Tips on ski sunglasses

Pablo Escobar wrote:

Have you tried both?

People just like having brands that represent style and quality, not everyone thinks they 'need' the brand name.

Yes! I have got a pair of bolle, and my comments stem from the fact that I can't deduce any conceivable difference between them and my pair of Boots polarised, except the colour of the lens. My chagrin is enhanced by having being fooled into thinking I needed them in the first place, against my better judgement. I wish I'd had the sense to leave myself with more money in my pocket.

I'm sorry guys but I do like a label 8)

That's right. No reason at all not to have a label, if you're happy to pay for the privilege. It's a self-perpetuating phenomenon, which works well for the shareholders of those 'names'.

Ian, me too :lol:

Many brands are synonymous with quality and I like to buy in to that. Often the customer service and warranty experiences say a lot about the difference in companies. Unfortunately Oakley don't give refunds for lost glasses (2 pairs :().

Huwcyn wrote:That's right. No reason at all not to have a label, if you're happy to pay for the privilege. It's a self-perpetuating phenomenon, which works well for the shareholders of those names.

Money, you can either put it under the mattress or spend it, I prefer to do the latter ........ remember you are a long time dead :shock:

Huwcyn wrote:
At least I don't blindly :D buy anything just because there's a designer label on it.

and neither do I, I buy what I need for the environment I'm in. Just because a brand has a recognized name hardly makes it designer.

Huwcyn wrote:I hadn't realised that height affected lenses. I can understand why polarised lenses don't necessarily help, and can sometimes even hinder, visibility when skiing. That is because of reflected light being horizontal in polarity, and disrupting that with polarised lenses can make moguls etc. more difficult to 'read'. A plain 'black' lens should be sufficient to mitigate the brightness of snow therefore, and an even cheaper pair should be adequate

Height makes a difference, UV intensity increases 13% for every 1000m gain in height. So what works well at a 100m in terms of light reduction won't work at 3000m. Plain black lenses might reduce the visible light but not necessarily the UV light which is the most harmful. The standards EN172 and EN170 define testing and classification of lenses for UV protection and light transmission so when I buy a pair of Bollès for example I know those tests were passed for the environment they're in. I don't know that for a pair of 10 quid glasses from the petrol station no matter how handy they are for driving down the M4.

Huwcyn wrote:

Pablo Escobar wrote:

Have you tried both?

People just like having brands that represent style and quality, not everyone thinks they 'need' the brand name.

Yes! I have got a pair of bolle, and my comments stem from the fact that I can't deduce any conceivable difference between them and my pair of Boots polarised, except the colour of the lens. My chagrin is enhanced by having being fooled into thinking I needed them in the first place, against my better judgement. I wish I'd had the sense to leave myself with more money in my pocket.

Excellent, so you must be a lot happier with those now. I tried to explain this above http://www.j2ski.com/ski-chat-forum/posts/list/16/7349.page#62228 for interest. If your boots glasses match those tests then they're an excellent buy, mostly they won't as boots by default will sell you stuff safe for driving which by definition won't be safe for high light/high UV situations.

Well, Cardi or not, I do like to spend money for anything beneficial to myself, or to help the more needy in this world, but I draw the line at spending where I cannot see any conceivable advantage to myself, and just inflating the fortunes of others who, quite often, market a less than top quality product, at an inflated price. Value for money is the key, not spending for spending's sake.

Huwcyn wrote:Well, Cardi or not, I do like to spend money for anything beneficial to myself, or to help the more needy in this world, but I draw the line at spending where I cannot see any conceivable advantage to myself, and just inflating the fortunes of others who, quite often, market a less than top quality product, at an inflated price. Value for money is the key, not spending for spending's sake.

I agree, I do expect quality 8)