You keep stating this idea. And you are failing to produce any reasoning or logic to back it up. As Christopher Hitchens said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Not to mention, are you quoting a sunglass hut sales seminar?
"sooooo" is like 5 times better? "sooooooo" is like 7 times better"? And are you now saying that waterspots are now taken care of by the AR coating? Or are you trying to squeeze in an extra coating here?
So here was my criticism
Then you just reiterated what I called out as BS.Matteo V wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:42 am2-"7x more comfort"? You have got to think people are complete idiots here. Not only is this a ridiculous claim, but I love the "ghost images" thing! Are you saying that when you are wearing regular polarized sunglasses with no AR on them, you see 'dead people'? Frikin absolutely hilarious. So you get off at least one more lie, while the other one could possibly be citing a BS marketing study. Thus for that one, you get off with maybe only exaggeration, but more likely you know you are citing someone else's lie.
BS times BS isn't suddenly the truth, it is still just BS
Thanks for fessing up to this one. So to be clear, polarizied film does not eliminate 100% of the glare. It nearly elimnates it in one plane, but only reduces it in proportion to how near that plane is to the polarizing. A water's rippled surface is not flat, thus polarizing does not eliminate all of the glare off the water.
The problem with polarizing is that it does a very good job of nearly eliminating your ability to see surface detail highlited by reflectance of light in one plane. Other planes of reflectence are not eliminated, but reduced to a varying degree. This means that a kiter completely loses detail on one plane and can't read the surface in that plane. That is what i learned a long time ago - Polarizing is great for seeing past the water's surface (in one plane), but sucks for reading the water's surface. Polarizing does not allow you to do both see past the waters surface and read it.
Here is one site about markup for sunglasses that states the average price for glasses is $300.
https://www.businessinsider.com/things- ... -stores-15
Here is another saying $100-$300
And no one actually needs the Oil of Oley coating - it is a sales gimmick which any benefit that it does have, is out weighed by the outrageous markup.
So are you making my point for me? High end sunglasses have little to no warranty, though they should since they are one of the highest markup products. So you have made the point that prescription glasses have many times more value? Does this not just confirm the fact that expensive sunglasses have little value for their price?PullStrings wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:12 pmRX made by many places also warranty those high end lenses for 2 years 2 times to not scratch included in the price
Ansi Z87.1 wrap safety frames are around $85 ....SPY and WILEY-X as examples....they are sold at that price with clear or just tinted lenses non-polarized
Lenses can just come out to have the RX put in
Why the heck are you adding this in????????? You are not selling progressive lens sunglasses at your kiosk, are you? My reference to prescription glasses was only to illustrate that one of the highest markup consumer goods (still custom made for each customer) is still cheaper or just as expensive as your mass produced expensive sunglasses. You have not addressed that fact. Nor will you as it shows that the biggest rip off of consumers is expensive sunglasses.
I had to give a video response to this one. Written word just could not do it justice.
And hey, I think this may be my first meme.....