What are chances Oakley re-releases X-Metal?

[Oakley G]

That was the whole equation...

The expense was unreasonable then, Oakley wasnt a reasonable company. The availability of a titanium casting facility going up for sale and Oakleys deep pockets are the only reason we saw them the first time around. The liquidation of that facility ended any potential reboot of investment cast titanium frames by oakley/luxottica.

The point being you focused on the cost side but didn’t address the revenue side. Ends up the same but there’s more parts than just costs, which we as collectors tend to put an emphasis on.

 

[XM-I]

i only ever see them drop 7$ for a 'coffee' then gripe because their 4$ thrift store shoes don't have a hole in them yet.

Sadly, so true

 

[XM-I]

That’s just one part of the equation. If there was a business or a financial reason to do it, they’d do it. The reality is that X-metals didn’t sell that well at the end. At least not enough to run a factory around it. By the time the X-squared rolled around, the remaining X-metal frames like the Juliet were on the chopping block at least 2 times since 2006 and were on death’s door. The XS sold ok but it was clear the time of X-metal and its styling was over.

Despite collectors loving them and wanting them back now, very few actually purchased them at retail when they were around near the end. So yeah, the return will never happen at least not on a full scale basis. And convincing Oakley that will sell these days is a steep uphill battle at any level of production,

It’s much less a case of convincing a post Jannard Oakley, and more so a case of convincing the umbrella of Luxottica. Case and point, the failed experiment of the fauX Metals.

 

[ShortChangeHero]

It could happen I mean they make ti ray bans now so all they gotta do is switch the mold right?

 

[TechArtisan]

It could happen I mean they make ti ray bans now so all they gotta do is switch the mold right?

Raybans Titanium frames arent investment cast. They are wire formed with automated welds. You dont get the scultptural qualities of Xmetal frames that way. So nope.

 

[krayzie]

Raybans Titanium frames arent investment cast. They are wire formed with automated welds. You dont get the scultptural qualities of Xmetal frames that way. So nope.

I think the closest they've gotten was the Made in China Gen 1 T-Wire retro from a few years back?

The only odd ball thing Lux has ever done to my knowledge was their Japanese subsidiary in 2005 bringing back the Ray-Ban Outdoorsman Ultra in titanium for the Japanese market only, Made in Japan, and subsequently used a variation of it in 2007 for the exported 70th anniversary model serialized in a limited run. The product ended up being even higher quality than the original Bausch and Lomb piece from 10 years prior.

Lux also allowed Oliver Peoples in 2010 to bring back certain Made in Japan frames from the '80s and '90s in limited runs from the original Japanese manufacturer (I believe Oakley bought Oliver Peoples just prior to Lux take over).

Can't they just partner with an existing investment cast titanium factory for a limited run?

Anyway collectors want vintage, the real thing, and could care less about retros regardless of quality.

 

[ShortChangeHero]

I think the closest they've gotten was the Made in China Gen 1 T-Wire retro from a few years back?

The only odd ball thing Lux has ever done to my knowledge was their Japanese subsidiary in 2005 bringing back the Ray-Ban Outdoorsman Ultra in titanium for the Japanese market only, Made in Japan, and subsequently used a variation of it in 2007 for the exported 70th anniversary model serialized in a limited run. The product ended up being even higher quality than the original Bausch and Lomb piece from 10 years prior.

Lux also allowed Oliver Peoples in 2010 to bring back certain Made in Japan frames from the '80s and '90s in limited runs from the original Japanese manufacturer (I believe Oakley bought Oliver Peoples just prior to Lux take over).

Can't they just partner with an existing investment cast titanium factory for a limited run?

Anyway collectors want vintage, the real thing, and could care less about retros regardless of quality.

I don’t know those Mumbos went pretty fast.

 

[Lexkempo]

I don’t know those Mumbos went pretty fast.

True

 

[beau1890]

No. You can gold-plate a turd. That doesn't mean it's a gold turd.

The better way to say that is: "You can't polish a turd, but you can roll that **** in glitter and hope that someone buys it!"

 

[Orion]

Then take it from those more knowing than you....
"A lot of the growth we've promised can result from just letting people know what we already make," says Baden. What Oakley creates, he insists, is not sunglasses, but sculpture. "We're inventors using technology to make artistic creations with mechanical souls," he says.

To address the matter at hand, Xmetal, you must understand the history. Xmetal are cast titanium.

This is one of the most difficult metals to investment cast. It is extremely reactive and requires casting in a hard vacuum, 4600 degree temps, and if you dont take great care you end up with garbage parts, or worse an explosion. Oakley purchased a former golf club manufacturing facility in Nevada to cast the X metal line.

The Dayton plant was shuttered and liquidated in 2012. Oakley/luxotticca no longer owns the equipment necessary to produce them. They would have to drop $50m+ to get a new facility up and running. Outsourcing the process isnt really practical as few foundries are capable of producing these sorts of parts and the premium they charge is more in line with aerospace and medical than sunglasses.
This is why you WILL NEVER SEE an Oakley/Luxoticca Xmetal happen.

Regardless of what those who "know more than I" say.........I would disagree with them too. Any pair of sunglasses that can last as long as X-metals have and perform one of the functions they were intended for....... eye protection, from my perspective, are more functional to me than art. Despite the complexity or difficulty it took to create them or what their creators state.

Even if you are telling me that those who "know more than I" didn't intend xmetals to function as eye protection I would still disagree with you from my perspective.

To a collector who has them sitting on a shelf, I could see your side of the debate. My point is, function vs art is for each individual to decide.

To someone, like me, who has a 10+ year old frame that I can still use and provide protection for my eyes....... it will always be more functional to me that art.

That being said, I very much enjoy their design and they do have a "visual value" to me. So for me, the art is function as well.