anyone know any good eye glare free sunglasses?

[Kavinsky]

Okay I'm at about my witts end with this, I've been trying to get the perfect kind of sunglasses with no sort of eye glare/reflection of your eyes in the glass under direct sunlight for about 2 weeks now

 

and I cant seem to get it right, the closest were the Maui Jim's but they had this weird problem where you would get like a lense flare effect from the top of the glass under direct sunlight no matter how encased the frame was

 

and all of these were polarized FYI

 

 

RB 4075 too tight, and they didnt fit me too well , went for these over the 4057's as they looked like old mens glasses, and I might just end up trying those as a hail marry next, as I dont remember that much eye glare coming through on those.

 

RB3498, with a gradient, which I liked but it seemed like I had too much glare on the sides,

 

Maui JIm Twin Falls - not enough coverage of the pupils, plus brown tint, and a lense flare thing that I thought was caused by it not fitting properly.

 

the Peahni, good coverage, but the lense flare issue persisted, brown as well with a semi transparent case like the twin falls.

 

bayans  - black shades, thought maybe the black frame would remove the issue, like it was getting too much light in one area, no dice

 

latest switch, Oakley Valve's, black Irridumn 09236-6 polarized matt grey smoke, and they seem better than the RB Polarized's but I'm just getting too much light through under direct sunlight that comes right into my eyes and glares back onto the lenses despite how wrap around the shades are

 

and I'm not sure if this is a non mirrored version, and that's what's causing it and I should have gone for the turbines

 

 

as they look mirrored, plus their polarized, and they fit a little better, and I'm just not sure what I should go for to deal with this issue, that Prizm technology one, a gradient + polarization like on the RB 3498's as theres a bigger version of those I didnt try that will probably have more coverage and less glare from the sides, or the RB 2027 predator 2's that seem to be mirrored and polarized.

 

and basically I'm looking for a good brand of sunglasses with good anti UVA UVB coverage that wont do that,  as that is the major selling point of the Oakley's and the RB's, that CE mark that means a minimal of 95% UV protection

 

and I gotta wonder is the problem that I'm going for polarized when I should be going for a mirrored only pair? or does this just happen with all sunglasses, and the trick is to go for ones that have the most minimal of this issue without a hat on? IE through gradients/mirroring, and that oakley prismn thing, that seems to be almost like a photocromatic kinda thing

 

 

and its just like am I missing something here?

Edited July 19, 2015 by Kavinsky

[Guest C.T.]

Oakley Juliets in polarised ice iridium. Expensive and now very rare but worth every penny. The wraparound, face hugging fit prevents light leakage and the polarized optics are second to none.

 

Polarized glasses filter horizontal light so glare from horizontal reflective surfaces get knocked out so you get much clearer optics. Not sure why you're still getting glare but I assume it is a fit issue more than optics. I would look into the Juliets if you can find them otherwise go and try several different pairs and find one that fits your face.

Edited July 19, 2015 by C.T.

[Pink Flaming0]

I own 3 pair of Polarized Wiley X  sunglasses. Best pairs I've ever owned. In the 80's had Ray Ban and Vuarnet and these Wiley X are on par with them, if not better.

 

http://www.wileyx.com/index.aspx

[Vincent Hanna]

https://www.bootsdesignersunglasses.com/FileRepository/Images/SunglassesPhotos/enlarge/ray-ban-2013/2140-902-805289126638-2.jpg

 

I don't know much about sunglasses so I just bought the same ones Crockett wears.  They are polarised too.

 

Or get the club master Raybans which is what Deniro wears in the movie "Heat"

[Kavinsky]

Hmm if its a fitment issue then theoretically if I go for the turbines it should go away, as the valves fit, fits but it seems like its a little off. like its a touch too narrow for my face, and like I'm forcing it to fit a little, but it gives good coverage, and it didnt seem that bad at first.

 

low light when I went to the car, overcast it was fine during driving and all that, but as soon as it got really bright I started getting like direct glare through the lenses outside at certain angles, and from my bathroom lights which sit higher than the mirrors, and give off this kinda light

 

http://miamiviceonline.com/index.php/gallery/image/3444-dscn1136/

 

photo taken for a watch repair place FYI, as  I was trying to get an estimate on how much it would cost to fix this and how much the watch was worth, not worth it'

 

but the main reason why I didnt go for them was well, because this was the only one they had according to the lady I was dealing with lol

 

 

and I just kinda wrote it off on how extreme the lenses looked, along with the frame, although under low light conditions with the valves it did really seem like it had an edge over the new wayfarer 55 polarizeds that I have, which are tortus shelled (which have this frame where light seems to show through in certain areas, all the more reason I skipped out on those turbines) and black lenses I think.

 

but there is also a size difference between the valves and the turbines, about 3 mm.

 

with the 2140's wayfarers I have abit of an odd story for that one, I ordered a pair from ebay, from a guy called italy to usa, 100% feedback rating, returns and everything was above board, polarized

 

the day they arrive I go out onto my deck under full sunlight and my eyes started hurting, no idea why

 

I check it over, and I check the lenses in direct sunlight against the water in my backyard, and against my new wayfarers, also polarized which seem too wide, which catch everything and glare like hell if your not using them in the car, a hardtop FYI, and even somewhat from within the car from the sides

 

and I find out, the left one is not polarized but the right one is, I sent them back and got a full refund, but I didnt have enough time to see if I was getting that eye glare thing, I dont remember it though, as I was too busy going what the hell is this to even note such a thing, but out in the sun the right side did seem fine with that one eye open lol

 

maybe I should try again with those, this time from the sunglasses hut, although they looked abit weird on me, hence why I went for the new wayfarers in the first place

 

although the old ones seemed like there abit more curved, fit better and had a much smaller lense, 50 VS 55, which means the frame would be moved in a full 5 mill from the sides along with the lenses, so maybe I should really give those a go again.

 

funny thing is EVERY TIME I leave the mall right after switching them, its overcast and like 2 hours latter the sun fully comes out, so I cant just see right then and there if I should go back and switch,

 

 

with the wiley X's just looking at the price I may order a pair in to experement with, as theres a good deal right now on the flea'

 

so maybe tommorow i'll head over, switch for either the turbines or the wayfarers, and see if I can order in the wiley x's on the backburner

 

as maybe it could be the curvature of the glass causing it, as with the polarized light if it works best coming in straight horizontal, maybe the problem is the light coming in at non horizontal angles? so maybe the wayfarers would be the best bet?

 

as all of these have been wrap around sunglasses.

 

although I must wonder if another key would be to go for a gradient lense, as theres one in the RB catalog that I havent tried yet, and those are darker at the top, lighter at the bottom.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Kavinsky

[Kavinsky]

Hey CT you were right about the fitment, turns out I neglected to check the fit between the cheeks and the glass, and there was abit of a gap between them and it was causing the light to bounce off of it into the glass and into my eyes under direct sunlight

 

like a giant periscope effect, as I switched to the turbines today and found that it almost completely went away

 

although I'm going to switch to a larger pair on friday, as I only use like half the nose pad, as theres abit of a gap there, plus theres some light coming in on the sides, and after putting a little tape over the sides to messure what I need to cover the gap, it turns out I need about a 70mm lense, as if you go for a bigger lense with a frame model, it has like a 5mm thick frame to cover the rest of your face

 

which is ironically what according to these messurements I took a little while back is accurate

 

 

so 70mm with a frame, 75 without to completely cover it, which fits in with the experences with the maui jims and probably explains that lense flare effect I was getting that the lady at the shop was suprised about.

 

so the oakley offshoots and the oakley batwolfs then seem to be the ones to look at, and ironically the messurements and numbers on the site for them is off about them.

 

so theres light at the end of the tunnel then to this screwing around and trying to figure out what's what, and I had the same problem with shoe sizes too lol thought I was a 12, turns out I was really a 14, and thought I was a 12 given that some of the shoes I had really didnt have that much lace to them. so they were looser than most other shoes.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Kavinsky

[Guest C.T.]

Hey CT you were right about the fitment, turns out I neglected to check the fit between the cheeks and the glass, and there was abit of a gap between them and it was causing the light to bounce off of it into the glass and into my eyes under direct sunlight

 

like a giant periscope effect, as I switched to the turbines today and found that it almost completely went away

 

although I'm going to switch to a larger pair on friday, as I only use like half the nose pad, as theres abit of a gap there, plus theres some light coming in on the sides, and after putting a little tape over the sides to messure what I need to cover the gap, it turns out I need about a 70mm lense, as if you go for a bigger lense with a frame model, it has like a 5mm thick frame to cover the rest of your face

 

which is ironically what according to these messurements I took a little while back is accurate

 

 

so 70mm with a frame, 75 without to completely cover it, which fits in with the experences with the maui jims and probably explains that lense flare effect I was getting that the lady at the shop was suprised about.

 

so the oakley offshoots and the oakley batwolfs then seem to be the ones to look at, and ironically the messurements and numbers on the site for them is off about them.

 

so theres light at the end of the tunnel then to this screwing around and trying to figure out what's what, and I had the same problem with shoe sizes too lol thought I was a 12, turns out I was really a 14, and thought I was a 12 given that some of the shoes I had really didnt have that much lace to them. so they were looser than most other shoes.

 

 

Glad I could help Kavinsky. The reason why I suggested the Oakley Juliets is that they come with rubber 'nose bombs' which are the pads that fit on your nose. The come in various sizes which help lift the frame either off your face or towards your face. My opinion is to go have some professionally fitted at a competent optician. The other issue you need to look at is the base curve of the lenses as lenses which are too curved can exacerbate glare.

[Kavinsky]

hmm that's certainly food for thought, from what I understand with the new wayfarer it was rather flat, no curvature to it, and cutoff at the bottom compaired to the originals, and just looking at the ones I've tried they were all rather short in the lense height department, and oakley gave a messurement of 44 MM lense height on the turbines, the same height as the new wayfarers actually

 

but they seem far better than the valves at 38 although they still let a little light in on the bottom and seem oversized almost, like they need a little more coverage on the sides, so maybe that's the thing, I need something angled in a little and sealed like those 4075's seemed to be, which might be the julliets, or the batwolf/offshoot models, as if its just a matter of that, the lense height might not really matter.

 

although today I am going to give these abit more of a through test, the lense height thing might explain why those faulty wayfarers seemed to work, and might also explain the popularity of the avator glasses, as if there more curved/angled in and larger in the front, it would let less light in from that angle

 

although I dont know how much light they would let in from the sides, and if it would be too much if I went for one of those.

 

also its worth noting that the fitting on the turbines seems a little uneaven almost, like one side is sitting a little closer, and the other further, not sure what that is about.

 

might be that the things stems, or lenses rather are sitting too high for me and I need to go for the offshoots, as the nose bridge feels a little funny and seemed to let light in at the angle I like to let them sit at

like I'm wearing them too close and too high for their design.

 

and the offshoots stems sit lower down

 

and will probably fit better, (i'll have to look at the stem length) another possiblitty which is 4 mmm shorter, but still 2mm bigger than the valves is the batwolf ones

 

 

but this design with the stems is rather close to the valves, which had a similar fitment issue to them

 

 

hmm so I figure its gotta be either the offshoots and I'll see if they have the Juliets, and then check the batwolfs as if its just about seeling the eyes away from the light at an angle those three should be the ones to look at.

 

 

but the only pair I had that seemed to make me feel sick wasnt any of these, it was made by Gargoyes, the intervals I got as a test pair to see if maybe I wanted to go polarized with them

 

 

as they dont make the anasi model eastwood wore anymore, but it fully sealed it and didnt have any glare to it, but the curvature, well it it made me feel abit nausiated.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Kavinsky

[Kavinsky]

jesus CT I see what you mean about the Juliets, I just did a quick google and ebay search and the prices, and good god! I'm seeing the price ranges of quantom proportions. anywhere from 350 to 1400 US, what the hell happened that theres such a price jump, did they only make them for like 6 months or something?

[Guest C.T.]

jesus CT I see what you mean about the Juliets, I just did a quick google and ebay search and the prices, and good god! I'm seeing the price ranges of quantom proportions. anywhere from 350 to 1400 US, what the hell happened that theres such a price jump, did they only make them for like 6 months or something?

They actually made them for a good number of years and they originally retailed for around the $200 mark. Then they were used as the base sunglass for Cyclops' glasses in X-Men and in Blackhawk Down and it went nuts. Demanded surged and prices rocketed. The glasses themselves are extraordinary and were the only investment cast titanium alloy frame in the world. Oakley acquired an old golf club foundry in Nevada just to make these things and they were over engineered, ahead of their time and just incredible to look at. However, when Luxottica took over Oakley a few years back, these 'x-metal' glasses became too expensive to produce and they canned the range including the Juliets and now produce new -x-metal' models but these are over price rubbish that are not true x-metal titanium alloys and do not have the uniquely Oakley styling of the pre-Luxottica models like the Juliets. This makes no sense as demand is obviously still there judging from the Ebay prices but Luxottica won't listen. You can still find them as there will be plenty of NOS around. Luckily I have a few dozen pairs from my days of collecting these things so I just laugh at the insane money they fetch. However, try on a pair and you'll fall in love with them.

[Kavinsky]

you know I think I just cracked the nut on why this has not worked for me, the temple length, (which is why I havent really been posting that much I'm in seek and destroy mode right now) I always thought that number really didnt mean anything given it looked like all it was was the length of the stems, and in messuring it I think I figured out why it never worked, the length between my two temples after checking it against a ruller is a 140, all of them, save for that faulty wayfarer, have been below that.

 

RB 4075 135, 61 MM lense, - solid frame

Rb's 3498 gradient polarized 135 61 MM - I honestly really liked these ones, they kinda worked but I wanted to get this thing a 100%

 

 

Maui Jims

Twin Falls 128 63mm - see through frame

Peahni 125 65mm - see through frame

bayans 130 70mm - no frame, all glass.

 

all of these Maui's had a lense flare effect come in over the top of them, probably a byproduct of the ill fit.

 

Oakley's:

 

Valve 133 61mm

Turbine 135 65mm - this one had the lense flare thing come again, solid gloss frame, the other two are matt, yet seemed to somewhat fit better than the others and had less of a reflection of my eyes in them

 

 

Canteen 122 60mm - no lense flare at all, and they fit the best, yet I'm still getting abit of a reflection of my eyes somewhat.

 

 

and I think that temple thing is basically a fancy way of saying the width of the head, and the only one I remember working well was really the wayfarers which had a 145 size temple, I may be able to test this out with a cheap pair of carrera sunglasses actually. see if my theory works, as if there designed for a smaller head, the lense would curve differently from what the wearer would want.

 

and it would explain why despite the gargoyes fitting well, it gave me a headache because of the way the glass was curved with a 64 MM lense, and a 14 mm bridge, and a 125 temple length.

 

and if this proves to be true, I guess I should have really gone to an optician beforehand, and it would explain why all of the others didnt work, as the new wayfarers, 55 MM were a 132 MM temple length as well.

 

and here I was thinking it was the lense and the nosebridge that I really needed to pay attention to, hell the only ones that I had, that I bought second hand that had this temple lenght thing set up right were the 4151's that I bought as they supposedly lined up with the persols DJ wore in S3.

 

59/17/140, and they work well although theres too much light coming in on the sides and its like having a giant rectangle stuck to your face, while his were more of a proper psudo wayfarer shape.

 

and probably more of a wrap in general

 

hell I only relized this when I was looking up the predator 2's and eastwoods balloramas from the first two dirty harry films on the flea, and I see temple to temple 135, the space between the temples. mentioned on the ad and suddenly things make sense.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RAY-BAN-WRAP-RB-4089-BALORAMA-601-58-62mm-BLACK-FRAME-GREEN-POLARIZED-/191564370131?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c9a2050d3

 

like son of a bitch, why didnt anyone say that at the hut?

 

actually according to the specs I should have gone for the Oakley OO2043 FROGSKIN's as I know 16's work well as the nose bridge,and now that I have this down, its just a matter of size and style.

 

 

So provided this is correct, the choices are the oakley bottle rocket, which looks quite close to my sporting glasses really., so 5 options Wrap: Bottle Rocket, Maui Jim Hana Hou, Wayfarer, 3025 aviator 62mm (not sure if its wise to go with a 62, given the amount of light it had come in on the sides of the 55 wayfarer) and the frogskin.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Kavinsky

[Guest C.T.]

Go with the Frogskins as they are pretty much Wayfarer clones and are therefore more Vice.

Edited July 25, 2015 by C.T.

[Kavinsky]

well I may have also figured out what was somewhat causing the lense flare effect, out of desparation I ran the Canteen's under the spicket and having some water on them, like driplets seemed to clear them up and made them a hell of a lot clearer than what they were,

 

and I think what's been causing my eye glare problem might have not have been just the glasses but rather the lense cleaner they use at the sunglasses hut, as they spray it on and then give it to you

 

I guess its some sort of disinfectant or protector, but the stuff basically makes it so if you smuge the glasses afterwards it creates that effect, inside and out, and rubbing it down with a microfiber does not remove it, all it does is streak, like some sort of grease, as I was like what the hell is going on, why is it so hazy and silverish when I put these on, I mean it was full on this for god sakes, 0:42

 

 

 

and I finally just put them under the spicket and patted them down with a bath towel afterwards and that seems to have helped alot

 

so maybe I wont need to go for another pair, still though I did head over to the cabellas today to try out those aviators, the 3025's to try my theoy and they did fit well

 

so maybe this wasnt a lost cause after all, so maybe all three were right, messure your temple for the best fit/try them on and see if you like them, and put them under a spicket after you get home and pat dry them if you buy them at the sunglasses hut,

 

plus I dont think they use that lense cleaner at the cabellas hence why those aviators seemed far clearer, but I'll have to try them out tommorow to confirm this is the case down at the range. as they did fit better than these though, so I might still go for those or the frogeyes in november, as the sunglasses hut actually gives you like a 100 bucks off on your birthday, pretty much 50% off.

 

kind of an ironic name given what is living in my backyard actually.

 

plus it would also explain why my eyes seemed a pinch irritated from them, but ill have to see how this works out tommorow.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Kavinsky

[Kavinsky]

I think I may have had some success in this, I switched out the oakleys as I kept getting a really bad reflection of my own eyes through them, despite them fitting like ski goggles, so taking the womans advice at the hut I just tried on a bunch of sunglasses without tryng to play it by the numbers and it seems to have worked

 

although interestingly enough the ones that worked were a pair of Maui Jim's, the same size as the new wayfarers I had, 55 MM/56 depending on what you look at and they have a nose bridge size on par with the original wayfarers, 22mm plus the temple length is 129mm

 

the kicker is two things, one the lady had said during one of the previous goes what about this model, I scoffed at it because I though I needed bigger glasses (not verbally, I just gave a look of no) and the second is the actual models nickname, which considering my work on the daytona threads over the years is really quite ironic
 

their called the stingray's, I couldnt make this up if I tried

 

 

like the fricking car, and like the fricking show Alleycat told me about

 

 

I should have just gone for the ones named after the Corvette Stingray -_- like really lol you gotta be F'ing kidding me

 

I did atleast learn a few things though, the P system determines how much light is let in by the glasses, and you do not want to go over 3, and the funny thing about the oakleys is that in reading the manual they openly say do not use Black Irridumn for driving, and some glasses from the same manufacture let in more light based on the model, something you wouldnt know unless you looked at the packaging, manual and the markins on the glass despite being protective against the UVA and B rays.

 

such as the twin falls that I had tried

 

 

which were bronse/root beer and might have been less than the 3p the New Wayfarers are

 

 

these stingrays seem to be a black glass, 3P and have a matt tortus shell, I did have to tighten the screws in the hinges to get it to fit right, so if your having some fitment issues with your glass look there

 

also theres a CE mark that shows that it will protect you against 95% of UVA and UVB light, but the P level determines just how much it lets in period, as I loved the style of the twin falls, but hated the lense flare effect (that I now know was caused by going with oversized glasses in the first place) and the general bronze look of the glass, and it probably had a less than 3P level

 

so if your having the lense flare effect look for some smaller flatter glasses, as the oakley canteens were highly curved and felt like goggles, I do however like the sideprotectors thing the guy mentions in the twin falls video, so I did order in the 4057's anyways just because I liked that feature and I'll see how it works out compaired to the Stingrays in a day or so from now

 

but I didnt opt to go for them as they reminded me of old man glasses with the sunshades before I relized their purpose (on the trip to switch the oakleys I originally intended to switch to them as an I give up kinda deal, but they were already sold), and the quest was to find a pair of sunglasses that work that dont look like old man shades.

 

so there is a little bit of eye glare at set angles from behind the glass at direct right angles mostly but nothing compaired to the oversized for me 55MM new wayfarers that started to drive me nuts after having them only for 3 quarters of a  year, hence why I went out and bought them second hand via the flea as Archy calls it, ebay.

 

also I found the receit for my other raybans I went for before them, I had them for about 4 years before I decided to try something more vice like, non polarized 3269's, 61 or 62mm.

 

I may end up going for the 52MM new wayfarers down the line or the the lightforce 4195 52's which seemed to fit me just to see if that was the issue with them, but knowing this Im glad i didnt opt to go buy the aviators online as I was thinking and planning to do, as I thought based on the temple size that I had to go for the 62's with the 140mm temples

 

same thing with the predator 2's, as this time around they had them, and they did not work for me at all., No Eastwood Balloramas though, which have a similar temple length to these, 5mm shorter than the predator 2's

 

 

also with cleaning use the spicket and some basic dishwashing soap, and a microfiber cloth, the kind the packaging/bag it comes with or any number of glasses come with, put the soap on, rub it on, and put it under the spicket, warm water and rinse, let it do the work for you and them just gentley soak up the droplets, dont smear them and dry the glasses, by doing that and shaking them.

 

as they always use this lense cleaner at the sunglasses hut that seems to just be an endless fight of smuges if you put a smug on the glasses after you get them, and it will drive you nuts, it wasnt until I read the manual for the mauis that I even thought of doing that frankly

 

but the microfiber thing is key, dont use your shirt as I know that will damage paint on models, hence why in the car world they use microfiber cloths all the time.

 

as you see them wiping down all the finger prints on the bodywork with them, as after seeing a black mustang at the mall in some dealer display, my god the fingerprints really show up on the damn thing.

 

also I screwed up the paintwork on the impala by trying to clean it with my shirt. so if your a model collector who likes to keep them clean, get a microfiber cloth from a cheap pair of sunglasses like some smith and wesson ones, the bag I mean, will do it.

 

 

as a final funny note however, the glasses, they heavily remind me of Rufus's shades from the Bill and Ted movies, so maybe Rufus was a time traveler after all lol

Edited August 13, 2015 by Kavinsky

[Kavinsky]

CT I do think what you said really applies here with the adjusting for the nose bit too, in getting the 4057's in today, which fit me I noticed that because of the nose bridge, they sit too high and cause me to see a reflection of my own eyes in them, of which when I force them down on my nose disapears, which is probably why I've been through so many, as their fitted with a 16mm bridge.

 

as I liked them, they seemed to fit fine but I just kept getting that eye glare, as I was especially bumbed out with the RB3498's and the twin falls as I really liked them.

 

and the ones that I've liked had adjustable nose pieces, although on my own glasses before the wayfarers I finally just took the pads off and forced the pad holders further in to get them to sit comfortably on me, the nose bridge size on them, the now defunct 3269's that they dont make anymore in 61MM,  is 18mm

 

and every single one I had was sub 20mm, save for the Stingrays which were 22mm, along with the wayfarers, so that may have been the big number that really mattered with these, as if they sit too high like they were doing they would act like Light catchers.

 

and that is exactly like they were doing, after all if it sits too high, its going to reflect light in off the sides and from behind you, and the new wayfarers in 55MM were doing exactly that.

 

which means that the 4195 Lightforce new wayfarer might work on me after all, although there is a fly in the ointment so to speak, the Gargoyles intervals didnt do that despite saying they were 14's, although that might have ment the really top measurement at the peak of the glasses was 14, and for all I know it sloped to 24, plus they were cheap Chinese glasses anyways that gave me a headache after putting them on for the first time, but they did fit.

 

 

so if anyone ever gets into this same situation, go for ones with a bigger nose bridge, and gradually size up until you find ones that are big enough that this doesnt happen. and so that they dont act like light catchers.

 

as you want the nose bridge, the single most important part of the glasses to be flush against the skin, if it isnt light will come in from the top, reflect off the glasses, and reflect into your eyes and give you a further reflection of them infront of them.

 

 

its just kind of funny really, I think I'm a size 12, turns out Im not and the shoes I were wearing were just of a softer stretchier construction and in reality I was a size 14, and the same damn thing applied to the nose bridge.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Kavinsky

[Kavinsky]

Alright just figured I'd do an Epilogueto this now that I've got everything straight now

 

the most important thing with a pair of sunglasses is the nosebridge, too big and it wont fit right, it'll be too close to your face and will drive you nuts

 

22 too much for me, 19 seemed to work well more or less.

 

 

but if its too small you end up seeing a reflection of your eyes in them

 

and this applies to the lense size too, but the lense size is very much a trial and error thing to see what size works best for you.

 

and whether or not you want light coming in from the sides.

 

so those two, nosebridge and lense size are the ones that are key, temple really doesnt matter.

 

 

 

and for me I wanted no light coming in on the sides after getting tired of getting light in from the sides with the new wayfarers

 

so the ones I finally went for were the Maui JIm World Cup Glasses, 40 bucks cheaper than what I had gone for originally, 229 vs 260 for the wassups

 

http://www.mauijim.com/en/shop/men/wrap/world-cup

 

 

 

19 mm nose bridge, one up from what I normally went with, 64 lense size, and you have to get that just right with maui jims because of the way the bottom is shaped

 

as its designed so it allows you to see out the side on the bottom, so consequently if you dont get that right, you'll have some of that glare come in from the sides and get on the lenses like I did with the Stingrays and the Wassups.

 

 

0:07

 

 

1:10

 

Wassup on top, stingray on bottom

 

19/61.5 and 22/55 respectively.

 

 

hence why I didnt stick with those, as I would get that all the time, while on this one, you really had to be trying to get that to happen with them.

 

however I would still highly recommend both of them, they just werent the right size and the fit was quite what I was looking for

 

but I still really liked the wassups with its matt woodgrain like look

 

http://www.mauijim.com/en/shop/men/wrap/wassup

 

and the Stingray, well it looked like Rufus's sunglasses from the Bill and Ted movies

 

http://www.mauijim.com/en/shop/men/wrap/stingray

 

which is awesome in of itself really, like he really was from the future lol

 

 

and the natural grey lenses are amazing really, there's no green tint like you get in raybans, and it removes all glare without changing the colors of anything, hell you sometimes want to take them off thinking its not that bright out, only to quick go Wait! Yes it is! put'em back on, put'em back on, put'em back on!!

 

 

 

and frankly my new wayfarers, 55, 18, compaired to them seem chintzy and cheap despite the price being the same roughly for polarized ones

 

all Maui Jims are Polarized as a basis FYI.

 

however that does come at a price, the weight is noticible as the frame is far thicker than it would be on a new wayfarer, but it must be said the lense technology is really a knotch above rayban.

 

and the side light thing had driven me nuts hence why I went for them, along with a matt black rubber frame.

 

a must if you hate glare quite frankly

 

although weirdly I had tried on one pair at one place, and then another of the same model at a different one, and one fit, yet the other didnt so some trail and error can be needed to get just the right ones with maui jims

 

which can happen with rayban wayfarers too, I've seen some that were off center and had a pair that came with one lense polarized, while the other wasnt either

 

and in the same store where I was trying to get this right, someone found another pair of sunglasses from Persol's with the same problem, made by the same company too FYI.

 

so if your set on a model, like it but it doesnt fit, try another example of it somewhere else first before writing it off

 

as sometimes it can be that just certain examples dont fit or do fit well based on how it was put together.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Kavinsky