J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by Huwcyn

No, no Tony! You have misunderstood the saying.

The saying supports your philosophy, (and mine). If you buy a cheap product, then you are more likely to HAVE to buy another fairly soon, not necessarily cheap the second time. In other words - it's a false economy.

My whole argument is that you don't necessarily buy good value, when you pay exorbitantly for a 'brand' name.

No Tony, I'm afraid you don't always do.

I subscribe to the saying 'Buy cheap, buy twice', which I find is largely true, but I'm afraid the converse is nowhere near so true.

ise,

Thank you for that scientific explanation. The problem is not many of the more expensive products on the market, back up their marketing with the science. Could that be because they are not really superior, but hang on a 'name'.

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.

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'.

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.

ise wrote:

It could be you've damaged your eyes already then :)

The problem is a lot of cheap glasses don't offer adequate eye protection for prolonged use at height in intense sunlight. I've bought cheap glasses in the UK for driving there and they're just fine, but they don't work well day after day at height.

As a point of fact, having polarised glasses isn't going to help you in snow, reflected light from snow isn't polarized, as a recap about 80% light hitting snow is reflected so that's quite a bit of light. Obviously it doesn't do any harm to have polarized glasses but if that's the measure you're using to select glasses for skiing or mountain use it's not a good measure.

I only mentioned bollé, cebe and alpina because you can pick them up for under 50 quid a pair and they seem to last well, I wear them for work and they're fine and I know other people that do as well.

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

ise wrote:

Huwcyn wrote:Until I can be convinced that there are good science/technology reasons for their high price, being a Cardi, I will consider Oakleys a rip-off.

they do seem expensive, I use bollé, cebe and alpina in harsher conditions than skiers would experience and they're fine without the price tag

They're not cheap either.

I can't see that they do anything more than a decent pair of polarised for £10 -£15 would do. People think they need the brand name to be credible - sad.

Tips on ski sunglasses Started by User in Ski Chatter, 70 Replies
No, no Tony! You have misunderstood the saying. The saying supports your philosophy, (and mine). If you buy a cheap product, then you are more likely to HAVE to buy another fairly soon, not necessarily cheap the second time. In other words - it's a false economy. My whole argument is that you don't necessarily buy good value, when you pay exorbitantly for a 'brand' name.

Messages posted by : Huwcyn