🦘Romeo 1 Jordan Information Page - At least 11 differences from a normal R1

[ethanhunt-2010]

I'm not an expert, but I have a few R1J frames and several regular R1 frames. Easiest for you to do is remove the lens and measure it with a caliper. There is a difference between R1J lenses and regular R1, one won't fit at all or it will be too loose. The difference is very easy to tell when both lenses are side by side, see post # 40 on this thread.

🦘Romeo 1 Jordan Information Page - At least 11 differences from a normal R1

is that the original foam? I need to get foam for mine. Yes! Everything original and new like in the first day! Time capsule item, crazy!

www.oakleyforum.com

The etching on the lens you have is more like the second picture on post #4.

🦘Romeo 1 Jordan Information Page - At least 11 differences from a normal R1

Updated 13th May, 2020 by @cacatman If you have any interesting information/corrections, please leave a comment! Introduction In the Oakley community, 4 digit serialled X-metal Romeo 1s are often called "Jordan R1" x-metals. However, although Michael Jordan was sponsored by Oakley for 10 years...

www.oakleyforum.com

Thanks Alternative. I read that post too. And I agree with you on post #4. However, using that post as reference, if the lens on my R1J was from a regular Romeo1, then it shouldn’t have fit on my R1J frame since lens from a 4-digit lens is basically a little smaller compared to a regular Romeo 1 lens. So are you implying that my R1J is probably a fake one?

 

[ethanhunt-2010]

I don't know, the etching on that lens look like a regular R1. Also, the serials on the R1 Jordan frames I have are on the bottom portion of the nose bridge, not right under the X logo.

I just found this now from a seller on ebay. If you zoom in on the serial in the first photo, the serial etching is similar to mine. What do you think?

 

[Alternative]

Thanks Alternative. I read that post too. And I agree with you on post #4. However, using that post as reference, if the lens on my R1J was from a regular Romeo1, then it shouldn’t have fit on my R1J frame since lens from a 4-digit lens is basically a little smaller compared to a regular Romeo 1 lens. So are you implying that my R1J is probably a fake one?

Unless I can inspect it in person, I don't know if that is a real R1J frame or regular R1, especially with a serial placement at the wrong spot. I just haven't seen an R1J frame with serial placement like on a regular R1. It may very well be a real R1J frame with a set of regular R1 lenses trimmed to fit. You need to take out those lenses and measure them to confirm.

 

[ethanhunt-2010]

Unless I can inspect it in person, I don't know if that is a real R1J frame or regular R1, especially with a serial placement at the wrong spot. I just haven't seen an R1J frame with serial placement like on a regular R1. It may very well be a real R1J frame with a set of regular R1 lenses trimmed to fit. You need to take out those lenses and measure them to confirm.

I appreciate that Alternative. Thank you.

 

[Steven Goldberg]

I just found this now from a seller on ebay. If you zoom in on the serial in the first photo, the serial etching is similar to mine. What do you think?

View attachment 949950

View attachment 949951

View attachment 949952

Massive degenerate

****mint conviction, whoops ****

 

[pjd1234]

Looks like matebr??

 

[gpstar]

I agree. I am also scouring the internet about the etching as well of any possible flaws or imperfection on the etching process then or is it just no ideal type of etching standards followed. Or simply my R1J is a sus item. want to be sure especially that I am selling my R1J. Just to be honest with any interested buyer.

I just need an honest opinion from any experts here. If you find my R1J fake, I can take that and I would immediately pull it down from all marketplace platforms that I posted it on. However, if in your opinion that my R1J is just unique and in its own right, I would also appreciate that as well.

Thank you.

I agree the etching is not correct for a R1 jordan. There were some fake aftermarket x-metal etched lenses floating around for awhile, these could be one of them that were made to fit the jordan orbitals.

As for the frame, I have seen ghost serial numbers on R1 Jordan’s at the top of the bridge but the real final number would always be printed on the bottom. See here:

Suspect 4 digit R1 on feebay

Anyone seen this yet? OAKLEY X-METAL ROMEO 1.0 TI SUNGLASSES MICHAEL JORDAN SUPER RARE #### SERIAL NO. | eBay Claims to be an original 4 digit R1. I can't see the etch and I don't have a square stem R1 to compare to but that serial looks suspicious as ****. Pic for Frank since he doesn't...

www.oakleyforum.com

Also it could be a franken pair and cobbled together with 6 digital orbitals. This has happened before: see here:

For Sale - Jordan R1 frame.

If you can take out the lens with the etching and post a top down photo here, that would help to identify it.

 

[ethanhunt-2010]

I agree the etching is not correct for a R1 jordan. There were some fake aftermarket x-metal etched lenses floating around for awhile, these could be one of them that were made to fit the jordan orbitals.

As for the frame, I have seen ghost serial numbers on R1 Jordan’s at the top of the bridge but the real final number would always be printed on the bottom. See here:

Suspect 4 digit R1 on feebay

Anyone seen this yet? OAKLEY X-METAL ROMEO 1.0 TI SUNGLASSES MICHAEL JORDAN SUPER RARE #### SERIAL NO. | eBay Claims to be an original 4 digit R1. I can't see the etch and I don't have a square stem R1 to compare to but that serial looks suspicious as ****. Pic for Frank since he doesn't...

www.oakleyforum.com

Also it could be a franken pair and cobbled together with 6 digital orbitals. This has happened before: see here:

For Sale - Jordan R1 frame.

If you can take out the lens with the etching and post a top down photo here, that would help to identify it.

Thanks for your opinion gpstar. I truly appreciate it. However, I click on the first link you sent, the finish there quite obvious that its a knockout fake. Texture of the frame just look rough compared with my R1J. As to the 2nd link, mine, doesn’t have any shadow at all. It is just clean and clear. The only difference is the serial is just off its usual place.

I thought about removing the lens but that would be too much of a trouble at this time. So what I did was cruise the net to checkout posting of Romeo 1 of others with exposed serials. My pair is even better.

Such a crazy situation I am in. Reading about lots of article or forum about R1or R1J. Yet I found was certain was that the ONLY R1J is the one worn by MJ. And no definite article or write up about the correct position of the etching nor the right lens for either the R1J and the R1 written by SOMEONE who was an Oakley engineer and who was actually part of the manufacturing process so we would know. Almost all of what I read was purely based on what was the ideal or what is in their collection. I other worlds we do not have enough information just yet.

Maybe this mystery, along with why is there a 4 or 6 digit R1, why was the 4 digit called R1J and the like.

If my pair is fake then let it be. It feels right when I wear them. Besides, if there really are fake ones circulating out there and that good, then it may cast a bad spell on the authentic ones. It has to be stop before it floods the grey market.

Anyways, thanks again gpstar.

 

[Ntituner]

I read somewhere that there is no official MJ R1 (oakley released version) - this is a fact. 1st gen R1 were just simply assumed as MJ by collectors or maybe started by a middleman in a quest to raise the price. Some of them claimed MJ R1 should be <5k in serial and now all 4 digits are. Anyway, i think the idea is that having an R1 with low serial (4 digit) is a must for a Oakley Romeo fanatic and since it was tagged as MJ R1 then it will be like it is no matter there is official or not.

 

[Funky-Trixtar]

I read somewhere that there is no official MJ R1 (oakley released version) - this is a fact. 1st gen R1 were just simply assumed as MJ by collectors or maybe started by a middleman in a quest to raise the price. Some of them claimed MJ R1 should be <5k in serial and now all 4 digits are. Anyway, i think the idea is that having an R1 with low serial (4 digit) is a must for a Oakley Romeo fanatic and since it was tagged as MJ R1 then it will be like it is no matter there is official or not.

If you look through the first pages of this Thread, you'll find, there were differences between the first up to 9999 frames R1s and later Serial models.