QUESTION: Is the Juliet X-Metal Ruby specifically LARGER-SIZED? Compared to other Juliets (Carbon, Plasma, 24K etc.)?

[V1P3R_Z029]

Hi & Good day to everyone,

I had a pair of Oakley Juliet X-Metal Ruby sunglasses (sold a long time ago). When I hadthem, I already owned an existing pair of Oakley Juliet Carbon Black (which were my daily-use sunglasses). I instantly noticed that there was a significant different in size between the two, particularly the wider nosebridge width on the Juliet X-Metal Ruby.

Of course, the Carbon Black I own is unserialized (i.e 4th Gen?) but the X-Metal Ruby was serialized. Unfortunately, because of its enlarged nosebridge size I had to let them go since I was not able to wear them comfortably.

I am very much on the lookout to acquire the Juliet X-Metal finish again, but I'm afraid if the default size of all Juliet X-Metal finish frames are always LARGER than the normal 4th Gen unserialized frames. Because then I won't be able to wear them...



Could someone help clarify this with me?
It would be highly appreciated.

Cheers all!

 

[docrusty]

All the Juliet's were the same size. You may have had more wear on the flex couplers in the nose bridge of the carbon pair to explain the difference.

 

[xxmetalmania]

loose flex couplers

 

[V1P3R_Z029]

All the Juliet's were the same size. You may have had more wear on the flex couplers in the nose bridge of the carbon pair to explain the difference.

My 4th Gen Plasma Juliet (currently owned).



I think even in these pics compared, the nosebridge size difference is fairly noticeable.

 

[V1P3R_Z029]

loose flex couplers

Really???
So the flex couplers actually have an effect on the malleability of the metal nosebridge???

 

[docrusty]

Really???
So the flex couplers actually have an effect on the malleability of the metal nosebridge???

Has no effect on malleability but the flex couplers have everything to do with the orbitals range of motion around the nose bridge.

 

[V1P3R_Z029]

It's ridiculously miniscule, but my 4th Gen Plasma Juliet measured at 2.8cm width.


Whereas the 1st Gen X-Metal Ruby measures at 3.0cm width.

Yet, I noticed quite the difference in size & fit when I compared the two frames. I'm still quite convinced the 1st Gen X-Metal Ruby had an enlarged nosebridge...

 

[andr3]

Please excuse my picures - I had to hold the vernier caliper in one hand and the camera in the other - but I meassured properly. My Ti/Gold (2nd gen) and X-Metal/Ruby (1st gen) are both 29.8 mm. I also have another Ti/Gold (1st gen) which is 30.0 mm (no picture here).

I think those are all well within tolerance of the investment casting process, which inherently is more precise than other casting processes but still not terrible accurate when compared to other production methods like milling from a block for example. You're likey to see shrinkage as the metal cools in the mold. Also no two molds are going to be exactly the same, So I would image the spec width of the nose bridge width mold was 30.0 mm.

To see shrinkage down to 28 mm seems excessive though. Since all of them saw grinding to smooth over casting marks maybe they had to remove more material on your pair. That shouldn't matter in terms of fit though. Have you measured the press fit pin distance? Should be identical.
As a fix to your fit problem: worn out flex couplers has already been mentioned. There are also two different size nose bombs. Maybe try the larger ones if the other pair is too wide for you.

 

[THE X-MAN]

correct what @andr3 said.castings are close but never exactly the same.

 

[Slojack]

A lot of changes to manufacturing happened between Gen 1 and 4.