What Are Your Biggest Oakley Disappointments?

[QLR1]

I believe 7 1/4 3/8 1/5 is around an average sized head ... That's my size and a I wear Frog and Juliets quite well ...

@QLR1 what size hat do you wear?

Now DAT'S big!!! (TWSS)

Mine is an 8. Head is big. I laugh at those folks with 7 1/4 to 7 1/2 sized heads. If I let the hair grow out, even the 8 is a tight fit. I actually have a 8 1/4 fitted cap for some comfort lol

 

[MJ]

Remind me never to headbutt you or get headbutted by you

 

[QLR1]

Remind me never to headbutt you or get headbutted by you

Naw bro, you don't want this beast after you

 

[Dieseltech]

I like Holbrooks but have come to the conclusion that they just don't look good on me. I have like 3 pair. I guess I should have figured that out after the first pair.

 

[QLR1]

I like Holbrooks but have come to the conclusion that they just don't look good on me. I have like 3 pair. I guess I should have figured that out after the first pair.

Sometimes that's how it goes... I don't have time for frames that I like but I don't look good in...time to sell those Brooks and get something else lol

 

[P226]

Dissappointed with newer offerings in that they no longer seem to be pushing the envelope for different. The newer styles all seem to be slightly different versions of generic glasses (with a few exceptions). Think about it. Back when eye jeckets first came out, there was nothing like them on the market. They were attention getters. Then you have styles like x-metals, OTT's and even gascans. No where close to what any other company was producing. Now, it seems everything that comes out is a slight change or update on an existing common style. What made oakley's great and great to wear was their uniqueness. I am just unimpressed with recent offerings....my two cents

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

I believe 7 1/4 3/8 1/5 is around an average sized head ... That's my size and a I wear Frog and Juliets quite well ...

@QLR1 what size hat do you wear?

Now DAT'S big!!! (TWSS)

True but there's also the issue that hat head size and actual head SIZE (mass) and facial width etc often have no correlation because some men carry alot more weight in their face than others. I have friends who I could wear their hats but Juliets for example look tiny on them because of their facial geometry whereas those look fine on me because even at 6 foot 5 215 I have a fairly narrow face

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

Dissappointed with newer offerings in that they no longer seem to be pushing the envelope for different. The newer styles all seem to be slightly different versions of generic glasses (with a few exceptions). Think about it. Back when eye jeckets first came out, there was nothing like them on the market. They were attention getters. Then you have styles like x-metals, OTT's and even gascans. No where close to what any other company was producing. Now, it seems everything that comes out is a slight change or update on an existing common style. What made oakley's great and great to wear was their uniqueness. I am just unimpressed with recent offerings....my two cents

You're not alone in feeling this way- couldn't have said it better myself. And no Oakley you haven't done anything "crazy" recently despite claiming such is coming and no the pandering and poorly executed Madman (or Tailend) doesn't count.

 

[QLR1]

True but there's also the issue that hat head size and actual head SIZE (mass) and facial width etc often have no correlation because some men carry alot more weight in their face than others. I have friends who I could wear their hats but Juliets for example look tiny on them because of their facial geometry whereas those look fine on me because even at 6 foot 5 215 I have a fairly narrow face

I could just upload a pic of myself in a Penny to confirm the facial size, but @kronin323 beat me to it. Take my word for it lol

 

[Herbsley]

Dissappointed with newer offerings in that they no longer seem to be pushing the envelope for different. The newer styles all seem to be slightly different versions of generic glasses (with a few exceptions). Think about it. Back when eye jeckets first came out, there was nothing like them on the market. They were attention getters. Then you have styles like x-metals, OTT's and even gascans. No where close to what any other company was producing. Now, it seems everything that comes out is a slight change or update on an existing common style. What made oakley's great and great to wear was their uniqueness. I am just unimpressed with recent offerings....my two cents

You have a point, to a certain extent. I agree absolutely that there are many generic-looking 'samey' frames ("sames"?) being released at the moment. But, with my devil's advocate hat on, actually you don't really have to look that far down the Oakley.com sunglass page to still find some more interesting frames that could only be Oakley - especially in the Sports range such as EVZero, Radar/Radarlock, M2, Flaks, Jawbreaker, Racing Jacket, etc. All of those frames still scream OAKLEY to me.

In terms of casual sunglasses, yes, it's certainly more of a mixed bag. You could possibly point to Madman and Badman as being a little more extreme in design, but then their RRP is at a price point that means that not many folks are buying them. I'm sure that Oakley must be thinking they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - when we all cry out for some innovation but then when new and different styles arrive we all clamp our wallets shut. NeXt-Metals are perhaps a bad example then.

Other frames that look most Oakley? You could point to the Triggerman and Carbon Shift as a couple of easy examples. I also see design tweaks on the ear-stems of the Wire range that look pure Oakley too. And don't forget that they are still actually selling frames such as Fuel Cell, Batwolf and Taco/Offshoot for the time being too - and of course the Frogskin. All very Oakley.

So yeah - generic stuff abounds (it's tough to get excited about Mainlink and Sliver isn't it? haha) - but I think there is still some stuff there that "looks a bit Oakley" if you search for it.