or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Ray-Ban: Trite or Classic?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ray-Ban: Trite or Classic?

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
We're not too far away from sunglasses season (at least here in California). I was wondering if there's any SF consensus on Ray-Ban. Are they considered too mainstream and undifferentiated or classic and always in style? I have heard of some anti-Ray Ban guys preferring Randolph Engineering aviators, among others.
post #2 of 43
I like em.
post #3 of 43
Ray-ban is a company. Some of their sunglasses are classic. Others leave something to be desired.
post #4 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archivist View Post

Ray-ban is a company. Some of their sunglasses are classic. Others leave something to be desired.

Well, if you want to be a technical snark, Ray-Ban is not a company, it's a brand owned by Luxottica. And yes, obviously there's variety in their sunglasses. I was looking for a general conclusion about the brand, taking their whole line into consideration.
post #5 of 43

Ray-Ban was owned by Bausch and Lomb and sold to Luxottica in 1999.  They originated (or popularized) many iconic eyeglass frames, including Aviators, Wayfarers (probably what the original poster meant by "Ray-Bans"), Clubmasters ("Malcolm X glasses"), and Baloramas (wrap-arounds worn by Clint Eastwood in the original Dirty Harry).

 

The modern Luxottica versions of several frames (e.g., Wayfarers) now have a gaudy script "Ray Ban" logo on the temple.  Other than that, I would call them classics.

 

Paddle-temple square aviators are military-specification glasses designed to fit under flight helmets.  Randolph Engineering, American Optical, and other companies make them.

post #6 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by motosacto View Post

Ray-Ban was owned by Bausch and Lomb and sold to Luxottica in 1999.  They originated (or popularized) many iconic eyeglass frames, including Aviators, Wayfarers (probably what the original poster meant by "Ray-Bans"), Clubmasters ("Malcolm X glasses"), and Baloramas (wrap-arounds worn by Clint Eastwood in the original Dirty Harry).

 

The modern Luxottica versions of several frames (e.g., Wayfarers) now have a gaudy script "Ray Ban" logo on the temple.  Other than that, I would call them classics.

 

Paddle-temple square aviators are military-specification glasses designed to fit under flight helmets.  Randolph Engineering, American Optical, and other companies make them.


Interesting point about the script on the temple. Perhaps this is the source of the small "ray-ban rebellion". Thanks for the context, moto.
post #7 of 43
I admire Ray Bans because the brand popularised classic styles - there is merit however in quality manufacture - which Luxottica generally falls short of, and by the sounds of it - Randolph Engineering and American Optical meet.
post #8 of 43
I am seriously considering copping these Bausch and Lomb 62014 Aviators from a local pawn shop. They are in excellent condition w/case needing only some minor cleaning and adjustment. The current 'deal' price is $70. I just can't pull the trigger.

307
post #9 of 43

Ray Ban's are a classic brand.  I would vouch for the quality of the Luxottica manufactured ones as well, at least the Wayfarers and Aviators, mine have been fine.  There's no reason to put one brand in front of the other though, good glasses could be had across the spectrum of styles.  Anyone who is bagging on RayBans because they are "mainstream" is just the typical "Look how awesome I am because I am different" type, which honestly is more common than just buying what you like in the first place.

 

FWIW, my other glasses are Oakley Juliets which are absolutely awesome performance wise.  I went through a phase of thinking Oakleys were lame for being mainstream in the late 90's until I realized how ridiculous that notion is.

 

Cheers

post #10 of 43
I don't wear them due to the visable logo as I tent to not wear anything with visable logo (although I do own a pair of Maui Jims that I use as backup).
post #11 of 43
They're a bit overplayed. Or way overplayed, but they look GREAT.

If you want another brand to be different go Tom Ford or Oliver Peoples, everything else is trying too hard.
post #12 of 43

This question is akin to asking a consensus on Coca Cola.  Some will like them, some won't.  The only opinion that matters is your own.  

 

To answer your question, Yes they are classics.  They popularized the two most iconic sunglasses; Aviator and Wayfarer.  My older siblings always had Raybans.  I have a Persol and RE.  

post #13 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGrotius View Post

They're a bit overplayed. Or way overplayed, but they look GREAT.
If you want another brand to be different go Tom Ford or Oliver Peoples, everything else is trying too hard.

Persol is try-hard?
post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonggoy View Post

This question is akin to asking a consensus on Coca Cola.  Some will like them, some won't.  The only opinion that matters is your own.  

 

 



Exactly

post #15 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digmenow View Post

I am seriously considering copping these Bausch and Lomb 62014 Aviators from a local pawn shop. They are in excellent condition w/case needing only some minor cleaning and adjustment. The current 'deal' price is $70. I just can't pull the trigger.
307

IMO something seems just a little "off"...maybe the temples are a little low on the side of the lens frame?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Ray-Ban: Trite or Classic?