Ray Ban & Persol made by Luxottica - so what?

[Bill Smith]

I used to own several pairs of Raybans years ago including Wayfarers that have long gone astray. Rayban suffers what other brands have, a master conglomerate trying to save money by cheaping out on manufacturing and materials.

I look at lens technology first when investing in a pair of sunglasses. I prefer these days to buy Maui Jim, they have proper spectrum protection for the eyes and the frames are better made.

 

[simon626]

EXCELLENT post Trent900!

Your post was very informative.

I would like to admit that Raybans these days are not on par with Persols if quality is in question. I work in an optometry and we have carried both Raybans and Persols at one point. I own both brands and although i like the trendy look of Raybans, i would have to admit that my plastic Persols are of higher quality.

In regard to the inferior lens statements made by Trent, i must mention the fact that the regular lenses (non polarized) that come with Raybans are ****. On the other hand, the Rayban's POLARIZED lenses are extremely comfortable. I do not squint at ALL. My Persol's polarized lenses are also excellent, but i must admit that my Raybans have better polarization on the lenses. They are the same shade of tint (darkness of outer appearance) as my Persols, yet when i put them on images are much more crisp and BRIGHT compared to my Persols. The Persols aren't bad at all though, they still offer high quality polarized lenses that are still very very comfortable. I just think that Raybans still have better quality polarization in terms of lenses. I love the fact that Persols are hand made in italy and the frames seem sturdier in quality when compared to Raybans. Still, the way i see it the most important part of glasses are the lenses. First comes comfort, second, style. I will never sacrifice comfort for the grandeur of superior outer appearance.

I choose Persol.

 

[Reevolving]

I verified Persol and RayBan are indeed made by Luxottica. http://www.luxottica.com/en/brands/h...nds/index.html Well, count another thing you've been suckered into. As I spend more time here, I see that SF members are not saavy at all. In fact, they'll almost buy anything.

 

[eightdouble]

i have newer persol 649s (handmade in italy) and a pair of vintage ratti 649s. in a side by side comparison i don't see a decline in quality or craftsmanship at all.

in fact the lenses on my newest 649s are so astoundingly good i can hardly put on another pair of sunglasses.

 

[Rada]

I used to work for LensCrafters (owned by Luxottica as well) and we all agreed that Persol's quality went downhill and RayBans stayed great.

I currently have Wayfarers and they're a solid pair of sunglasses...

 

[Recoil]

Well done and very informative. However, when writing to a media outlet, I suggest you leave the racial epithets out, i.e., "...has been sold down the river"

Originally Posted by Trent900

This is a piece I wrote to another media-outlet, regarding Luxottica, and sunglasses in general. It is pretty much 'proper sunglasses 101', and I have copied it here:

START:

Well done, Luxottica, for wrecking what used to be a trusted brand. Obviously, when you bought this brand, there was no heritage covenant signed, to ensure the integrity of the brand, and so, we now have this proliferation of cheap, nasty plastic lenses masquerading under the once-respectable Ray Ban name.

Some 75% of so-called Ray Ban 'sunglasses' now, are not equipped with borosilicate glass lenses. Instead, the majority of this brand's wares have cheap, acetate plastic lenses which provide little, if any, protection from UVB/Blue Light.

Twenty-two years ago, the Ray Ban brand, in the USA, then not owned by Luxottica, introduced a series of poster adverts, proclaiming, rightly, the optical superiority of Ray Ban lenses. In the advert, two lenses were juxtaposed. The one on the left - the Ray Ban - passed every test in a straight-lines reflection test (cross-hatch squares, with no elipses). This showed the craftsmanship of zero-distortion Ray Ban lenses, even with steep base-curve aviator lenses, right to the frame-beveling.

The other lense featured in the advert was a 'how not to make a lense' lens: it had wavy lines reflections (not unlike looking at tiling at the bottom of a swimming pool on a windy day), indicating the tell-tale bowing and distortion of a badly-made, cheap lens.

This advert, over two decades ago, showed the superiority of Ray Ban, optically. It gave the impression that opthalmologists would be proud to recommend such glasses to customers, for general wear, and in UV-intense environments.

Just over twenty years-on, and the Ray Ban name has been sold down the river by a buch of craven idiots at Luxottica, with the collusion of a young, receptive audience who are clueless about what constitutes a good pair of sunglasses.

Every single pair of the 'new' plastic-lensed Ray Bans I have looked at suffered from bowing and distortion to a greater or lesser degree. This means that the majority of Ray Ban 'sunglasses' today constitute the cheap, plastic, inferior trash which Ray Ban adverts of 1985 so rightly castigated. Those adverts implied that, if one purchased such cheap, distorted lenses, then one was being defrauded, and ripped-off, and ill-serving their eyesight by such a purchase. So, doesn't the new developments in Ray Ban lenses mean that you, Luxottica, are guilty of all these things?

Luxottica love these plastic lenses: they're profitable in the extreme, because they're made in cheap contract-toy-factories. No one is going to convince me that the protective properties of the Glass Ray Ban RB3027 or RB3025, are shared by the Paris Hilton 'bug' Ray Bans featured in the new, flashy rayban.com website. You will notice that not in the website, nor in the catalogue given to optical store-outlets by Luxottica, will you find a definitive statement about the composition of the lenses, beside the photos of the 'sunglasses' featured. Luxottica Oakley play this game, too, with a made-up name for polycarbonate and plastic lenses, which conceals the provenance of the materials-used.

And the advertising strapline for the past two years, promoting this junk? 'Ray Ban, Genuine since 1937'.

Genuine what?

This is advertising fraud, and it is consumer fraud; if the latter, gullible lemmings that most of them sadly are, could discern the difference between well-made glass lenses (such as Serengeti Sedona, Maui Jim Glass, or Oliver Peoples VFX-glass), and rubbish such as Luxottica is now promoting, under the once-admirable Ray Ban moniker.

Shame on you, Luxottica.

The ocular chic of the new frame styles cannot hide the trash-lenses they encircle.

As I walked down a very sunny Oxford Street in London, last week, I could see people in designer 'sunglasses' such as Tom Ford, Miu Miu, over-rated distorted Oakley Gascans...and the new Ray Bans, squinting behind their lenses. These people paid in excess of £150 each a pair for these pieces of junk...and they're SQUINTING? I had no such visual discomfort in my Serengetis.

Again, shame on you, Luxottica, I fully expect your marketing putzes to wreck the Persol brand, yet, with plastic lenses. Go on, do it. You did it to Ray Ban, so why stop there?

END.

 

[Journeyman]

Originally Posted by Reevolving

I verified Persol and RayBan are indeed made by Luxottica.
http://www.luxottica.com/en/brands/h...nds/index.html

Well, count another thing you've been suckered into.
As I spend more time here, I see that SF members are not saavy at all.
In fact, they'll almost buy anything.

I think that the original poster - and pretty much everyone else on this forum - already knew that Rayban and Persol are owned by Luxottica. That is why, if you read the original post, the question was whether pre-Luxottica glasses are superior to post-Luxottica glasses.

Also, if you read a multitude of comments made about sunglasses in this forum, you will see that there is a general consensus that the pre-Luxottica sunglasses are superior and that is another reason why the OP asked his question.

Hence, your conclusion about SF members - in this case, at least - is incorrect.

 

[Reevolving]

My point is....until this Luxottica issue came up a week ago,
I don't recall a single person saying anything bad about RayBan or Persol.
And certainly very little about the "add value" of $300 glasses.

I think SF is a great resource in becoming educated, saavy consumers.
(vs. buying whatever other people say is "right&quot
And this thread is a good example in that direction !

 

[Kaplan]

Originally Posted by Reevolving

My point is....until this Luxottica issue came up a week ago,
I don't recall a single person saying anything bad about RayBan or Persol.
This thread is a year and a half old.

Originally Posted by Reevolving

As I spend more time here, I see that SF members are not saavy at all.

Originally Posted by Reevolving

I think SF is a great resource in becoming educated, saavy consumers.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.

 

[pebblegrain]

Originally Posted by Reevolving

I verified Persol and RayBan are indeed made by Luxottica.
http://www.luxottica.com/en/brands/h...nds/index.html

Well, count another thing you've been suckered into.
As I spend more time here, I see that SF members are not saavy at all.
In fact, they'll almost buy anything.

Wow, your detective skills and punctuality are on par with Hercule Pwahroh

 

[bapelolol]

s this ebay seller - lucassunglasses - selling fake Ray Bans?? http://shop.ebay.com/lucassunglasses...911.m270.l1313 are these ray bans highly faked?

 

[daruma]

are the b&l raybans really that much better than the luxotica raybans??

 

[barims]

^ I believe so. They certainly tower over the cheaper modern Ray Bans rather easily, and the older design styles certainly have a more engaging appeal

 

[Outlaw1968]

I have 4 pair of Persol, 649, and 3 714's. One of the 714's is the Steve McQueen Limited Edition run. Great, classy glasses. I also have worn Ray Bans for a while before purchasing a pair of Persols.. I prefer Persol much, much more. The fit, feel and comfort of them is unparalleled. Ray Bans are light, and while they cover the eye, the do not protect the eye. What i mean is that the open space between yout temple and the lens. You can find the fit my simple sticking a thumb or a finger between your temple and lense. Persol's cover that space much more efficently than the Ray Ban's do. Ray Bans sit far from my face, which lets light in, and dust, wind. Persol does not. I will never purchase a pai of Ray Ban's bcause they do not compare to Persol, IMHO. They are colorful, and too popular. Everywhere i go, i see people with them. I am the only person who has Persol's in my area. I swear. Ray Ban's have nice polarization, but i prefer Persol's polatization, mainly in brown lenses. Black or green lenses are plain. Blue lenses, like in the Steve McQueen's, is superb, i mean gorgeous. No wonder he wore them, and wore them in the graveyard scene in Thomas Crown Affair.

Now to the quality factor, being made by Luxottica, they are just owned by Luxottica. Persol, and Ray Ban's are made in their respective factories.
Ray Ban does got the el cheapo's, and those are the ones i think are really affected by being owned by Luxottica. When you pay over $250 for some Persol's , you get a great lens. Besides, Persol supplied NASA with lenses to space, and produced most of the flight goggles for the worlds Air Corps. in WWI,,Italy, and the United States.

 

[le.gentleman]

I have a bunch of Persols 714 and I like them. I don't see a decline in quality, but I can see it in Ray Ban's. Vintage Ray Ban are superior in my opinion. Persols, maybe only if you find a certain style / color combination that does not exisit anymore. Otherwise, they are decent, I think.