Dork. $700 for sunglasses thatÂ´s ridiculous. You should have instead bought a nice pair of John LobbÂ´s, at least you really canÂ´t lose those. Â Anyway, I recently bought a knock-off pair of Gucci sunglasses, and not surprisingly they are of equal quality to the real thing. Â However, the best value in sunglasses IÂ´ve got is my pair of Armani wraparounds. $80 and they have lasted me two years and still going so far.
While I am not trying to justify a $700 sunglasses purchase, I'd have to say that the Palladium frame was quite nice, not to mention the lenses. And while I can't judge the quality of Gucci sunglasses, I have doubts about quality of a knock-off from street vendors. I judge a product not merely by how long it lasts, also by how well it lasts. If a Gap suit lasts 10 years, is it a good suit? Someone might well compare a $700 Lobb with a pair of $50 shoes from K-Mart and find Lobb ridiculous. Or is a $250 umbrella ridiculous too? Or a $600 shirt? Or a $10,000 suit? Or a $50,000 piano? What I am saying is, at this level, there is a certain meaning to the price (afterall, I wasn't talking about Gap or designer markup); and $700 for a pair of Cartier made from that particular material (with lifetime warranty and services --- bet Armani can't match that) is what it is. Although, yes, you are right, I wouldn't lose my shoes for sure, but if I could travel back in time, I would still buy that same pair of sunglasses, though I'd make sure I won't lose it this time. A $5 apple is ridiculous only when he/she is comparing to a 50-cent one. They are both apples, but at the same time, they are not the same. Takes a sharp eye to see the difference. Takes some even sharper taste buds to taste the differences. No offense intended. Naturlaut