If the Bottlecap is considered a "budget" frame starting at $95, would the Gascan be considered one also since it starts at $90?

I see the budget term used a lot in the reviews of the Bottlecap but not in the reviews for the Gascan.

I think "budget" makes it sound cheap even though I think most of us budget money for Oakley purchases (take adam for example however, his Oakley budget seems to be all of his money!) it seems to be a term associated with a lesser quality product. Maybe a "basic" line sounds better.

Yeah I would agree that the "budget" term makes it sound cheap. I think the "basic line" or something of that nature would do it justice a bit more.

I think when the term Budget was thrown into the open was comparing the BC to the HJ. Even then, a low end HJ is only $105 compared to BCs at $95. It really is just the standard O starting pricepoint of late on the BC and GC. Comparable to Monster Dogs, Minutes, etc. True budget would be Fives.

What Phil said, BC's seem on average to be less than HJ's, even thought some dip into the low 100's (but what's with the Pol Aluminum/Ti ones being $155? $50 for FMJ and Ti iridium...even polarized isn't much more.)

That does make sense, good point on the budget term being used with HJ for a reference in the reviews of the BC.

Dann do you mean black chrome/ti? Or is there going to be a polished alum./ti BC also?

Sorry, was referring to the Half Jacket.

Now that the Frogskin and Jacket designations are going by the wayside, it's harder to say what constitutes a "budget" frame. One of the criteria that was a staple of the old system was the use of Unobtainium. Frames that had it were more expensive than those without. Which puts Dogs, BottleCap, Gascan in that bracket (and Riddle?).

Instead, I prefer to look at the frames in terms of use. Some of the fashion-oriented frames (Gascan) are fairly cheap. But so are some of the more general-use frames (MD). But, the more athletic frames (HJ, RJ, WJ) are pretty pricey.

nice observation Brian, that is a good point, the more athletic oakleys are more expensive.
cos they think if you want them for sport your prepared to pay more?

Riddle doesn't have unobtanium but it does have a wire core (like the Haylon) which is what makes it a bit more than regular O-matter frames, so I don't think you can count it.

With that line of reasoning, how do you explain the Why series? Standard lenses with barely any material at all used to make the rest of the glasses yet they cost a ton. No wonder Oakley is so successful. They make people want to pay more for less!

Same reason the halfwires are (now) more expensive than regular wires- mounting a lens in a half-frame requires smaller tolerances than a full-rim frame (holler if you hear me, HJ BTO sellers)- and mounting a lens in a rimless frame is harder still.

Harder, I can believe. But a $100 harder I have difficulty believing.

Hardly. But then, it ain't as if it costs the O more than $20 to turn out a pair of HJs.

Actually, wouldn't it be sweet to have 10 heads?! Then, at least, my Oakley obcession would be justifiable!