Cost much more than that Dann, for a start each pair takes 3 weeks to make.

Nickel causes problems with Skin alergies. X metal and all oakley frame materials are hypoalergenic.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 11/22/2004 5:50:42 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

well 'nickel' would still make a good name, it's not like pennies are made out of anything besides x-metal

did we get the image before the japanese sites this time?

John Heins (john - 11/22/2004 12:05:35 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Possibly! I haven't seen it on any other sites yet.

Ed Chiu (eddyc - 11/22/2004 1:10:45 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

It's on the Oakley World BBS. I believe Dann posted it or at least responded to them posting it and his photoshops. We did have it first though, as far as all of them that I have been checking.

Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 11/22/2004 1:21:42 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Man, I'm so dissapointed with the new romeos. When I saw the pictures on a japanese forum, I just started to laugh at them like crazy cause I was sure it was just a lame photoshop job done with the juliets. X metal are supossed to give the image of something indestructible and sturdy, and they give us a half frame??? I just don't get it. I thought that after all those years without any new x metals they would come with something exeptional, and all they did is cut a juliet frame and replace the superb hammer earstems with some new ones with a glued icon.

They really dissapointed me when they started to do some "rapper" glasses, but this raises the bar.

maxime petit (Envoye Nounoune - 11/22/2004 3:50:51 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

The 4 pics are exactly what you say, Photoshops of Juliet with the bottom erased.

The only real image is the one on the forum home page. and thats just from one angle, i suggest you wait till you see the frame in the flesh before you judge it properly.

Pictures can be deceiving.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 11/22/2004 9:07:43 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

pretty sure she was referring to the actual product pic, since she referred to the lack of hammer earstems and the presence of a standard "O" icon

John Heins (john - 11/22/2004 3:46:54 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Have Oakley given you the OK to post them Dann, We do have the pics here in the UK but as yet they havent been sent out to any of the sales team.

I wouldn't want you getting into any trouble from HQ for posting it too early.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 11/22/2004 10:01:18 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

thought you said you did have the oakley OK..

and can anyone explain where this image actually came from? how it got out, etc

John Heins (john - 11/22/2004 4:35:52 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I do like the polished frames, im gonna wait till i see the other colours in the flesh and try them on before i decide what im gonna do, im still worried about the half frames but they are growing on me.

Alexis Watkins (LEX7 - 11/22/2004 11:08:36 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm glad mostly everyone agrees that these are overpriced - official Oakley employees on the site - take notice please - and cut the price back to X Metal levels - 275 or less - and throw the hatchet down to 200 because they really are not worth 260. I've studied marketing and there have been enough companies that tried increasing profits by overpricing their products and that eventually either led to loss of face or loss of sales - I'm suggesting Oakley needs to think twice before releasing these new X 's at 375$
Thank you
Tre

( - 11/22/2004 11:15:35 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

yes im still concerned about the price tag.

Alexis Watkins (LEX7 - 11/23/2004 12:01:09 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still wondering what the sizing is gonna be like on the Romeo II's, if they are going to be the same size as the Romeos then its gonna look pretty odd. Otherwise, if they are Juliet-sized then maybe they could work lol.

Leo Wong (DarkGrieverX - 11/22/2004 7:52:12 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

wow very nice !!

but the price =( .. I think for those who would like to purchase this should wait a little, they may change their minds and lower the price I hope.

Dann, are those rubber temple shocks or would they be spring hinges ?

Romel G (MelG - 11/22/2004 8:25:22 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I am not liking the design at all. It looks like a Juliet with the lower part of the frame chop off. Very un-orignal if you ask me.

Thomas S (Thomas64 - 11/22/2004 8:35:06 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Just by the look of the earstems, I'd say that it uses rubber T-shox like the Why 8.0 and 8.1.

keith okabe (LocoMoco - 11/22/2004 10:01:57 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

yeah, non-interchangeable t-shocks is my guess

and i'd say it's about the size of juliet, which would be good.

i don't mind inflated prices for the purpose of avoiding EVERYONE having a pair, but yeah. 275 is inflated enough.

a thought i had is that they might be down-pricing the THUMP so people would actually buy it, and as a result they might boost the price of romeo II to compensate, hoping the x-metal prestige would sell enough pairs. juust a guess.

John Heins (john - 11/22/2004 9:18:14 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

NO I seriously doubt they're lowering the price of Thump and increasing the price of X metal to compensate, I just think this is a stupid marketing strategy to
1) increase profits by a lot
2) try and gauge whether the market would be willing to pay an idiotic price for something new

If many people do go and buy the Romeo II, dont be surprised if next year we see Thump II for 700 dollars and Juliet II for 500. All I'm going to say is - Oakley should definetly reconsider the price. I'm an Oakley fan too but I'm not an idiot. 275 dollars is the max they should go to..... and we as consumers should make it clear that in this case "The price is not right"

Tre Go (trego33 - 11/23/2004 1:10:56 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

You think you guys have it bad, the average price of JULIET here in the UK is £235 at todays exchange rate thats $437.

So you guys dont have it so bad believe me.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 11/23/2004 8:00:45 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Id like to make the point again how hard it is to be an oakley collector in the UK
we never get all the big sales you guys get in the US.


Alexis Watkins (LEX7 - 11/23/2004 12:06:26 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

What big sales? Other than the Oakley Parking Lot sale, that isn't for everyone, we never really get them on sale except that once in a while lucky find when a store is going out of business. I was told years ago that retailers are, under no circumstances, never allowed to lower the price of their Oakleys or include them in sales.

Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 11/23/2004 8:48:38 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Crap, you think you guys have it bad, In Australia X-metals retail for $500!!! Waaaaay too much. The 24k XX X-metals retail for $700! (Dear lord, why????)

I own two pairs of Juliets, but have never and will never pay retail. I love the glasses, but the prices....my god the prices.

In regards to the Romeo II, it looks nice, but why even associate it with the Romeo brand name? It shares absoultely no design aesthetics with the Romeo.

The price is crazy. I would like to see them in real life.

Andrew Ford (ford - 11/23/2004 9:17:10 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah - I've said it before, Canadian prices too are steep (though maybe not as steep as other places)

All X-Metals with Ruby - $600
Thump - $550/$700
Hatchet - $380
Polarized Monster Dog - $255

Maybe I don't want to know the Canadian price for Romeo 2.0 (polarized!)- my wallet might explode.

E C (EastCoast - 11/23/2004 11:16:07 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

yeah, but i want to see all these translated to a single standard dollar - you can't just compare the number of american dollars to the number of canadian or new zealand dollars..

John Heins (john - 11/23/2004 9:40:31 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Well $700 Aussie Dollars equals $550 USD. $500 Aussie Dollars equals $393 USD. That's a lot more than we pay for our X-Metals.

Are ECs prices in Canadian Dollars or US Dollars?

All X-Metals with Ruby - $600 = $505 USD
Thump - $550/$700 =$462/$589 USD
Hatchet - $380 = $319 USD
Polarized Monster Dog - $255 = $189 USD

Quite a bit of a mark-up there too.


Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 11/23/2004 11:00:24 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------