Vintage Section Poll!

[OakleyBoss]

OK, So If you are unaware, the idea was posed to start a vintage section, but their has been a debate over whether to have one and if so what would the criteria would be(read this thread for more: http://www.oakleyforum.com/oakley-s...073-how-about-vintage-collection-section.html) ...so here is a poll

Here is some elaboration on what the criteria would include

Pre-1999: This includes Zero 0.1 through 0.6, Sub Zero, Gen1/Gen2 M-Frame, Eye Jacket 1, Topcoat, Trenchcoat, Moon, Romeo, Fives 1, Tens 1, Minute 1, Mars, Racing Jacket Gen1, Romeo, New Frogs, Straight Jacket 1, Blade, Razord Blade, Slit, Eye Shade, Mumbo.

Pre-2003: Current M-Frames, E Wire, OO, T Wire, New Zero 0.4 [squared, golf], New Zero 0.7 [squared], New Eye Jacket, New Straight Jacket, XX, A Wire, C Wire, Square Wire, Eye Jacket 2.0, Water Jacket, Four, Over the Top, Why, Four S, Penny, Scar, Mag Switch, Fives 2.0, Half Jacket, Medusa, Wiretap, Half Pint, Half Wire, Mag Four, Mag Four S, Mag M-Frame, Splice, Fate, Eye Jacket 3.0

 

[SpliceD]

I'm going to pick "Pre-2003" not only because i'm biased and have more of those frames, but also because i feel very few members here have much of the frames that are Pre-1999, which could possibly lead to a Vintage section that very few will frequent. Less traffic = pointless. Of all the frames listed in the "Pre-1999" category, i've only seen a few of them discussed; primarily the Romeos and not much of the others.

 

[BriP]

i agree with pre 2003 - thats when Oakley underwent drastic redesign in their styles and was the end of the old era..

 

[Malv1]

I would like to see either to be honest, not much here in the way of eye jackets and trenchcoats... which are why I started to love Oakley to begin with!

 

[oakleyandi]

Agreed on pre-2003

 

[OakleyBoss]

Pre-2003 is doing good so far, though it it wins. I think I might make it so that its pre-2003 and discontinued. Because M-Frames and Frogskins aren't exactly vintage. And any glasses that are still in production are "vintage" either. Do you guys agree or no?

 

[OOO]

Is this really and either or situation?
For me, pre-1999 would be vintage, and 1999-2003 would be classic.
There'll inevitably be some overlap and blurring of lines, but that's no big deal, really.
On Frogskins, all 3 generations (sans the New Frogskins, which look more like Jackets of some kind) had distinctive hinges and even materials.
By extension, old-new comparisons can be brought in.
E.g., Radar vs Blade/M-frame, Zero/Subzero vs New Zero, 1st gen vs 2nd gen vs 3rd gen Frogskins, etc.

 

[Oakleynerd]

pre 2003 is Old School ;o)

 

[Rustpot]

But I'm only 25 and I got my first pair in 2004... It just doesn't feel all that 'old' to me.

Due to the already low volume of topics on these pairs I really don't see a need for a vintage section. Plus the Boss will have to go through the Sunglasses Discussion area and start moving dozens of Splice, Mag, Medusa, etc topics. The '99-'03 subset has more pairs that are still current, re-issues of pre-'99 pairs, etc.

If you want a "Discontiued +5 years" discussion vs "Current Releases and Recently Deceased" section I think there's more sense in that. But a new member comes in wanting to know about his glasses, say an old pair of Fours. He knows they aren't Frogs or Metals, but he's now got to look up on O-Review their release or discontinue date to know if he falls into our definition of 'Vintage' or whatever we choose.

I just still don't get the need for a new section. You want discussion on older pairs like Zeros? If you make the thread, they will come. Then it gets bumped off the top page and no one posts in it anymore. But if you're not making threads to discuss them, then what needs to be discussed?

 

[Batwolf]

Is there really enough demand for it? I would think people could just post vintage stuff in the general section but if the section gets made I'll volunteer to mod over there too.

If there is a vintage section pre-2003 seems the most logical. I'm not gonna vote though because I'm still not sure what I think about it.