Are frogskins really not as important as they used to be?

[pjd1234]

Also look at it this way FROGS are produced cheaply as they are plastics with few blings (metal pieces, nuts, bolts etc.) even no significant or unique packaging. Compare a frog to a lets say a last gen Juliet which one in general is a more desirable piece??? I will say out of ten newbies 8 will pick the juliets. NOW if you are a collector and you have these ITS A DIFFRENT STORY. LOL. MY GOSH THEY ARE SOOOOO PRETTTY......

 

[Carrera1963]

No way are Frogs at the "bottom of the food chain" in collecting terms. There are collectors who exclusively collect Frogs, and some of the rarest ones are making more than the vast majority of x-metals. Not as expensive in construction, sure, and Oakley have maybe gone overboard with the number of limiteds but they definitely have their place.

 

[Funky-Trixtar]

I collect Frogs but also X-Metals, oh and don't forget old O-Matter....and then there's Wires............bugger, that's why I'm skint most of the time..
I have a passion for collecting 'O' stuff(even though I can't display it for the mo).
pjd, trivializng any one collection isn't going to help things: I realise the effort, blood, sweat and tears that went into X-Metal design and construction, however that doesn't make them more desirable to everyone. You do have your own opinion and I have mine, they may not always be along the same lines. Lets not forget how many Frogskins have sold in comparison to X-Metals, I think you'll find that's the K.O. punch.

 

[Soulfulfrog]

I collect Frogs but also X-Metals, oh and don't forget old O-Matter....and then there's Wires............bugger, that's why I'm skint most of the time..
I have a passion for collecting 'O' stuff(even though I can't display it for the mo).
pjd, trivializng any one collection isn't going to help things: I realise the effort, blood, sweat and tears that went into X-Metal design and construction, however that doesn't make them more desirable to everyone. You do have your own opinion and I have mine, they may not always be along the same lines. Lets not forget how many Frogskins have sold in comparison to X-Metals, I think you'll find that's the K.O. punch.

Perfect

 

[Chanfreddy]

I am an 80s junky and this is as oldskool as I can get, I remember trying everywhere to get my hands on them again when they were scarce in the early 2000s....so yes: I believe there always be a demand...

 

[jk-27]

Hello Oakley Forum family. Been quite a while.

I'll throw in my 2 cents from what is essentially now an ex-Frogskins collector.

Historically, Frogskins have, and will always have, an importance to Oakley. I don't believe Oakley would be where they are today if it wasn't for Frogskins, they were and are many peoples first 'in' to Oakley, and raised awarness of Oakley as a sunglasses manufacturer way back in the 80's.

However, if the OP means are Frogskins not important now amongst the collecting community as they used to be, then the answer is no, they're not. Why? In my opinion, and essentially the reason I stopped collecting them, is an over abundance of poor product choices for the model. A few years ago was dynamite, you had truly unique collaborations (the SW Blue Chromes, Supremes, DMQ's, Gentei etc), celebrity lines from those who represented the Frogskins buying community/lifestyle (Koston, Kass, etc), supported by a small-ish but good standard model selection. There were clear, defined, and unique differences in the lines, the collabs provided finishes you just wouldn't get on a Frogskins frame, the celebrity lines ditto (Koston Woodgrain for example), so there was a desire, for me at least, to collect these. Then Luxotica got involved.

Consistently for the past three to four years there has been little to no design change in the Frogskins line. You had the Acids, which were followed by the 'Blacklight' which were essentially the Acids in matte finish (and a supposed ultraviolet finish but who knows, seeing as no one wears sunglasses in the dark). Then you had the Acid tortoise. Think about that as a business decision. If a customer has an Acid finish Frogskin, do you really think providing that exact same colour but with a tortoise finish is going to inspire them to want to purchase the new frame? I don't. It's not a distinctive enough difference. Ditto the Abyss and Summit series, same theme, one polished, one matte, and a selection of colours stuck to religiously (blue, green, orange, red) since the Acids. Seriously, can we not expand that palette just a little? It's become mundane. And worst of all, they've got such little imagination now that they are releasing standard lines that are rip-offs of the once unqiue collabs (Apline Storm 2015 - see Oki-Ni 2011 for example). Unimaginitive and uninspiring. And produced on a monumental level.

It's obvious from the chronology that little has changed for years. It's be interesting if someone has a collection from 2011 to now and they photographed them in chronological order to visually see the lack of diversification in the line. How do they expect people to want to buy new versions if the new looks almost exactly the same as the old. And, as a collector, why do I want to collect a series of Frogskins that are virtually the same as before? How is that inspiring to me? And also, if they are produced in such a high volume and so regularly, why do I want to purchase them at retail? My God, things are so bad these days that the new lines are being sold at discount the second they are released. What does that say about the product?

Frogskins have been devalued to such an extent they are considering bargain bucket material. Who desires to wear or collect bargain bucket merchandise? And what business brain at Luxottica (such irony in that name) wants to devalue a brand to such an extent?

For me at least, the fire to collect Frogskins got blown out long ago, and I can' see it being reignited, not with the way things are going at the moment.

 

[Soulfulfrog]

Hello Oakley Forum family. Been quite a while.

I'll throw in my 2 cents from what is essentially now an ex-Frogskins collector.

Historically, Frogskins have, and will always have, an importance to Oakley. I don't believe Oakley would be where they are today if it wasn't for Frogskins, they were and are many peoples first 'in' to Oakley, and raised awarness of Oakley as a sunglasses manufacturer way back in the 80's.

However, if the OP means are Frogskins not important now amongst the collecting community as they used to be, then the answer is no, they're not. Why? In my opinion, and essentially the reason I stopped collecting them, is an over abundance of poor product choices for the model. A few years ago was dynamite, you had truly unique collaborations (the SW Blue Chromes, Supremes, DMQ's, Gentei etc), celebrity lines from those who represented the Frogskins buying community/lifestyle (Koston, Kass, etc), supported by a small-ish but good standard model selection. There were clear, defined, and unique differences in the lines, the collabs provided finishes you just wouldn't get on a Frogskins frame, the celebrity lines ditto (Koston Woodgrain for example), so there was a desire, for me at least, to collect these. Then Luxotica got involved.

Consistently for the past three to four years there has been little to no design change in the Frogskins line. You had the Acids, which were followed by the 'Blacklight' which were essentially the Acids in matte finish (and a supposed ultraviolet finish but who knows, seeing as no one wears sunglasses in the dark). Then you had the Acid tortoise. Think about that as a business decision. If a customer has an Acid finish Frogskin, do you really think providing that exact same colour but with a tortoise finish is going to inspire them to want to purchase the new frame? I don't. It's not a distinctive enough difference. Ditto the Abyss and Summit series, same theme, one polished, one matte, and a selection of colours stuck to religiously (blue, green, orange, red) since the Acids. Seriously, can we not expand that palette just a little? It's become mundane. And worst of all, they've got such little imagination now that they are releasing standard lines that are rip-offs of the once unqiue collabs (Apline Storm 2015 - see Oki-Ni 2011 for example). Unimaginitive and uninspiring. And produced on a monumental level.

It's obvious from the chronology that little has changed for years. It's be interesting if someone has a collection from 2011 to now and they photographed them in chronological order to visually see the lack of diversification in the line. How do they expect people to want to buy new versions if the new looks almost exactly the same as the old. And, as a collector, why do I want to collect a series of Frogskins that are virtually the same as before? How is that inspiring to me? And also, if they are produced in such a high volume and so regularly, why do I want to purchase them at retail? My God, things are so bad these days that the new lines are being sold at discount the second they are released. What does that say about the product?

Frogskins have been devalued to such an extent they are considering bargain bucket material. Who desires to wear or collect bargain bucket merchandise? And what business brain at Luxottica (such irony in that name) wants to devalue a brand to such an extent?

For me at least, the fire to collect Frogskins got blown out long ago, and I can' see it being reignited, not with the way things are going at the moment.

That's the response I was looking for. Very interesting aspects there. I definitely agree. Oakley should try to stay with limited releases and colabs. My favorite things to get in these at the moment are the old. I do aspire to get the new but only because of the love I have for them. Also I'd rather wear some of the new ones as opposed to my old rarities. Just to keep them safe. Thanks for the response. It's greatly appreciated.

 

[pjd1234]

You guys are not getting the point geeeeez. I am not DOWNING the piece OKAY or trivializing things etc. READ my last post before commenting. @above the POSTS DO YOU EVEN HAVE A FROGSKIN??? I presume none. As i said before everybody has its own taste when insaid at the buttom of the food chain i meant that do you want me to post a voting poll here so we can see in general which is a more desirable piece in general??? Frogskin or xmetal??? There is no point. As we know the answer. Frogskins are important to oakley as they generate revenue i answered that question. GENERALLY Collecting wise there are only a few who collects them by heart compared to other frames like xmetals, csix, pitbosses etc. and thats a fact so to answer the thread question? my answers are it is important to oakley so they can generate funds, but only a few takes them seriously collecting wise.

 

[Carrera1963]

Just not correct though, and certainly not a fact as you put it. They may well be the most collected of all the Oakleys. Certainly well ahead of C6 and Pit Bosses of either ilk. Why do you think we have separate Frogskin fora, as well as for x-metals? You're extrapolating your preferences to the community in general and coming to the wrong conclusion.

I don't collect them, even though one was my first Oakley pair, but I can still see the collectors out there who do.

 

[pjd1234]

Being a new collector I've fell in love with frogskins and the various varieties of colors they come in. I'm just curious on the thoughts of long term collectors. Have they decreased in value and demand and have they been devalued by the new ones that have been released. I personally love having rare ones. Perhaps some stories on how you may have come by your rarities from the past. Or have most tried to move on to other styles. Just a discussion on even some history of these desirable shades.

BRO do you have a Peterson frogskin release???????