Anyone called Oakley yet?

Guess clicking around woulda helped, huh?
Wow. This is great! I am definitely down to get all three. Hopefully they're reasonably priced like the Frogskins. But they better be readily available, and not hard-to-find, limited quantities.

Regardless, I just got off the phone with Oakley. The guy I talked to said he has been given no info on his release sheets that indicates the return of these two models, and said the descriptions could be the same from a point where they had re-released them prior.
Were these two pairs ever broght back after an initial discontinuation? Or was he misinformed or trying to hide something?


~Yukio

More than likely he just has no clue....

Would definitely be down for the sub zero. If just for the thought that I would be supporting the potential re-release of a 0.1/0.2/0.3 zero in the future. Interesting color choices for the eye jacket - I'd probably hold and see what price point they hit on those.

Would love to see a re-release of a 0.3! Bloody hard (and expensive) to get an original.

I guess there's a whole thread there - would you rather leave the original classics untouched so as to not devalue the hunt, chase and ownership of retro frames?

Or on another angle, why do you covet a particular (old) pair? Is it because they're hard to find/not readily available, so you're less likely to see others with them? Is it because of their status? Or do you really just love the style and would collect them just the same as if it were a new release?


~Yukio

At least for me, it's all about the distinctive styling. If all 3 0.1-0.3 were available today at retail, I would definitely pick each of them up. Issues of age and unavailability are more of a footnote for me, and only tend to rear their ugly head if/when I might break them someday (trenchcoat).

Particularly for the eye jackets, I presume they would make them from the 'new' nylon version of omatter ... would be interesting to see how the new formula stands up against the known weak points on the ej design.

Now that I've settled down, I don't think they're doing a re-release. Sometimes Oakley puts up old models on oakley.com to sell them out. If you look at the first page of the "Oakley.com Update" thread, you'll see what I mean.

Also, when they do re-releases, they tend to use different parts numbers. The parts number for the three glasses are the exact same as their original release.

The fact that they made a new Photoshopped pic is perplexing, though. It's listed under "Men's Sunglass Archive". Could it be that they're doing an online museum of all their models? Hmmm....

I'm with Oak on this one.
If you try some SKU's, you'll find a lot of discontinued items. Romeo, Mars, Time Bombs, all these still have their pages.
On the other hand, it would be awesome to see a re-release of the sub-zero's

I dunno...I can look up pairs like the Splice, Penny, etc. But Trenchcoat, Eye Jacket, older Zero, etc...none of those come up. By name or SKU. The Sub and EJ seem like the only two "old" pairs on there.


~Yukio

The only time I've seen older pairs show up again, weren't all that old. The Scar showed up but it was only a few years after its dicontinuation. A sub zero would be a stretch.

T Wire 1.0 showed up
http://oakley.com/pd/6064

The description:

... Now we’re making this rare Oakley classic available to those who appreciate the freakishly low weight of a virtually indestructible element in the periodic table.
...

I would read this in one of three ways:

1) They are bringing these older models back with a re-release. The fact that they have the old SKU could be the smoke and mirrors for the web developers to get everything in place.

2) Oakley has some crawl space in the basement of HQ where they keep stock of everything they produce to be released 20 years down the road. Now they are selling off the things which have ripened.

3) They are copying Dann's idea and cataloging products.

With the T Wire description, it might be the second option. Personally, I can't see them re-releasing 3 old models at the same time, especially those as diverse as the ones shown so far. I would be shocked to see T Wires re-released, in fact. I think that most of us would be scratching our heads on that.

But the first one might be an option as well. It could just be a placeholder for the next year or two. Then again, Oakley tends to hide most of their stuff until much closer to the actual release.

What makes it even more boggling is that the pages are available to Oakley.ca. Usually us Canadians get screwed on re-releases and such. Hell, the Frogskin re-release weren't even available on oakley.ca after a while, yet these new ones are. Very interesting.

I will say that if those T-Wires are of the original batch from back in the day then that just might be something for the collection. I'm still on the fence on re-releases...I think they're cool because you can get some awesome designs from years ago that are hard to find. But they don't seem as special as if they were originals. Kind of like Nike's Retro releases - it's cool to seem 'em but are they as coveted as the true originals, in my opinion, no - I don't think so. Not saying that I wouldn't love to have a remake of some of the discontinued models, it is better than not having them at all. Sort of like buying a replica it's cool if you can't afford or find an/the original. I guess what I'm saying is the remakes don't have me all "gotta have that" as much as the intial release.

They must have found a room or warehouse of old stock and are just off loading it. Didn't Jim Jannard say he had a warehouse full of new Shoe Ones?

I like the re-release idea - just look at the Frogs. They've gone mental. I wouldn't be upset if they put something on the re-releases to indicate as much, like a little logo somewhere, so those with the originals can rest easy knowing theirs are still unique.

I tought it was also odd that I could see the pages on Oakley.ca instead of having to use a proxy.

Ah, but just to get the juices flowing - what about if they re-released 0.1-0.3 with square o icons? Blasphemy?

Didn't Jim Jannard say he had a warehouse full of new Shoe Ones?

I seem to remember that was the case just before the move from 10 Holland to One Icon, then I'm sure a lot of vintage stuff was trashed or destroyed.

I am curious to know why they would re-release the T-Wire in Gen 2. Why not Gen 1, the original design? hmmm..must be some overstock that didn't well



I believe Gen 2 came after the X-Metals were released so they didn't too well

Actually the false hammer earsocks originated from A Wire / A Wire Thick (correct me if I am wrong)

or my other theory is ...depending on how many calls they get, will determine if there is enough interest to re-release these vintage.

While attending the Co-Pilot event I noticed an employee at HQ wearing some Crystal Red M Frames (gen 1). When asked where he got them he mentioned something about "stock" of many older Oakley frames/pieces stashed somewhere there at HQ.

I'd love to see the re-release of the original Mumbos - especially the V lens, original Hybrid, 67, etc, along with some vintage colored frames such as neon yellow, crystal red, crystal blue, etc. After all, the M Frame is a cornerstone of Oakley's success and heritage.

When asked where he got them he mentioned something about "stock" of many older Oakley frames/pieces stashed somewhere there at HQ.

Think anybody would expect that.

Think anybody would expect that.

I didn't particularly find it surprising that there was stock at HQ, but the fact that those frames were approximately fifteen or so years old and still onhand. That's what surprised me more than anything.

i was suprised seeing all that old stuff still around in the hq. employees really have an advantage on getting their hands on all of that stuff... i really wish they would bring back some more of their old designs. im all about some vintage zeros and some zero-metals would be really cool but i really dont think they ever will. most of what i see coming out is a lot more square O and super expensive elite series. the elites really catch my eyes but man they are costly.