Sailing sunglasses...a question of style and taste, or are some better than others?

Greenheart

Greenheart

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Dec 2010
Messages
10,384
Visit site
I've seen some which float with a foam stretchy head-band. Not elegant or discreet but doubtless practical, as one would hope, paying the wrong side of £50.

The last pair I had were weird blue tinted things, so quite inadvertently I resembled a criminal genius from a Sherlock Holmes story. They were not robust.

Before that, I seem to remember owning any number of Don Johnson-esque black shades, 25years ago.

No-one can claim theirs are best on grounds of fashion, but is there a design-name associated with durable, inoffensively-styled, sensibly-priced sunglasses?

It's so long since I had a pair, people were still saying that wearing them was bad for the eyesight. Is that all history? I haven't been paying attention.
 
doug748 said:
Argos do a polarising pair for £12.99.

Look in the fishing section.

I have also had cheap ones from Aldi, or was it, Lidl.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thought...

...but the other thread has frightened me off any kind of economy-solution! I've only got one pair of eyes. :rolleyes:
 
dancrane said:
Thanks for the thought...

...but the other thread has frightened me off any kind of economy-solution! I've only got one pair of eyes. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Get yourself to Marks and Sparks... been buying theirs for about 5 years now... less than £20 and full UV protection... if they last a season I'm quids in, the pair I have at the moment are on their second... :D
 
In general I would ignore the stickers that say full, or 100% UV protection.
They are very unlikely to be truthful or at least mean what they say.
 
noelex said:
In general I would ignore the stickers that say full, or 100% UV protection.
They are very unlikely to be truthful or at least mean what they say.
Click to expand...

Aren't companies as big as M&S likely to have very assiduous legal teams checking such claims before their sunglasses carry them?
 
Had this discussion with my optician as I have always had Raybans at Rayban prices. Just lately though, I've been buying from Decathlon at 12-15 Euros a pop. She says that, as long as they have UV protection and you like them, the rest is just fashion and it doesn't matter what they cost.
 
If you do get expensive sun glasses, then get a pair you don't like. I used to get though a pair of Ray-Ban aviators a year either though losing or breaking them. Now I have a pair that a friend brought me that I don't particularly like and they're starting their third year this summer.
 
Hate hate hate polarising sunglasses! Try them before committing as not everyone gets on with the weird images they produce :)
 
dancrane said:
Aren't companies as big as M&S likely to have very assiduous legal teams checking such claims before their sunglasses carry them?
Click to expand...
They don't seem to be. When challenged the sunglasses companies claim they did not mean 100% UV protection. They meant 100% or the required standards. The standards are reasonably liberal, as they are designed to legislate minimum standards rather than best practice.
If you are concerned about macular degeneration as one poster has raised as an example, sunglasses can meet most countries standards and provide no protection at all for the UV wavelengths implicated in macular degeneration. Many of these will be labeled 100% UV protection.( Although to be fair the significance of the links between macular degeneration and UV are still unclear)
Nevertheless it is wrong that many, even most sunglasses with stickers that proclaim 100% UV protection, have at least some UV transmission. It is misleading and wrong in my view.
 
Last edited:
noelex said:
They don't seem to be. When challenged the sunglasses companies claim they did not mean 100% UV protection. They meant 100% or the required standards. The standards are reasonably liberal, as they are designed to legislate minimum standards rather than best practice.
If you are concerned about macular degeneration as one poster has raised as an example, sunglasses can meet most countries standards and provide no protection at all for the UV wavelengths implicated in macular degeneration. Many of these will be labeled 100% UV protection.( Although to be fair the significance of the links between macular degeneration and UV are still unclear)
Nevertheless it is wrong that many, even most sunglasses with stickers that proclaim 100% UV protection, have at least some UV transmission. It is misleading and wrong in my view.
Click to expand...

Oakley actually publish their transmission rates, and there is a surprising correlation between dark lenses and higher UV protection. If a company such as Oakley are unable to produce 100% UV protection with their R&D budget then I'd be amazed if the cheapies could get even close. It also I think implies that there is no "special coating" which will remove the UV and not the visible light.
 
noelex said:
When challenged the sunglasses companies claim they did not mean 100% UV protection. They meant 100% or the required standards. These standards are liberal, designed to legislate minimum standards rather than best practice. It is misleading and wrong in my view.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the warning! Very hard to know when 100% means just that. :(
 
planteater said:
I find polarising glasses can create weird moire patterns when viewing instruments. Very trippy!

I really despise designer labels so it's specsavers shades for me.
Click to expand...

While I sort of agree (I'm not into labels) you need to remember how some labels became designer. Oakley for instance made sunglasses and other eyewear with no distortion first and foremost so that people could do various sports more safely. The cheaper brands put no effort into this and I've had several cheap pairs which have had odd lensing effects which make quick reactions for things like cycling impossible, Only once they were associated with sport did others start to buy into the brand to look "cool". Same goes for Musto, Henry Lloyd and other sailing brands - they made good kit and worked their way up to being a label. They still make good kit, and probably still considerably better than the cheap stuff but unfortunately the premium price puts many off. It's worth some investigation as to why something is popular beyond just assuming it's a label :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top