If The Romeo 2.0 Wasn't Called A Romeo...

[Razerwire]

Would it have garnered more interest?

Seems like it got bad press because of the name association with the Romeo.

I mean, it's kinda unfair for it to have to live up to such a legendary namesake right? It's like Michael Jordan's son of sunglasses. LOL

So if it wasn't associated with the Romeo, would it have done better?

In fact, if THIS were to be called the Half-X, would it have fared better than the Half-X that we actually got?

Discuss.

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

I've always felt the Romeo 2.0 is the true Half X. I mean visually it really DOESN'T have much if anything to do with the Romeo 1 and really of the two half frame designs in the line, the 2.0 carries the most X Metal DNA.

At the same time, I'm not so sure it does have bad press (that WOULD be true with the Half X however). The 2.0 is actually one of the highest ranked Oakley models EVER on O-Review...higher than the 1 and as high if not higher than the Juliet. In terms of fit and function, I rank it with the X Squared among all the X Metals personally and in terms of look on my face, its second behind the Juliet and X Squared (tied at number 1) and above the XX which is a big clunky given the orbital shape.

 

[Razerwire]

I've always felt the Romeo 2.0 is the true Half X. I mean visually it really DOESN'T have much if anything to do with the Romeo 1 and really of the two half frame designs in the line, the 2.0 carries the most X Metal DNA.

At the same time, I'm not so sure it does have bad press (that WOULD be true with the Half X however). The 2.0 is actually one of the highest ranked Oakley models EVER on O-Review...higher than the 1 and as high if not higher than the Juliet. In terms of fit and function, I rank it with the X Squared among all the X Metals personally and in terms of look on my face, its second behind the Juliet and X Squared (tied at number 1) and above the XX which is a big clunky given the orbital shape.

Perhaps bad press was the wrong term I was looking for. I mean bad press when it's associated with the Romeo 1. I often see, either on reviews or eBay descriptions, that the Romeo 2.0 is mentioned like a second class citizen. LOL

But that's what I mean. If it had no association name-wise, would it have garnered more interest as a stand alone pair of X-Metals and not a Romeo afterthought?

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

Perhaps bad press was the wrong term I was looking for. I mean bad press when it's associated with the Romeo 1. I often see, either on reviews or eBay descriptions, that the Romeo 2.0 is mentioned like a second class citizen. LOL

But that's what I mean. If it had no association name-wise, would it have garnered more interest as a stand alone pair of X-Metals and not a Romeo afterthought?

Perhaps. The design isn't for everyone and is quite an acquired taste. I agree...most of what I've read says...blah blah, great glass, blah blah, love it, blah blah it fits great, blah blah...but its not a Romeo. Actually...that said, I have to wonder if the model sold BETTER and got MORE interest because of the name drawing people in....which they found "hey this isn't a Romeo, but its a great piece nevertheless".

 

[Razerwire]

Perhaps. The design isn't for everyone and is quite an acquired taste. I agree...most of what I've read says...blah blah, great glass, blah blah, love it, blah blah it fits great, blah blah...but its not a Romeo. Actually...that said, I have to wonder if the model sold BETTER and got MORE interest because of the name drawing people in....which they found "hey this isn't a Romeo, but its a great piece nevertheless".

Yeah the reviews definitely give it a lot of praise just based on what it is alone.

Perhaps it did get more attention from newcomers and therefore helped sales. Before I started getting back into Oakley I didn't even know it existed. But it still seems strange as to why Oakley would associate it with the Romeo other than the fact that the first one had the design flaw and they wanted to set things right.

But you'd think that to set things right they would've still made it somewhat similar to the first version instead of making something completely different and slapping the Romeo name on it.

Like you said, it would've made far more sense to call it the Half-X. Then they wouldn't have to make the actual Half-X which, other than the X-Metal material used in its construction, looks more like a Wire than anything else. LOL

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

Yeah the reviews definitely give it a lot of praise just based on what it is alone.

Perhaps it did get more attention from newcomers and therefore helped sales. Before I started getting back into Oakley I didn't even know it existed. But it still seems strange as to why Oakley would associate it with the Romeo other than the fact that the first one had the design flaw and they wanted to set things right.

But you'd think that to set things right they would've still made it somewhat similar to the first version instead of making something completely different and slapping the Romeo name on it.

Like you said, it would've made far more sense to call it the Half-X. Then they wouldn't have to make the actual Half-X which, other than the X-Metal material used in its construction, looks more like a Wire than anything else. LOL

Agreed on all counts. And of course its the only member of the line to ever have a second generation in name at least. In terms of size, it fits with the Romeo name....but if we're going by that alone, the X Squared would actually be more of a Romeo 2 in terms of size and, to my eye, visual DNA.

 

[dcl10]

I don't know, I just think it's ugly as sin. The other X metals, even the half X in its own muted sort of way, have an industrial or futuristic look to them. The Romeo 2.0 just looks like some sort of insect.

There is a line between avant guard and just plain bad taste, and I think the Romeo 2.0 crosses that line.

 

[Razerwire]

Agreed on all counts. And of course its the only member of the line to ever have a second generation in name at least. In terms of size, it fits with the Romeo name....but if we're going by that alone, the X Squared would actually be more of a Romeo 2 in terms of size and, to my eye, visual DNA.

Exactly, they could've named the XX the Juliet 2.0 but didn't. But that's probably because they came out the same year.

Honestly, I'd say anything not half framed would resemble the Romeo more than the Romeo 2.0. LOL

 

[Razerwire]

I don't know, I just think it's ugly as sin. The other X metals, even the half X in its own muted sort of way, have an industrial or futuristic look to them. The Romeo 2.0 just looks like some sort of insect.

There is a line between avant guard and just plain bad taste, and I think the Romeo 2.0 crosses that line.

But the Romeo 2.0 still has more characteristics of an X-Metal aesthetically than the Half-X does. The flex coupler alone screams X-Metal to me. Granted the Romeo 1 didn't have a flex coupler but that was essentially the downfall of it right? The lack of the flex coupler was the frame's flaw.

Aside from the Romeo, the Half-X is the only other pair that doesn't have a flex coupler and a lot of people would argue that having the flex coupler makes it distinctly an X-Metal frame.

 

[xmetalmaniac]

IMO The Romeo 2 should have been named the Juliet 2.0 or even the Half X... It essentially gets most of its design from the Juliet and takes nothing from the Romeo 1. Granted the Half X has an unusual spring temple design which allows it to pivot up and down. I don't believe the Half X is worthy of being in the X Metal line up. It runs more along the Wire Line and maybe should have been dubbed "Thick Half Wire" .....And for petes sake, make the lens swapping a DIY instead of sending the frame back to Oakley to get it done. I mean seriously.....

We all know that the longer we study the design of X Metals the more we see as outsiders. What were the Oakley designers thinking when they made the Mars and Mars Crater with that poor lens orbital clip that holds the frame orbital together and the lens in place. How many of us said WTF, as we changed out lenses....

IMO.....I don't think they field tested their frames enough with people who can provide solid feedback.....