• Take 30 seconds to register your free account to access deals, post topics, and view exclusive content!

    Register Today

    Join the largest Oakley Forum on the web!

2014 Oakley 2nd Release

And the trend of naming new models after classic models continues. It just kills me because none of these have been true updates; just stealing name-fame off prior models.

True. To me this is another blatant way of showing the lack of creativity going on. I will admit that I haven't been excited by many frames since 2007 however there were a few that I did get behind and enjoyed (fuel cell, x squared, etc.) but at least they came up with new and unique names for those. Now we are not only getting consistently more bland styling each year but they are now trying to recycle names of classic Oakley styles, most of which, I might add, were uniquely Oakley and slapping them on to these models. Kind of diminishing the classic. I'm not bashing the mass marketing as I'm sure they have reasons for doing what they are doing but as a fan it is extremely disappointing to see this going on.

I don't think you guys are paying attention here; Oakley has been doing model refreshes and using the same style name throughout generations of glasses. Look at the iterations of Straight Jackets, Tens, Blades, Zeros, etc. They have taken models with a near complete redesign and called it an old name. Everyone is all up in arms, not because these original models were anything super, but because of Lux's perceived influence. The original Valve wasn't anything outstanding. I certainly wouldn't put it on the same level as the Romeo or the Plate or Splice, glasses that are iconic because of their original design. Get over the name and be happy that new releases are more in line with true Oakley lineage and nothing more for the lifestyle brand.
 
I don't think you guys are paying attention here; Oakley has been doing model refreshes and using the same style name throughout generations of glasses. Look at the iterations of Straight Jackets, Tens, Blades, Zeros, etc. They have taken models with a near complete redesign and called it an old name. Everyone is all up in arms, not because these original models were anything super, but because of Lux's perceived influence. The original Valve wasn't anything outstanding. I certainly wouldn't put it on the same level as the Romeo or the Plate or Splice, glasses that are iconic because of their original design. Get over the name and be happy that new releases are more in line with true Oakley lineage and nothing more for the lifestyle brand.
Some of those models were created in 2007 or after. As I stated before this is when the designs started to change. Oakley reiterations prior to then had pretty much been versions (romeo and romeo 2, zero .03 and zero .07, etc.) These designations differentiate between versions/generations. As far as the newer designs being more in line with Oakley lineage...I guess everyone's opinion will differ. To me, the new designs are in line with Oakley lineage is "in name only".
 
Some of those models were created in 2007 or after. As I stated before this is when the designs started to change. Oakley reiterations prior to then had pretty much been versions (romeo and romeo 2, zero .03 and zero .07, etc.) These designations differentiate between versions/generations. As far as the newer designs being more in line with Oakley lineage...I guess everyone's opinion will differ. To me, the new designs are in line with Oakley lineage is "in name only".

So if Oakley called the new Valve "Valve 2.0" or something that would make it better? It doesn't make any sense; by the logic used around here its a sin to call the C7 a Corvette because 1953 was the original Corvette and any reuse of the name is simply a stab at marketing.

As for the Oakley lineage, opinions will differ, agreed. However, if you characterize Oakley with a handful of terms, a lot of new pairs are coming in O-Matter with Unobtanium rubber, XYZ optics, Plutonite lenses, and Z87.1 impact protection. That's pretty much Oakley to me.
 
So if Oakley called the new Valve "Valve 2.0" or something that would make it better? It doesn't make any sense; by the logic used around here its a sin to call the C7 a Corvette because 1953 was the original Corvette and any reuse of the name is simply a stab at marketing.

Well not to get it mixed up, but that guy has a point. I would've listed it as an clearer iteration or something. Wouldn't make me like the frame any better or have any perceptions about using the name for marketing (don't have any regardless), but for the sake of identification on paper.

I thought the original Valve was cooler, although it was just more of a mild offshoot of the Splice and Scar aesthetic. This one however, is really bland.
 
So if Oakley called the new Valve "Valve 2.0" or something that would make it better?
Yes, actually it would. If I'm looking for a classic Valve in eBay, I'll start getting 2014 Valve results too, which I don't want.

As for naming new models after classics, here's my issue. With Straight Jacket, I could see the evolution of the fame over the various versions. Even with the Eye Jacket, I could see that 2.0 and 3.0 were reimaginings of the original, even being as different as they were.
The 2013/14 renames aren't the same. It's like they're taking a new frame and slapping a classic name on it, for marketing reasons, rather than because the current frame has anything to do with the origina. I don't think anyone looked at the classic Canteen and had it in mind when they were designing the 2014 version. I could be wrong. But I just don't feel like this has been the case recently.
 
So if Oakley called the new Valve "Valve 2.0" or something that would make it better? It doesn't make any sense; by the logic used around here its a sin to call the C7 a Corvette because 1953 was the original Corvette and any reuse of the name is simply a stab at marketing.

As for the Oakley lineage, opinions will differ, agreed. However, if you characterize Oakley with a handful of terms, a lot of new pairs are coming in O-Matter with Unobtanium rubber, XYZ optics, Plutonite lenses, and Z87.1 impact protection. That's pretty much Oakley to me.

Let me be clear that I don't speak for everyone however my feeling is that Oakley is now slapping names on frames that don't evoke images that would come with using the name of the original. A Romeo is drastically different from a Romeo 2 other than the unobtanium and x metal use. however the fact that they differentiate the second from the first by labeling it a "2" gives it little distinction. Using the corvette example you posted they differentiate it by model years. What Oakley is doing now is akin to what Chevy would be doing by relabeling a Suburban as a Corvette. While you may or may not think that is better or worse is irrelevant. You expect to see a high powered sports car with a Corvette name. Labeling it a Corvette SUV or something or other would distinguish it from the sports car somewhat (again whether it is good or bad for sales is not important for this arguments sake). Oakley lineage has always meant something more aesthetic to me as that is what I got into Oakley for in the first place. I didn't buy Oakley because of the ability to stop a spike from going through the lens or the rubber they used (although I later came to appreciate those features as I collected more) but for the designs.
 
I also like Robert Plant's music but an having tough time making this on topic
Seriously are all the new styles for large heads / faces .. Seems that way ....again
Is the crank shaft similar to case in fit?
 
I also like Robert Plant's music but an having tough time making this on topic
Seriously are all the new styles for large heads / faces .. Seems that way ....again
Is the crank shaft similar to case in fit?

Other than the designers and maybe a small handful of people i dont think anyone has touched them yet, making the fit question tough. Its all speculation.
 
Back
Top