Doctor, could you give me please an example of another theorie that conflict with this one I have said?? So I can see in which one I believe =P

Diego, I don't really subscribe to any one theory. To me, Ruby is just another lens. Put an Emerald lens in Black Hawk Down and X-Men and I have a feeling we'd be discussing the variations in hues of green.

Yeah, but dude, everytime someone says something contrary to what you believe you call them bitches. Is that really a discussion?

Nathaniel, but the ruby lenses didn't turn fire! I have a fire minute and have put them side to side. The color diference is very visible. The rubys are more "orangey" but never fire

It is said the rubys are more expensive because it takes 7 iridium baths and have less distortion and better vison. Can somebody say if it's truth??

I don't know about the 'extra Iridium' theory for Ruby; I always thought it was the trace elements and baking time that determined the Iridium colour. As for less distortion and better vision, no, Ruby is equal to but no better than other lenses in that respect.

As for the cost:
Ruby lenses are baked longer than other lenses, with the consequence of a higher failure rate among lenses. Ruby lenses are less efficient to produce and thus cost more. It may also be an 'exclusivity' (ugh) pricing.

since i live in indonesia and getting a deep red ruby is next to impossible or it'll be very expensive from ebay scalpers, so i'm gonna be honest with all of ya. those newer rubies is orange-y, yes. i do hope oakley release the deep red purply rubies again, yes. but all that doesn't mean that i dont' enjoy the orange-y ruby that's available. and if i hope that oakley will release the purplish rubies again, that's becos i want it for the sake of collection only, not becos it's more beautiful to me. trust me, i've seen lesser brands with redder lenses than current oakley's rubies, but i don't think it looks just as good as oakley's originals.

on a side note, when i joined o-review at it's early days, i remember there were a short batch of purplish rubies released at around the end of 2004. i'm sure some members will remember it. we were all discussing about those batches being less thick on the iridium coating, hence your eyes would be a bit visible thru the lens. but it's real purplish in color. i remember some members here bashing about the thin iridium and some liked it better than the orange ones. my point on mentioning this story is, i'd be getting terrible headache if i were Oakley and trying to meet the market's demand. i'd be thinking: we make the purplish one with less iridium(so that maybe it'll look more deeper in color?) and ppl start bashing us for cutting the iridium thickness down. n then we make it back to thick again, and ppl start to complain again.

call it fruby, orange ruby, lesser ruby, etc. to me it's still an oakley lens, which is famous not for the iridium colors, but for the clarity, quality, and impact protection. now, some of u are just luckier to get the deep red ones, others aren't that lucky(like me). what really bothers me is that those lucky ones bashing the orange-y ruby, for what? for bragging?? but then ofcourse these ppl aren't the worst. the worst kind of member are those who are already lucky to be able to get purplish ruby, and then get some more to deliberately make money out of ebay, all in meanwhile bashing fruby just to jack purple rubies prices up! i mean, hey! we also paid good money for our fruby or whatever u call it. so stop trying to make it less worthwhile just becos u're luckier than us or worse, just for your personal profit! i remember the days when ebay sellers doesn't recognize the term 1st gen 2nd gen blablabla. where did those come from? HERE on our beloved forums!!

for me the orange ruby hues are still beautiful to look at. orange to deep red on different lighting condition on the lenses. ppl still stare at my juliet wondering what lenses are those, but i don't really care bout that. what's important is i'm still happy with the fruby, and that's good enough for me. from now on, i'd rather discuss something else than joining in a debate of fruby vs purluby! sorry to everyone if i sound a bit emotional/harsh, but i really had enough.

edit: i'd like to welcome Diego Benito to the forums and joining us for the o-insanity. congrats to you Diego for getting a pair of xmetal/ruby xmen limited edition, and u don't bitch bout the orange-y ruby. and much respect to you for thinking it's still a ruby and it's still beautiful! i cannot agree more with you! :D

Well said Paul. I appluade your post.

Paul, very good points.. however i disagree ona few of them

i dont think that people want to bash oakley, however it seems to me that the cost cutting methods they have began implementing are ruining their image in general... the fact that oakley, one of the best companies on earth, that has broken down so many barriers in the field of eyewear, cant seem to make a lense that is red enough to compare to what the ruby lense was built to mimick (ruby quartz). i think that it is oakleys cost cutting in general that is , while increasing the companies market base, cutting down on the quality and love of hardcore fans that fell in love with the original and out of this world designs

Could you list these cost-cutting measures for us Hoots? And then connect that to how it's affecting their image 'in general'?

I still have to tell you that I have RUBY Fives 3.0 that cost not that much more than a ordinary Fives - and the fives lenses are bigger than the juliet ones 8)

Well on most other models, Ruby just cost as much as any other premium lense like Fire or Ti.

And the Juliet's still look good red or not. I think the so called 'cost cuttin measure's are just a matter of survival. If they found that the old Ruby lenses were not worth their while and the profit margin was essentially useless, can we blame them for finding an alternative route. I don't think anyone there could have imagine a slight shift in hue would cause such a stir.

Anyway welcome to the site Diego, you picked up a nice pair.

Could you list these cost-cutting measures for us Hoots? And then connect that to how it's affecting their image 'in general'?

With pleasure.

these are only some of the more visible ones.

#1. The reluctance of the company to spend a little more on their lenses (RUBY) to make them more desireable. Or on the development of new lenses.

#2. No longer laser etching serial numbers onto their x-metal sunglasses, so they can pump out more pairs with less individuality on basis of flooding the market.

#3. The obvious flaws in the current x-metal line. This includes the frames having locked up flex couplers or only one working flex coupler.

#4. The currently bland color selections on most frames. Especially the O-matter frames. It costs them more money to produce an FMJ frame, so they use very bland colors that are cheaper to produce (IE White, matte black, crystal black,polished black.)

#5. THe lack of special iridium lenses on most current pairs (the newer pairs, including the gascan, oildrum, and canteen) there are not fire or ice combos (except on the gascan) which is cheaper...

need i go on?

sorry, came in late on this thread, i've been saying this for about five years, but they are a business just like any other,

they need to cut costs and compete with the others, to get their name recognised etc, for years they've been niche, but niche dont pay the rent,

i really wish they had stuck to everything they did in their finest hour, which for me was the late nineties with the clothing and kevlar shoes, but then they'd be stuck there with a limited customer base,

right now they're hitting fashion hard but i have faith cos things like the flight deck are still coming out and i'm sure they'll keep the surprises coming....

but i agree with you on the old 'brown' issue with al the frames and lenses being a bit blah...

I think Justin did a very good job at pointing the issues that a lot of members have, Ruby or no ruby. As a whole most want more choices in frames and lenses, and its coming soon from what we heard, with the BTO program.

Sorry Eric, I respectfully disagree with what Justin has said. If people don't like or do like certain things, fair enough, no problem, but there have been some silly arguments made to buttress these feelings.

#1. The reluctance of the company to spend a little more on their lenses (RUBY) to make them more desireable. Or on the development of new lenses.

A) A little more? So you know the cost/benefit of Ruby lenses?
B) How do you know they aren't spending money on the development of new lenses?

#2. No longer laser etching serial numbers onto their x-metal sunglasses, so they can pump out more pairs with less individuality on basis of flooding the market.

That's just ridiculous. What does 'flooding the market' even mean? So you're saying that without the oppressive obstacle of etching serials Oakley can now ramp up X-Metal production to significantly higher levels?

And if making product available is bad, then they shouldn't be making the Ruby lenses you want. Which is it?

#3. The obvious flaws in the current x-metal line. This includes the frames having locked up flex couplers or only one working flex coupler.

Okay, that's one flaw, not flaws. You're batting 1 for 3.

#4. The currently bland color selections on most frames. Especially the O-matter frames. It costs them more money to produce an FMJ frame, so they use very bland colors that are cheaper to produce (IE White, matte black, crystal black,polished black.)

That's an appeal to emotion. The 'blandness' of a coloured frame has nothing to do with cost. Unless you're saying that the colours you listed are cheaper to make than neon pink, crystal blue, animal prints, and whatever else. As for FMJ frames, yeah they cost more money to make but they were also priced higher than non-FMJ frames. Again, I'd have to know the cost/benefit of FMJ frames and also whether that was the reason for their reduction.

#5. THe lack of special iridium lenses on most current pairs (the newer pairs, including the gascan, oildrum, and canteen) there are not fire or ice combos (except on the gascan) which is cheaper...

I'm not convinced Ice is more expensive to manufacture than Black Iridium. Say it is, alright, 2 for 5.

need i go on?

Well, I figure you have 2 good points there. You avoided my second question, which is how those 2 cost-cutting measures have damaged Oakley's image. Maybe Oakley's image has been damaged for you, but you're claiming that it's been damaged in general. So please tell me what Oakley's image used to be for most people or for a target audience larger than a handful of OR members, and now what it is, and show a causal link between that change and cost-cutting measures. If there has been any change, I would attribute it to stylistic changes or fashion trends, perhaps, and wouldn't describe it as 'damage', but hey, this is your argument, not mine.

If you don't like current offerings, you can just say so, but your claims don't hold up.

Oakley's image has been damaged for you,

Damn right it has.

and do you see them producink the neon pink or any stand out colors? no! And do you know why? Because it would cost them marketing money, and money to create whatever is necessary to produce those specific colors. Hey id dig the gascan if there was a FMJ+/Polished Aluminum/White Chrome Gascan with a cool lense... and they dont... becasue its more expensive... Oakley is selling out on what made it unique in the first place (innovative designs/incredibly cool looking lenses) in favor of mass marketing and a higher profit... Now I know that oakley needs to make a profit... thats what companies do, so i can understand them diversifying. However, I'm sure that we here are not the only ones who like the old out of this world styles and colors that oakley used to produce. In fact i KNOW that this is true because when i was In Buffalo at SGH a guy asked me about my ruby juliets and we ended up talking for about half an hour about how oakley is becoming another generic Gucci-esque company that is catering to the masses, while they leave their once loyal fans with little to no good stuff to buy. I think its great that oakley is diversifying BUT I think that it is important that they remember that they started out on the cutting edge, and falling of that razor blade forces them to be just another face in the crowd.

Well, I'd respond, but you'd just dodge my questions again and repeat yourself. Someone else get this thread back on track.

which is how those 2 cost-cutting measures have damaged Oakley's image.

oook

It's damaging their image by making them look like a mannstream company, instead of the high tech super cool company that oakley used to be... plain enough?

one person's opinion does not dictate the faults of Oakley, cost cutting, desgin, lens colours, etc. like EC says, no one really knows (except insiders of course) if Oakley isn't developing new lenses, new ideas, and new designs. as for the statement of no new Iridium lenses coming out is a bit unfair as well... there's been Amber Black Iridium Polarized, Violet Iridium, and maybe one or two more i can't think of, but those two i've mentioned has more or less gotten favourable feedback. there's also a lot of unique lens colours appearing from Total_O's auctions, so who knows? maybe hopefully those will trickle down to mass market.

Well, maybe i'll say shit but I'll try:
I think Justin has reason in an aspect: There's been LOT of time (over 6 years) we haven't seem a really excitant/awesome/perfect new pair of sunglasses like the zero line or the X metal line??
The ones Oakley has released these times are such "normal" ones. They haven't the Oakley soul.
I think that is what Justin is tryng to say, and he wants Oakley to take it shape back. With new "GOD" sunglasses.

Well, anyway I am not sure of what I'm talking but I think it has logic..

Thank you ;)

almost everything that has been said has merit. however, i think some people are too quick to judge and a bit impatient while making opinions. designwise and aesthetically, something as cool looking as a Time Tank must mean Oakley should have stuff developing in the meantime. just because what you see now doesn't necessarily mean they're not planning anything for the future.

Justin makes good points. Well done. Meh, I figure Oakley will crash and burn one day. It happens to every company that moves away from what made them popular.

Cost-cutting measures are way of the business world. Gotta please the shareholders that demand growth and improvement every year, which is quite reasonable. But something like that inevitably moves companies away from what made them successful in the first place. Like I said, I figure Oakley will crash and burn one day. They'll realize they need to get back to the basics and then obtain success again, after which the cycle starts all over.

Newbie question... From the good info on this thread, the Ruby Penny may seem to be a better choice than the Ruby Juliet? Someone stated that the Ruby lenses in the Penny might be redder and on the Oakley website, it states that the Penny comes with serial numbers where the Juliet no longer does. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks.

Well, most people find Juliet outlooking better than penny, and penny also goes well only on small heads...
But if having serial and the red colour of the lenses makesdifference to you, is better getting penny

OOohh.. my seat is hot reading this thread :)

Anyway, we dont know yet for sure whether or not the Juliet/Penny will come with serial # and how red the Ruby lens would look like... so cant jump to conclusions...