Raybans

[mga1500]

What do you folks think of Rayban sunglasses? I had a pair of the Outdoorsmans for twenty years before they were lost. I'm thinking gold frames with green lenses are a classic look that endures.

 

[Joshbru3]

I just bought a pair of classic Ray-Ban Aviators with gold frames and green lenses. Whats cool about the ray-bans is that the Aviator lenses are glass, not plastic. They are a bit heavier, but they feel really solid and high quality. Heres a pic. I would recommend them.

 

[Ed13]

I like their polarized lenses, I have three pairs. I don't worry about a vintage look, I am after protection for my eyes. For the money I think they are a decent buy.

 

[Tomasso]

IMHO, if they have the Ray Ban script on the lens they ain't cool. [huh]

 

[Mav]

IMHO, if they have the Ray Ban script on the lens they ain't cool. [huh]

Like my fake ones.

 

[Chasseur]

I am a fan of their Clubmasters glasses. I don't have the face for their Aviators. I do wish they didn't have all the logos on them though...

 

[Vintage lover]

I am a fan of the clubmasters as well. Not that I am a sunglass expert, but they seem to be good quality to me.

 

[Talbot]

IMHO, if they have the Ray Ban script on the lens they ain't cool. [huh]

BL etched in the top centre is good enough for me. Are they doing the green lens anymore, or is it just the green/gray one?

 

[Deleted member 12480]

oh.. i've always loved the RB in the corner of the lens. is that uncool?

I thought it was really special 'cause they were the real-deal.

But i have the wayfarers which i can't imagine are particularly golden era...

xx

 

[Edward]

oh.. i've always loved the RB in the corner of the lens. is that uncool?

I thought it was really special 'cause they were the real-deal.

But i have the wayfarers which i can't imagine are particularly golden era...

xx

Thw original Wayfarers came out in 1952. Some folks don't like the Rayban logo on the lenses as that marks them out as being of a more recent production, not vintage. Me, I kinda prefer without if I had the choice - never been a big fan of logos - but I wouldn't pay more to not have them there.

 

[Mav]

I am a fan of their Clubmasters glasses. I don't have the face for their Aviators. I do wish they didn't have all the logos on them though...

Same. I've been through about 4 pairs of Clubmasters- the more expensive a pair of sunglasses, the more prone I am to lose or break them. Also have gone through several pairs of their aviators.

RayBans are great sunglasses, stylewise, but they are colored glass lenses that keep UV out of your eyes. You can get fakes for 12 bucks that do the same thing.
And all RayBans, except for their wraparound Daddie- O's, are crap for riding a motorcycle.
Just sayin.'

 

[Deleted member 12480]

Thw original Wayfarers came out in 1952. Some folks don't like the Rayban logo on the lenses as that marks them out as being of a more recent production, not vintage. Me, I kinda prefer without if I had the choice - never been a big fan of logos - but I wouldn't pay more to not have them there.

ohhh i see! I have never been a fan of big logos (LV, Gucci etc) but I suppose it was pride for my RayBans, I saved all my holiday spending-money. Oh dear now i sound like a 7 year old!

xx

 

[Mr Vim]

Wearing glasses proves a problem for sunglasses but I spotted the Clubmaster II yesterday in the optical shop and I think I'm going to buy some.

I like the style of them... how even the newer models still have that older charm.

 

[Richard Warren]

Wayfarers are definitely the best frames there are. The logo on the lens and on the temple piece are just the price you pay if you are an old stick in the mud and a bonus if you live in the modern world.

 

[JimWagner]

My dad had a pair of Ray Ban sunglasses he'd had since WWII. They looked like the Outdoorsman to me except with graduated lenses. I loved the look of those sunglasses.

I've had a number of Ray Ban sunglasses over the years, Outdoorsman, Aviators with goggle lens (tear drop) and cable temples as well as the standard military issue bayonet temple squared oval lenses (issued to me in the navy). Loved them all.

Ray Ban stands behind their products, too. I had a pair of Aviators that I'd had for over 20 years and then I managed to break the frames at the nose. I wrote Ray Ban explaining that I'd broken them and that it was entirely my fault and asked if they could be repaired as they had a lot of sentimental value to me.

They told me to send them in and they'd take a look. A few weeks later I received a brand new pair in the mail (free) with a note saying that they couldn't repair my broken ones and that they hoped the new ones would be an acceptable replacement.

I thought that was truly nice of them.

The little logo on the lens doesn't bother me.

 

[Edward]

Same. I've been through about 4 pairs of Clubmasters- the more expensive a pair of sunglasses, the more prone I am to lose or break them. Also have gone through several pairs of their aviators.

I don't much care for the aviators.... not sure why. Maybe I just associate them too much with the 80s (all the kids I grew up with, including myself, who wore glasses back then had aviator-shaped frames...), maybe subconciously I just don't think they sit right on my face... who knows. Clubmasters I love. Funny thing, though, when I was old enough to start to particularly care about things like the look of sunglasses (for me that happened at about 13), I far and away preferred the Wayfarer style. The first pair of Clubmasters I saw was being sported by the character Michael in The Lost Boys, and I absolutely loathed them, as I recall. Even much later when I saw Reservoir Dogs (Tim Roth wears them in some of the early sequences set before and during the frustrated heist), I did not care for them. Some time during the past decade, I suppose my aesthetic preferences changed. A couple of years ago I was considering laser eye-surgery, and following a decade and a half of owning no sunglasses (around the time that I started to need to wear my specs all the time, I discovered photochromic lenses...) I began to accumulate a few pairs. By now the Clubmaster shape really did appeal to me. I suppose this is partly due to simple changes in my aesthetic preferences, especially my new appreciation for Forties and Fifties styles. Also a consideration was not wanting to look like Jake, Elwood or even Messrs Pink and Blonde when sporting sunglasses with a suit. Clubmasters were a logical choice. I bought mine on eBay for about GBP25 or so a pair - used, of course, but in excellent condition. My opticians advised me that as my eyesight is continuing to improve gradually, I am not an ideal candidate for surgery (the same franchise also offer the surgery, so I feel confident they were not simply trying to retain my custom!). That in mind, and having come to enjoy the Clubmaster style so much, I went looking for some retro frames, and wound up discovering Shuron, creators of the browline style. Ironically, I enjoy my Shuron Ronsirs so much that I now feel no real desire for laser surgery. I have however hung onto my Raybans, as there are those rare occasions when I'm outside all day in the Summer and it is simply too bright even for the darkest 'setting' on my photochromic lenses, so I will wear contacts and add a pair of my Raybans over the top. I have two pairs of Clubmasters, one tortoise and one black, and a pair of Wayfarers in black. I also have a couple of knock-offs of Wayfarers (black and black with purple lenses - very jazz cat or Elvis Costello, I think), and also a couple of pairs of Clubmaster style copies (black and tortoise again). Those I would take with me on holidays as they can be thrown in a case and should I wind up leaving them behind in a hotel room in Beijing or drop them out of a speeding rickshaw, it's no great loss.... (I did of course avoid the very cheapest of the cheap when buying rip offs in order to be sure as to acquire something with adequate UVA/UVB protection. Dark glasses which do not protect your eyes from harmful UV rays are actually worse than wearing none at all, as they cause your pupils to open up further and thus expose more of your retina to the sun).

RayBans are great sunglasses, stylewise, but they are colored glass lenses that keep UV out of your eyes. You can get fakes for 12 bucks that do the same thing.
And all RayBans, except for their wraparound Daddie- O's, are crap for riding a motorcycle.
Just sayin.'

fftopic: I always thought the best thing for a bike helment would be a photochromic visor, though I've never seen one anywhere. A lot of bikers I know keep a spare, tinted visor on them for adding to the helmet on bright days. AFAIK, those are technically still illegal to wear in the UK. Seems an odd provision to me - I realise the rule is out of concern that a rider using one cannot see fully clearly when they enter a tunnel, for instance. Problem is, though, that they encourage riders to wear sunglasses inside the helmet instead, yet these can't be simply flipped up should the rider enter a dark spot... [huh]

As to the price of Raybans... of course, as with anything, it is possible to get knock-offs that do the same job. I got a great deal on my Raybans used. They really do feel head and shoulders above the knock-offs I own in terms of quality and also comfort (if you're wearing them all day, this matters) - probably because of the different sizing options. The cheaper ones are great for holidays, though - or anywhere I might want to wear sunglasses but would be worried my 'Bans might get damaged.

For what it's worth in relation to value for money, an optician once advised me against paying the new price for a pair of RayBans I was considering purchasing in order to have prescription lenses fitted into. Apparently a substantial chunk of what you are paying for with RayBans is the quality of the lenses; taking those out negates a fair chunk of the 'upgrade' of 'Bans as compared to a high street drugstore own-brand pair.

ohhh i see! I have never been a fan of big logos (LV, Gucci etc) but I suppose it was pride for my RayBans, I saved all my holiday spending-money. Oh dear now i sound like a 7 year old!

xx

You like them, that's all that matters. They'd be 'incorrect' if you were looking to create a period-perfect look for a 50s set film or a Living History event, but if you're simply interested in wearing period styles nowadays and not worried about creating a perfect illusion of 1952, the actual shape of the Wayfarer has changed so little in the intervening years that there ain't a thing wrong with the newer ones. Fact is that I doubt most folks even know the difference.... Wear them and enjoy them.

Wearing glasses proves a problem for sunglasses but I spotted the Clubmaster II yesterday in the optical shop and I think I'm going to buy some.

I like the style of them... how even the newer models still have that older charm.

As said above, I'm a glasses wearer too who occasionally wears non-prescription sunglasses. I would carry sunglasses on bright days when I'm going out wearing contact lenses -either because it's simply too bright for my photochromic lenses (the darkest they get is still lighter than the average pair of dedicated sunglasses), or because I'm in a costume that requires me to wear lenses. You might find them more useful than you think.... Of course, if what you're really after is the style, check out Shuron Ronsirs when next you're buying spectacle frames: Shuron actually were the first to bring out this browline style, in 1947... www.shuron.com

Wayfarers are definitely the best frames there are. The logo on the lens and on the temple piece are just the price you pay if you are an old stick in the mud and a bonus if you live in the modern world.

Heh. I believe RayBan introduced those in order to distinguish them from the many, many copies on the market. From memory, this came about in the Eighties when there was both a renewed fashion for that particular style and the advent of the 'designer' boom, when the brand became as important as the item itself to a degree that had hithertoo not happened.

They told me to send them in and they'd take a look. A few weeks later I received a brand new pair in the mail (free) with a note saying that they couldn't repair my broken ones and that they hoped the new ones would be an acceptable replacement.

I thought that was truly nice of them.

The little logo on the lens doesn't bother me.

That's a very classy approach from the company. It's easy to be cynical, I suppose, and put it down to them looking a bit of free 'marketing' from yourself in your social circles, but IMHO they're not exactly in need fo any more publicity. A very classy thing to do - I'm always impressed by companies who are good to the customer like that. (Did they return your borken originals?).

 

[ssfilez]

Raybans will always be on my top list! They are stylish and they have high-quality making Rayban sunglasses my first choice.

 

[James71]

I'm copping a stack of flak over my new clubmasters......damn heathen friends....

I had to import them from the USA because they aren't available in Australia, then had the lenses swapped out for Polaroid prescription lenses.

A very expensive process all around....but worth it.

 

[Atticus Finch]

As long as they sell them, I will always have a pair of Clubmasters and a pair of Wayfarers. I'd no more leave the house without my Ray-Bans than I'd leave without my pants.

AF

 

[Kirk H.]

I love my clubmasters and wear them when I am off. At work it is Oakleys.