I'm in possession of a pair of the Tom Ford sunglasses and am about to take photos of them which I'll post later today. In the meantime, can someone please tell me which images of Daniel Craig are being cited for comparison purposes.
Many thanks
Adam
Hi Adam,
You wouldn't happen to have measured both of them? To me the TF/RO's seem quite a bit narrower, than the original OP/AM's, do you know if there is much difference in the size?
Thanks!
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Size-wise, there's really very little difference between the two: the TF may be 1mm wider overall than the OP, but it's barely measureable. The TF is also very slightly deeper, again by less than 1mm.
I was also asked about lens quality. At the risk of being biased (I am) I'll be as neutral as possible:
The Oliver Peoples lenses are optically ground, back-surface coated (which eliminates annoying reflections) polarised lenses (which eliminates horizontal glare) top-quality (and expensive to produce) optical lenses.
Tom Ford's lenses are mass produced moulded plastic that are simply nowhere near as nice to look through as the OPs, or as effective at protecting your eyes from the sun.
Additionally, the frame material is completely different - the OPs are made from top-quality titanium, whereas the TFs aren't.
I know it sounds like sour grapes, but there really is no comparison. As for that comment in the Sunday Papers about Tom Ford having to handmake the frames to accommodate Daniel Craig's broken nose, I'm happy to go on record and state that's "*******s". Any metal frame can have the nosepads adjusted.
Are the TF frames not made of FLEXON? I understand the OP's are titanium but from what I've read FLEXON is superior to just titanium. FLEXON is about 95% titanium but is a memory metal that snaps back to its original shape.
The lense quality may be better with OP but it looks like the frames may be superior with TF. Any further thoughts on this?
As far as I have learned, the TF frame material is not titanium at all.
Markus,
I can't substantiate the FLEXON metal other than an eBay seller made the claim that the TF frames were made of FLEXON. I then did some research on the metal having never heard of it before. It apparently is 95% titanium. Here is a brief Wikipedia description of FLEXON:
"Flexon is the trademark for a shape memory alloy of titanium that is used to make eyeglass frames. This alloy has special properties that make it light and extremely flexible. The metal can be bent to a significant degree, and when released it will return to its original shape."
"It was developed by The Beta Group and bought by Marchon Eyewear in 1995. It is also used in the Nike Vision product line."
In the meantime, it may be a crumb of solace that the Tom Ford copy is made from cheap metal (not titanium like the Airman) and the lenses are cheap plastic (not coated polarised glass like the Airman) and are selling for £250.00.
I think, that someone previously mentioned, that the TF sunglasses are done by Marchon, but that would not necessarily mean, that the 108/s are made of flexon (which is a technology TM of Marchon).
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I understand the OP's are titanium but from what I've read FLEXON is superior to just titanium. FLEXON is about 95% titanium but is a memory metal that snaps back to its original shape.
The lense quality may be better with OP but it looks like the frames may be superior with TF.
I can't substantiate the FLEXON metal other than an eBay seller made the claim that the TF frames were made of FLEXON. I then did some research on the metal having never heard of it before. It apparently is 95% titanium.
I only learned of this development earlier today after visiting the bond lifestyle site.
I purchased the shades from Adam a few months back over the net. I found Cat's updates a refreshing change to the usual customer services debacle that we all experience from everyone else, be it a bank or a Dixons.
Anyway if it is indeed true that they are Ford's frames (although i personally do not think they are),i think you can cut Adam some slack, all the evidence pointed to them being OP's.
They are a beautiful pair of glasses and no doubt a much higher standard than TF's. As with any designer you are paying for the name not the quality.
Tom Ford has every reason to claim and market his version as being those worn in the film, it would
be difficult to disprove. It would be an expensive and pointless exercise to prove otherwise.
As for the claim that the frames were specially made because of Craig's broken nose, that is just embarrassing and an insult to peoples intelligence, i'm sure Craig has worn dozens of shades in the past, think of CR, were they all specially made!?
Probably so...anyway, the reason I thought Flexon was potentially a superior alloy was that I saw a demonstration where the arm of the glasses were wrapped completely around the finger of the demonstrator...and then it snapped back to its original shape. An impressive display. I don't know if pure titanium will do that or not and I am not willing to try my own experiment at the risk of ruining a pair of glasses. The arms on the TF do look thicker than the OP arms so I am thinking that maybe they are not Flexon afterall. Perhaps this was much ado about nothing.
I have got confirmation from Oliver Peoples themselves. Below is the email that I have got:
"I am excited to hear that you would like to add to your collection with the Airman. Please note that Oliver Peoples does not have any official connection with the James Bond movie, however if you are interested in purchasing the frame, I can direct you to a couple of authorized retailers in London who should have this frame available."
I received the Tom Ford's on Thursday and I wanted to give my comparison between them and the OP's I already have.
Frame color: silver on the OP's and matte silver on the TF's. Lens color: grey polarized glass on the OP's, with anti-reflective coating on the backside and midnight blue poly-carbonate on the TF's, with anti-reflective coating on the backside. By my eye, the midnight blue lenses are a shade darker than the OP's and look more like all the pictures we've seen of the sunglasses in the film. Weight: the OP's weigh a little less than the TF's. Another difference between the two is the arms are 135mm on the OP's and 130mm on the TF's. The hinges are different as well. On the OP's they lock open to the inside of the frame, while the TF's lock open to outside the frame. On the TF, the arms have a stylized T going from the front of the arm to partway down the side. End Tips: On the OP's round plastic/rubber combo and on the TF's a flat hard leather.
The TF's presentation box is brown and has:
Tom Ford
James Bond 007
written on the outside. Inside it has a brown velvet-like case with the above written on it on the outside and the inside as well. The brown cleaning cloth is suede-like and has the above writen on it. You certainly know these are the JB sunglasses . The left arm also has James Bond 007 written inside as well as the color code 108 19V.
I have worn the TF's all weekend long and have had no problems with the way they fit, just like the OP's. They are based on them after all .However, as others have stated, the OP's just look nicer and are better made. I'm definately going to wear both, I always wanted a pair of OP's anyways, but if the TF's weren't the screen accurate pair of sunglasses, I wouldn't have bought them. For the money, the OP's are just better sunglasses.
In conclusion: If you want screen accurate get the TF's. If you want the original design and your money's worth, get the OP's. Hopefully, when the next movie comes along, we won't have as much confusion on sunglasses!
The left arm also has James Bond 007 written inside as well as the color code 108 19V.
These are undeniably the screen-worn shades.
After all, James Bond would clearly choose to have his name and number written on the arms in case he misplaced them in a room full of other people wearing TF 108 19V shades. In the same way my eight and eleven year old kids have labels with their names on in their school clothes.
So basically what stinks is if us Bond collectors/fans want the screen accurate pair, we gotta shell out nearly $500 US for them, an inferior prodcut to the OP Airman? I have a pair of the Airman, and these are fantastic glasses. Im a huge OP fan, and have a good customer relationship with them here in LA. The thing is, the Airman are kind of delicate if you ask me, wonderful, wonderful glasses, but i just want to take care of them half the time, and Id love the Tom Ford's becuase I can wear them the way sunglasses should be worn and not have to baby them...though paying $500 for a product less than OP is considerably rubbish. I have owned a pair of Tom Ford sunglasses before, and they were nice, but not $340 nice...honestly, they were at Ray Ban level. Not dissing ray ban, love them! But you know, $150 level not nearly $400 as the pair I got was (even though I didnt pay nearly that). Btw, the pair worn in QOS IS indeed the Tom Fords. I do know this for sure. So, if you want the real deal glasses which they were based off, the OP Airman are slick, very light (almost forgot they're on my face half the time) glasses. The Tom Fords are however, the screen worn pair. Unfortunatly. Damn, and I thought getting the Casino Royale Persols was expensive.. and they're still kicking arse in the wearable department!
I ordered my TF's from Sunglasses Shop in the UK and they were $357 shipped to the US. A much better deal than the $475 I have seen on another website here in the US. I will try and get pictures of the box, etc. and post them later.
What about the "leather" earpads? Do they TF's have a metallic rectangular Tom Ford logo on them? I have not seen these logos on any screen shots.
However I have visited a local TF dealer -Solstice- (who is still waiting for the 007's to come in) and all the TF styles they have with the leather earpieces have the aforementioned TF logo.
I'm just not convinced the logo appears on the screen used version.
Just received mine in...quick review...NICE presentation, box and case. The glasses look good on and the details are well presented. The James Bond words on the arm are very small and quite subtle. ALL THAT SAID, as someone mentioned the "view" you have out of them is night and day compared to the Airmans. With my Airmans they actually improve my ocular aqcuity (sp?) and clear up things, cut glare etc. With these noen such thing happens and in fact the lenses produce a 'dulling' effect. So, my Airmans will remain my usage glasses and guess where the TF's go....?
Hi I have just ordered a pair of the TFs and they are only £125 including postage. They sell them at Eye2Eye shop and come with everything. The link is as follows:
Comments
Hi Adam,
You wouldn't happen to have measured both of them? To me the TF/RO's seem quite a bit narrower, than the original OP/AM's, do you know if there is much difference in the size?
Thanks!
-Mr Arlington Beech
I was also asked about lens quality. At the risk of being biased (I am) I'll be as neutral as possible:
The Oliver Peoples lenses are optically ground, back-surface coated (which eliminates annoying reflections) polarised lenses (which eliminates horizontal glare) top-quality (and expensive to produce) optical lenses.
Tom Ford's lenses are mass produced moulded plastic that are simply nowhere near as nice to look through as the OPs, or as effective at protecting your eyes from the sun.
Additionally, the frame material is completely different - the OPs are made from top-quality titanium, whereas the TFs aren't.
I know it sounds like sour grapes, but there really is no comparison. As for that comment in the Sunday Papers about Tom Ford having to handmake the frames to accommodate Daniel Craig's broken nose, I'm happy to go on record and state that's "*******s". Any metal frame can have the nosepads adjusted.
Are the TF frames not made of FLEXON? I understand the OP's are titanium but from what I've read FLEXON is superior to just titanium. FLEXON is about 95% titanium but is a memory metal that snaps back to its original shape.
The lense quality may be better with OP but it looks like the frames may be superior with TF. Any further thoughts on this?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Markus,
I can't substantiate the FLEXON metal other than an eBay seller made the claim that the TF frames were made of FLEXON. I then did some research on the metal having never heard of it before. It apparently is 95% titanium. Here is a brief Wikipedia description of FLEXON:
"Flexon is the trademark for a shape memory alloy of titanium that is used to make eyeglass frames. This alloy has special properties that make it light and extremely flexible. The metal can be bent to a significant degree, and when released it will return to its original shape."
"It was developed by The Beta Group and bought by Marchon Eyewear in 1995. It is also used in the Nike Vision product line."
Here is a link to FLEXON's manufacturer:
http://www.marchon.com/HTMLS_2004/flexon.asp
Once on that site you can click on a video demonstration of the flexibility of the frames using that alloy.
I think, that someone previously mentioned, that the TF sunglasses are done by Marchon, but that would not necessarily mean, that the 108/s are made of flexon (which is a technology TM of Marchon).
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
http://www.marcolinusa.com
Just look at that list of "quality" designer eyewear. 8-)
Given time, you can probably pick them up at Ross or TJMaxx.
I know TF = Macolin. I assumed that Marchon simply manufactured Flexon, not the TF glasses.
?:)
Sorry,Shatterhand. Then I don't understand the entire Titanium-Superior-Flexon-Debate
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think I understand what you're getting at now. Flexon in a brand/material made and distributed by Marchon, not a material for other manufacturers.
The ebay seller was probably just mistaken.
I purchased the shades from Adam a few months back over the net. I found Cat's updates a refreshing change to the usual customer services debacle that we all experience from everyone else, be it a bank or a Dixons.
Anyway if it is indeed true that they are Ford's frames (although i personally do not think they are),i think you can cut Adam some slack, all the evidence pointed to them being OP's.
They are a beautiful pair of glasses and no doubt a much higher standard than TF's. As with any designer you are paying for the name not the quality.
Tom Ford has every reason to claim and market his version as being those worn in the film, it would
be difficult to disprove. It would be an expensive and pointless exercise to prove otherwise.
As for the claim that the frames were specially made because of Craig's broken nose, that is just embarrassing and an insult to peoples intelligence, i'm sure Craig has worn dozens of shades in the past, think of CR, were they all specially made!?
Probably so...anyway, the reason I thought Flexon was potentially a superior alloy was that I saw a demonstration where the arm of the glasses were wrapped completely around the finger of the demonstrator...and then it snapped back to its original shape. An impressive display. I don't know if pure titanium will do that or not and I am not willing to try my own experiment at the risk of ruining a pair of glasses. The arms on the TF do look thicker than the OP arms so I am thinking that maybe they are not Flexon afterall. Perhaps this was much ado about nothing.
"I am excited to hear that you would like to add to your collection with the Airman. Please note that Oliver Peoples does not have any official connection with the James Bond movie, however if you are interested in purchasing the frame, I can direct you to a couple of authorized retailers in London who should have this frame available."
Frame color: silver on the OP's and matte silver on the TF's. Lens color: grey polarized glass on the OP's, with anti-reflective coating on the backside and midnight blue poly-carbonate on the TF's, with anti-reflective coating on the backside. By my eye, the midnight blue lenses are a shade darker than the OP's and look more like all the pictures we've seen of the sunglasses in the film. Weight: the OP's weigh a little less than the TF's. Another difference between the two is the arms are 135mm on the OP's and 130mm on the TF's. The hinges are different as well. On the OP's they lock open to the inside of the frame, while the TF's lock open to outside the frame. On the TF, the arms have a stylized T going from the front of the arm to partway down the side. End Tips: On the OP's round plastic/rubber combo and on the TF's a flat hard leather.
The TF's presentation box is brown and has:
Tom Ford
James Bond 007
written on the outside. Inside it has a brown velvet-like case with the above written on it on the outside and the inside as well. The brown cleaning cloth is suede-like and has the above writen on it. You certainly know these are the JB sunglasses
I have worn the TF's all weekend long and have had no problems with the way they fit, just like the OP's. They are based on them after all
In conclusion: If you want screen accurate get the TF's. If you want the original design and your money's worth, get the OP's. Hopefully, when the next movie comes along, we won't have as much confusion on sunglasses!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
These are undeniably the screen-worn shades.
After all, James Bond would clearly choose to have his name and number written on the arms in case he misplaced them in a room full of other people wearing TF 108 19V shades. In the same way my eight and eleven year old kids have labels with their names on in their school clothes.
rofl
Sorry about the last picture, but it's the best I can do!
Thanks
Simon
However I have visited a local TF dealer -Solstice- (who is still waiting for the 007's to come in) and all the TF styles they have with the leather earpieces have the aforementioned TF logo.
I'm just not convinced the logo appears on the screen used version.
Alas, more food for thought...
The leather earpieces do have a rectangular silver Tom Ford logo on them.
Paid 299 euros for them.
http://www.eye2eyeshop.com/product.php?xProd=1154
I only ordered them due to the bargain price!