Shopping for new sunglasses

Based on the recommendation of an eye doctor years ago I only buy polarized sunglasses. He suggested them since I was traveling and driving a lot and needed to protect my eyes from UV rays. I do not wear contacts or eye glasses so I can get whatever I want.

For years I bought Oakley sunglasses because I liked their design and lightweight metal frames that lasted for a long time. I had my first pair for over 7 years before I stupidly left them while traveling in Vietnam in 2006. I went threw a few pairs of cheap ones before getting a new pair in 2008. I again bough Oakleys since I liked what they offered.

Apparently their quality went down quite a bit but their prices were high. I have had my pair break twice since owning them and I have sent them back for repair twice. They broke for a third time (arms fell off all three times) only a week or so after I got them fixed. I have swan off Oakley for the rest of my life.

I recently saved up some money to finally replace them. Right now I literally have the arms super glued on as a band aid. I decided that I am not going to spend a month in southeast Asia without proper sunglasses. I went online and started to research polarized Ray-Ban sunglasses. I narrowed it down to a pair that I liked.

I got the model number and began searching on Google Shopping. The MSRP was $225(!) which is not uncommon for good, metal frame polarized sunglasses. I found a reputable eyeglasses website that got good reviews on Goolge Shopping. They had the same pair for $136. Much better!

My only let down is that they are back ordered. I should have them in a couple of weeks.  I can make it until my trip in November so I have no huge rush. It makes sense that the lowest price Ray-Ban retailer would be sold out. Patience pays when you are shopping.

I hope these are more durable than the Oakleys I have now. I don't abuse them or do anything out of the ordinary so I know that is not the issue. I personally believe poor engineering and design are the problem in this case.

0 comments: