For the new owner
- Take 30 seconds to register your free account to access deals, post topics, and view exclusive content! Register TodayJoin the largest Oakley Forum on the web!
That seller is a good friend of mine. I can assure you they are completely legit and I know exactly where he got them. Hes not an ex employee. Oh and he has something even crazier than that pair in his arsenal. MI SPLITS
What about all of the history about that movie and pair? Never once has anyone else I’ve talked to about it heard of the lenses being CGI.
I still say it’s a crock of ****. Also, why all the secrecy about where it came from? If he got it through legit channels it shouldn’t be an issue. Hell it could even help his claim that it’s film worn having someone else backing him up.
My wife is a film major. We met while she was working on a TV show at a school I worked at. I know a little about the film world and there’s no way that there was only one pair worn on screen. It just wouldn’t happen.
All the secrecy and around where it came from coupled with all the contradictions to what we already know tell me that this pair is NOT what it’s made out to be and someone got taken for $4350
I'm with ya, bro. I was hoping someone on here would have some solid Intel that would make these "worth" $4,350. @SouLFuLFroG is damn near as good a word as you can get on the forum. However, something isn't satisfied for me when only one good dude says "I know the guy, it's legit" with a pair that, if there truly is ONLY ONE worn on-screen like the seller claimed, would be revered and have a small group of enthusiasts to pipe up and fact drop everything about this particular pair. An awesome pair and addition to any collection, nonetheless.
Sorry not sorry. A blurred out letter of authenticity and a quick anecdote at best to describe why they are such a big deal seems weak sauce when it landed those bids. Someone either knows what's up, or just took it in the bum.
Oh well. Not my pig, not my farm.
Congrats to the new owner of a one-of-a-kind piece, whoever you may be!Look, the pair came from a former well known Oakley employee that was in charge of movie placements. That part is true and is why the pair is legit. Despite that, no one in their right mind believes the claims that this pair is a screen used pair, much less the only screen used pair.
The letter calls the pair a prototype but also says it is screen used. This is a contradiction since prototype props don’t make the screen and usually are only concepts toward the final prop. I think Jason, the former Oakley employee, mistakenly put the words screen used in the letter. A small mistake that made a huge impact.Another thing.....the story from the provided letter is that Jason brought the pairs to the film set and than brought it back with him each of the 4 times he was there. Does that make logical sense to anyone? Would the director let that happen? Never. Imagine if Jason got hit by a bus and all the props are destroyed. How many millions would the movie lose in production if they had to sit and wait until new props are made? A screen used prop would not leave the studio’s hands during filming, nevermind leaving it 4 separate times. A lot about this thing does not make sense from how different it looks compared to what appears in the movie to the story surrounding it, It just got relisted due to non payment.
Shocking!
Let’s start the debate all over again
Similar threads
