David_Oakley
I should Work at Oakley
Ok, hopefully the readers of this post will understand what I am asking. I will try my best to communicate it.
For all intents and purposes, my inquiry will pertain to Juliets and R1s.
I have had the "RAW" finishes (x-metal, 1st gen Ti) and also the "SMOOTH" finishes (2nd Gen Ti and Plasma).
Having said all that, I personally have noticed that the "RAW" finish frames are definitely "tighter" and more skull conforming than the "SMOOTH" finish frames. It's as if the "RAW" frames are just a tad more compact than the "SMOOTH" frames. They definitely don't all fit nor sit on my face the same.
Even my Plasma R1s, those frames are noticeably wider than the 1st gen Ti and X-Metal frames.
Has anyone noticed this? If so, can anyone explain this?
I understand that there's a degree of variance between x-metal frames in general because they were individually made. But the "trend" I noticed above seems to be consistent in my experiences.
Thanks.
David
For all intents and purposes, my inquiry will pertain to Juliets and R1s.
I have had the "RAW" finishes (x-metal, 1st gen Ti) and also the "SMOOTH" finishes (2nd Gen Ti and Plasma).
Having said all that, I personally have noticed that the "RAW" finish frames are definitely "tighter" and more skull conforming than the "SMOOTH" finish frames. It's as if the "RAW" frames are just a tad more compact than the "SMOOTH" frames. They definitely don't all fit nor sit on my face the same.
Even my Plasma R1s, those frames are noticeably wider than the 1st gen Ti and X-Metal frames.
Has anyone noticed this? If so, can anyone explain this?
I understand that there's a degree of variance between x-metal frames in general because they were individually made. But the "trend" I noticed above seems to be consistent in my experiences.
Thanks.
David