• 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!
I loved the post but dare I say that you missed one? Now, I will add that the one you missed might be considered by many to be an entirely different set of glasses... How about the Mag M Frame? Sort of an offshoot of the M Frame line. Not sure how long it was in production but I took the plunge when I saw that the model was going away. While not, in my opinion, ever a replacement for the M Frame for a number of reasons I do enjoy wearing mine now and then.
 
I loved the post but dare I say that you missed one? Now, I will add that the one you missed might be considered by many to be an entirely different set of glasses... How about the Mag M Frame? Sort of an offshoot of the M Frame line. Not sure how long it was in production but I took the plunge when I saw that the model was going away. While not, in my opinion, ever a replacement for the M Frame for a number of reasons I do enjoy wearing mine now and then.
You are correct.

For two reasons:
1. I have owned, but do not currently own, a Mag frame. At one point I owned an example of every frame. Gen1, Gen1 Slash, Gen2, Gen2 Slash, Gen2 Baseball, Pro, New, Mag, 2.0, 3.0. And the Mumbo is technically different, but it's also identical to a Gen1 so I didn't differentiate. I also was very close to owning every lens shape. I was just short by a Strip. But the energy was lost, and the collection is now dwindling.

2. I don't consider them significant to the evolution of the M Frame. The mag frame is a minor blip. While not insignificant and in all respects a radical design, it (in my mind) goes AGAINST everything the M Frame stands [stood] for. Versatility, robustness, performance. The Mag pair lacks significantly everywhere the M Frame shined.

Do I consider it a black spot and purposefully snubbed it from mention? No, more so I forgot. But I did remember a short while after making the original post and I decided not to go back and add it. It wasn't an evolutionary step. It didn't advance the pedigree. It didn't outlive or replace anything.

Is the Mag M Frame an M Frame? Yes. Is it an M Frame in the true heart of what the product line represented? Not in my opinion.
 
You are correct.

For two reasons:
1. I have owned, but do not currently own, a Mag frame. At one point I owned an example of every frame. Gen1, Gen1 Slash, Gen2, Gen2 Slash, Gen2 Baseball, Pro, New, Mag, 2.0, 3.0. And the Mumbo is technically different, but it's also identical to a Gen1 so I didn't differentiate. I also was very close to owning every lens shape. I was just short by a Strip. But the energy was lost, and the collection is now dwindling.

2. I don't consider them significant to the evolution of the M Frame. The mag frame is a minor blip. While not insignificant and in all respects a radical design, it (in my mind) goes AGAINST everything the M Frame stands [stood] for. Versatility, robustness, performance. The Mag pair lacks significantly everywhere the M Frame shined.

Do I consider it a black spot and purposefully snubbed it from mention? No, more so I forgot. But I did remember a short while after making the original post and I decided not to go back and add it. It wasn't an evolutionary step. It didn't advance the pedigree. It didn't outlive or replace anything.

Is the Mag M Frame an M Frame? Yes. Is it an M Frame in the true heart of what the product line represented? Not in my opinion.

I agree on all your points. And thank you for the original post!
 
I have always been a huge fan of the M-frame line but the mag M-frame just doesnt have the same feel to it when wearing as the rest of the line has.
 
Back
Top