A “Sunglass Consultant” is what a sales associate gets called in a certain major chain of sunglass retailers (not Sunglass Hut). I’m one. So, for your protective eyewear edification, I present this thread.
In my store each employee has sort of an area of specialization for the “quality optics” brands (as opposed to the “fashion” brands)… mine is Oakley, but I will field all sunglass-related questions.
It occurs to me that the scope of questioning might be rather small, but hey, this hasn’t been done before, so I guess we’ll soon find out.
First off, which pair of Oakleys? Presumably you’re talking about flares if you saw them in a softball catalog. I’m guessing you’re looking at the M-Frame 5.56 with the Ice iridium lens. You’ll notice that you’re basically paying through the nose for a frame color that nobody wants; the same frame in gloss black is $105 with the black iridium lens. Some of the lens colors are extremely expensive (the Fire iridium, for example) because of the extra processes it takes to make it a high-contrast or neutral transmission (filters all wavelengths equally, so you don’t see everything tinted). The difference is mostly in the lens technology. An Oakley frame is basically the same as anyone else’s frame, although you’re a lot less likely to find problems with the molding. The lenses are a different story; it takes (variously) between nine and thirty processes to produce a single lens because of the way each layer of the lens is sandwiched between the next layers.
Basically, you’ll see much more clearly through the Oakleys, I’d say. I’m not familiar with Easton’s lenses because they retail through sporting goods suppliers rather than sunglass suppliers, but that’s usually a pretty good sign of an inferior product.
Still, the difference in clarity is pretty negligible in the overall scheme of things; if the $155 you’d save could be better spent, then do so.
Other than wearing them in a tanning bed, how do I, the consumer, know that there really is UV protection on those lenses? Are the lenses just coated with some anti-UV material or is it built into the lens? If coated, how long does it last and how do I, the consumer, know when it’s gone?
Do you find the notion of paying $100 or more for a pair of sunglasses indicative of some ethical failing?
What do you think of the Maui Jim flexible frame sunglasses?
I was hesitant because they’re very pricy, but they are the best I’ve worn for aviation. I fly airplanes, and these frames fit under the headset wonderfully. As good, or better view than from the Oakleys I used to wear.
What do you know about them? Do you think they are worth it if one doesn’t have a specific reason for them like I do?
Goodness, I thought I was the only one who sat on a pair of sunglasses every stinkin year.
To remedy that I bought one good pair, lost them in the house and then bought several cheap pairs anywhere I could find them- Walmart, gas stations, theme parks. Wait, that didn’t stop me from sitting on a pair a year. I do, however have sunglasses stashed all over the place.
I can understand and appreciate the engineering effort behind a $300 pair of XX Metals versus a pair of $6.99 cheapies. But… Unobtanium? For less than $300, I can buy an iPod which is just crammed and bristling with seductive high technology. There’s a vanishingly small hard drive in there and all the amazing electronics. But, in a pair of sunglasses? Nothing moves. Nothing draws power. Nothing makes music. In the end, it’s two plastic lenses and some bits of plastic and metal.
The styles are nice, and Oakley is (last I checked, at least) the only company making straight bows that don’t curve down to go behind a hypothetical ear. This makes them the only glasses that will fit me - anything else and I wind up with the curved-down end of the bow resting ON my ear and not behind it. But do they have to be so paycheck-gobblingly expensive??
One more mundane question - is it possible to polish out scratches in the XX lenses? Are replacements easily obtained, and is it possible to have different lenses put in than what the glasses were made with?
“Fashion” sunglasses are exactly that- they stress form over function. That includes offerings from Fendi, Versace, Gucci, Kate Spade, Police, Dolce & Gabbana, and so on. Two or three subcontractors produce the frames and lenses for most of these brands; basically, you’re paying for the name and the look. They generally don’t offer polarization, because most fashion buyers really don’t care if the lenses are any good as long as they can see out of them. “Quality optics” (my term, not industry-speak) are the brands that stress the reverse; function outweighs (or at least gets equal billing to) form. Here you find Oakley, Maui Jim, Costa Del Mar, Revo, Ray-Ban, Serengeti, and so forth. Note that “quality optics” doesn’t necessarily mean that the lenses are good, just that they cost more to produce than the frame. There are also a couple of inbetweeny manufacturers like Spy and Dragon who are making decent but not great sunglasses designed to appear to surfers and skaters.
That depends on how heavy you are. There are several manufacturers offering Flexon ™ based frames; Maui Jim has gotten into them very heavily. Flexon is a titanium-based alloy which has pretty remarkable shear and torsion resistance, which basically means you can sit on them without breaking them. Caveats: drill-mount frames (rimless) are still pretty vulnerable because they can only be as strong as the drill point in the lenses. If you’re a sitter, you need full-frame glasses. Which lens you should pick depends, slightly. Polycarbonate or CR-39 lenses won’t shatter, but they will scratch easily. Glass lenses won’t scratch, but can shatter. If you sit on things hard, go with polycarbonate; otherwise, go with glass.
Frankly, you don’t. All solid materials block some degree of UV; wearing regular eyeglasses will provide you with (minimal) protection. Most honorable retailers won’t sell you anything that doesn’t provide 100% of UVA and UVB protection; UVB is key, because that’s the harmful stuff (for eyes, at least). You don’t have to worry much about losing UV coating. Some manufacturers use a film, the better ones use a liquid polymer which is sandwiched between two lens layers. Generally, UV filters will be in the middle of the lens, so it’ll be the last thing that flakes.
Spending $100 on a pair of sunglasses is indicative of nothing other than the fact that you had $100 and wanted some sunglasses. Spending $100 on a pair on sunglasses and not wearing them is indicative of laziness, stupidity, or of the fact that you have too much money. Most of our brands actually start around a hundred, though.
We get a lot of pilots in and apparently you guys all have different-shaped headsets. Some swear only the Oakley straight-temple designs fit, some say only the smallest MJ styles fit. I think the Mauis are fantastic; their lenses are very, very good (second only to Oakley is the general consensus of industry rags), and their repair and customer service policies are excellent. Plus, the MJ ‘rose’ lens is the best high-contrast lens out there, for my money.
Unobtanium is a stupid name for “rubber” and I bitch about Oakley’s patent-materials-naming policy whenever the Oakley rep is within earshot. They are paycheck-gobbling expensive because lots of people are willing to have their paychecks gobbled. Oakleys never go on sale because Oakley already has their hands full with existing demand.
There are a few other companies who have one or two styles without the ear curve, but Oakley are the only ones I know of who make everything that way. That said, most metal and thinner plastic frames can be adjusted to fit your ears. We use what amounts to a small focused space heater to make the earpieces more pliable, and we can lengthen them slightly or bring them forward. Ask the sales associate next time you go looking; I’m fairly sure most retailers have the same equipment we do.
If your lenses are scratched, they’re done for. Trying to polish a scratched lens is just going to make the scratch worse; a sunglass lens isn’t a single piece of tinted plastic, like you’d think; it’s a series of layers of plastic and other filters stuck together. You can send them back to Oakley and have the lenses replaced; usually costs between $45 and $100 (plus s&h), depending on the lens color and whether they’re polarized, and yes, you can order a non-original lens.
Markup on Oakleys can vary tremendously by frame and lens. Oakley actually makes a small loss on certain high-end frames, I’m told. Retailer markup, though, is about 50% (meaning half of what you pay is warehouse cost and the rest is markup).
I need polarized lenses because I spend a great deal of time on the water and driving on wet roads in the sunlight. My question has to do with the nature of polarization in a sunglass lens - I noticed that the lenses in my glasses are not polarized exactly vertically, nor horizontally, and I’m wondering if this is intentional or merely a manufacturing defect? Both right and left lenses presumably are polarized in the same direction? Also, what is the line spacing?
I am currently trying to buy a pair of Oakley Mars (The charcoal color with the black irridium lens), despite never having been able to find them anywhere to try on. What is the reason that no one seems to carry this particular style in stock? I have had to resort to bidding on them on Ebay. Also, can you tell me anything about pros or cons of this style?
I looked in the softball catalog, and your response was dead on. While I still refuse to pay more than $30 for a pair of sunglasses, if you ever get too many of the Black M Frames with Grey Heater lenses, and they won’t fit into your inventory, I’d be happy to take them for a test drive around here this summer.
Generally the filter runs slightly upward from the center to the outside edge. The angle shouldn’t really be detectable unless you have a heavily slanted frame.
Line spacing depends from lens to lens; right and left lenses are both polarized in the same general direction, but since the polarization isn’t exactly horizontal the filters won’t match up.
No prob- that’s what I’m here for.
To be perfectly honest, the reason nobody carries the Mars is because nobody likes them. We had a pair for a few months and they’ve now gone back to warehouse because they sat in a display and not a single person asked to try them on. I wouldn’t recommend buying through Ebay; a lot of the stuff on there is less than kosher (people bring stuff in every now and then to find out if it’s fake; usually if they bought it on Ebay the answer is “yup”.) You can get them with warranty and so forth through Oakley.com, although naturally they’re gonna be pricey ($275).
We have some Electrics which look a bit like that, but it isn’t a great picture. Find me a better one and I can probably identify the brand and the model (if they’re still in production)
If you’re asking if I carry them, then no, I can’t lift them.
First off, thanks for the thread. I love it when Dopers who know things so openly offer their knowledge. Second, amen to what you said about the fashion sunglasses being all about how you look, not how well you see. I’m a sunglasses addict and have blown many a paycheck on Armanis, Gaultiers, and Pradas, and none have the optics of my Bolles. (But damn, they look cool!)
My question: You said that most rags rate Oakleys as the best lenses, with MJs coming in second. Could you give us a breakdown of which makers are considered by insiders as the best, and why? I’m currently looking at a pair of Cebes, but aside from the fact that they’re French and fit great, I can’t judge the optics beyond knowing that they give me a nice tinted view of the rest of the department store.
Also, which major manufacturers make polarized glass lenses? (We don’t get Maui Jim here in Bangkok Thailand).
