What Are Your Biggest Oakley Disappointments?

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

You have a point, to a certain extent. I agree absolutely that there are many generic-looking 'samey' frames ("sames"?) being released at the moment. But, with my devil's advocate hat on, actually you don't really have to look that far down the Oakley.com sunglass page to still find some more interesting frames that could only be Oakley - especially in the Sports range such as EVZero, Radar/Radarlock, M2, Flaks, Jawbreaker, Racing Jacket, etc. All of those frames still scream OAKLEY to me.

In terms of casual sunglasses, yes, it's certainly more of a mixed bag. You could possibly point to Madman and Badman as being a little more extreme in design, but then their RRP is at a price point that means that not many folks are buying them. I'm sure that Oakley must be thinking they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - when we all cry out for some innovation but then when new and different styles arrive we all clamp our wallets shut. NeXt-Metals are perhaps a bad example then.

Other frames that look most Oakley? You could point to the Triggerman and Carbon Shift as a couple of easy examples. I also see design tweaks on the ear-stems of the Wire range that look pure Oakley too. And don't forget that they are still actually selling frames such as Fuel Cell, Batwolf and Taco/Offshoot for the time being too - and of course the Frogskin. All very Oakley.

So yeah - generic stuff abounds (it's tough to get excited about Mainlink and Sliver isn't it? haha) - but I think there is still some stuff there that "looks a bit Oakley" if you search for it.

The Fuel Cell/Batwolf while one of the few frames in the past 10 years I actually like fall into the same category of critique for me- the "make a two lens variant, then make a shield variant" (of the same thing we basically already had...and don't even get me started on FC, BW, Crankcase, Crankshaft etc etc)- I mean they've gotten LAZIER actually- the Turbine and Turbine Rotor. Wait, so you don't even bother to hide lack of creativity anymore? You eased us in with the TinFOIL and TinCAN naming procedure now this? I mean sure you can argue maybe it's like a car maker having a 6 banger and 8 banger variant but at least in that example there's a performance upgrade- with things like this it just makes it APPEAR like you have variety and are different...when you're really not. Plus all of those models (FC, BW, Taco/Offshoot-which I don't really count as "Oakley-ish" to my eye) are in various stages of discontinuance so what does that tell us? Something damn good better be in the pipeline that's all I can say.

Now, I agree something like the Carbon Shift is something more along the lines of looking very Oakley- but perhaps more than the "sameness" issue is the "safeness" issue. Like that frame has potential and they could do SO much more with it both materials wise and colorways wise and they don't. They put the colored part of the earstems on the inside- really? The inside? Where you can't see it? WTH? If you're going to color match it, make a point of it being noticeable. Now, on the frames where they have the different colored metal- I like it, they're showing some spunk...but it's like the designers almost hold back- like they think "oh that's not plain enough- let's not do that" or "that'll stand out, change that". Oakley used to be about IN YOUR FACE- like you say, things that screamed Oakley. You didn't need an Icon to know it was Oakley, you just knew.....but now? Even something like the Carbon Shift...does it really scream Oakley? I'm not so sure- it's a nice glass but...I don't think it really screams anything. And that's my point- not so much "same" as "safe". I get it- not everyone is like that, many people don't want to get looks and raised eyebrows and I'm not impartial enough to be objective in that regard because I'm physically imposing by default then I make it more so with bright, daring colors in clothes, accessories and cars etc. I'm the minority- I get that. But it used to seem to me like Oakley once represented that minority- now they don't.

And as for the NeXt-Metals: do we really have to open that can of worms again especially when it comes to the pricing? Let me toss the most glaring example out there......the 24K line of X Metals. You remember how much they cost? $450. $450. But you're going to charge me $400 for a Badman? Is it any wonder people snap their wallets shut? Who wouldn't if they knew what we could get for what 5 or 6 years ago and what we can get for what now- for what is, basically, a Wire. Or at best an O-Luminum type frame of old. Don't get me wrong, the Badman is a nice glass and I own a couple- that I paid between $130-$200 for new. That's the most I'd pay for that frame- and that fact and the fact they have been getting cleared out at etail for around $200 is very telling. The fact they release the Rust Decay FC at almost $600 and it doesn't move only for it to end up around $250 at etail is very telling. The market dictates the value of something and clearly Oakley is overvaluing most of its "higher end" releases. Now granted I think many would agree the price point on the X Metals was probably undervalued problem was once the cat was out of the bag pricingwise with those it was hard to jack it very much. Point is Oakley better not be using the logic of "oh you complain you want edgy then we give it to you (or what we define as edgy) and then you don't buy,,,so we're not even going to bother". Um no, we want true edgy and not at idiotic prices.

But I'm sure most of you have heard this rant of mine before, I know Herbs and I have had this discussion before- and I'm starting to sound like that old man (at 37 to make it worse) you all know who is all "back in my day...."- but at least you can never accuse me of not having an opinion or standing by it

 

[QLR1]

OMGOSH, @ucdavis4PT0gpa! You HAD to post a dissertation on here? Lmao

I actually didn't know about the XX pricing because I got into Oakley very late and had no knowledge or appreciation for the metals, further confirmation that the initial MSRP was way out of line.

Let's close the metalloid debate

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

OMGOSH, @ucdavis4PT0gpa! You HAD to post a dissertation on here? Lmao

I actually didn't know about the XX pricing because I got into Oakley very late and had no knowledge or appreciation for the metals, further confirmation that the initial MSRP was way out of line.

Let's close the metalloid debate

Oh trust me- that isn't even remotely a dissertation by my standards. All my life...I was always the person in school to whom word counts meant nothing LOL But yes...I had to....I....can't....resist....the...power...of...the....words....

 

[QLR1]

Oh trust me- that isn't even remotely a dissertation by my standards. All my life...I was always the person in school to whom word counts meant nothing LOL But yes...I had to....I....can't....resist....the...power...of...the....words....

I am definitely not one to debate you on that point.

 

[Herbsley]

@ucdavis4PT0gpa we appear to be arguing the same point on the neXt Metals side of things, if you read my post above and further posts on this topic around the forum. Except you appear to be getting more annoyed about it.

Oakley made an error with the Madman/Badman pricing and marketing, and your point above basically mirrors my own views. I wasn't "opening a can of worms", I was using that line as an example of something at the very least different among the dirge of generic frames.

In terms of the rest of your post, I don't know why you are getting so upset, other than to pick certain words out of my post and get annoyed about them. Oakley has always tweaked models/frames thru the ages. Could we not argue that the original X-Metal line contained such tweaks? Romeo had issues, remember. XMXX improved on that. The XS design built on lessons learned from prior metals too. Etc etc.
Life wasn't all roses back in the day. O-Matter durability has improved over the years too.

And yes, Oakley used to be much more original and forward-thinking in their designs. Oakley's not the same company that it was. We all get that. But we perhaps need to get over it.

If you read my post above, I was responding to a post saying everything is 'samey', and frankly everything isn't.
It's not as good as it was - across the board - certainly.
But there are still a few designs, as I mentioned above, in Sports in particular, that are still undeniably Oakley.

 

[Herbsley]

What I will also add is that I am in no way defending the current sunglass line here.
My collection consists mainly of original X-Metals, Hijinx, DP1s, and EP2s.
I just got into Madman now they are cheap (haha) and I've got no interest or investment otherwise in the current range.
This puts me in the same boat as you @ucdavis4PT0gpa - sometimes just wishing the old days were back - but I just try and see a glimmer of hope still there.

Call me glass half full.
For a change.

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

@ucdavis4PT0gpa we appear to be arguing the same point on the neXt Metals side of things, if you read my post above and further posts on this topic around the forum. Except you appear to be getting more annoyed about it.

Oakley made an error with the Madman/Badman pricing and marketing, and your point above basically mirrors my own views. I wasn't "opening a can of worms", I was using that line as an example of something at the very least different among the dirge of generic frames.

In terms of the rest of your post, I don't know why you are getting so upset, other than to pick certain words out of my post and get annoyed about them. Oakley has always tweaked models/frames thru the ages. Could we not argue that the original X-Metal line contained such tweaks? Romeo had issues, remember. XMXX improved on that. The XS design built on lessons learned from prior metals too. Etc etc.
Life wasn't all roses back in the day. O-Matter durability has improved over the years too.

And yes, Oakley used to be much more original and forward-thinking in their designs. Oakley's not the same company that it was. We all get that. But we perhaps need to get over it.

If you read my post above, I was responding to a post saying everything is 'samey', and frankly everything isn't.
It's not as good as it was - across the board - certainly.
But there are still a few designs, as I mentioned above, in Sports in particular, that are still undeniably Oakley.

LOL- not as annoyed as it sounds...in fact not at all (damn non verbal communication getting lost in text form) but I am using your points as talking points to springboard off of- I'm also aware you were standing in somewhat as devil's advocate so please don't take anything I said as directed at you specifically.

I'd agree we are very much on the same wavelength- and I'd say, which was in part what I was eluding to when I said I'm starting to sound like an old man, perhaps I/we do need to get over it. What's past is past and it's not coming back. But on the other hand-----perhaps the opinion from collecting communities like this help spur on something like the Bad/Mad models? So perhaps being vocal to whatever extent we are about such things actually has some productive purpose- I don't know. But all that aside, again, nothing personal or any annoyance on my end- I always enjoy the dialogue and at the end of the day it's all about the same thing which is passion for the product.

 

[P226]

I <3 this thread...new releases have been bugging me something awful...glad not to be the only one...remember the 90's.....

 

[QLR1]

I <3 this thread...new releases have been bugging me something awful...glad not to be the only one...remember the 90's.....

Oh come on, you don't like the Sliver XL????

 

[P226]

Oh come on, you don't like the Sliver XL????

Haha...what gives you that idea??