Well this made my day. I think it answered pretty much most of my questions. It's not often we get primary sources to verify things, as usually it's a long process of deduction.
Later the O Frame became the foundation frame for the first ski goggles as well.
Perfect, this was my theory.
L (large) Frame, E (economy) Frame
Ah, this was new for me. We had some running assumption that eventually the entire Company name was going to be spelled out in Goggle frames.
O-
A-K-
L-
E-Y. There was never a K or Y Frame, but I do have a digital copy of an ad touting the P Frame...which obviously never actually appeared. Oddly this has the original logo on the frame, but stretch on the ad:
MX Goggle lineup: O Frame (single density face foam), L Frame (idual density face foam), both standard with clear Lexan lenses. Then came along the Pro Frame MX with dual density foam and an Iridium coated Lexan lens.
Supports my early findings of Iridium being a 'Pro' option, but I was most likely blind to the Snow options. Makes sense for MX since you're not dealing with snow glare.
Snow goggle lineup: E (economy) Frame (single density foam, single acetate lens with NoFogium anti fog coating). O Frame with (single density foam, dual vented anti fog lens), L Frame (dual foam with dual vented anti fog lens), Pro Frame (dual vented anti fog lens, dual density face foam) and Pro Frame Iridium.
This makes sense, but why was there an O Frame with Iridium listed in the 1988 price list, but never again. I'd chalk it up to a mistake if it were in an ad, but there were sku's and colorways:
http://oakley.decemberized.com/Goggles/1988/Goggles_September_1988.pdf
We were clearly the first to use this graphic technology in the optical space and goggles were a great canvas. Unfortunately, it did kill the splatter and hand painted stuff.
Until the collector marker emerged; that one is a tricky double-edged sword. I'm glad I try to collect information rather than $700 gascans, heh. Just my $0.02
Again I don't remember specific launch dates, but I recall it being around 1983 for the first snow goggles and Iridium being introduced in 1988.
That matches my records. I'm 13 years and thousands of records deep into the database, so I can't recall where I got most information. I just try to trust that I knew what I was doing at the time.
The H20 goggle also came into the mix in the late 80's focused on the fast growing personal water craft market.
From the marketing material, it seems they are similar to the MX frame but with extra vents and hydrophobic coating. Sort of along the lines of the Water Jacket vs Racing Jacket.
Not sure how you define the "stretch logo". I'm assuming it was due to the switch in logos on the frame and not the strap.
Yes, just on the frame. The (what we call) Classic Logo, then the Stretch, then the Icon. Straps seemed to be independent, and often reverted when the 30th anniversary of Oakley passed, and retro styles/historical references were in.
Regarding the Stretchline, I have a few articles on the subject.
http://o-review.com/forum_detail.php?ID=10717
I currently working on a ton of things for the site, but getting these articles more readily accessible is high on that list. I was sort of on the fence at first, but soon grew to embrace them.
For the definition of Stretch, it's two-fold. I started the site in 2004 with little historical knowledge. A few early members helped get me up to speed, but at that point 'stretch' was only on the Goggles and Wires (1994-1998). Right after that the Stretchline collection debuted, so we saw that re-emergence of the logo, but bold. For the sake of clarity, the 90's version we dub Thin-Stretch, and the latter Heavy-Stretch. The re-issue of the E/T/Square Wire a few years ago also converted the Thinstretch to heavy stretch on the arms.
Jim hated the way the round Ellipse logo looked on the Gascan and told the designers to come up with a square version of the that better matched the angular styling of the Gascan.
With the recent departure of the Square O, this sentiment was shared by a lot of people. The elliptical icon just looks funny on the lifestyle pieces. The reasoning was pretty much in line with how you mentioned the initial reaction was shock. They're backpedaling to reach that safe zone for brand identity.
For the O Frame there was a mold update where we added the small ports in the bottom of the frame. All aesthetic and I don't recall the year we made the update. It feels like around 2000 that you seem to recognize in the Database as "new" O Frame.
1999/2000 saw a lot of updates. A few: the O Matter formula was improved so the frames weren't so brittle. The first wave of Jacket sunglasses stay safely on my shelf. I get nervous even touching them. True Metal icons appears to replace the molded icons. Most O Matter options were rebranded as 'New' models, while the Wires became 2.0 versions.
Also, the addition of an MX E Frame a couple of years ago?
It's this one. I picked it up due to the striking resemblance to the 1980 Oakley Goggle. The price point was $30, so cheaper then the 90's release, and not too much more than the 80's. I assume simple curved Lexan vs the optically corrected lenses of other modern releases. Only three colors appeared and soon disappeared. I don't doubt that sometimes naming schemes get confusing. Here we are in this thread, still trying to hash them out after all.
I also did a video on them, and the box says E Frame MX
Also, the O Frame 2.0 MX and the O Frame 2.0 Snow look to be missing from the Database. Both are the same frames, but the lens technology is different between MX and Snow applications. Nonetheless, these are after my time so they must be recent additions. I'm guessing 2016.
Yes, I'm VERY far behind in Goggle updates. There's just so many of them. I do have copies of the catalogs in digital format, so I will play catchup one of these days. I need to work on my database entry forms though to make large data imports easier. My carpel tunnel will kill me loading hundreds of colorways.