Somebody tell me the Redux is ugly!

[Tom.]

The more I think of it, more I am convinced that the ugliness is on purpose.

Oakley of the 2000s, it was all about the Plates, Moons, Racing Jackets, Zeros and Subzeros. All of these are icons today but were considered downright ugly back then. Too bold, too radical for the time. Something only sportspersons and celebrities could wear and not look like a dork.

In the 2010s-2020s, Oakley had quite a few goodlooking designs, some of which are bestselling even today. But this was also a period of tame, inoffensive designs - standard squares, rectangles and even aviators. Most of them are already forgotten. Bottlecap, Catalyst, Breadbox, Enduro, Targetline, Gibston, Holston, Elmont - who remembers these?

The current era: The bold, punch-in-your-face, ugly. The Plantaris, The Xeus. The Redux. These Ugly / Radical designs have just one purpose : to become a topic of discussion. People hate the design, but they also keep talking about it instead of just forgetting about it and letting it slip out of memory. That keeps the brand relevant and in the eyes of buyers.

If I reimagine myself as someone mildly interested in sunglasses, not biased (or rather, unknowledgeable) towards any brand in particular. And then, I see Inkkoonce with his 24k Kato. The first thought to cross your mind would be - "WTF are those glasses??" I would probably do a search and come across the Oakley brand. I might start exploring the collections, and just maybe end up buying one of the less radical designs. Oakley just scored one. Meanwhile the other guy in standard black Holbrooks probably didn't even get a second glance - that was just a regular square sunglass, wasn't it?

Seems plausible for sure!

 

[cg_y2k]

@kmbijit they are cool! not as cool as the original but I still think they're cool... especially the Oakley x Piet EJ Redux collab

 

[Skoobaskunk]

Wouldn't say they are ugly, but as you say they appear to be too small for you and may not suit the shape of your face.

 

[The Koonce]

Hmmm maybe…

Sell them. They suck!

 

[OforOscar]

Mannn i put them on for fun the other day at the Oakley store and kind of wish i got a pair very cool frame

 

[The Proprietary Molecule]

Mannn i put them on for fun the other day at the Oakley store and kind of wish i got a pair very cool frame

Just like going to the grocery store, do not try sunglasses on when you are hungry or tired.

 

[OforOscar]

Just like going to the grocery store, do not try sunglasses on when you are hungry or tired.

Haha no kidding

 

[cheshirecat]

I must respectfully disagree. I do not find the Redux ugly at all. In my view, it's similar to comparing an old Porsche with a new one—of course, the modern Porsche is not the same product it was in the 1940s to 1980s, but it still carries a distinct charm and preserves the original vibe in a new and interesting way.
If there is something I would consider genuinely lacking in aesthetic appeal, it would be the Eye Jacket 3.0.

 

[cg_y2k]

I must respectfully disagree. I do not find the Redux ugly at all. In my view, it's similar to comparing an old Porsche with a new one—of course, the modern Porsche is not the same product it was in the 1940s to 1980s, but it still carries a distinct charm and preserves the original vibe in a new and interesting way.
If there is something I would consider genuinely lacking in aesthetic appeal, it would be the Eye Jacket 3.0.

10 out of 10 take

That being said, the OG EJs are in a different class/level than the Redux.

 

[Shmo]

I would have to say that the Redux not my type. Though everyone has their preferences.

My preference for EJ is:

EJ > EJ 2.0 > EJ 3.0 > Redux

I would say the 3.0 has the edge over redux, but not by much. The 3.0 more closely resembles the Plantaris than Eye Jacket. While the Redux doesn't really resemble any of them.