/fa/ - Fashion

>being THAT poor
Ahahahahahaha.

Dude, Oakley Gascans are like $100. Trust me, it's worth saving up for.

>>7780993
im sure your mommy and daddy pay for everything and u waste all ur money on clothes and gas for your v6 douchebag car. I am currently paying for my house and my university at the same time i dont have 100 bucks for a simple pair of sunglasse.

Just buy them off eBay.

>>7780969
forever 21 men
h&m

>>7781167
kek

>>7781167
> mommy and daddy pay for everything
Yep. Like it is something bad.
>u waste all ur money on clothes and gas for your v6 douchebag car
Nope.
>I am currently paying for my house and my university
Don't be that butthurt.
>i dont have 100 bucks for a simple pair of sunglasse.
The point of my message there was a special thread called "fuccboi" for you, fuccboi.

Also, sorry for making you feel bad, I don't know about good quality fakes, but here's the site which has the cheapest original raybans and other popular brands (even thought they are about ~$100).
http://www.selectspecs.com/Sunglasses/Designer/Ray-Ban/d43/#.Uu2aSPmSxAw

>>7781026
Fuck those are ugly.

Nothing wrong with cheap shades, it's not like we're talking jewellery here. However only cakeboys buy replicas.

>>7781203
i only want replica because if feel like the nameless brand have less model choices

>>7781167
You can invest in 100 pairs of cheap shoes or invest $100 in one pair of good shoes. The latter is a better investment in the long run.
The same goes for glasses. Buying brand-name knock-off glasses is pointless. The quality won't be there and you'll be lying to yourself and to others. It's pathetic. They sell nice-looking cheap glasses practically everywhere, but don't buy some shit you didn't earn, or that isn't in your price-range. It's tacky.

I remember one time I was making love on the backseat of a car and the police came and shined the light on my eyes and I said "I'm strokin' "

>>7781240
>The latter is a better investment in the long run.

You ought to have beater shades as well if you live life and don't want to to constantly be babying your primary shades.

>>7781248
>be babying your primary shades.
Just don't leave them where you'd sit, fuccboi.

>>7781248
If you're spending a lot on your shades you will NOT neglect them. And if, after spending that much you do neglect them, maybe you aren't responsible enough to own a pair.

>>7781240
i dont think you should compare shoes and sunglasses, bad shoes are less resistant and less comfortable for your feet. Cheap sunglasses with proper use will last forever and they will be almost has comfortable as a 600$ pair of rayban

>>7781251
>>7781251

Was mostly talking about situations where you wear sun glasses because of pure function. Shit like hiking, sailing, stuff like that.

>>7781240
you can, but if you accidentally drop ur shoes and step on them nothing happens DURR, same goes for 100+ pair of ultra-fragile sunglasses. R-right guys?

>>7781240
>or invest $100 in one pair of good shoes

>mfw canvas Vans cost about that here

>>7781266
>>7781268
Spend a good amount on quality glasses and you won't have a problem. I'm not talking about fashion glasses, because I'm personally more interested in the functionality of a piece. The durability. Invest in a good pair of glasses with a good warranty and you won't have to worry about them breaking.
I've had cheap glasses fall apart with temperature differences (lenses fall out), crack, snap, etc. The UV protection and lens quality are always considerably worse than that of their upper-end competition.
I've had a pair of Oakleys dropped in mud and stepped on with boots and still survived. I've taken them through snow and desert heat. The lenses are quality, easy to replace, and have great tint.
Invest in your glasses.

>>7781295
im not an astronaut man i just need sunglasses because im always driving with sun in my face.

>>7781295
You do know that the only reason sunglasses and glasses in general can even cost three numbers is the Luxxotica monopoly?

It costs less than 10$ to manufacture prescription bifocal lense, with AR, and other coatings and all the candy you can imagine.

>>7781300
Since when did low-end products become the norm? Grow a pair and save up for DECENT shit instead of settling for cheap imitations.

>>7781308

20-30$ for a replica NOT made in china, and im pretty sure you'll have something solid and decent looking.

>>7781305
Not op, but fugg, I did not know about Luxxotica.
What rather famous brands are not controlled by it?

>>7781308
Can you tell me the difference in price material in a pair of oakley and a 50$ good quality imitation? i mean even if it was in pure gold how could a pair of 20g glasses cost more than 600$?

>>7781325

that's like people thinking an iPhone is worth 600$

>>7781322
Only bigger brand I can think of is Serengeti, and sadly they are bit dad-tier.

>>7781336
exactly

>>7781325
The quality comes from the materials. Instead of being produced as a whole from one factory in China, the parts of the glasses are produced individually elsewhere and shipped to one location for assembly. The lenses used in Oakleys, for example, are produced in the USA. The frames are from China, I believe. The "logos" are produced in Pennsylvania.
Because two-parts, with the lenses being the most expensive piece, are being produced in America, the cost of manufacturing goes up, and consequently affects the final price. Inflation affects the cost, as well as, and most importantly the reputation of the brand you're buying. You're investing in quality. Something you know. I'd rather put my money there then some sketchy outlet store.