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

[dcl10]

The Half X was originally the Juliet 2.0, but Oakley thought better of it I think and released it as a separate model. I do think the bridge should have had some X design, as it looks more like a metal half jacket, but the flex couplers were a bit of a half baked idea as well, and the hinge design eliminates any need for them.

Also as much as the collector community does not seem fond of them, they are the second best selling X-metal of all time after the Juliet. I think the Squared will probably take that over, but still we are all thinking of what oakley should have done, but in reality I think they are probably pleased with how well the Half X has done. In all reality I think they wanted a more sober, functional X metal that would appeal to a wider audience, and that's what they got, but at the same time it's less appealing to enthusiasts.

 

[Razerwire]

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.....

Right. Other than the fact that the Half-X is made of the same material that the other X-Metals are, there really isn't much on that frame that can be associated with the X-Metal line. I guess it all depends on what the people at Oakley define as X-Metal. If it's based solely on the criteria that it's made by the same techniques with the same materials, then I guess there's nothing more to say about it. However, if aesthetics are taken into account then there's much to be said. I personally hold certain things like having the flex coupler just as importantly as the materials and techniques used to create a pair of X-Metals. But that's just my own criteria. So by going with that, I would've preferred it if they just called the Romeo 2.0 the Half-X and dump the actual Half-X into the Wires category or just not have produced that Half-X at all.

The argument can be made against my point of X-Metals needing the flex coupler that the Romeo 1 didn't have one. My counter to that is that it's Oakley's first foray into X-Metal technology and weren't aware of the issue of flex on the frame. Since then, every single design (minus the Half-X) has had a flex coupler. Granted the Half-X doesn't need one but if they were to still incorporate the flex coupler in, I would definitely think it belongs in the X-Metal family. But I guess the problem with that would be that it'd look too similar to the Romeo 2.0. LOL

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.....

Yeah it seems that as much as Oakley has some insane tech put into their frames, they don't really test out their stuff to the extent that one would think they would. Take for example, the Mag series. I mean, how was that not a disaster with the flaking of the coating? They seem to just concentrate on making cool things and not really worry that much about how long they'd last or what flaws/defects exist before pushing it into mass production.

 

[Razerwire]

The Half X was originally the Juliet 2.0, but Oakley thought better of it I think and released it as a separate model. I do think the bridge should have had some X design, as it looks more like a metal half jacket, but the flex couplers were a bit of a half baked idea as well, and the hinge design eliminates any need for them.

Also as much as the collector community does not seem fond of them, they are the second best selling X-metal of all time after the Juliet. I think the Squared will probably take that over, but still we are all thinking of what oakley should have done, but in reality I think they are probably pleased with how well the Half X has done. In all reality I think they wanted a more sober, functional X metal that would appeal to a wider audience, and that's what they got, but at the same time it's less appealing to enthusiasts.

Yeah, can't argue with the success which is what any company really cars about in this day and age. It's all about the bottom line at the end of the day. That's most likely why there's so many frames out there that don't really stand out unlike the Oakleys of old.

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

Yeah, can't argue with the success which is what any company really cars about in this day and age. It's all about the bottom line at the end of the day. That's most likely why there's so many frames out there that don't really stand out unlike the Oakleys of old.

I'm less concerned with the fact of Oakley selling generic designs and colorways and more worried about the fact that people seem to be okay with such, if not outright like it. That said, hey fine, the less distinctive others look the more distinctive I look...its just that creates what we have now with the distinctive designs being killed off. I understand such isn't for everyone (trust me I know, I hear non stop about my loud sunglasses and loud Orange car) but they have to do more than just satisfy the masses

 

[Razerwire]

I'm less concerned with the fact of Oakley selling generic designs and colorways and more worried about the fact that people seem to be okay with such, if not outright like it. That said, hey fine, the less distinctive others look the more distinctive I look...its just that creates what we have now with the distinctive designs being killed off. I understand such isn't for everyone (trust me I know, I hear non stop about my loud sunglasses and loud Orange car) but they have to do more than just satisfy the masses

Yeah I put up a bunch of my O-Matter stuff up for sale.

I should've gone straight back into X-Metals instead of picking up O-Matter stuff.

 

[xmetalmaniac]

Yeah I put up a bunch of my O-Matter stuff up for sale.

I should've gone straight back into X-Metals instead of picking up O-Matter stuff.

Nothing wrong with omatter.... My daily grind for the office is my 6 pairs of Gascan S's......I switch out daily..... I dare not bring an X Metal in ever again. I wore my X Metal XX 24k in one day and before I got to my office door 3 people wanted to try them on. Never again.....

 

[Razerwire]

Nothing wrong with omatter.... My daily grind for the office is my 6 pairs of Gascan S's......I switch out daily..... I dare not bring an X Metal in ever again. I wore my X Metal XX 24k in one day and before I got to my office door 3 people wanted to try them on. Never again.....

LOL

People have never asked me to try on my stuff. I guess I should count myself lucky.

I'm only keeping a four O-Matter frames as opposed to nine. I should've taken the money I spent on those five I'm selling and put them towards X-Metals.

 

[TOWSNBN]

I'm less concerned with the fact of Oakley selling generic designs and colorways and more worried about the fact that people seem to be okay with such, if not outright like it. That said, hey fine, the less distinctive others look the more distinctive I look...its just that creates what we have now with the distinctive designs being killed off. I understand such isn't for everyone (trust me I know, I hear non stop about my loud sunglasses and loud Orange car) but they have to do more than just satisfy the masses

They are. they cater to both the masses and the hardcore collectors. there is room for both. jawbones, pit bosses and x squareds for those who like the typical traditional designs and frogskins, holbrooks and aviators for those who like the conventional stuff. Even the conventional stuff still has some design cues that are a bit out of the ordinary. I still hear a lot of people comment on how ugly Oakleys are because the designs are so different even the conventional stuff like the inmate. says to me Oakley is still as it was only it has to produce the conventional stuff to fund the niche stuff.

It all depends how you want to look at it. If the stuff oakley is putting out is too conventional,then oakley is not for you anymore. That is just the reality. As they become bigger their idea of what is out there changes just as people change as the years go by and their experience molds them. For those who still love the designs then keep on trucking and buying

 

[BriP]

imo the romeo2's design and technology, fit, function, lives up to the romeo name- built and finished perfectly. for me, the only place it falls short is the lack of that x-factor- the wow, the fizzy feeling james may gets when driving aston martins.. that magic of being so totally different, filling a want that didnt exist before. the juliet suceeded purely on its overall fit and finish- it is, if you think about it, the perfect sunglass. romeo 2 definitely would have done well to be called Juliet 2, or even Juliet/2 (geddit, a divide sign aka half).. the half X is fine where it is, basically a throwback to the half Wire, but in x-metal showing off the lightweight material (plus recently discovered improved styling by Zax, with appropriate lens size!) it actually is pretty sweet in that classic, understated, wire way.

no matter, i love them all. Proudly rockin my JulieX today, the sexydevil.

 

[Batwolf]

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.

This. They should've just called this the Half X.