/fa/ - Fashion

>>14359957
Build quality

You're paying for materials used. Sweet spot is like $20-$50, anything over that and you're paying premium for brand. Just get a nice unbranded pair in gunmetal or something, also never wear aviators.

>>14359967
>never wear aviators.

the only reason people dont wear aviators is because they're self-aware that theyre too beta to pull them off.
And it's not my intention to be a hater when saying that, it's just how it is.

>>14359971
>wanting to look like an amerimutt bluelivesmatter pig

cringe, kys you fat fucking cunt

>>14359967
>Never wear aviators
But I am an aviator though.

>>14359967
Do these count? theyre obviously aviators but i dont feel like they give off that tryhard vibe most aviators without see-through lenses give

Mines
They’re prescriptions for the road.

>>14359976
Nigger

You’re just broke. Prada, Cartier, LV, etc glasses are 1000x sicker than some good enough 20$ shades.

>>14360088
how so?

>>14360011
autism-core

>>14360105
How? Please explain.

>>14360107
The random shapes in the arms are the type of thing that's only worn by fedora tipping autists. They should be simple in design. Also the general style looks too 90's.

>>14359989
yellow aviators just say
>I really really want to be Johnny Depp in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

>>14360096
Everybody sees you are no poorfag

>>14359976
It depends on the aviators. If your tint is too dark to see your eyes it has that vibe, lighter tints look better. Also ray ban aviators look horrible, Carrera makes way better frames.

>>14360088
gaultier

>>14360115
Hmm thanks good to know

>>14359957
Build quality but also just the brand. They're not worth almost $200 and definitely not the 300-400 things like Oakleys cost.
I'm glad people think aviators shouldn't be worn, I love mine and it looks good

>>14360011
How much? Nice Oaks. I bought a pair of valves for $50 and they were real but I didn't like how the plastic felt desu

>>14360362
Also nice choice

>>14360405
Stfu tripfag

>>14359971
he's right, aviators are for advanced clearance only. gotta know what you're doing to know they don't look cringe. They go along with leather jackets & such, if you are onions they will look out of place and thus exaggerate it.
jus be careful out there.

>>14359989
this would make it easier to pull em off yea

>>14359989
looks real good in this photo. see thru does help take the tryhard away. but johnny depp has the structure to wear them well. Also great fit alltogether.

>>14360011
those remind me of hank from breakingbad. in a bad way. fat bald dad vibe. maybe thats not you but thats what the glasses say to me

>>14359967
aviators are fine, also shop at discount places like tkmaxx, way easier to get nice fitting glasses and cheap enough not to make you vomit

>>14359957
i stopped buying expensive sunglasses they're not worth it you can get sunglasses with comparable quality as $200 sunglasses for $30 on amazon

>>14360529
Dude on the left mogging the fuck out of incel aviator

>>14359957
thinking about copping something like pic related

>>14359967
Wrong you're just paying the kike monopoly fee
https://youtu.be/voUiWOGv8ec

>>14361128
based and redpilled

>>14360529
glasses on the right girl are very nice, what are they?

Where to find sunglasses like these? I know theyre rimless cat eye, but I've never found anything remotely close

>>14361221

Oscar de la renta, pretty nice, build quality isn't good in my opinion but she likes them so....

>>14361232
don't

>>14359957
rayban faggots try hard to make you think that sunglasses are on par with horology and watch engineering.

There aren't any differences, neither in quality or practicality, just as long as you aren't buying a fake ban from the nigger down the street.

Any sunglasses with polarized lenses is good.
The rest is aesthetic, brand and materiel build, but typically every sunglasses is built on a nice armature.

>>14359971
>the only reason people dont wear aviators is because they're self-aware that theyre too beta to pull them off.


I wear aviators that look nice.
The problem with the turbofaggots aviators from Top Gun is that they don't fit every face, because of that retarded shape they got below the nose.

Another kind of aviators, like the one OP postes correct this flaw by making an oval shape instead of a triangular one.

>>14361128
Based and lenspilled

>>14359957
There are plenty of reasons.
1) As mentioned, build quality increases the price. This includes materials used, but most importantly, the quality of the lenses. Assuming you don't require a prescription, you're paying for either proprietary technology embedded within the lenses (think adaptive brightness/darkness), extra coatings (polarization, etc.), and the obvious question of if the lenses transmit light equally throughout the range.
2) After the technology of the actual glasses comes the brand markup.
3) Then, how it makes our face look.

There is a significant difference between shit sunglasses you get at the carnival as a prize and a pair of Maui Jims, which are known inside and outside of the industry as having the best lens technology of them all. Similarly, a pair of John Ford sunglasses will have stellar build quality when compared with a pair by Oakley.

For specialists, there are other things to consider. High altitude sunglasses for mountainclimbing or piloting exist, and the best ones are clearly from Julbo, which is surprisingly not expensive considering what they offer. Similarly, sporting glasses that have interchangeable lenses are perhaps best purchased from Oakley; you treat the frames as disposable, but the lenses and variety are what is important.

If you want to sit at an Italian seaside cafe on vacation, obviously you go Gucci. The list is endless.

I have many pairs, and they all serve their function. I wear the Maui Jims the most, because they're the best driving glasses I've ever owned. I wear my Julbos when I'm in the North and snowblindness is a real danger, and I wear all the others for fun at random times.

One company that surprised me recently was ICBerlin, who make 'unbreakable' frames combined with 'unbreakable' lenses. They're super light, super comfy, and they have wonderful shapes and tech. They're atrociously expensive...but what can you do.

I get expensive sunglasses because I like expensive shit, I like the feel of it. I've had enough cheap garbage and nice stuff to tell the difference. Expensive lenses are much better, if you don't have true 20/20 it doesn't matter I guess but when your vision is good you can telk the difference. I also generally just don't like fakes or cheap stuff, never satisfied with them, they never really last or feel nice. Also you're not going to find vintage aviator optyl acetate sun frames for $50, and if you do link me.

didn't want to start a new thread so i'll use this one. anyone know what frames these are?

>implying all these brands make their lenses in-house and not have them made by a few third-parties that probably supply 90% of the market
lmao

>>14363110
There's certainly more than one lens supplier for the whole market, and even if you're just talking Luxotica, there are different lens materials that are used in different prices ranges of sunglasses, not to mention the quality(minimal lens distortion) depending on whether the lens was made in germany or china.