Even though almost no one here can afford a pair of C Six, there will always be a market for luxury goods. There are approximately 9.3 MILLION households in the US alone that qualify as millionaires.Somehow I doubt those "millionares" care at all about Oakley... Statistically speaking, they care more about having a $1500 or $4000 pair of glasses to show off. And they'll drop Oakely in a second for the next pair of competitor's glasses that show up with a 4-digit pricetag. But the overwhelming majority of us who eat, breathe, sleep, and live Oakley will probably never see either of these pieces because Oakley has chosen to price us out of the market. Sad.
The only difference between a Juliet and a C Six is your personal definition of attainable.Not for me. Oakley seems to have dropped the ball on the C6 in different respects. The Juliet is far more common, but a far superior pair of glasses IMO.
Have you guys seen the C Six Packaging, very nice:The bad part is that the majority of people who get these will probably just toss the packaging like it was a paper grocery bag. Or least recycle it.
wonder what they have on thatSupposed to be video of the manufacturing process. Shot with RED I believe.
Isn't that sort of a tall tale, considering we all saw Lance Armstrong with a version? Did he not OWN them?The pair Lance wore, belong to sports marketing. For a while they were the display pair used for promo shots, and display. (I even saw one shot where they took a close up of the Lens because it still had some of Lance's sweat on it. so much for hydrophobic LOL)
Lance's sweat on the lens...There goes the marketing for hydrophobic coatings....HAHAI know, LOL. I was just editing my post with the same point. I wonder if because they were one of the first prototypes that maybe they were not hydrophobic?