optical distortion in common plastic lenses can range from severe to quite minimal and depends primarily on the shape of the glasses -mainly the curvature of the lens-
oakleys may be innovative in that they are able to twist plastic lenses into good aerodynamic and low profile shapes while maintianing a fairly low level of distortion. their ability to come up with cool looking, form fitting wraparound shades has without a doubt forced them to maximize the optical quilities of their lenses. this is not to say that a much cheaper pair of glasses with a more conservative style where the lens sits further away from the eye and has a larger lens altogether (such as aviator style glasses) cannot be every pit as effective if not moreso than the whiz-bang oakleys. no, they will not be as aerodynamic no, they will not look as cool no, they will not look as "tactical" yes, they will cost you about 25%-50% of the price. mind you, if i could get a pair of regular m frames for 55-60$ i'd buy a pair i will not however needlessly throw away money on what is often a "throw-away" item. by that I mean that all sunglasses (although oakleys are any more immune than any other maker) are fragile and easily scratched, bent and damaged by the kind of activities that we need them on for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 12:56:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Go away, and come back when you have something logical to add to the discussion. We are talking about sunglasses here, or did you miss that part?? The Maui Jim's were a gift, so the argument still stands. Are they better than $10 sunglasses? The answer is still no, but it is fun to twist the frames around and not have them break! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 1:01:17 PM EDT
[#46]
I don't understand why you are being so defensive. You don't need to defend or explain your reasoning behind buying Oakleys. Its perfectly OK with me. If you want to own ten pair, be my guest. I just think it is crazy to go out and pay that much for something you can get for 90% cheaper. Would I have personally bought the Maui Jim's? Hell, no! Does that mean I won't wear them because they are expensive? The answer is "NO" again.
Buy what you want, its your money! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 1:02:38 PM EDT
[#47]
the oakleys that i had big problems with were the original (circa 1995-96) straight jackets. at the thinnest point on the earpiece (under the earsock) and also toward the dinky snap-in hinge they were prone to breaking during any sort of physical activity. i had two pairs one was the expensive full-metal jackets and the other was a pair of the regular black jackets. i also had a pair of e-wires that i liked better but they (sadly) were stolen and i was out a shitload of cash. trust me when i say that "looking cool" is most peoples #1 priority in buying sunglasses. you may not be looking for them to look cool but i gurantee that 99.99% of others sure are... my damn self included :P the glasses that i wear right now are purely "fashion" shades that i got a helluva deal on. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 1:03:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Who the fuck are you and WHAT THE FUCK IS your problem? Here's a clue, memory frames are available in $70 frames from your local Hour Eyes -- with tinted lenses if you like -- even photochromatic if you spring for $45 more. They have been for several years. In fact my uncle and father both have/had a pair. So they were a gift, then your girlfriend was the idiot then......cool -- glad we are clear on that. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 1:04:02 PM EDT
[#49]
does anyone know what the prices are for the SI series? namely the basic M frames?
i am curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2004 1:04:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Whew boy! I guess I should just thank my lucky stars that I qaulify for Oakley's LE discount! I LOVE my Oakley Straight Jackets and looking to purchase their M Frames with Strike lens and SI XX's.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
