• 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!

Romeo 1 Custom (Oakely Donor) Fire Lenses BNIP (Brand New In Pouch)

I would be for the etching. I am buyer not a seller but if sold would be disclosed. It would be on my nose or my shelf for my pleasure. I wouldn't be fooling myself or anyone else knowing there not the real deal. Even X Man blasting defeats the originality and value to some extent but would and should be disclosed on a sale. Legality wise Oakley isn't loosing any money on the deal however the X Metal is a registered trademark and I am sure they wouldn't approve.
 
I would be for the etching. I am buyer not a seller but if sold would be disclosed. It would be on my nose or my shelf for my pleasure. I wouldn't be fooling myself or anyone else knowing there not the real deal. Even X Man blasting defeats the originality and value to some extent but would and should be disclosed on a sale. Legality wise Oakley isn't loosing any money on the deal however the X Metal is a registered trademark and I am sure they wouldn't approve.
Yep, that is what is being looked into. If infringement then will not do it at all. Cannot even chance it.
 
Its all very well to say" As long as the buyer/seller know they are original then no harm.". by which I take it you mean NOT original,the problem arises when people by a fake set then sell them as originals , for 3 times cost, then the buyer does not know he is buying a reproduction, I have no problem with cutting lenses from Oakley material ,I do it myself, but why does anybody want to reproduce the etching on R1s ans IH Juliets it will only serve to devalue the originals which a lot of us have spent a lot of time and money securing ,if the forged lens stays with the original purchaser,no real harm done I suppose, they are only kidding themselves, but when they are sold on- and they will be then you run the risk of people being duped into buying them as originals.I am amazed that any real Oakley enthusiast thinks this is okay.


You are correct, I meant "not original". But as long as they are cut from the proper Oakley lens from another frame, what is the harm? I would have absolutely no problem buying a set of frames that have replacement Oakley lenses that are custom from another frame whereas I would have a problem buying a pair with aftermarket lenses now that over the last 1.5 years I have learned the difference. If someone is trying to get over and rip someone off that is a whole different story to be dealt with but in this case an Oakley lens is an Oakley lens right?
 
CarGuy said:
I have a 1969 Mustang Convertible and when I restored it 18 years ago some parts were worn out and either: a) not available directly through Ford. b) available as NOS through 3rd party at RIDICULOUS prices. c) available as reproduction (repop) parts.
So the options were to stop and leave the car a basket case and scrap all or buy what I could from Ford and the rest where I could. The fact that I used repop parts does not change the fact that the car is still a 1969 Mustang. It's not a "survivor", but its still a rolling piece of art whose value will be decided by the next owner if I ever sell it.
That having been said, I think that there are some parallels here and a couple of important ones: you basically cannot get OEM R1 lenses at any price and repops that are available are of questionable optical quality.
So I really like the newfound ability to use OEM lenses as base for restoration lenses for R1's. Using them makes the R1 no longer a "survivor" but they are still eyewear "art" whose value will be decided by the buyer.
Etching is probably a trademark issue but I don't have a problem with that either if it is done on OEM lenses and that is my opinion only. However, once that horse is out of the barn its out for good because the original etcher will know what they are but once they change hands the "title" is effectively "washed".
As expressed in another post, caveat emptor reigns supreme here too. Who knows, stress fractures might actually become fashionable as indicators of originality!

Totally agree...
 
I think no one is opposing the custom cut lenses, just the etching. I have no problems with either of them. And am thankful for the skills of our fellow members who can do these amazing work. Xmetals provided us frames that would last a lifetime, but the lenses will not. On the other hand we do have to face the reality that some people could be deceived by others. Not met anyone on the forum, and i think everyone here is great. But there is still the possibility that someone could get ripped off. (i do not mean to offend anyone on the forum). Maybe if etching will be done to the lens, a mark could be placed on the lenses, somewhere hidden, maybe inside the orbitals. Lol..
"With great power comes great responsibility"
 
I think what infinitehero, drchop and xman do for collectors is great. They restore something that would otherwise end up in a Trash can. I think we can all agree that Oakley OEM lenses are the best optics you can put in the glasses, the other options are fine but there is none better than factory Oakley. A pristine example of an R1 lens is almost impossible to get your hands on. What are we to do other than put in walleva or linegear? Obviously everyone wants their glasses as close to factory specs as possible. I guess I equate it to any gen 1 Juliet's with carbon black lenses. Odds are if that pair of glasses is for sale on eBay and the lenses are in great shape and are OEM then most likely they are replacement lenses. They may be oakley replacements, but replacements none the less. Infinitehero seems to go through great pains, and cost, to make sure he uses oakley lenses for restoration. Custom cutting and etching from oakley donor lenses is perfectly alright in my book. I do agree there is a fine line though. Cutting and etching should be disclosed to the next buyer if the lenses are sold along with the glasses. I personally do not care but not everyone shares my opinion so disclosure is an important thing.
 
Great Discussion:

Here is what I am finding out. Tradmark Infringement is any word, phrase, or item that is specifiaclly produced by a manufacturer and then copied by another and reproduced by another for a sales profit. So, The work Polarized could be etched into a lens, cause the word itself is not Tradmarked, but IF the same Font is used to etch, then that would infringe. The same for the word X-Metal---That would be also. So bottom line, if you do one yourself and for your own purposes then that is up to you. I cannot do this to any of my custom lenses, due to any possible problems that could arise from doing it. Please do not ask for any etchings. Just don't want anyone to even think that I would do them at this point. I am sure everyone will understand this.

But the conversation about reproducing values compared to originals is a great debate.
 
Back
Top