• Take 30 seconds to register your free account to access deals, post topics, and view exclusive content!

    Register Today

    Join the largest Oakley Forum on the web!

beau1890

Forum Counsel
Premium Member
I honestly believe that it is this. Keep in mind it is factory workers and the work gets tedious. Mistakes do get made so it makes perfect sense to assume they were supposed to match the printed serial with the correct frame and also write in the serial number. Why do they write in a serial number if it is on the bottom--I do not know.




Technically I would say it is not a 100% matching set since all 3 do not match but that does not mean it is not the original outer box that came with the frame. I've seen two examples of sealed sets sold on the forum.-- @beau1890 is one of those examples--that end up having a diferent serial on the outerbox than with the innerbox matching. To me this proves that it can be the original box that came with the frame when the outer box does not match

Furthermore, since @SiRacer420 (and I believe @Wicked said he had a 3 part matching examples) actually have examples where the serial matches for the outerbox, innerbox and frame, it does mean the bottom number is a serial number. I have a mars that is only 1 digit off for the outerbox which I believe strengthens the idea that they may have had a stack next to each other then they grabbed a label, wrote the serial number looking at the frame and then put it on the box. Also, my crater has a nasty tear on the hand written serial but that torn amount is on the outer box label--when put together it is clearly the right handwritten serial--so there is no doubt the outer box is the original one. The serial on the outerbox is about 1K off

That crater example also gets to a good counterargument of some examples of the outerbox serial number a thousand off which hurts that argument of grabbing the wrong label unless they did large print outs of labels which is probably what happened. It gets down to yes its a luck of the draw of getting a 3 part match.

I just realized I never posted @SiRacer420 example of a 3 part match which I meant to do original post :headbang: I'll post these examples shortly.

Yes. Most of my statement was for counter argument, I know the number is a serial deep down. Just very odd it happened on the Mars. But I really think it had to be a stack of labels and they just picked up what was on top without looking after separating the stacks between Packers and didn't think it through till later. Obviously by the days when they only printed serials they had a better system at matching them to the frame as you couldn't write it in after sticking on the label.

Because with mine, it's #380 for crying out loud. That's in the first production run when they would be very careful. And being as the Mars was right after the R1 in 1998, this would have been the first time they were putting printed serials on the boxes as the first run of Romeo's didn't have it. So my assumption is that they thought it would be good to print the serial but didn't think through how to apply them in sequence since they didn't worry about it for a year prior with the R1s.

Because the label being stuck on would be the last thing they did to seal it. Those boxes wouldn't have come with a label on them already or you couldn't open them. Grab a blank box. Put frames in. Stick on the label and then write. They probably figured it out after thousands had been boxed and then started making sure labels were in sequence.

That's the only way I can rationalize a higher # on my box @BoostBear, because if anything the rational assumption with the way XMs were being produced at the time is that my box would have a lower printed serial. QC would ****can defects even after serial etching from my understanding. So there's no guarantee that there's 379 serialized Mars before mine that got boxed.

Oh and @Mike.vanderkoon, to me its 100% matching regardless lol :p. That seal wasn't and still isn't cut. It's what they put on it. And I find it a happy oddity :)
 

Last edited:

Mike.vanderkoon

Oakley Expert
Premium Member
Lifetime Member
Yes. Most of my statement was for counter argument,

It's all great discusion points :)

I know the number is a serial deep down. Just very odd it happened on the Mars. But I really think it had to be a stack of labels and they just picked up what was on top without looking after separating the stacks between Packers and didn't think it through till later. Obviously by the days when they only printed serials they had a better system at matching them to the frame as you couldn't write it in after sticking on the label.

I agree with all the above.

Because with mine, it's #380 for crying out loud. That's in the first production run when they would be very careful. And being as the Mars was right after the R1 in 1998, this would have been the first time they were putting printed serials on the boxes as the first run of Romeo's didn't have it. So my assumption is that they thought it would be good to print the serial but didn't think through how to apply them in sequence since they didn't worry about it for a year prior with the R1s.

One thing I noticed earlier is the earlier serial sets seem to be a closer match--for instance yours #380 on frame then #417 on outer box and then with mine being #893 frame and #894 on outer box are both so close. But then when you look at the higher serial ones crater #5971 frame and box #4219 outer box. Or the mars #7219 and #8769 outer box. The variance seems to grow which I would suspect would be them increasing there batches of labels as they tried to produce more faster.

If that's the case, would that mean examples where the label is untorn and the printed number doesn't match the hand written one (that matches the frame) is that considered a QC factory error?

It's still 100% original the set (box and frame) that came out of the factory. Since it is a factory mistake I think it's fair to call it a QC factory error
 

Carrera1963

Lover of Juliet
Premium Member
13,713
2,993
UK
This one has no blank space for the serial in the front, so they’ve just written it under the single (SKU) barcode on the bottom.

At the right hand side of the label on the bottom you can see the revision number for the sticker, it might be worth trying to catalogue those. Looking at some others, it does appear that the 2/24/99 on this one is indeed a middle-endian date. If we can date a sticker as simply as that, it’s a game changer...

8CA20B6F-91E9-48FF-B624-3C10781FA74C.jpeg
 

Mike.vanderkoon

Oakley Expert
Premium Member
Lifetime Member
This one has no blank space for the serial in the front, so they’ve just written it under the single (SKU) barcode on the bottom.

At the right hand side of the label on the bottom you can see the revision number for the sticker, it might be worth trying to catalogue those. Looking at some others, it does appear that the 2/24/99 on this one is indeed a middle-endian date. If we can date a sticker as simply as that, it’s a game changer...

View attachment 724288
That's very odd. Does the frame match the serial number?

The bottom label is definitely different than the one I have. It's missing the 2nd bar code and the serial typed which you mentioned. I'm very weary of it being written by an Oakley employee since it's a blue pen. To my knowledge they always used the pencil. Do you know who the original owner was?

The date on the side is the same for many of labels. Mine is the same date and I have seen it on others. I have no idea what it means.

Has anyone else seen a bottom label like this?

8F55AD75-6603-42AD-84BA-E01EAB8C84A6.jpeg
 

Mike.vanderkoon

Oakley Expert
Premium Member
Lifetime Member
They put sku's on everything, so wouldn't be least bit surprised if they did it for labels as well.

For cataloging purposes it'd make sense, if Rev. A label had a different sku from Rev. B.
But that number isn't the sku of the frame. Are you suggesting a sku for the label?

For my xx it's the same date but different beginning numbers

1587055434787.png
 

Last edited:
Top