What Sunglasses Do You Have?

[RedLeader]

I'm not sure that the comparison to a £5 watch is a fair one. Watches perform a plethora of functions whereas sunglasses fulfill a much smaller set of requirements. I think I'd like to know what the actual difference is in a pair of Oakleys that makes them worth 4x the cost of a decent pair of non-designer brand sunglasses from a quality company, I know I was peeved at how quickly mine scratched and I didn't find the build quality any better.

I have a pair of Oakleys at the moment that were a gift, I'd never pay that sort of money for sunglasses, it's not worth it unless you like to impress.

This is worth a read:
http://cheapiosity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/truth-about-sunglasses.html

I'd say with those fashion label names, brand is the main difference in the price as they just outsource production to add product range to their collections. Just because that company now own Oakley or Rayban though, doesn't mean they're putting 'different stickers' on those products. Those companies are probably bought over and benefit from bulk raw materials and distribution channels that Luxottica can offer, but continue design and production as they always have. Certainly if you just want to cut UV and light level, any cheap pair will do, but in many applications optical factors and physical protection are important, not to mention fit and style.
A £5 watch will tell the time accurately just like a £200+ watch, but is it waterproof, shockproof, backlit, tells the tides, stylish... I think it's false modesty to consider sunglasses any different than our other purchases... many will buy something needlessly expensive for their needs (lying on a beach), or for perceived value (fashion, Prada etc), but there are actual values to be had when needed (eg. Oakley). Now whether the market forces on production/research costs associated with these gains actually require such a premium for the company to survive and profit, would take some research. The quantity of the premium may be questioned but the fact there is a premium can't in these cases.

[KyleL]

For work I was advised to get the best pair I could - so I bought a very expensive pair of Raybans, which broke a few months later. Then I just bought cheap pairs that broke after a week or two at a time.
Eventually, whilst going through the airport one day I spotted a good looking pair of 'bloc' sunglasses for £25, which have sustained many drops for months and show no signs of stopping.

[twentyclicks]

I'm not sure that the comparison to a £5 watch is a fair one. Watches perform a plethora of functions whereas sunglasses fulfill a much smaller set of requirements. I think I'd like to know what the actual difference is in a pair of Oakleys that makes them worth 4x the cost of a decent pair of non-designer brand sunglasses from a quality company, I know I was peeved at how quickly mine scratched and I didn't find the build quality any better.

I did outline the number of functions watches 'can' perform, but it's not much more than what a user might ask of performance shades where vision & precision can be life or death.
Regarding scratching...that's an issue with all lenses and screens. We are careful with camera lenses, so should treat glasses the same. I'm not sure whether it is because they are so light that we are all careless with them, or is it just because we don't actually get enough sun in this country to form familiar habits with them 
Regarding price... as I say, I know why they are dearer, but don't know why so much. Realistically all sunglasses should cost <£20 and all computers should cost >£5,000 considering what goes into them, but they don't. Why is one tent £20 and another £300... no matter the design there isn't a lot different in the construction. Do the materials really warrant the premium? I think my main point was we could apply this valid question to any product but sunglasses are getting picked on more than most.

[RedLeader]

Fair enough but it all just sounds like marketing. If someone can point me in the direction of something that explains why Oakley are worth 4x the cost I'll happily change my opinion, other than that people seem to be saying they must be good quality because they're more expensive and popular.

I'm not sure that the comparison to a £5 watch is a fair one. Watches perform a plethora of functions whereas sunglasses fulfill a much smaller set of requirements. I think I'd like to know what the actual difference is in a pair of Oakleys that makes them worth 4x the cost of a decent pair of non-designer brand sunglasses from a quality company, I know I was peeved at how quickly mine scratched and I didn't find the build quality any better.

I did outline the number of functions watches 'can' perform, but it's not much more than what a user might ask of performance shades where vision & precision can be life or death.
Regarding scratching...that's an issue with all lenses and screens. We are careful with camera lenses, so should treat glasses the same. I'm not sure whether it is because they are so light that we are all careless with them, or is it just because we don't actually get enough sun in this country to form familiar habits with them 
Regarding price... as I say, I know why they are dearer, but don't know why so much. Realistically all sunglasses should cost <£20 and all computers should cost >£5,000 considering what goes into them, but they don't. Why is one tent £20 and another £300... no matter the design there isn't a lot different in the construction. Do the materials really warrant the premium? I think my main point was we could apply this valid question to any product but sunglasses are getting picked on more than most.

[Kayakgirl]

I lied, mine are Jublo and not Bloc..
I must admit I would rather spend a few extra quid on sunnies when I'm working in the outdoors as there is nothing worse than having sore eyes and head due to strain.

[KyleL]

The more expensive ones DO feel better, look better - and when it comes to sun glare (while driving towards a sunset for example) work better.

However, drop them once and that could be it. I've never been I pressed with Raybans and I have a few workmates break their Oakleys. (Ouch!)

[Matthew]

For me its all about the Oakley. I just find them a good fit and pretty durable. I have a pair of  Oakley Half Wire 2.0 with the iridium fire polarized lenses and had a pair of Oakley Flak Jacket's until I left them in the baby changing room in Heathrow on the way back home this summer. I liked them so much, the next day I went straight up and bought the Half Jacket 2.0's. Granted they are fairly expensive but its not like I am buying them all the time.

[twentyclicks]

Here's 2 videos showing Oakley design benefits:

http://youtu.be/iEjcwvKH5FM - impacts

http://youtu.be/lZuQunJ7GJA - clarity


And for balance, a 60minutes report (only 12mins!) on Luxottica, which also covers why Oakley ended up bought over. It does seem quite a mafia setup, so you definitely have to pay for any product value, perceived or real. Globalisation in full swing. To answer RedLeader... no, they really shouldn't cost 4x as much, but can you find an equal alternative? It's worse than the white goods, which is all 2 big companies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n

[Matthew]

Wow that impact test is impressive. I must say that after an accident in university where a carbide tipped lathe tool broke and hit just below my eye and I was being lazy and not bothering with eye protection I wear the best quality safety glasses in work. You only get the one set of eye and I look at them as pretty important so I will always pay the cost to protect my sight.

[RedLeader]

They certainly look impressive from those videos, as long as it's not just marketing. I'm still on the fence, I'd like to see some independent tests, but Oakley do seem to be the best of the pack.

Here's 2 videos showing Oakley design benefits:

http://youtu.be/iEjcwvKH5FM - impacts

http://youtu.be/lZuQunJ7GJA - clarity


And for balance, a 60minutes report (only 12mins!) on Luxottica, which also covers why Oakley ended up bought over. It does seem quite a mafia setup, so you definitely have to pay for any product value, perceived or real. Globalisation in full swing. To answer RedLeader... no, they really shouldn't cost 4x as much, but can you find an equal alternative? It's worse than the white goods, which is all 2 big companies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n

[LennyJ1]

I own 2 pairs of sunglasses, a pair of Oakley Flak Jacket's, these are brilliant for when out on the bike or when running (Don't really do much of that). But they a really good for when doing sporty activities. My Second pair are a pair of Ray-Ban Aviators, apart from the fact the look cool as f*€k they are great when chilling on the beach and when driving.