CL Romeo 2.0 Deal

[Johnny Hundreds]

Did you pick them up??

 

[Razerwire]

Then you should have no problems. Make nice with him and maybe he'll hook you up down the road!

Hell yea that would be a sweet hookup to have!!!

Yup! I'm sure he'll recognize me when we meet up. I got there so often he's got to remember me. LOL

Did you pick them up??

I'm meeting him tomorrow afternoon.

 

[Razerwire]

I spent some time on O-Review going through the reviews on the Romeo 2.0 and was kind of surprised that it averaged 4.5 out of 5. That's up there with the Juliet, Penny, X-Squared and XX. What surprised me more was that it even got a better rating than the Romeo 1.

Granted the Romeo 1 had structural issues but I would've thought that the 2.0 would still rank below the 1.

Which brings me back to the point I brought up on the previous thread I started about the Romeo 2.0 having a bad rap because of the name association. From the reviews it seems like the 2.0 is a great pair of glasses but many people can be hung up on the association it has with the Romeo 1.

Again, if the 2.0 was called the Half-X instead of the one we have now, would it have garnered more praise? The feeling that I got from those reviews was that the fact that it was named a Romeo was unforgivable. LOL

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

It's the must underrated X Metal model. People seem to think they look ugly on this forum...and in hand they look odd, but on my face they look awesome. I wear my polished and titanium iridium all the time. They fit like a glove...lighter than the XS, wider than the Juliet. It's funny because I find it odd it gets knocked for how it looks because while I might own a Romeo 1 because of its place in the Oakley canon, to my eye its the 1 that's outright ugly. It's really a matter of taste...the 1 is much more daring while the 2 is more elegant..you could wear the 2 with a suit..the 1 not so much. I got my pair BNIB for $250 and I can't ever see myself selling them

 

[Razerwire]

Yeah the $180 BNIB plus a possible stand was too good a deal not to check out. Personally I never hated the 2.0 as I've always felt that it shouldn't have been associated with the Romeo so it didn't have any shoes to fill. And while some may think it's ugly I feel that the design is so unique that I appreciate that they did something different.

Same as the Mars. To some it's ugly as sin but to others it's a work of art.

 

[bonito09]

the romeo 2 looks fake, nuff said hahaha!

 

[xmetalmaniac]

The Romeo 1 was a piece of history. Although it had flaws that were never corrected or improved on, any name association in reference to the 2.0 gets a bad rap. The 2.0 has its own style whether it carries the Romeo name or not. Works for some and not for others. I have 2 pair and they are worth the investment. The only issue is Oakley will not sell and ship you the lenses. You send them your frame and they install them....

 

[SpliceD]

I respect that it's a piece of art and it has history. I still think it's ugly.

I kinda think of it like looking at the Mona Lisa.... i'd rather stare at a photograph of Keeley Hazell all day

 

[walkerhonda243]

I've had both the Romeo 1 and 2....Never could pull off the romeo 1's. In my opinion they are both odd. But I did have better luck wearing the 2's. But the only reason I'd ever own the 1's again would be for display only, and because of it's place in Oakley history. But as for the 2's, that's a good price for a pair of NIB pair. And they are worth wearing IMO. They're different, but hell, normal is overrated anyway.

 

[Razerwire]

Picked them up today! Dude was really cool too as we got to chat for a bit. He might be able to hook me up with a pair of Mars Craters too.

Picks of the score later tonight!