[andreas_g4]

Since I'm becomming a big glasses fan, I'd like to know what make her glasses are? I think they look pretty awesome. Any help appreciated.

[TheWOAT]

I think MC Hammer wore those back in the day

[andreas_g4]

um, no?

[olePigeon]

MC Hammer can time travel?!

Originally Posted by andreas_g4 

um, no?

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

MC Hammer can time travel?!

Yes we can.

But I'm co-derailing my thread here. I'd really like to get some help here…

[besson3c]

He reminds me of Abe.

[TheWOAT]

Key part of my post was "BACK IN THE DAY", another key part was "MC HAMMER", as in, before he switched his name to just Hammer.

[AKcrab]

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle...s_help_se.html

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4 

Since I'm becomming a big glasses fan, I'd like to know what make her glasses are? I think they look pretty awesome. Any help appreciated.

I don't know but they do look like what Germans like to wear.

[calverson]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4 

Since I'm becomming a big glasses fan

Specs or shades?

I picked up a couple of these the other day:



Really comfortable. I am not into the frameless thing, though.

[brassplayersrock²]

Here are mine incase anyone was wondering.

[rickey939]

Prada.

[Dakar V]

Her glasses are ugly.

[calverson]

That is why they suite her.

[Spheric Harlot]

Kazuo Kawasaki 704

[Doofy]

Palin is the best advertisement for contact lenses ever.

[osiris]

Glasses interfere with the money shots.

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

I don't know but they do look like what Germans like to wear.

Actually, I happen to be!

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Kazuo Kawasaki 704

Awesome, thank ou a lot!

Originally Posted by calverson 

Specs or shades?

I picked up a couple of these the other day:



Really comfortable. I am not into the frameless thing, though.

Very nice! I'm not preferring either, I like both.

[shifuimam]

I don't really get the idea behind spending $400+ on a pair of frames (that's not even including the lenses and any lens treatments, like anti-scratch or polarization).

I got three pairs of glasses (one pair's polarized sunglasses) with polycarbonate lenses and anti-scratch/anti-reflective coating for $300 total...and I don't buy the line that D&G frames are better quality than the generic ones I got at Eyeglass World. I've been wearing glasses since I was in third grade, and even my old Wal-Mart frames back then lasted for years.

[Eug]

The low end frames are often poorly built IMO. Often they're not, but sometimes it's bit hard to know which are the ones that are going to bust quickly.

The mid end frames can be very well built. However, often times the styles aren't the greatest.
I have expensive frames. The build quality is no better than the mid-end frames, but I liked the style better. My current set of frames are Anne et Valentin. BTW, their website sucks.

As for lenses, I find that the ones they sell at places like Lenscrafters (American Optical lenses) really aren't very good. It's not the lenses themselves, but the anti-scratch. They wear off quicker than if you get top end Nikon or Zeiss coated lenses.

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't really get the idea behind spending $400+ on a pair of frames (that's not even including the lenses and any lens treatments, like anti-scratch or polarization).

I got three pairs of glasses (one pair's polarized sunglasses) with polycarbonate lenses and anti-scratch/anti-reflective coating for $300 total...and I don't buy the line that D&G frames are better quality than the generic ones I got at Eyeglass World. I've been wearing glasses since I was in third grade, and even my old Wal-Mart frames back then lasted for years.

Well, I usually buy glasses for around 300 $ - and I have a 100% eyesight!

I think that glasses are the finest most elegant male accessory, and that's why I wear them. With me, it's plain vanity, and I'm straight forward with it. Since I always wear quite unique glasses, I am often asked where I got them, and I usually concede that I don't even need them.

My current most liked eyewear:

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't really get the idea behind spending $400+ on a pair of frames (that's not even including the lenses and any lens treatments, like anti-scratch or polarization).

Seeing well does not necessarily equate to looking good.

For some of us, getting the right frame for something that features kind of prominently smack-dab in the middle of our face is a big deal.

I know I *agonize* over my choice of frame for ages when it comes time to get new glasses, and if I find one that feels perfect, I really don't care what it costs. Which in turn means that I wear it for a very long time, as well - my last (frame-less) frame lasted over twelve years (with two or three years of wearing a different pair of specs some time in between).


There are, of course, the morons who'll buy a $500 frame simply because it's $500, or because it's the one that so-and-so wore in that movie (or campaign), with total disregard for the fact that the frame looks like complete **** on his face. Witness the millions of people who bought Matrix-style sunshades with the expensive name on them, because they looked great on Keanu and Carrie-Ann, but made themselves look like complete dorks on tanning booth vacation from another planet.

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There are, of course, the morons who'll buy a $500 frame simply because it's $500, or because it's the one that so-and-so wore in that movie, with total disregard for the fact that the frame looks like complete **** on his face. Witness the millions of people who bought Matrix-style sunshades with the expensive name on them, because they looked great on Keanu and Carrie-Ann, but made themselves look like complete dorks on tanning booth vacation from another planet.

True. With the exception of the glasses Liquid Snake wears in Metal Gear Solid 4, which have the disadvantage of being digital only…



Not the best angle however…

[calverson]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't really get the idea behind spending $400+ on a pair of frames (that's not even including the lenses and any lens treatments, like anti-scratch or polarization).

My glasses (the Porsche P8004s) cost me, frames and lenses, about R6000, which is about $600. When choosing them, however, I did not actually look at the price. I fitted many glasses, and found the ones that I liked, and got a quote, and accepted it.

They are something that I wear 17 hours a day, so I don't think that is too much.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4 

I think that glasses are the finest most elegant male accessory, and that's why I wear them.

Wait, you're a dude that wants Palin's glasses?

This thread is oddly starting to make sense.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't really get the idea behind spending $400+ on a pair of frames (that's not even including the lenses and any lens treatments, like anti-scratch or polarization).

I got three pairs of glasses (one pair's polarized sunglasses) with polycarbonate lenses and anti-scratch/anti-reflective coating for $300 total...and I don't buy the line that D&G frames are better quality than the generic ones I got at Eyeglass World. I've been wearing glasses since I was in third grade, and even my old Wal-Mart frames back then lasted for years.

I recently got a pair of glasses that came out to about $630 with just polarization. Luckily it was about $230 for me with insurance.

[tooki]

My current pair of glasses cost $700 -- that's $200 for the frame and $500 for lenses. I have a strong prescription, so I went with the highest-index plastic (=thinnest) from Hoya, which is very expensive, and also paid for Hoya's top-grade antireflective coating, which is miraculous. It's optically fantastic, but also water-repellent, so I can clean them by just washing with dish soap and water, and then blowing off the residual water droplets! And the coating is supposedly harder to scratch than glass (and indeed, I've had no problems whatsoever with scratching). As a full-time eyeglass wearer, thin and light lenses that are easy to care for is critical, so I'm willing to pay for top-notch glasses from a real optician. (Lenscrafters can't make the lenses I wear now.)

[Peter]

weird, I too just bought some glasses. They're Booth and Bruce - watch out, worst website ever.
They're black and tortoiseshell, squareish. I'd take a pic but I'm chicken.
I spent £250 on frames, £150 on lenses. I have a fairly weak prescription so I just got the normal anti scratch/glare lenses and never looked at the price tag on the frames - simply got the ones that suited me (according to gf)

this thread needs pixs

[Peter]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4 

Well, I usually buy glasses for around 300 $ - and I have a 100% eyesight!

I think that glasses are the finest most elegant male accessory, and that's why I wear them. With me, it's plain vanity, and I'm straight forward with it. Since I always wear quite unique glasses, I am often asked where I got them, and I usually concede that I don't even need them.

christ, you admit you wear glasses and dont even need them?

glasses arent the most elegant male accessory by a long shot. Watches and good shoes are.

PS those glasses you linked are girls

[seanc]

Originally Posted by Peter 

weird, I too just bought some glasses. They're Booth and Bruce - watch out, worst website ever.
They're black and tortoiseshell, squareish. I'd take a pic but I'm chicken.
I spent £250 on frames, £150 on lenses. I have a fairly weak prescription so I just got the normal anti scratch/glare lenses and never looked at the price tag on the frames - simply got the ones that suited me (according to gf)

this thread needs pixs

You spent £400 on a single pair of glasses?

I thought I was mad for buying these
Had them for 2 years now, not broken them yet either which is a bonus, Got a 2nd free pair which I got made into sunglasses. I might go back and get them made into regular glasses.

I had a similar pair before. I can't get the pictures to load any larger. I broke these once along the arm while they were in my pocket & I did a barrel roll on them, the 2nd time the bridge across the nose broke, not sure how that happened, maybe it got damaged the last time I broke them. They're still sat in their case, broken.

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by Peter 

christ, you admit you wear glasses and dont even need them?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Peter 

glasses arent the most elegant male accessory by a long shot. Watches and good shoes are.

Ahhh, different opinions, ain't that great?

I agree, however, that shoes and watches are very fine accessories. It's just that those are the obvious first choice of anybody…

Originally Posted by Peter 

PS those glasses you linked are girls

Which post are you referring to? My own (the red frame ones) are unisex. Girls like the look.

[Peter]

hmm, maybe
got a photo?

[andreas_g4]

Of the girls, or the glasses?

[Peter]

..both
or either

[andreas_g4]

the problem is, that I from time to time get so lucky to date girls that look like straight from the internet. Complicating matters further, the pic was (obviously) taken by some pro photographer. I anticipate that I will be called a liar.

NSFW linky

She liked my glasses

My glasses are posted above (but who cares…)

[Peter]

where did yo find her? i want her.
bit skinny though. Coke habit?

[andreas_g4]

http://www.kitkatclub.org/Home/Club/Index.html

Well let's just say she didn't eat much… She was quite a cool person, but we never really connected (mentally, that is).

[Oisín]

Shoes ≠ accessories.

Shoes, like clothes, are meant to protect our bodies from whatever nature can throw at us, and to keep us from catching pneumonia and croaking. Doesn’t mean they can’t look good while doing it, but they are not accessories in themselves.

And Palin’s frame [corporal and spectacular] is, in a word, ugly. I like the ones calverson posted a pic of. Andreas’ red ones are unnecessarily twirly, which makes them look not so good to my eyes.

Then again, my glasses (sunglasses, since I’m nowhere near vain enough to even consider wearing unnecessary glasses) are $30 no-brand ones. They’re passably comfortable, though, and don’t make me look like too much of an idiot (two very rare assets in glasses), so I’m happy.

[angelmb]

I wear the Oakley Gasket shown below, frame is olive tortoise. Those look great but what really shines are the Oakley HDO Plutonite lenses, superb.



Edit: well, if I look at the packaging and stuff came with the Gasket I can find the brand as OAKLEY and Oakley, anyhow to avoid a yelling feel, I better fix it.

[calverson]

You mean Oakley.

To some, OAKLEY would be like writing MAC instead of Mac. Annoying.

[Peter]

well not really since MAC is something entirely different to a Mac, whereas (unless I missed something) OAKLEY is just Oakley in capitals.

[calverson]

Fine. It would be like writing IMAC instead of iMac. Annoying.

[Peter]

 

apples and oranges!

I've always found rimless glasses to be trying to hard that you arent wearing glasses.

[calverson]

Originally Posted by Peter 

I've always found rimless glasses to be trying to hard that you arent wearing glasses.

Yes I agree, and ask Oisín, there ain't anything better than a rim sitting right on your face.

[Peter]

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by calverson 

Yes I agree, and ask Oisín, there ain't anything better than a rim sitting right on your face.

Rim-Dependent.

[Peter]

don't you mean RIM dependent? as in blackberry dependent?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Peter 

don't you mean RIM dependent? as in blackberry dependent?

I forbid you all to make jokes about me that are above my level of comprehension!

[Peter]

there was a discussion in this thread about how its annoying to talk about brands in capitals.

andreas_g4 said "rim dependent" however if he'd said "RIM dependent" it'd mean something else (RIM is the marker of blackberries, a popular and highly depended on mobile communications device) and would also make sense.

savvy?

[andi*pandi]

I got these before Palin was selected: