# Ode to trad eyewear



## srivats

It is time to start a dedicated thread for trad eyewear. There have been similar threads before and I hope that this thread becomes a discussion place for all eyewear that is trad - eyeglasses and sunglasses and anything else.

There are many nice brands out there - MOSCOT (member Brownshoe wore a pair made by them), Shuron, Anglo American, American Optical (AO), Randolph Engineering (RE), SALT. Optics (more fashion forward and expensive, but some frames are really good), Cutler and Gross etc. and the several brands owned by Luxottica group (which includes Oliver peoples, Ray-Ban and Persol). Warby Parker and Classic Specs are also good companies that have good frames at a GREAT price point.

Nackymade (in Japan) makes really good looking bespoke frames. They also sell RTW.

I've written at a couple of threads about Shuron, but I'll repeat this again - -they have been here a LONG time (since 1865) are a wonderful company with truly excellent customer service. They make a variety of very nice frames at very reasonable prices. The frames come in a huge variety of sizes (different combinations of lens sizes, bridge sizes and temple lengths on each frame model) unlike other frames out there and Shuron will work with you to find a frame that fits you perfectly. It is very important to get the right sizing on your eyeglasses to prevent eye strain and fatigue. A lot of people I see don't wear the right size (either too narrow and/or too short in lens width) and as with a lot of things, eyeglass fitting was done with much more patience and skill in the past. Just like with shoes, one has to look good with glasses, but not at the cost of fit 

Shuron is also one of the few companies left that make a truly high quality glass lenses (including high index options in both eyeglass and sunglass). While more expensive than plastic or polycarbonate lenses, I strongly prefer true glass lenses for two reasons: (1) I have a strong prescription. While good quality plastic lenses are good, glass is visibly superior. (2) better scratch resistance and (contrary to what people think). I usually select a good frame that fits me well and get very good lenses since that is the most important part!

What is an AAAC ode thread without photos? Here are some photos of Shuron sidewinders. I found these photos on yahoo japan auctions websites. Mine are just like these (in the same size with a longer temple) and they fit really well. While black is more trad, I really love these frames and enjoy wearing them everyday.


















































































The fit is so good that I am so tempted to get a pair of frames in black as well. I also have a pair of prescription sunglasses from Shuron (Sportivo model) and I'll see if I can post some photos of that. There are some really great frames out there and some of you guys have glasses made by other companies. I request you to post photos and talk about your frames in this thread!


----------



## srivats

And here are some photos of the Shuron Freeway model. The sidewinder fits my face better, which is I went with those but the Freeway is equally a classic model too.


----------



## St. Charles Ave.

Bought this pair last year:


----------



## HalfLegend

Warby Parker. One of my, if not my, favorite brand of eye wear. Having worn glasses for the last 8 years, I've been through quite a few pairs and never found anything of this level. 

Their styles are modern takes on classics and their social awareness is very impressive. In addition, customer support and flexibility is second to none that I have seen. This by no means is a advertisement for them or anything, but figured I needed to get the name into the trad-o-sphere.


----------



## fashion_victim

Nice.

I wear Shuron Ronsirs, and a couple of years ago I was having new lenses put in them. I went down to the optical shop to pick them up, gave the clerk my name, and he told me to have a seat in the packed waiting room. A minute later I hear someone bellow: "Who is [Fashion Victim]?" I turn around and see a tall black fellow, probably in his early 60s, with a salt and pepper beard.

He's also in white lab coat, and immediately I think, "Uh oh...if the lens tech has come out personally, there must be something wrong." So I go over to him, tell him I'm Fashion Victim, and brace myself for bad news. The gentleman then looks at me, pauses for a second, sticks out his hand and says, "I just wanted to come out and shake the hand of the man who is wearing Shuron frames."

He said he started making lenses for the military 40 years ago and they always used Shuron. I guess he had developed a strong attachment to the company and he rarely saw the frames anymore. Made my day!


----------



## Tiger

Like the idea of this thread very much. Unfortunately, it is difficult to judge eye wear by simply looking at a picture of the frames. Would it be possible to post pictures of forum members (or anyone, for that matter) wearing glasses, so we can all achieve a better appreciation of them?


----------



## srivats

Tiger said:


> Like the idea of this thread very much. Unfortunately, it is difficult to judge eye wear by simply looking at a picture of the frames. Would it be possible to post pictures of forum members (or anyone, for that matter) wearing glasses, so we can all achieve a better appreciation of them?


Certainly ... I will post some photos and I recommend other members to post photos as well.


----------



## maximar

I have the Shuron Freeway in brown tortoise and tinted lens. I use them for driving. A solid pair of glasses. I wish they would make something a little bit thinner like the Oliver Peoples Riley, which is one of my favorite glasses.


----------



## linklaw

My everyday glasses are Styl Rite Optical, Gibson model and my sunglasses are American Optical Saratoga, black with black prescription lenses. I looked at the Warby Parker website and will probably order a pair just to have a spare.


----------



## The Rambler

Excellent thread idea, Sri, I happen to be looking for frames for shades at the moment. Does anyone have experience/opinion about Ben Silver AngloAmericans, specifically the Lafont Liberty or similar? btw, and I've been 4eyed for 50 years now, I am in total agreement about the virtues of glass lenses - it's just amazing the crap you hear from eyeglass sellers when you tell them you prefer glass.


----------



## fishertw

Lafont Pantheon is my current frame for regular glasses. I wear Anglo American "Barrister" as sunglasses. Lafont is from Ben Silver and can be seen online at bensilver.com and the Anglo American I found at an online source in Florida that I've lost the link to.
Tom


----------



## joeyzaza

HalfLegend said:


> Warby Parker. One of my, if not my, favorite brand of eye wear. Having worn glasses for the last 8 years, I've been through quite a few pairs and never found anything of this level.
> 
> Their styles are modern takes on classics and their social awareness is very impressive. In addition, customer support and flexibility is second to none that I have seen. This by no means is a advertisement for them or anything, but figured I needed to get the name into the trad-o-sphere.


I looked at WP. Their quality is mid level at best. Basically cheap China frames private labeled. Very narrow across the face as well. Very few options in terms of lenses and coatings. No progressives, digital freefrom etc. It is basically polycarb...No CR-39, Trivex, high index etc. They have definetely found a niche and they do provide free eyewear to poor countries. If that is what you want, $95 is not a bad deal.

I wear Persol 2895 for prescription and 2944S for sunglasses.

Shuron's are very nice frames. Tom Ford has some very nice trad frames as well. The Persol tortoise are very nice. Their black frames look cheap and are not worth the price. There are a few Luxottica models branded Polo and Brooks Brothers that are very trad as well and they are a decent quality.


----------



## Pink and Green

It may be non-Trad to the extreme, but I wear Mont Blanc frames - probably too modern for most trads, but hoping eye surgery will fix the need for glasses altogether. Then it's all Shuron and Randolph Engineering for sunglasses...


----------



## HalfLegend

joeyzaza said:


> I looked at WP. Their quality is mid level at best. Basically cheap China frames private labeled. Very narrow across the face as well. Very few options in terms of lenses and coatings. No progressives, digital freefrom etc. It is basically polycarb...No CR-39, Trivex, high index etc. They have definetely found a niche and they do provide free eyewear to poor countries. If that is what you want, $95 is not a bad deal.
> 
> I wear Persol 2895 for prescription and 2944S for sunglasses.
> 
> Shuron's are very nice frames. Tom Ford has some very nice trad frames as well. The Persol tortoise are very nice. Their black frames look cheap and are not worth the price. There are a few Luxottica models branded Polo and Brooks Brothers that are very trad as well and they are a decent quality.


Agreed, however, its a bit tough asking parents to buy glasses over $100 for a growing 16 year old! But you get the quality you pay for, no doubt.


----------



## statboy

I have 3 pairs of the Beaumont (previously called Gerard) frame from Classic Specs. 
https://www.classicspecs.com/collec...011/products/mens-beaumont-in-brandy-tortoise

The guys at CS are amazing with customer service. I ordered some Shuron Freeways from them too. But all they had was black and with by blonde hair it looked a bit too hipster-ish on me. Would love to get the brown ones though. And...come on, $89 for a prescription lens that is anti-glare and all the fancy stuff that Lens Crafters charges $350 for.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I need round frames of 46mm or less and 150mm or more temples for my big thin head. 

Shuron works.


----------



## mhj

The Rambler said:


> Excellent thread idea, Sri, I happen to be looking for frames for shades at the moment. Does anyone have experience/opinion about Ben Silver AngloAmericans, specifically the Lafont Liberty or similar? btw, and I've been 4eyed for 50 years now, I am in total agreement about the virtues of glass lenses - it's just amazing the crap you hear from eyeglass sellers when you tell them you prefer glass.


Rambler, I have the Anglo American 406's in Japanese Havana which I believe is the same frame as one of the Ben Silver models. They are very solidly made. I have received many, many compliments on how good they look. I was very leery about getting them at first, I previously wore rimless and you could hardly tell I was wearing glasses. These have more of a presence which took me awhile to get used to. However, I did take my daughter with me to buy them and she liked them. Daughters are very sensitive about letting their parents out of the house looking like a dork so I figured they must look OK.

Also, shop around. Ben Silver's prices are higher than the local optician that I got mine from. You can do even better shopping online, you must know exactly what you want though. There are a million combinations and permutations of color, shape, size, etc that make a huge difference in how they look on you. After spending so much time with the optician trying on frames I didn't feel it was right to go and order them elsewhere.


----------



## hardline_42

Here's a pic of Rob Lowe wearing some Shuron Freeways:









And Shia Laboeuf wearing Shuron Ronisrs:









Other notables are Kevin Costner in _JFK_ and Michale Douglas in _Falling Down_.

For anyone interested, Classic Specs has both the Shuron Freeway and the Sidewinder with prescription lenses provided, installed and ready to go for $89. They also send you three frames to try on before you buy with free shipping and prepaid return shipping.

*edit* I see statboy beat me to the punch.


----------



## Charles Saturn

These people sell $10 trad shades. Great if you have trouble holding onto your glasses. https://www.ocshades.com/Wayfarer-Sunglasses-P-3-Round-Wayfarers/c56_98/index.html


----------



## srivats

Vintage Alpinas:


----------



## Anon 18th Cent.

Tart Arnel and modern reproduction Moscot Lemtosh.


----------



## Tom Buchanan

This supplier looked interesting to me. Particularly the Dexter and FDR models. Same terms as others - $88 for full prescription glasses, 30 day returns.

https://spexclub.com/index.php/


----------



## srivats

Tom Buchanan said:


> This supplier looked interesting to me. Particularly the Dexter and FDR models. Same terms as others - $88 for full prescription glasses, 30 day returns.
> 
> https://spexclub.com/index.php/


Thank you --- they do have some good looking frames. They are well under the radar compared to warby parker and classic specs.


----------



## srivats

Optometrist Attic and Allyn Scura sell some vintage styled (and sometimes vintage) frames as well.


----------



## hsc89

Great idea for a thread! I agree that Shuron makes a great frame and has excellent customer service, but don't forget about one of their oldest competitors when looking for traditional eyewear. ArtCraft has been in business about as long as Shuron and produces roughly the same styles at the same price point. Their Rimway model is a true classic.


----------



## srivats

hsc89 said:


> Great idea for a thread! I agree that Shuron makes a great frame and has excellent customer service, but don't forget about one of their oldest competitors when looking for traditional eyewear. ArtCraft has been in business about as long as Shuron and produces roughly the same styles at the same price point. Their Rimway model is a true classic.


Did they make acetate frames in the past? I don't see too many options on their website 

Their ArtRim model (similar to Shuron Ronsir) is very nice:










and so is this one in the safety series:


----------



## hsc89

srivats said:


> Did they make acetate frames in the past? I don't see too many options on their website
> 
> Their ArtRim model (similar to Shuron Ronsir) is very nice:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so is this one in the safety series:


They did at one time, but I think it has been several years. They had much the same line-up back then with a number of popular styles. In fact, I believe their version of the same frame made by Tart Arnel that was famously worn by James Dean (and now Johnny Depp) was one of ArtCraft's biggest sellers in the 50's.


----------



## The Rambler

My local optician offers these, made by Kala, a CA firm. Any thoughts?

​


----------



## srivats

The Rambler said:


> My local optician offers these, made by Kala, a CA firm. Any thoughts?
> 
> https://www.huffordopticians.net/images/featured/kala.jpg


They look very nice, Rambler.


----------



## Joe Beamish

I think most of these frames look better by themselves, and not on people's faces, which probably explains why we're viewing them like cars or airplane models in this thread. Rob Lowe has never looked worse. (I realize he's in character in that photo.)

One exception is the p3 model a la Rambler's post; I think they work fairly well with most everyone -- they are handsome without being overwhelming ("Hey! Do you see my glasses?? Do you???") or stridently retro, not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

The Rambler said:


> My local optician offers these, made by Kala, a CA firm. Any thoughts?


I like the one on the right. The busy tortoise shell look I can do without.

They seem to come narrow as well.


----------



## EastVillageTrad

Dance with the one that brought you...

AA-406 only frame for me.


----------



## maximar

These are the Morgenthal Frederics glasses I've always wanted before. Too expensive. They have a variety of buffalo horns in any shape as well. You guys should check out their store.


----------



## srivats

Joe Beamish said:


> I think most of these frames look better by themselves, and not on people's faces, which probably explains why we're viewing them like cars or airplane models in this thread. Rob Lowe has never looked worse. (I realize he's in character in that photo.)
> .


I will post some photos of my sidewinders and sportivos soon.


----------



## ajo

srivats

Interesting and informative thread another brand worth considering is Conquistador from Germany. Those Shuron frames are very impressive.


----------



## Kingstonian

I have heard horror stories of internet spectacle suppliers, notably in New York where the firm took money, failed to deliver and then threatened the customers. They figured even bad publicity kept them at the top of google searchs.

With that in mind, has anybody on this Forum experience of this supplier:-
https://www.bestbuyeyeglasses.com/shuron-ronsir-zyl/35545.html#div_pick_attributes


----------



## Kingstonian

mhj said:


> Rambler, I have the Anglo American 406's in Japanese Havana which I believe is the same frame as one of the Ben Silver models. They are very solidly made.
> 
> Also, shop around. Ben Silver's prices are higher than the local optician that I got mine from.


True about prices. Anglo American 406 are £89 in UK.


----------



## srivats

Kingstonian said:


> I have heard horror stories of internet spectacle suppliers, notably in New York where the firm took money, failed to deliver and then threatened the customers. They figured even bad publicity kept them at the top of google searchs.
> 
> With that in mind, has anybody on this Forum experience of this supplier:-
> https://www.bestbuyeyeglasses.com/shuron-ronsir-zyl/35545.html#div_pick_attributes


That is a good price for Ronsirs. Shuron charges less for the frames if you get lenses made by them, btw.



Kingstonian said:


> True about prices. Anglo American 406 are £89 in UK.


They are $189 at the Optometrist attic.


----------



## srivats

Joe Beamish said:


> I think most of these frames look better by themselves, and not on people's faces, which probably explains why we're viewing them like cars or airplane models in this thread. Rob Lowe has never looked worse. (I realize he's in character in that photo.)
> 
> One exception is the p3 model a la Rambler's post; I think they work fairly well with most everyone -- they are handsome without being overwhelming ("Hey! Do you see my glasses?? Do you???") or stridently retro, not that there's anything wrong with that.


Here are my Sportivos with green/gray prescription lenses. You tell me if they shout "Look at me".

Please excuse the completely untradly attire and the receding hairline  This is the first time I am showing my mug at AAAC I think.


----------



## maximar

srivats said:


> Here are my Sportivos with green/gray prescription lenses. You tell me if they shout "Look at me".
> 
> Please excuse the completely untradly attire and the receding hairline  This is the first time I am showing my mug at AAAC I think.


Those shades look cool on you and definitely trad. You need to always wear them when you wear that white shirt. Are you some kind of angel? Or you just use tide bleach? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250

^^
+1. The sunglasses look great and the white Tee lends an almost surrealistic quality to the photograph. How did you achieve that almost ghostly shimmer around the periphery of the shirt...nice effect, none-the-less! Now as for a receding hairline, LOL, I could show you a receding hairline!


----------



## srivats

maximar said:


> Those shades look cool on you and definitely trad. You need to always wear them when you wear that white shirt. Are you some kind of angel? Or you just use tide bleach? :icon_smile_big:





eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> +1. The sunglasses look great and the white Tee lends an almost surrealistic quality to the photograph. How did you achieve that almost ghostly shimmer around the periphery of the shirt...nice effect, none-the-less! Now as for a receding hairline, LOL, I could show you a receding hairline!


Thanks for the compliments, gentlemen. The lenses are G-15 spec polarized green/grey (but in plastic; true glass was extremely expensive) with my prescription. I really enjoy wearing these when I am out and about during the day.

My cellphone camera gets overwhelmed in bright light and the sunlight was really bright a couple days ago when that photo was taken.


----------



## The Rambler

the Sportivos look like part of your face, quite amazing, really.


----------



## Orgetorix

Anglo American 406 in Crystal, 47mm. Ordered through eyeglasses.com.


----------



## srivats

^ Those fit you really well, Org.


----------



## Orgetorix

srivats said:


> ^ Those fit you really well, Org.


Thanks. An optician wanted to put me in 50mm frames, but I didn't listen to him.


----------



## srivats

Orgetorix said:


> Thanks. An optician wanted to put me in 50mm frames, but I didn't listen to him.


Your eyes are well centered in the frame and the width is perfect - this is how good glasses should fit. You definitely made the right choice.

I think tortoise shell (like the shurons I posted) would look very nice on you as well ... I usually go with black or dark tortoise shell colors for the frames, crystal looks bad for my skin color.



The Rambler said:


> the Sportivos look like part of your face, quite amazing, really.


Thanks Rambler.


----------



## Orgetorix

srivats said:


> I think tortoise shell (like the shurons I posted) would look very nice on you as well ... I usually go with black or dark tortoise shell colors for the frames, crystal looks bad for my skin color.


I considered tortoise shell frames, but Mrs. O put her foot down. The crystal pair was an acceptable compromise.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Orgetorix: At the risk of finding myself crosswise in the stream with Mrs. O's opinion. I think the tortoise shell frames would have looked quite good on you. I had worn Randolf Engineering Aviators as either sunglasses or with prescription lenses since the mid 1960's. Then, perhaps two years back, I picked up a pair of tortoise shell AA #406 frames and had them fitted out with my prescription lenses. I wore them for perhaps two, maybe close to three, weeks and all seemed well...even received a few compliments...and then the real reactions began pouring in. Everyone seemed to have an incontrovertible need to tell me they made me look bookish, they made me look different and not in a good way, they made me look like a Mr Peeples, but with rough edges, and on and on! LOL. Bottom line is I think I've worn the Aviators for so many years, I am typecast in an odd sor of way and ma today back to wearing my trusted Aviators...and using my AA #406's as reading glasses only in the privacy of home! In your case you are still young and could still pull off the Tortoise shells. Don't make theb mistake I did and get yourself typecast.


----------



## srivats

This thread would be incomplete without Brownshoe's photos. Here are a couple I found from the WAWT - he is sporting the moscot 'Nebb' frames.

(Click for bigger size)


----------



## mhj

Orgetorix said:


> I considered tortoise shell frames, but Mrs. O put her foot down. The crystal pair was an acceptable compromise.


Mrs. MHJ said she was going to break them if I came home with the tortoise shell. After the daughter signed off on them as being OK she was OK too and she hasn't tried to break them yet.


----------



## lct01

The Rambler said:


> My local optician offers these, made by Kala, a CA firm. Any thoughts?
> 
> ​


I wore the Dark Amber Kala 903 pictured on the right for nearly two years -unfortunately accidentally broke them- and like the frame very much. They are slightly narrower than Anglo Americans 406 of similar eyesize and therefore fit me better. My current frame is the Oliver Peoples O'malley in size 45 and dark tortoise color. Of the many P3 frames I have owned in my life it is indeed the most comfortable and probably, in my humble opinion, the better looking one.


----------



## Jovan

Sadly, I can't really contribute much in this thread. Almost makes me wish I had bad eyesight too.


----------



## Taken Aback

Sit far from the screen, or use a smaller default font size. You'll get there.


----------



## sjk

lct01 said:


> My current frame is the Oliver Peoples O'malley in size 45 and dark tortoise color. Of the many P3 frames I have owned in my life it is indeed the most comfortable and probably, in my humble opinion, the better looking one.


Agree that the OP O'Malley is one of the best modern representations of the P3 frame style. Certainly not cheap. OP this year released a Vintage line which includes the O'Malley along with two of it's original retro-styled frames. (OP had in the 1990s and 2000s become more of an L.A. hipster brand.)


----------



## shorty

I'm interested in the Shuron Sidewinder but I doubt I can wear them because I'm anatomically challenged with a small nose/bridge. All my glasses require nosepads. Anyone with a similar challenge sporting a pair without having them slide to the end of your nose?


----------



## Tom Buchanan

Oliver Peoples brought out a model called "Gregory Peck" fashioned after his classic frames in To Kill a Mockingbird and otherwise. They are like the Riley, but more substantial. A bit too thick for my face, but some may like them.

https://www.awesomeeyeglasses.com/i...es-frame-oliver-peoples.html?___store=default


----------



## Jovan

$315???


----------



## maximar

I had a chance to go to the Morgenthal Frederics store today. I thought their buffalo horn glasses were already way too much for $600, now they are $1400 without lenses.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent.

Max,

Was Hoffman the maker of the horn frames?


----------



## wlipman

*Presented for your consideration...*

My single favorite classic frame of all time has been neglected. Presented, the Artcraft Optical Rimway, in all of its glory


----------



## Untilted

mine: Paul Smith PS-294 in tortoise, AA 406 in tortoise as sunglasses, and USA handmade A. R. Trapp (trad eyewear heaven).


----------



## srivats

^ Those are awesome. The Trapp frames look spectacular.


----------



## Sir Cingle

^Untitled: I have the same Paul Smith frames, albeit mine are black. I like them very much.


----------



## maximar

Edwin Ek said:


> Max,
> 
> Was Hoffman the maker of the horn frames?


I went to their store in Short Hills (by accident, I was not aware that they had a store outside NYC) and the SA said no.


----------



## Jovan

Personally, I've always had a soft spot for the classic thick black frames that have no adornment whatsoever. I realise I'll be looked at with derision since hipsters like them but... c'est la vie.


----------



## srivats

Here is a mughsot with my shurons on - what do you guys think?










(I just turned 29 and I'm growing bald already. Sigh.)


----------



## Trip English

Damn near perfect for your face. When I saw the glasses and your head in separate pictures I couldn't put the two together (yes, I followed the acquisition of your new glasses with RAPT attention), but the result is very natural. 

And don't feel bad. I'm only a few years older and my hair is starting to thin badly. I never thought I'd be jealous of a receding hairline, but trust me it's far better to recede than to thin.


----------



## wce59

wlipman said:


> My single favorite classic frame of all time has been neglected. Presented, the Artcraft Optical Rimway, in all of its glory


I like these. They're very similar to a pair I used to wear. (The frames on mine were round.)


----------



## Untilted

WOW

https://www.oliverpeoples.com

"Gregory Peck" frames

Designed to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the literary novel To Kill A Mockingbird in 1960, this vintage style is inspired by the signature frame worn by Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch in the classic film. $315, looks great though.


----------



## bd79cc

Lafont Aristo:

https://img15.imageshack.us/i/lafontaristoeyeglasses5.jpg/

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## eagle2250

srivats said:


> Here is a mughsot with my shurons on - what do you guys think?
> .......
> (I just turned 29 and I'm growing bald already. Sigh.)





Trip English said:


> .
> .........
> And don't feel bad. I'm only a few years older and my hair is starting to thin badly. I never thought I'd be jealous of a receding hairline, but trust me it's far better to recede than to thin.


Gentlemen: Don't waste a moment of worry on the state of your hairlines...you are both good looking gents and are carrying off the present state of you scalps very well...just ask your significant others! As to the future, you might keep in mind the key to working a receding hairline or thinning hair to it's best effect is to go short, early and avoid any of those unnatural remedies that almost never seem to work.


----------



## Orgetorix

Speaking of Lafont, AlanC wears their Concerto model, which has thinner rims than many of the other P3-type models out there. I think they look very nice. If I may be so bold as to post his photo from WAYWT:


----------



## TheWGP

While my eyesight is perfectly fine, I recently had a hankering to get some good sunglasses. After much fruitless searching at Filene's, TJ Maxx, and thrifts... I ended up going with Randolph Engineering Aviators, in 55mm. Grey glass, bayonet frames in bright chrome. I was happy to snag a brand new pair in box/packaging/etc from an authorized dealer off Ebay for just $65. More than I originally wanted to spend, but holy cow these things are amazing. Worth every penny - and it pays for the quality, not just the name, which is more than one can say for some brands.

(Apologies for the scruffy lazy-day appearance... weeding the garden in a bit.  )


----------



## The Rambler

This enjoyable thread came at just the right time for me - I needed 2 pair. Lots of good ideas and examples. I ended up with the Kala, "handmade in California" it says, $169 for the frames. The shades are brown tinted polarized progressive lenses, the clear are single vision, for golf and recumbent televiewing:


----------



## srivats

Thanks for your comments, Trip. I am very happy with these glasses and am contemplating a similar pair in black for a more somber look. 

Great purchases, Rambler. They both look very nice. Please do photos wearing them!

WGP, I like those RE sunglasses very much. Did you try a bigger size? These seem to be just a tad bit small for your face proportion-wise. It maybe camera distortion -- can you post a photo where you are standing back further?


----------



## srivats

Just to give an idea about properly fitting glasses, here is some good information that I've learnt in ~25 years of wearing glasses. Please feel to correct me if I am wrong.

1. *Eyeglass prescription* - Read this wikipedia page to understand what the numbers in your prescription mean.

2. *Materials* - Optical crown glass is much better (and usually more expensive) for eyeglass material. This is what I always choose. Remember that glass grinding is an art that has existed for a long time and very high quality lenses are always made with glass - telescopes, cameras and whatever applications need optical accuracy is usually glass. CR-39 is the next best. Polybarbonate is cheap and should be your last choice. Most online places (like zenni/warby parker) go with polycarbonate lenses (which is why they are cheap). More information comparing the performance of these different materials is found in this wikipedia page.

You'll notice that a lot of vintage glasses were smaller and round -- the main reason for this is two fold. (1) only glass lenses were available (2) it was easier to make accurate lenses in smaller sizes.

3. *Eyeglass fit* - Ideally, you want your eyes to be centered in the frames, like the photos of Org and Alan posted earlier in this thread. But some people (like I, for instance) have a smaller distance between the eyebrows and the eyes. Other have pronounced forehead with/without sunken eyes. In such cases, choosing the right frames is of paramount importance so that you get the best glasses for your (usually unique) prescription. Like with shoes, fit is MUCH MORE important than style.

As it is said, a picture is worth a thousand words and so, here are some other good examples of well fitting glasses. Hopefully this will get my points about good eyeglass fit across.

Notice the width of the frames on Buddy Holly's face and how his eyes are almost centered on his eyes










In the below photos, notice the width and height of Elliot Richardson's glasses. This is the sort of fit one should be going for typically.

















Here is good ol' Cary Grant in his older years. Notice the slant of his frames (due to his facial structure) and how well his eyes are centered in the frame. Sometimes, this sort of a slant is actually prescribed depending on one's particular vision problems.










The lenses in the frame below are called 'P3' shape . P3 means the height is 3mm less than the width. Shuron makes a pair in this style called the . Sometimes this is worn for the style, but they are also prescribed under certain conditions for some particular facial types when regular frames won't work. Once again, notice how well the eyes are centered in the frame.










Here is AAAC's own Brownshoe wearing his moscot Nebb frames. Not only they fit him extremely well, they look fantastic on him.










I have friends who are asian and sometimes they have trouble finding glasses that fit well due to their flatter nose bridge. Here is an asian man wearing shuron sidewinders that fit him quite well.

















I think the below ones are made by AA, but I could be wrong. Notice the width on these frames and how well they fit him.










Here are some more examples of well fitting glasses.

(scientist Erwin Schroedinger, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics )









(Nobel Laureate Jean-Paul Sartre)









That is all for this post. I'll write about how to adjust metal and plastic frames to achieve a snug fit over the weekend. I guess most of us who wear glasses already know this stuff -- so please pardon me if all this seems boring.


----------



## Trip English

^ Great post. Thank you.


----------



## eagle2250

TheWGP said:


> While my eyesight is perfectly fine, I recently had a hankering to get some good sunglasses. After much fruitless searching at Filene's, TJ Maxx, and thrifts... I ended up going with Randolph Engineering Aviators, in 55mm. Grey glass, bayonet frames in bright chrome. I was happy to snag a brand new pair in box/packaging/etc from an authorized dealer off Ebay for just $65. More than I originally wanted to spend, but holy cow these things are amazing. Worth every penny - and it pays for the quality, not just the name, which is more than one can say for some brands.
> 
> (Apologies for the scruffy lazy-day appearance... weeding the garden in a bit.  )


LOL. WGP, if those were the gold-toned version, I would be inclined to think you were wearing the sunglasses I have worn since (I believe the year was) 1968 and the eyeglass (corrective lenses) frames I've worn since 1986. A classic design that you wear so very well! :thumbs-up:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

The Rambler said:


> the clear are single vision, for golf and *recumbent televiewing:
> *


A must!!

Great choices.


----------



## Bruce Wayne

wlipman said:


> My single favorite classic frame of all time has been neglected. Presented, the Artcraft Optical Rimway, in all of its glory


Those remind me of the glasses Michael Keaton wears in _Batman_.
https://img402.imageshack.us/i/btmn0831.jpg/
https://img638.imageshack.us/i/btmn0840.jpg/


----------



## joeyzaza

srivats said:


> Just to give an idea about properly fitting glasses, here is some good information that I've learnt in ~25 years of wearing glasses. Please feel to correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> 1. *Eyeglass prescription* - Read this wikipedia page to understand what the numbers in your prescription mean.
> 
> 2. *Materials* - Optical crown glass is much better (and usually more expensive) for eyeglass material. This is what I always choose. Remember that glass grinding is an art that has existed for a long time and very high quality lenses are always made with glass - telescopes, cameras and whatever applications need optical accuracy is usually glass. CR-39 is the next best. Polybarbonate is cheap and should be your last choice. Most online places (like zenni/warby parker) go with polycarbonate lenses (which is why they are cheap). More information comparing the performance of these different materials is found in this wikipedia page.
> 
> You'll notice that a lot of vintage glasses were smaller and round -- the main reason for this is two fold. (1) only glass lenses were available (2) it was easier to make accurate lenses in smaller sizes.
> 
> Srivats- Some great posts above. However, I disagree with much much of the above information (taken from your post above), especially that contained in #2. The "best material" depends upon the wearer's preference, the lifestyle of the wearer, and the prescription. Glass is actually a very inexpensive lens material. Glass is very clear as evidenced by its high ABBe value. However, glass shatters and is very heavy for high + or - prescriptions. It is not very suitable for drill mounts and because of these facts, it is rarely used. And the primary reason glass lenses on old frames were very small was due to the weight, especially on high + or - prescriptions where the thickness of the lenss made them very very heavy.
> 
> Polycarbonite lenses are not "cheap". If you want to call any lens cheap, it would be CR-39 as they are cheaper than polycarb. Polycarb lenses are often used as safety lenses or for children as they are very impact resistant. However, some people complain about a "cloudiness" to the lenses and prefer not to wear them. Most people do just fine with polycarb and they are a fine all purpose lens. CR-39 are the least expensive lenses. They are what is typically provided on the cheap websites like Zenni Optical who sell glasses for $9.95. Insurance coverage pushes you to CR-39 as well because they are inexpensive. However, many people do just fine with CR-39. Mid and High index lenses are typically much more expensive. High index lenses are thinner and weigh less on high prescriptions. Additionally, there are other lens materials such as trivex, which is both strong and clear.
> 
> Equally important are the coatings. A good lens will have both a scratch resistant and anti-reflective coating. The cost of the coatings vary greatly between "house" brands and the proprietary brands from companies like Essilor and Zeiss. There is debate as to how much better the proprietary brands really are as compared to the house brands.
> 
> There are many other issues for bifocal and progressive wearers, people with an astigmatism, etc. People with a complicated prescription should be careful when ordering online.


----------



## srivats

Thanks for the corrections.



joeyzaza said:


> There are many other issues for bifocal and progressive wearers, people with an astigmatism, etc. People with a complicated prescription should be careful when ordering online.


I have a strong prescription myself (with different astigmatism in both eyes) and I've found that I vastly prefer glass to CR-39 or polycarbonate (have tried them in the past). I like some heft in my eyeglasses though. I've also found that glass is not as delicate as it is thought to be. I go for 1.6 high index glass which works out good for me (even with my glasses are thick, ha!).

One of the other reason why I like glass is that it is much better than the other options when it comes to scratch resistance. I always get AR coating as well.


----------



## Bjorn

Though I usually wear contacts, I have to get extra thin glass for my glasses since I have got -10.0. This means that larger glasses with regular glass get really thick and heavy. Prescription shades are also not possible at that strength. Contacts it is...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joeyzaza

srivats said:


> Thanks for the corrections.
> 
> I have a strong prescription myself (with different astigmatism in both eyes) and I've found that I vastly prefer glass to CR-39 or polycarbonate (have tried them in the past). I like some heft in my eyeglasses though. I've also found that glass is not as delicate as it is thought to be. I go for 1.6 high index glass which works out good for me (even with my glasses are thick, ha!).
> 
> One of the other reason why I like glass is that it is much better than the other options when it comes to scratch resistance. I always get AR coating as well.


srivats- Glass lenses are increasingly rare and frankly, I think more people should consider them despite the weight. Like you note, glass is very scratch resistant and not as delicate as many believe. Glass lenses offer excellent optical clarity and are very easy to clean. One downside with polycarb and CR-39 is that they smudge very easily and are more difficult to clean.


----------



## Sartre

Francois Pinton -- Passport in Amber


----------



## The Rambler

joeyzaza said:


> srivats- One downside with polycarb and CR-39 is that they smudge very easily and are more difficult to clean.


That's what I find.


----------



## srivats

Sartre, those are a great pair of eyeglasses. They fit you well and you look great in them.


----------



## Sartre

srivats said:


> Sartre, those are a great pair of eyeglasses. They fit you well and you look great in them.


Thank you.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent.

Any one able to identify these glasses? Sorry for the small size. Clicking on the image makes it a little bigger. There are two mounting posts just barely visible on each side of the front.

Thanks.


----------



## sjk

Oliver Peoples Riley in Dark Mahogany.


----------



## TheWGP

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. WGP, if those were the gold-toned version, I would be inclined to think you were wearing the sunglasses I have worn since (I believe the year was) 1968 and the eyeglass (corrective lenses) frames I've worn since 1986. A classic design that you wear so very well! :thumbs-up:


LOL... thank you! I can only hope that my pair holds up so well!


----------



## Steve Smith

TheWGP said:


> LOL... thank you! I can only hope that my pair holds up so well!


You wear those well.

I have a pair of AO and a pair of Randolph Engineering matte silver sunglasses which were issued to me in the 80's and they are both still going strong. One pair has the bayonet temple and the other has cable. Cable is fantastic because it doesn't allow the glasses to slip. These are so lightweight that you can forget that you are wearing them, which is high praise for any glasses.

Bayonet temples are supposedly designed so they can be slipped on while wearing a flight helmet, but that always was irrelevant to me because one of the face shields on a military helmet is shaded and the shields can be put up or down in a couple of seconds. Not to mention that the bayonet broke the seal between your head and the "ear muff" portion of the helmet. Those machines were loud enough without that.


----------



## rbstc123

I am seriously considering one of the following by Persol. Thoughts and feedback welcomed. I believe Rush is wearing the 2945 in the picture.

https://www.persol.com/usa/collections/optical/PO3002V/24#b

https://www.persol.com/usa/collections/optical/PO3007V/24#b

https://www.persol.com/usa/collections/optical/PO2945V/106#b

https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/esqgeoffreyrushoscars20.jpg/


----------



## Jovan

Looks good, go for them. Slightly OT, but why did Geoffrey Rush shave his head?


----------



## amlai

I'm a little late to the party, but I can confirm that regardless of what the SA says, Hoffman is indeed the maker of Morgenthal Frederics' horn frames. My pair from them has Hoffman engraved on the right hinge.



Edwin Ek said:


> Max,
> 
> Was Hoffman the maker of the horn frames?


----------



## YoungClayB

I got a call today. My new specs are ready; I'll be picking them up tomorrow. Oliver Peoples Riley 43's in Striped Havana!!!


----------



## DoghouseReilly

Srivats, thanks for starting this thread. It's a must-read for anyone looking for a pair of specs. A ton of great links and great looks.


----------



## AlanC

I just received these, Oliver Peoples Gregory Peck Rx sunglasses:










Here they are with my Lafont Concertos:


----------



## Topsider

^ I've been thinking of getting some Concertos myself. I prefer their smaller, flattened oval shape over a traditional P3. What color are yours? The ones you had on in another photo looked lighter. Maybe it's just the lighting.


----------



## sjk

AlanC said:


> I just received these, Oliver Peoples Gregory Peck Rx sunglasses:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here they are with my Lafont Concertos:


The OP Peck looks great. This is effectively a variant of the O'Malley, which are my favorite of all from OP. Here, the thicker frame is well-suited for sunglasses. Wear them well.


----------



## DoghouseReilly

I just ordered a pair of Shuron Freeways in demi-amber for my all-day specs. Sizing made me a bit nervous, but Optometrist Attic has a comprehensive sizing guide and detailed measurements for all the frames. I'll be sure to post an update when I receive them.


----------



## Topsider

Just FYI, it seems that Oliver Peoples has reissued the O'Malley. They're not on the web or in the catalogs yet, but ask your OP retailer for details if you're interested.


----------



## Topsider

On a related note, I was talking to the optician about various frame options (e.g., LaFont, Oliver Peoples, Anglo American, etc.). He no longer carries Anglo American because, in his opinion, the plastic is inferior and "fades" more than the others. He said a one-year-old AA frame will fade as much as a five-year-old OP frame.

I have never noticed that plastic frames "fade," personally. Is there any truth to this, or is this standard patter for someone trying to sell $300 plastic eyeglass frames?


----------



## Trip English

Absolutely true. I've experienced it on a pair of Moscots and RayBans. Both tortoiseshell patterns faded as though they were screen printed on wherever the glasses came into frequent contact with skin, like the bridge of the nose and around the ears. It was quicker on the Moscots. Took a few years for the RayBans. 

I don't think it matters to me though, and I wouldn't pay the premium that OP seems to command (I got a pair of P3 shaped OPs about 7 years ago for like $120, the same ones today are about $400) just to postpone the fading of the pattern. I guess if you're going to go horn you could get a pair of Hoffmann, but I believe they're about $1,000 and the patterns are only as interesting as the faded tortoise pattern. 

I'm going to be picking up a pair of the AA "Groucho" pretty soon and am not concerned at all about wear.


----------



## hsc89

Trip - While I would imagine that it is possible for some "plastic" frames to fade (craze?) after excessive light or heat exposure, I'm fairly certain that the type of discoloration you have experienced at the temples and bridge is more-likely-than-not a result of the chemical reaction between the frame material and the oils/salts in your skin. This process can be accelerated by the use of less substantial materials by the maker as are often (I think) more porous. In many instances, these dull white or gray areas can be rehabbed by a light sanding followed by a buffing/polishing. I, too, once thought that little to nothing could be done to save frames that appeared to have seen better days but after doing a little research - and getting over my initial fear of making the situation worse - I tried the sanding/polishing process and it actually worked quite well on an old pair of B&L Ray-Ban Wayfarers that would have otherwise remained unworn.

I agree that Oliver Peoples have gotten a bit pricey, however, I personally believe that their Made-in-Japan frames are still worth paying a bit more for. I've worn several different models since the 80's and am currently (as I type) wearing the beige-crystal "Emerson." I hope that the O'Malley reissue is not Made-in-Italy, though, as the frames coming out of the Luxottica factory there just don't seem to be as well-made/finished.

Anglo-American also makes a very nice frame. While, in my opinion, they are not finished quite a well as some of the more "high-end" product out there and their various colors do not seem to be as "deep," they are put together very well and use great hardware. Classic, traditionally designed, bang-for-the-buck eyeglass frames and still a much better choice than a lot of the other stuff out there.


----------



## Carisbrooke

Topsider said:


> On a related note, I was talking to the optician about various frame options (e.g., LaFont, Oliver Peoples, Anglo American, etc.). He no longer carries Anglo American because, in his opinion, the plastic is inferior and "fades" more than the others. He said a one-year-old AA frame will fade as much as a five-year-old OP frame.
> 
> I have never noticed that plastic frames "fade," personally. Is there any truth to this, or is this standard patter for someone trying to sell $300 plastic eyeglass frames?


I understand that Anglo American uses relatively traditional materials and production methods. Apparently, Anglo American uses top-quality Mazzucchelli zyl (aka "zylonite" and "cellulose acetate"), and the Anglo American website states that their zyl is based on cotton cellulose.

Oliver Peoples is a subsidiary of Luxottica. I'm guessing OP uses more modern materials and production methods. This might explain the the different characteristics of the frames from these two companies.


----------



## Topsider

Thanks! FWIW, I'm leaning towards the AA 406, although I'll have to get them online. Same look, >$100 cheaper.

Edit: I find it somewhat interesting that I started out with relatively huge (50mm) tortoiseshell frames while in college in the 80's, then gradually moved to smaller-diameter plastic-covered wire frames, then wire-only, then half-frame, and finally rimless (Silhouette) oval glasses in the recent decade. Now, 25 years later, I'm moving back towards plastic frames...although somewhat smaller than before (45mm instead of 50mm). What goes around, comes around, I suppose. Now, if only my hair would start growing back.


----------



## bd79cc

Topsider said:


> [. . .] He no longer carries Anglo American because, in his opinion, the plastic is inferior and "fades" more than the others. He said a one-year-old AA frame will fade as much as a five-year-old OP frame.
> 
> I have never noticed that plastic frames "fade," personally. Is there any truth to this, or is this standard patter for someone trying to sell $300 plastic eyeglass frames?


I've never known the AA406's to fade or discolor - at least in Japanese Havana. And of course the Crystal versions don't discolor, although the nose pads and temple-ends cloud up a bit after several years of everyday use. Also, the 406's wear and take a beating better than anything I've owned as an adult. I've spent a lot more than the $189.00 MSRP of the 406's on "better" glasses that have turned out to be vastly inferior, so I'm not keen on paying the premium asked for Lafonts or OP's.


----------



## sjk

hsc89 said:


> I agree that Oliver Peoples have gotten a bit pricey, however, I personally believe that their Made-in-Japan frames are still worth paying a bit more for. I've worn several different models since the 80's and am currently (as I type) wearing the beige-crystal "Emerson." I hope that the O'Malley reissue is not Made-in-Italy, though, as the frames coming out of the Luxottica factory there just don't seem to be as well-made/finished.


www.oliverpeoplesvintage.com

The re-issued "vintage" OPs on the above site are made in Japan. Larry Leight mentioned going back to the original factory to make these frames. These were reintroduced in early 2011. Some of these have been put on the regular website (as sunglasses, for example).

I think the O'Malley and the Emerson are great frames, although the frame colors currently offered are a bit uninspiring.


----------



## Trip English

Hsc89, that sound accurate to me. I'm sure you're right. The perspiration, moisturizer, hair products, etc mingled with the daily grit and grime is almost certainly what has achieved this discoloration. I never thought to try and rehabilitate them and have just sort of lived with it as "character."

I was killing time today and spent a few minutes in Sol Moscot where they carry Anglo American among other brands. First of all, the "groucho" frames are out. I really like the way they look, but once they're on my face they're almost exactly as small as my eyes. I was also disappointed by the 406s as they seemed like poor example of the P3 shape. I was really hoping for something with a little more punch, but it could just be my face. I was impressed by Moscot's own Miltzen, though. These were a great example, for my disgusting head at least, of the P3. I don't know how to describe it, but they felt like they were more "committed" to being P3 style glasses! The 406s just seemed like round_ish_ glasses you might find in Lenscrafters (only without a Dolce & Gabanna crest on the temple).

All in all very eye opening (wocka wocka) and it made me much more content with my current frames.

I'd like to see an "Ode to the P3" but that would probably mean a lot more people getting comfortable with putting their mugs on the internet.


----------



## Trip English

I guess these are what they call the O'Malleys now. I got them many years ago and they were very cheap. Now the frames are $380 making it about a $500 investment. My originals didn't last as long as I'd have liked for such an investment. I owned them for a long time, but they were really only in heavy rotation for about 2 years before the bridge snapped.

Anyone interested in interesting plastic frames in somewhat classic styles should check out SEE Eyewear in NYC if possible. Glasses are priced with basic lenses and most are under $300 total. They've held up very well for me - better than Moscots which were a bit more expensive.


----------



## Topsider

Trip English said:


> I'd like to see an "Ode to the P3" but that would probably mean a lot more people getting comfortable with putting their mugs on the internet.


I might be up for that, should I decide to keep the 406's.

As for the 406 lacking "punch," not all of us are looking for a punch in the face. You may be an exception, of course.


----------



## Tilton

Anyone know of any very large P3's? I like the look a lot, but having a massive head and very square face is problematic. I need L/XL frames and usually those only come in square shapes, which don't look good on me. 

None of the offerings from OP or AA fit width-wise on my face or lengthwise to my ears.


----------



## Trip English

Topsider said:


> I might be up for that, should I decide to keep the 406's.
> 
> As for the 406 lacking "punch," not all of us are looking for a punch in the face. You may be an exception, of course.


Ha! Certainly seems what I'm after lately.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays

Do any of you have poor enough vision to require very thick glasses?

In my experience many of these trad-style glasses look terrible with giant coke bottle lenses.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Topsider said:


> Edit: I find it somewhat interesting that I started out with relatively huge (50mm) tortoiseshell frames while in college in the 80's,


Just as today, most retailers feature shallow rectangulars, in the 80s they were nearly all HUGE!!

Just an awful time for the thin-headed.


----------



## Trip English

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> Do any of you have poor enough vision to require very thick glasses?
> 
> In my experience many of these trad-style glasses look terrible with giant coke bottle lenses.


Yes, but there are high-index versions that thin them out sufficiently to fit within the rim. After some of the horror stories from family and friends concerning Lasik I'll stick with glasses even if they start to overflow the frames in years to come!


----------



## Tilton

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> Do any of you have poor enough vision to require very thick glasses?
> 
> In my experience many of these trad-style glasses look terrible with giant coke bottle lenses.


If you were responding to me, I do not have a strong prescription at all. Indeed, I really only wear them in the evenings after starring at a computer screen all day, or when driving at night. If I had a frame I liked, I might wear them more often throughout the day and have less eye fatigue at night, but I can't really confirm that would work.


----------



## hsc89

Trip English said:


> Yes, but there are high-index versions that thin them out sufficiently to fit within the rim. After some of the horror stories from family and friends concerning Lasik I'll stick with glasses even if they start to overflow the frames in years to come!


+1!! I'm a -5.00/-5.50 - definitely use the high-index


----------



## Topsider

Trip English said:


> Yes, but there are high-index versions that thin them out sufficiently to fit within the rim. After some of the horror stories from family and friends concerning Lasik I'll stick with glasses even if they start to overflow the frames in years to come!


Ditto that. LASIK and other refractive surgery techniques are not without their risks and complications, and some of the minor ones (dry eye, for example) are way more common than you think. Plus, depending on your prescription, you may still end up needing reading glasses or some type of corrective lenses, and your eyes will keep changing as you age. Once you're >40 years old, you might as well forget about it.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays

I guess part of my problem is that even with high index lenses, my high-powered prescription still greatly magnifies my eyes when seen through the glasses, and I unfortunately think this looks more pronounced with smaller sized lenses, which most of the glasses I like have, which is why I tend towards bigger frames, or to be honest, wearing contacts all the time.


----------



## lct01

I have been wearing plastic P3 frames for more than 10 years. I typically do not rotate and wear the same frame every day until it gets damaged.
I like the Anglo American 406. I think it is very well made, but for those who, like me, have a narrow face the fit may be a little bit odd. The 45/21 version is narrow enough to fit me but the eyesize, which is actually below 43 mm, is extremely small. The 47/21 has an eyesize close to my 45/22 O'Malleys but then, the overall width (at 132-133 mm) makes it uncomfortable for me. In my opinion, among the modern P3 frames the Oliver Peoples O'Malley is a top choice. Is it worth US $350 ? It is certainly not a pair of jeans, the thing is permanently on my face! so I guess that being a durable, comfortable and fine looking frame it is not that bad to pay the premium price though I admit that frames of similar quality may be bought for less. I have to add that, though it's lighter than many plastic frames, it is thick enough to make my -7.00 high index lenses look "natural".


----------



## sjk

lct01 said:


> In my opinion, among the modern P3 frames the Oliver Peoples O'Malley is a top choice. Is it worth US $350 ? It is certainly not a pair of jeans, the thing is permanently on my face! so I guess that being a durable, comfortable and fine looking frame it is not that bad to pay the premium price though I admit that frames of similar quality may be bought for less.


I'm a big fan of the O'Malley also. While I'm hard pressed to say that anything that is essentially just a small piece of plastic and metal is worth $350, if you wear them every day and if your gut says you like them, or if there is some unique color that only OP uses, then go for it. Your face, after all, is your most visible feature.

Also, as you point out, other frames aren't necessarily exactly alike. I also like the AA406 and have a pair as well. But they aren't quite the same. Have you seen or tried the Moscot Miltzen, which is comparably sized to the O'Malley, and has the same flat-topped keyhole bridge?


----------



## Jovan

Since we've bridged (no pun intended) into sunglasses... is the original Ray-Ban Wayfarer worth it if I can successfully remove the logo?


----------



## Trip English

Jovan,

I won't comment on the removal of the logo, but I like the Wayfarers very much. I wore the Clubmasters for a few years and liked those as well. To me it's a case of something being iconic for a reason. The shape seems to be very versatile with regards to head shapes and I don't think I've seen someone yet that didn't look good in a pair (I'm not talking about the bright red ones here!). So I'd go for them if I were you.


----------



## Jovan

Thanks. My other consideration was American Optical aviators because they're inexpensive and another staple of sun protection, but some people think aviators look AmJack-ish.


----------



## lct01

sjk said:


> I'm a big fan of the O'Malley also. While I'm hard pressed to say that anything that is essentially just a small piece of plastic and metal is worth $350, if you wear them every day and if your gut says you like them, or if there is some unique color that only OP uses, then go for it. Your face, after all, is your most visible feature.
> 
> Also, as you point out, other frames aren't necessarily exactly alike. I also like the AA406 and have a pair as well. But they aren't quite the same. Have you seen or tried the Moscot Miltzen, which is comparably sized to the O'Malley, and has the same flat-topped keyhole bridge?


Thanks for your response. No, I've never tried the Moscot Miltzen. I have only seen pictures of it. It is, indeed, a very good looking frame. In 10-11 years I have worn 4 P3 frames: a spanish one, (whose brand I can not recall, bought at a local store), a Kala in Dark Amber, and two O'Malleys (both in dark tortoise, color 382). The first O'Malley, which I still keep, was bought on ebay several years ago for around $120. It was in a fairly good condition at the time I acquired it but had a few visible scratches so I eventually bought a new one in the Oliver Peoples Soho, New York store for $285 around 2 years ago. I keep my older O'Malley as a spare, in case of an emergency. I have owned several other P3s, as the Anglo American 406, 2 or 3 Ralph Laurens and the Schnuchel 2108. All were very fine frames but did not fit me as expected so I ended up either returning them or selling them on ebay within 2-3 months. Living in the Dominican Republic where I am one of a handful of P3 wearers the search for this frames is quite a challenge. Even in my relatively frequent trips to the United States I've had a difficult time finding them (I guess in New York they are not uncommon but I have only been there, briefly, two times in my life). So most of my purchases being through the internet, the ''failure'' risk is always high.


----------



## eagle2250

Jovan said:


> ..... but some people think aviators look AmJack-ish.


Well let's resolve this once and for all. Those people are just wrong! LOL.


----------



## Topsider

Jovan said:


> Since we've bridged (no pun intended) into sunglasses... is the original Ray-Ban Wayfarer worth it if I can successfully remove the logo?


I've pretty much worn nothing but Wayfarers since the 80's, with a couple of departures (Maui Jim Typhoon, AO aviators). Quality-wise, they aren't what they used to be (particularly the hinges), but they're still nice glasses. You might be able to find a vintage pair on eBay. There are at least four different Wayfarer styles out there now, so pay close attention. This is covered here to some extent: https://reviews.ebay.com/Rayban-Wayfarer-Styles-A-Must-Read-for-Wayfarer-Fans?ugid=10000000013164937 . However, there are actually more styles than that, such as the 2113 (which I have at the moment, with Rx lenses). Discussion here: https://www.opticsplanet.com/msgboard/about12-13248.html

Not sure why you'd want to remove the Ray Ban logo, though. I'm sure it would leave some kind of mark, and wouldn't improve the appearance of the glasses.


----------



## sjk

Jovan said:


> Since we've bridged (no pun intended) into sunglasses... is the original Ray-Ban Wayfarer worth it if I can successfully remove the logo?


Anglo American carries a model called the Cruise (an allusion to Risky Business, perhaps) that is almost identical to the Wayfarer and is entirely logo-free. Ben Silver carries this model in their eyewear section. (I mention this last point only for the fact that BS would be a convenient source to purchase, not necessarily that they have a good deal on the price. Shop around.)


----------



## Topsider

^ Most of the online prices for the AA Cruise are around $185, whereas the Wayfarer can be had for closer to $120. That's a pretty big price premium just to avoid a logo.


----------



## Jovan

I think I'll just get a pair of aviators... thanks for the help though.


----------



## Topsider

^ Am-Jack. 

"I keed, I keed!"


----------



## Kittlemeier

First post here, joined to respond here. Love the idea of the thread.

I have a three colors of O'Malley for sun, BECR(beige crystal) with vintage green glass, AMT(amber tortoise) with vintage green glass, and 32LG(brown fade clear) with polarized/photochromic cognac(my favorite lens bar none). Had a pair in 382(tortoise) with vintage green but sold them as they never were worn. Love the O'M for a sun frame but prefer the Riley for optical. I have that one in BECR and EMT(El Mirage Tortoise). I'll reserve pics of those unless asked.




























My favorite new frame though is from Schnuchel. It's one of their standard frames but narrowed in the bridge for fit and sans their usual spring temples(which I hate on any frame). I had not seen it in this color before either. I've got another one on the way in a polished finish and will decide which to use for sun and which for optical.


----------



## Kittlemeier

Topsider said:


> Not sure why you'd want to remove the Ray Ban logo, though. I'm sure it would leave some kind of mark, and wouldn't improve the appearance of the glasses.


In response to this and the original question on removing the logos, personally I just don't like wearing logos. B&L RB Wayfarers, in the standard size, never had them and in my opinion, they looked better that way. The larger size had them on the temple but not the lens.

With the new ones, can't do anything about the logo on the temple but the lens logo is an easy and quick removal, provided you have non coated glass lenses. All you have to do is use the edge of a penny to scratch it off. That's it. The edge of the penny is hard enough to scratch the paint off while leaving the lens surface undamaged. Now, this is my experience and I can't take responsibility if you use it on a poly or mirrored lens or even a glass lens and manage to trash it but just sharing my experience.

Anyway, here is a before and after pic of my RB Caravan and an after, didn't think to take a before, of my Clubmaster.


----------



## Danny

Can someone identify these Woody Allen specs? He has worn a couple variations on a similar style over the years. These seem to have a unique kind of downward slope. Custom?

I wore glasses as a kid, but stopped at age 12 after some surgery, but now I might need to wear them again as my eyes have aged, at least for computer work, just a .75 prescription so not so strong. Anyway I have it narrowed to these:

https://angloamericanopticalltd.com/glasses/model-406/

https://angloamericanopticalltd.com/glasses/model-426/

https://angloamericanopticalltd.com/glasses/fitz/

Or one of the P3's from Ben Silver.

I have a fairly wide face so I think I need something 48 or larger..I guess I'll find out.


----------



## DoghouseReilly

Is it the ?


----------



## Danny

Looks pretty similar.

Why would someone not make an exact replica of WA's frames? Seems like a no brainer.


----------



## DoghouseReilly

I'm not sure, but I dig the downward slope. My Freeways slant up a bit at the arms; I think I almost like the shape of the cliffords better.


----------



## hardline_42

DoghouseReilly said:


> I'm not sure, but I dig the downward slope. My Freeways slant up a bit at the arms; I think I almost like the shape of the cliffords better.


DHR, the Sidewinders have a slight downward slope at the temples. Not as pronounced as the Cliffords, but definitely not the "up and out" sweep of the Freeways. Shuron states that the only difference between the models are the rectangular rivet cover vs the double rivets and the taper vs slipper temples but the frame shape difference is there, even though it's subtle.


----------



## Danny

The AA 426 is in the ballpark, but not exactly the same. Clifford is pretty nice.


----------



## straw sandals

It could be the Moscot .



Danny said:


> Can someone identify these Woody Allen specs? He has worn a couple variations on a similar style over the years. These seem to have a unique kind of downward slope. Custom?
> 
> I wore glasses as a kid, but stopped at age 12 after some surgery, but now I might need to wear them again as my eyes have aged, at least for computer work, just a .75 prescription so not so strong. Anyway I have it narrowed to these:
> 
> https://angloamericanopticalltd.com/glasses/model-406/
> 
> https://angloamericanopticalltd.com/glasses/model-426/
> 
> https://angloamericanopticalltd.com/glasses/fitz/
> 
> Or one of the P3's from Ben Silver.
> 
> I have a fairly wide face so I think I need something 48 or larger..I guess I'll find out.


----------



## Ron_A

Friends, I just received my new "Percey" glasses from online retailer Warby Parker. I am very pleased. If you are looking for a cheaper alternative to Anglo American 406 and some of the pricier frames, I think WP is worth taking a look at. They have great customer service too -- I actually broke the first pair that they sent me (long story - I was trying to adjust them and got a little too forceful) and they immediately replaced them with no questions asked.


----------



## mhj

+1

My daughter just received a pair of glasses from Warby Parker. They seem to be very substantial for the money and excellent customer service.



Ron_A said:


> Friends, I just received my new "Percey" glasses from online retailer Warby Parker. I am very pleased. If you are looking for a cheaper alternative to Anglo American 406 and some of the pricier frames, I think WP is worth taking a look at. They have great customer service too -- I actually broke the first pair that they sent me (long story - I was trying to adjust them and got a little too forceful) and they immediately replaced them with no questions asked.


----------



## DoghouseReilly

hardline_42 said:


> DHR, the Sidewinders have a slight downward slope at the temples. Not as pronounced as the Cliffords, but definitely not the "up and out" sweep of the Freeways. Shuron states that the only difference between the models are the rectangular rivet cover vs the double rivets and the taper vs slipper temples but the frame shape difference is there, even though it's subtle.


That seems right, but the Sidewinders have larger arms too. I bought a pair of Sidewinders as well and had grey polarized lenses put in. Both frames are very comfortable and I notice little difference in the fit.


----------



## hardline_42

DoghouseReilly said:


> That seems right, but the Sidewinders have larger arms too. I bought a pair of Sidewinders as well and had grey polarized lenses put in. Both frames are very comfortable and I notice little difference in the fit.


Yes, the "arms" are called temples and the style on the Sidewinders is called a taper temple, though they can also be had with two styles of cable temples (the kind that wrap around the ear). I like the thick temples on sunglasses but prefer something a little less "meaty" on eyeglasses.


----------



## DoghouseReilly

SimplyEyeglasses have some Shuron frames and do glass lenses in clear and colored, last time I checked.


----------



## Flanderian

Stanley Lyndon said:


> Just heard back:
> *Unfortunately we are unable to tint glass lenses and there are no manufacturers that provide that color lens.*
> 
> So, no. Any other? One of the opticians I had contacted about this told me to try opticians in Europe since he said they still work with glass lenses. Is that true?


While I haven't had glasses made in a long time, all my glasses have glass lenses, and all of them are tinted. Used to get them at Pearl.


----------



## DoghouseReilly

Stanley Lyndon said:


> Just heard back:
> *Unfortunately we are unable to tint glass lenses and there are no manufacturers that provide that color lens.*
> 
> So, no. Any other? One of the opticians I had contacted about this told me to try opticians in Europe since he said they still work with glass lenses. Is that true?


That's odd, because if you select a pair of lenses and add lenses to it, tinted, polarized glass lenses are an option.


----------



## Topsider

Stanley Lyndon said:


> Just heard back:
> *Unfortunately we are unable to tint glass lenses and there are no manufacturers that provide that color lens.*
> 
> So, no. Any other? One of the opticians I had contacted about this told me to try opticians in Europe since he said they still work with glass lenses. Is that true?


Why do you want glass lenses? They're heavier, they break if dropped, and they cost more than polycarbonate. All of the Rx lenses I've had made in recent memory are polycarbonate, and they're fine. Be sure to request polarized lenses, anti-glare, and scratch-resistant coatings. If you have a hefty prescription, you'll need high index lenses.


----------



## bd79cc

Trip English said:


> I guess these are what they call the O'Malleys now. I got them many years ago and they were very cheap. Now the frames are $380 making it about a $500 investment. My originals didn't last as long as I'd have liked for such an investment. I owned them for a long time, but they were really only in heavy rotation for about 2 years before the bridge snapped.
> 
> Anyone interested in interesting plastic frames in somewhat classic styles should check out SEE Eyewear in NYC if possible. Glasses are priced with basic lenses and most are under $300 total. They've held up very well for me - better than Moscots which were a bit more expensive.


I just ordered a pair of the current OP O'Malleys in beige crystal. I really like my crystal AA406's, but I just felt like something a little different after the AA's years of good service. Thanks for photo, Trip - you sold me on these!


----------



## indieprep

Just got some prescription clubmasters from Ray Ban today. Really great looking.


----------



## hardline_42

indieprep said:


> Just got some prescription clubmasters from Ray Ban today. Really great looking.


Nice! I got a pair of Shuron Ronsirs with Aztec cables and clip-ons not too long ago and I'm also loving them.


----------



## Orgetorix

Thinking about some new Warby Parkers, and decided to give their Home Try On program a whirl. You guys care to cast your vote for which you think is best on me? Thumbnails are clickable.

1


2


3


4


5


----------



## DoghouseReilly

1 & 5 get my vote, Org. I'm not a big fan of the large, ornamental hinges on the others.


----------



## Trevor

DoghouseReilly said:


> 1 & 5 get my vote


Agreed


----------



## hardline_42

I like 2 and 4, though 2 needs to be a smidge smaller.


----------



## g3dahl

I like 5 best.


----------



## Topsider

5 it is.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

5.

Which style of theirs is it??


----------



## Orgetorix

WouldaShoulda said:


> 5.
> 
> Which style of theirs is it??


Here are the styles and colors:

1. Ainsworth, Striped Chestnut
2. Sinclair, Burgundy Fade
3. Begley, Whiskey Tortoise
4. Sinclair, Greystone
5. Percey, Striped Sassafras


----------



## The Rambler

4 or 5, though I like them all.


----------



## Rankiz

Since I live in Norway, trying glasses is impossible. I am currently using Oliver Peoples Riley 47-20-145, and based on my picture below, do you think these frames will fit me good?
Warby Parker Percey 48-20-140
Anglo American 406 47-21-145


----------



## Howard

Rankiz said:


> Since I live in Norway, trying glasses is impossible. I am currently using Oliver Peoples Riley 47-20-145, and based on my picture below, do you think these frames will fit me good?
> Warby Parker Percey 48-20-140
> Anglo American 406 47-21-145


Yes they're a good fit for you.


----------



## Topsider

I think a slightly heavier frame than the Riley would look better on you.


----------



## blackgrass

I have been wearing eyebobs reading glasses and while several of their styles are a bit fashion forward, they do have some more classic looking frames. The quality is far better than the frames I tried from WP. It's been a few years since I tried the "try at home" program from WP, but I could not understand the fuss about them. The frames seemed like cheap frames you would by off the rack at the drug store. Maybe they have gotten better?


----------



## rsgordon

Topsider said:


> I think a slightly heavier frame than the Riley would look better on you.


I agree completely. Maybe I have a weird mentality but I think that those thinner frames can be retained for use with lighter clothing ensembles (like khakis and OCBD) and when you start adding more and more, like sweaters and jackets and coats, a slightly thicker frame would do you justice.


----------



## Bernie Zack

I cast my vote for #3.


----------



## Rankiz

rsgordon said:


> I agree completely. Maybe I have a weird mentality but I think that those thinner frames can be retained for use with lighter clothing ensembles (like khakis and OCBD) and when you start adding more and more, like sweaters and jackets and coats, a slightly thicker frame would do you justice.


Like clubmasters?


----------



## katon

fashion_victim said:


> He said he started making lenses for the military 40 years ago and they always used Shuron. I guess he had developed a strong attachment to the company and he rarely saw the frames anymore. Made my day!


A good point in there. That's the common denominator for a lot of "trad eyewear" styles -- military frames in non-military colors. Steel P3s and black plastic BCGs swapped out for gold-filled and demi-amber.

I can only think of two styles that aren't; the Windsor frame (for Anglophiles?) and the mid-century Browline (Ronsir) style.


----------



## conductor

My current frames


----------



## Rankiz

Bought some Persol 2994 sunglasses in size 52. But I think I should exchange them for size 54, making the sunglasses 0.4 cm wider. What do you think?










One size bigger would be like this:


----------



## Orgetorix

I think the ones you're wearing look fine.


----------



## rsgordon

I agree. If the goal is to have the endpieces stick out from the side of your face then up the size.


----------



## hardline_42

Orgetorix said:


> I think the ones you're wearing look fine.


+1. I think way too many people wear frames that are too big for them and manufacturers are more than happy to pare down their size ranges. It's hard to tell in the photo but your pupils should be centered in the lenses and the temples should be even with the sides of your head or just a bit more snug. I'd have even tried a 50mm on as well.


----------



## Rankiz

The temples do press against the side of my head, that's on of the reasons I was thinking to size up for.


----------



## Rankiz

Watched Mad Men today, what are these kind of glasses called, and where can I get similar ones?


----------



## hardline_42

Rankiz said:


> Watched Mad Men today, what are these kind of glasses called, and where can I get similar ones?


If you want a period-correct version, I'd suggest the Tart Optical FDR frames:

Another similar frame with a tortoise option would be the Moscot Vilda:


----------



## Topsider

Rankiz said:


> Watched Mad Men today, what are these kind of glasses called, and where can I get similar ones?


Y'all know that's Ted McGinley, right? From "Married With Children" and "Revenge of the Nerds." He's changed a bit, I'd say.


----------



## Rankiz

I tried some Han Kjobenhavn sunglasses and I think they fit great. However, they are also available with prescription lenses and clip on sunglasses.
Would these sunglasses look good as normal spectacles?


----------



## txelen

Left pair is from Coastal Eyewear, right pair is from Zenni Optical. Each was less than $40 ordered online.


----------



## Jovan

Topsider said:


> Y'all know that's Ted McGinley, right? From "Married With Children" and "Revenge of the Nerds." He's changed a bit, I'd say.


"... _my_ pie!"


----------



## Rankiz

I was thinking on purchasing a pair of AA406 Tosh and use them as sunglasses with dark grey lenses. Then I could just change to perscription lenses later if I want a change. What do you think? Are the light tortoise harder to pull off?


----------



## joeyzaza

Rankiz said:


> The temples do press against the side of my head, that's on of the reasons I was thinking to size up for.


The temples are supposed to press lightly against your head. That is part of their exclusive meflecto temple design. If the front is too wide, they will slide down your nose. I am a long-time Persol wearer and they make great sunglasses. You will enjoy these for years to come.


----------



## Rankiz

Rankiz said:


> I was thinking on purchasing a pair of AA406 Tosh and use them as sunglasses with dark grey lenses. Then I could just change to perscription lenses later if I want a change. What do you think? Are the light tortoise harder to pull off?


What do you think about this idea? Since I already have Oliver People Riley in a more subtle (cocobolo)color, I thought that the yellow/black tortoise with dark lenses would look sharp.


----------



## indieprep

Latest addition to my collection Persol PO3007v light Havana with clip on sun lenses.


----------



## indieprep

Without the clip on


----------



## eloquentlight

Hi all,

I am looking to add some trad sunglasses to my eyewear choices, and this has been most helpful. Thought I'd contribute with my favorite eyeglasses - Oliver People's Parsons frames. Here is a photo of them on the face:


----------



## Himself

Topsider said:


> Y'all know that's Ted McGinley, right? From "Married With Children" and "Revenge of the Nerds." He's changed a bit, I'd say.


My hometown boy -- back then as preppy IRL as on TV!


----------



## wacolo

eloquentlight said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I am looking to add some trad sunglasses to my eyewear choices, and this has been most helpful. Thought I'd contribute with my favorite eyeglasses - Oliver People's Parsons frames. Here is a photo of them on the face:


Frames look good. And digging the pink and tweed!


----------



## 127.72 MHz

While I'm nowhere in the ballpark as compared to an Elton John, I do have quite a few pairs of glasses.

I have four pairs of Shurons. 

Both the Revelation and the Timberline in clear and sun.


----------



## Dudufrias

Note: lenses not yet installed.


----------



## Fading Fast

Been thinking about getting a pair of these for my next prescription sunglasses. Persol - from their "Typewriter Edition -" the top one with the lighter frame.

(As an aside, Persol's website is an example of over engineering a website to the point that it is less not more functional: no expense was spared - result is wonky).


----------



## Bernie Zack

Bought a pair of these in February. Love them!


----------



## Bernie Zack

. . . and forgot to mention, my insurance picked up 60% of the cost of the frames. THAT was nice!


----------



## bd79cc

My newest glasses are a pair of in Moss Tortoise that I bought at The Tannery in Cambridge MA this past May. Although the OP GP's have the smaller 45mm lenses, they have a slightly wider thicker bridge than the 45mm AA406's (my other favorites), so they avoid the smallish delicate look of the AA's.


----------



## RedOctober

Does anyone know if NOS Tart Arnels are worth going after for a good deal compared to the reproduction by Dolabany?


----------



## Slowhands

Anybody have any good recommendations for rectangular frames? Medium to large, and Black or horn are fine. Love all the round frames I see in the thread, but they wouldn't sit well on my round face.


----------

