If that's the supposed new X-metal, we will have some complaints on our hands.

'could' be a good year

Not an X-Metal. Latest rumors are X-Metal is done, there will just be new product to replace that Price Point.

Would be a shame if the final decision is axing the X-metals. Full of issues throughout its history but such cool designs that it doesn't matter.

I don't like half X metals, i suppose these glasses don't be x metals.

oh no, replacing the price point concerns me. as i will feel hard done by if they are x-metal prices but aren't made out of titanium or is that just me?

Sounds like it's all about generating revenue. Those new "distressed" Radars... $450...? Really? Nearly half-a-thousand-bucks??? Two, three, four, five, twenty-five replacement lenses... doesn't matter, really. X-Metals weren't even $450. Now o-matter frames are priced that high.

No thanks.

Luxottica..... they charge whatever they like, WHY? Because in the end people pay it.
Until there is a reduction in demand they will just keep going up..... they have global domination of the eyewear market, and no one to challenge the position.

Here's the US 60 minutes report from August last year on Sticker Shock:

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

Oh and Colins Comments:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424688n

Never seen that, interesting.

wow the first one opened my eyes!

loved what Colin said.

Defender is it that X-Metal the name, the logo, the line is done but something in that category - Titanium or a new Titanium composite - will be introduced? So instead of trying to continue the actual X-Metal line since the material may be changing they'll move on with a different line?

That is quite a response by Colin in that video.

But I believe this picture is of the new Half Wire.

Half Wire 3.0 is a little different. Basically lacks the CF.

I watched the CBS story the day it aired. My view is that even though Oakley is an 'independent' entity of Luxottica (or we are guided to believe that), Luxottica encourages Oakley to churn out as many new models as they can each year even if they are near similiar to a frame that was already released. If something new becomes popular then so be it for 5+ years, if not then it gets axed and there is no significant money lost. The women's frames are ridiculous, the way they are pumped out makes me believe they are mostly Luxottica with an Oakley badge.

Ok, my venting is done and I'll get back on topic. I guess that glass looks ok. Looks very similiar to the Razrwire bluetooth glass that was sold a few years ago, with a few changes.

I've always had issues with the sheer volume of Women's frames. In part to pride since I like to think I know the names of all models on sight, but I just gave up. The biggest shock in recent times is this though:



Made in Italy, which to me basically says "Luxottica produced it independently, and slapped an Icon on it." It doesn't look anything like Oakley. Even when they stretched far into Fashion territory, you could still tell they weren't from another brand. With the recent findings of 'Made in China', the reduction in quality of the new O Matter, and the sloppy tolerances of the newer frames, it is worrying me a bit.

Dann, I think you've hit the nail on the head a bit in regards to 2014 Speculation. The items you mention - Made in China, quality degrading ... they all present some real challenges that seem to be emerging more visibly. I think we all have our own tolerances to what we feel is important and/or how much we will take until it triggers a change in our feeling and behaviors.

I think we are in for plenty of discussions on how dedicated we feel to the brand, or start defining it a bit more for those that will still love Oakley just as much, but only until 20xx.

I wonder what a 1996 O-Review would have looked like (well aside from this). If going public and moving from one product a year, to several, and moving into a very heavy AFA market. Would there be a backlash against the plain models of the Jacket series, or the move to more lifestyle than hard core sport. Would becoming a public rather than private company be as jarring as being bought out completely. I know Jim said he regretted going public the most, but selling to Lux seemed even more drastic. Doing so to revolutionize the film industry is a valid point though.

Personally I didn't really care for much after 2005, which was just prior to the buy-out, but even after I held on to the few items that did speak to me. But it was a preference. With material and outsourcing, I'm afraid that even the models I do like, will be compromised.

I've thought about that as well, and I've convinced myself a 1996 OR would look very similar to the way it does now . There will always be a lot to complain about no matter how good the times are. It's pretty much all part of being an internet geek.

quality is it for me. I do want iconic models to come back and new ''wtf'' products to come out. But most of all I want the quality I have always expected from oakley to stay the same.

Made in Italy seems the cheepest to me while make in china isn't all that different. That's kind of funny.

Agreed. As much as I miss the Mad Science style, I will take a solid sport model even if it isn't as exciting. Best best is to stick with O Matter over any Acetate frames. Or any model that has representation in the SI lineup.

40 years will hopefully bring us relief in the form of new WTFs. Atleast that's what everyone around the store thinks/hopes.

All signs point to the 40th Anniversary being a good year.

Awesome to hear B!

I wonder what a 1996 O-Review would have looked like (well aside from this).

That page is awesome, the netscape logo and counter are classic