POLL - What to call the new "x-metals"?

[Litos]

I actually find it interesting how you find Metallica to be so irrelevant to metal music. But hey, this is subjective in the end of the day rite? Not to derail so much from the Oakley topic, lemme know if you'd like to talk more about it in the off-topic section!

i believe i´m discrediting your "initial comment" moreso than finding them irrelevant...

i get it, Metallica was awesome and they were very relevant, but i have a hard time buying into your comment that Heavy Metal today wouldn't be what it is without Metallica.

......because it surely would be, even if they would have never existed...

 

[kronin323]

 

[motoGP_fanatic]

IMHO I will call and refer to it simply what it is, as X-Metal.... I made myself own a badman and the ruby iridium one got my nod.
As much as I love the previous X-Metals (I own a few), I never like some of them ( due to some personal preferences).
Oakley is actually granting our wishes for the X-Metal line to continue... the truth is I was worried the X-Metal line might be ruined for some reasons unknown.
I remember what I felt upon seeing the Madman and Badman for first time...I felt actually relieved, thinking "alright...this was actually a good start to continue the X-metal line".
I can't wait to see what the immediate future for the X-Metal line I am so enthusiastic about.

 

[pjd1234]

Hahahahahahaah none of the above CHEAPMETALS LOL

 

[slasher32]

Did oakley still call it xmetals?

 

[kayana photography bali]

EX-metal

 

[Lexkempo]

EX-metal

O Metals = O-luminium + O-matter

 

[kronin323]

So guys, since this thread got revived, as the OP I'd like to remind that this thread isn't to bash the new x-metals but to come up with a nickname to differentiate them, to avoid confusion in reference. Since they are obviously different. And the top two choices, next-metals and o-metals, fit the bill. Feel free to adopt the terms as you see fit.

But I would like to bring up a related point - whether the term "x-metal" was originally meant as a design philosophy (as marketing now spins it), or if it originally specifically referred to the product line made from the "x-metal" titanium alloy.

On one side, the story is that Oakley wanted to make a frame out of metal with a sculpted look like they could do with plastic, only without the weight penalties of metal. So they came up with a light Ti alloy that they named x-metal, and gave it a blasted grey finish that they called the x-metal color, and named the line of sunglasses made from that alloy x-metals. Thus, now saying that x-metal was actually meant to be a design philosophy is just a modern marketing spin.

On the other side, there are those who claim x-metal was always just a design philosophy, and an old x-metal design doc was dragged out to try to support that.

So, riddle me this - if x-metal was truly a design philosophy all along, and sunglasses made with aluminum but within that design philosophy are x-metals, then why wasn't the Hatchet Wire released as an x-metal? Like the new ones, it was made with aluminum. And, aside from lacking a flex coupler, it looks very close to the x-metal designs, within that design philosophy.

Same with the Mag Switch - that one even had an x-metal-like flex coupler. Only it wasn't Ti, it was magnesium. Why wasn't it released as an x-metal?

Both the Hatchet and the Mag Switch came out while the original x-metals were still an active product line. But they weren't released as x-metals, because they weren't made of the x-metal Ti alloy. And, at the time, x-metal meant made from x-metal.

Again, I'm not bashing the next-metals. I like them, in their own way. And I accept that they're being marketed as x-metals, like it or not. I even accept that x-metal now means a design philosophy.

But claiming that's what it always meant is retconning, as proven by their own actions when Hatchet and Mag Switch were not released as part of the x-metal line.

 

[Yoshida]

So guys, since this thread got revived, as the OP I'd like to remind that this thread isn't to bash the new x-metals but to come up with a nickname to differentiate them, to avoid confusion in reference. Since they are obviously different. And the top two choices, next-metals and o-metals, fit the bill. Feel free to adopt the terms as you see fit.

But I would like to bring up a related point - whether the term "x-metal" was originally meant as a design philosophy (as marketing now spins it), or if it originally specifically referred to the product line made from the "x-metal" titanium alloy.

On one side, the story is that Oakley wanted to make a frame out of metal with a sculpted look like they could do with plastic, only without the weight penalties of metal. So they came up with a light Ti alloy that they named x-metal, and gave it a blasted grey finish that they called the x-metal color, and named the line of sunglasses made from that alloy x-metals. Thus, now saying that x-metal was actually meant to be a design philosophy is just a modern marketing spin.

On the other side, there are those who claim x-metal was always just a design philosophy, and an old x-metal design doc was dragged out to try to support that.

So, riddle me this - if x-metal was truly a design philosophy all along, and sunglasses made with aluminum but within that design philosophy are x-metals, then why wasn't the Hatchet Wire released as an x-metal? Like the new ones, it was made with aluminum. And, aside from lacking a flex coupler, it looks very close to the x-metal designs, within that design philosophy.

Same with the Mag Switch - that one even had an x-metal-like flex coupler. Only it wasn't Ti, it was magnesium. Why wasn't it released as an x-metal?

Both the Hatchet and the Mag Switch came out while the original x-metals were still an active product line. But they weren't released as x-metals, because they weren't made of the x-metal Ti alloy. And, at the time, x-metal meant made from x-metal.

Again, I'm not bashing the next-metals. I like them, in their own way. And I accept that they're being marketed as x-metals, like it or not. I even accept that x-metal now means a design philosophy.

But claiming that's what it always meant is retconning, as proven by their own actions when Hatchet and Mag Switch were not released as part of the x-metal line.

Good point.
Another fact is that between both Hatchet and MagSwitch release dates and 2015 when both Badman and Madman became part of Oakley's portfolio, the company became part of the Luxottica family. That could also mean the Marketing Dept. "changed" the meaning of what X-Metal symbolizes.

 

[illumination]

I still go by what I posted earlier in the thread- Madman and Badman can't be considered typical X Metals as the name, X Metal, was reserved for those glasses made in the Nevada factory. Posted by Jim himself, so that is all I need to know.