# Original Wayfarers versus Wayfarers II



## oaklandish

Inspired in part by the thread here on Kennedy's trad style, I've decided to get some tortoise shell Wayfarers. Ray Ban now carries two Wayfarers -- the originals, and the Wayfarers II. The new ones are a little sleeker, less chunky, and with less of an angling outward as compared to the original. I've tried both on, and can't decide which look better on my face. I think I like the originals slightly better than the new ones, but the originals are about $30-$50 more.

Has anyone out there done a comparison, or otherwise have an opinion on the classic Wayfarer versus the Wayfarer II? 

Thanks.


----------



## eagle2250

The price difference is minimal, when considered in the context of how long you might continue to enjoy (or be aggravated by) using the design that you eventually buy. Listen to your gut...get the design you really want!


----------



## Tom Buchanan

I strongly prefer the original, primarily due to the size of the frame. The original also seemed to be more angled, which I liked.

In fact, I have a feeling that the original is actually more like Classic Coke, which they claim is the original recipe, but it is not. The old wayfarers that I have seen, and if you look at the JFK pictures, the sides were not thick and flaired like the modern versions. I wish they would reproduce the true original for comparison.


----------



## marlinspike

Well now, there's a Wayfarer, Wayfarer II, and an Original Wayfarer...plus each can be had with different lens sizes. Too many varieties if you ask me, plus on all of them the top of the sunglasses is in my line of vision.

Just thought I'd point out that Original Wayfarer does not equal Wayfarer.


----------



## oaklandish

Thanks for the responses so far.

The salespeople I spoke with said there were only two versions of the Wayfarer. I don't think I've seen the Original Wayfarer. Are these the "old Coke" to borrow Tom's analogy, or are they Classic Coke? Now I'm more confused.

As least I know that I need the smaller size, so there's that.


----------



## oaklandish

Okay, in tooling around on Ray Ban's website, it looks like there are indeed three Wayfarers.

Model RB2140 -- "Original Wayfarer" in several colors, including light and regular tortoise shell.

Model RB 2038 -- "Wayfarer" in black only

Model RB 2039 -- "Wayfarer II" in black only.

Looks like if I want tortoise shell, I've got to go with the Originals. Anybody seen the other models in tortoise? I wish I could knew all the differences between the "Original Wayfarer" and the "Wayfarer." Ray Ban's site does help all that much.


----------



## Hobson

Part of the problem in comparing old to new is that Bausch & Lomb sold Ray Ban to Luxottica, an Italian eyeglass manufacturer. If you could see an old pair of Wayfarers next to a new one you would see a number of differences. The new frames seem superior in quality, and the new hinges are much better. Even under Bausch & Lomb variations included the Wayfarer, the Wayfarer II and a folding version. The old II was basically a larger version of the original Wayfarer. Not sure if that is still the case with Luxottica. I did a web search a few weeks ago and found a number of reputable online sources that would be considerably cheaper than other sources. I would just check with Ray Ban to make sure they are an authorized dealer.


----------



## oaklandish

Complicating things further, it appears there is a FOURTH model, the RB2132 -- "New Wayfarer."

Hobson -- I've looked for better-than-mall prices on ebay, but haven't found other "reputable online sources." Care to share?


----------



## Hobson

oaklandish said:


> Complicating things further, it appears there is a FOURTH model, the RB2132 -- "New Wayfarer."
> 
> Hobson -- I've looked for better-than-mall prices on ebay, but haven't found other "reputable online sources." Care to share?


I only did a very cursory search a few weeks ago and came up with www.peepers.com. They have free shipping, and will price match. I believe when I spoke to them they indicated that they were a Ray Ban distributor, meaning that they probably carry most everything. The person I spoke with was helpful, but I never got around to placing an order since I wanted to do a little more research, like checking with Ray Ban to make sure they are an authorized dealer and/or distributor. So I'm afraid I can't really endorse them without knowing more about them. I did have a great source in Greensboro, NC, The House of Eyes II. They are still around but are considerably downsized. Whatever you do make sure you are buying from an authorized dealer by checking with Ray Ban. Some of the copies are quite difficult to distinguish from the real thing.


----------



## lee lin

i have a pair of tortoise shell raybans from the 80's and started wearing them since dressing up more classically. they still look amazing and the plastic is extremely sturdy. they are now one of my favorite accessories. however, the new raybans are not similar quality to the old ones. the tortoise shell material is more plastic and lighter. the lenses are also not made by bausch and lomb anymore and aren't as deep a shade of green as the original. they are still classic in design and if that's all you are after then i suggest you get the smaller one with smaller tea cup lenses if they fit your face shape. i think they are more of a modern classic. if you can't beat the original with the materials and craftsmanship you can beat it with design.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

I prefer the Wayfarer IIs--have them in both black and tortoise, each w/ polarized Rx lenses--because they seem to fit a larger head size better than the other Wayfarer models that are out there. I have a pair of the "original" Wayfarers but am not crazy about how they fit me so I've never gone to the expense of having Rx lenses put in them. Instead I wear them on fitness walks around the 'hood when it's sunny out and save the Rx RayBans for driving and golf and such.


----------



## oaklandish

Thanks for all the feedback. 

I pulled the trigger and got a pair of the Original Wayfarer (RB2140) in light tortoise. After trying on several pairs, I concluded that the Originals are far more distinctive than the Wayfarer II, which is really more of a contemporary frame "inspired by" the originals. I like the clunkiness and the classic angling. I hope they are in service for many, many years to come.


----------



## Mark from Plano

PJC in NoVa said:


> I prefer the Wayfarer IIs--have them in both black and tortoise, each w/ polarized Rx lenses--because they seem to fit a larger head size better than the other Wayfarer models that are out there. I have a pair of the "original" Wayfarers but am not crazy about how they fit me so I've never gone to the expense of having Rx lenses put in them. Instead I wear them on fitness walks around the 'hood when it's sunny out and save the Rx RayBans for driving and golf and such.


I went through a similar process and wound up with the "New Wayfarer" RB 2132 model with the 55mm lenses. I have a big head and lots of glasses are too small for my face. Since I put RX lenses in mine it ups the ante to get a pair that actually fit me.


----------



## Rich

My Tortoise Wayfarers (bought a couple of years ago) are marked RB 2113 909 54 19


----------



## Mark from Plano

Rich said:


> My Tortoise Wayfarers (bought a couple of years ago) are marked RB 2113 909 54 19


RB 2113 = Style Number
909 = Color Number
54 = Lens size (in mm)
19 = I have no idea :icon_smile_big:


----------



## android

They're not really "original". They say "RayBan" on the arms where the real originals had a small metal bit.


----------



## tasteful one

*The thing about Ray bans you should know....*

...is that they are NOT polarized. Some people like that (although i haven't actually met any), but other than the name, there are alot of better sunglasses out there that offer this important feature.


----------



## oaklandish

tasteful one:

Actually the Wayfarers are available in both polarized and non-polarized models.


----------



## petro

tasteful one said:


> ...is that they are NOT polarized. Some people like that (although i haven't actually met any),


Pilots--the polarization can interact badly with the windscreens and cause sections of sky to "disappear". Since those sections can contain stuff that really is there that can be a bad thing.


----------



## Mark from Plano

petro said:


> Pilots--the polarization can interact badly with the windscreens and cause sections of sky to "disappear". Since those sections can contain stuff that really is there that can be a bad thing.


OTOH, I could never play golf in sunglasses until I switched to polarized (clearly not as dangerous a pursuit as flying airplanes). The light refracted through the non-polarized lenses in a way that made it difficult to read the greens when putting and see the ball properly on longer shots. I'm no expert on optics (knowing next to nothing), all I know is that when I switched to polarized lenses I was able to play golf in sunglasses.

Now since all of my sunglasses are RX I just have the polarized RX lenses put into my Wayfarers.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Mark from Plano said:


> OTOH, I could never play golf in sunglasses until I switched to polarized (clearly not as dangerous a pursuit as flying airplanes). The light refracted through the non-polarized lenses in a way that made it difficult to read the greens when putting and see the ball properly on longer shots. I'm no expert on optics (knowing next to nothing), all I know is that when I switched to polarized lenses I was able to play golf in sunglasses.
> 
> Now since all of my sunglasses are RX I just have the polarized RX lenses put into my Wayfarers.


I've had precisely the same experience. It sounds trivial, but as my ophthalmologist has warned me always to wear sun protection for my eyes and as clip-ons just weren't working for me on the links (for the reasons you mention), finding shades I can hack it around in has been a not-inconsiderable boon.


----------



## clothing collagist

I recently came across a used pair of B & L Wayfarer II's, but the lens are scratched. Is it worth popping new lenses into the frame? the frame is in good shape. If I do this, what's the most affordable way to do this, go to the local eye shop?


----------



## Starch

I don't know the answer to the question, but I do feel compelled to ask why you've reawakened a 4-year-old thread in which none of the posts has very much to do with your question, other than the general subject of Wayfarers.


----------



## clothing collagist

Starch said:


> I don't know the answer to the question, but I do feel compelled to ask why you've reawakened a 4-year-old thread in which none of the posts has very much to do with your question, other than the general subject of Wayfarers.


well, I did searches trying to find a relevant thread, and rather than start a new one, tied onto this one. Just call me crazy.


----------



## Starch

The problem is: this isn't a relevant thread.


----------



## clothing collagist

Starch said:


> The problem is: this isn't a relevant thread.


Ok, I apologize for any confusion or lack of etiquette displayed. I guess I should have just created a thread called "can you replace lenses in old Wayfarer II's" Is that the idea? or "Vintage sunglasses repair question"?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Crazy(?)...relevant(?)...in either case, assuming the frames are sound, yes it would be worth replacing the lenses and yes, a reputable eyeware shop would be the place to go. Don't skimp om the lenses; go polarized and pay a few extra$'s for the scratch coating!


----------

