I've been reading these threads for a while now with a growing sense of amusement and - more recently - bemusement, over the theories and misinformation that have been suggested regarding the Oliver Peoples Airmans. I feel that the time has come to shed some light on the matter.
The facts are simple: the Airman (a previously discontinued frame) was chosen in a friend of mine's optician (in London's Soho) by Daniel Craig's stylist. Having sold a good number of Persol 2720 and 2244s as a result of Casino Royale, I figured it a shame that they'd gone and chosen a discontinued frame. I waited until I had confirmation that they were being worn in the film and called Oliver Peoples, with whom I have a very good relationship, and asked them to re-introduce the Airman.
Initially they declined, being a relatively small (non mass-production) company, but after telling them how many Persols were sold worldwide following the previous Bond film, they eventually decided to order an initial 300 pairs, of which 150 had polarised lenses, the other 150 photochromic. Being the entrepreneurial type, I pre-ordered all of their polarised stock, and 20 photochromic. We now have these in stock, of which over 100 have been sold.
It would appear that around June-time, Oliver Peoples realised that they were seriously underestimating the potential demand and decided to have more produced which, as they take four months to make, will not be available until October. I think it pertinent to point out that Oliver Peoples are completely at liberty to do what they want with the Airmans - it's their frame, and if they decide to capitalise on the likely demand, well, good for them. And the Airmans that have been re-made are not in any way branded for the film - they're exactly as they originally were, although I must admit to a bit of frustration over the difference in colour of the end tips.
As far as the latest conspiracy theory goes, Oliver Peoples making glasses for Tom Ford is absurd. That is completely and utterly in the realms of impossibility. UNLESS... there's another pair of sunglasses that are being worn in the film that no one knows about as yet. (And I'm really, really not suggesting that there is another pair!)
I hope that clarifies matters and may the sun shine brightly on those forum members who have received their Airmans.
Adam
Well, I think, it is now time for A.S. to get his facts straight.
Some people speculated about my motivation to speak against everything, which has been announced by him: If you have read my comments carefully, you could see, why.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
So, we've been sold the Airmans under false pretences!!! I've checked the stills and magazines etc, and the differences between the Airman frames and the Ford ones are quite evident on the frame and arms. Craig IS most certainly NOT wearing OP Airmans. And I'm not at all happy.
I am waiting to see how this plays out, Bondtoys, though a this stage I would agree your hand seems to contain a few aces...
My only observation on the Sunglasses Shop ad is that the Ford's include "a customized Tom Ford James Bond 007 logo"... and that in another post it is accepted that Sunspel supplied polo's which Ford's copied for the film...
Well this is getting interesting isn't it.... I have written proof that the Quantum of Solace production team bought an Oliver Peoples Airman on 31st October 2007 which was chosen to be worn by Daniel Craig. The stills and early videos clearly show that they were being worn by him.
It now transpires that because Tom Ford has the clothes license for the film he also wanted to get in on the sunglasses so had a copy of the Airmans made. The big un-answered question at the moment is which pair is ACTUALLY being worn in the film: the originals or the copies. It's also possible (but highly unlikely) that certain scenes may have been either deleted or re-shot. We (collectively) simply don't know at this stage and, believe me, I want to know as soon as I possibly can and pretty obviously, feel terrible if we've been duped.
One rumour I can certainly put to bed is that Tom Ford originally designed the Airman - this is completely untrue. Also, because the frame was discontinued doesn't mean that the design becomes available for anyone to copy. The design still belongs to Oliver Peoples and there are legal ramifications that I don't wan't to comment on at this stage.
I wanted to reply so that you know that we're looking into things here and keeping a very close eye on developments. 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.
So, you would say, that plastic optical lenses are generally low-end and cheap? Why are you selling such cheap things then in your store?
And would'nt you agree, that a pair of Ti sunglasses with "real" glass lenses are more heavy than sunglasses with a regular metal frame and plastic lenses?
How does weight affect the comfort of sunglasses, especially worn under sunny conditions?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Maybe it's been lost in translation, but your comments have no bearing on what I posted. And yes, you're absolutely right, glass lenses are heavier than plastic. (Although I have no idea of the relevance).
Maybe it's been lost in translation, but your comments have no bearing on what I posted. And yes, you're absolutely right, glass lenses are heavier than plastic. (Although I have no idea of the relevance).
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)
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
It appears that information or miss-information has taken the better of us. Those 2 sunglasses are so darn close. In the dog-eat-dog world of high fashion anything and everything can happen as this example seems to indicate. Who would have thought that TF would supply sunglasses that are almost a dead ringer to OP’s.
I do appreciate the efforts that Adam Simmonds provided to this thread. They stepped up to the plate anytime anyone called them out. I see that as a sign of a good and valued merchant. I am sure that their intentions were admirable but also saw an opportunity for a sale. Any why not? I do not believe it was any attempt to deceive but unfortunately someone’s information and facts changed somewhere along the way.
I also appreciate those on this board who do their own independent investigation rather then taking this as fact. So a cheer goes out to Bondtoys for his efforts and those others who contributed.
I guess this could be one of those situations one can put under the title “lesson learned”.
And as Oliver People's sent corporate emails to inquiries it is more than just lessons learned...it was outright mis-steps from a corporate and marketing view. I just spoke to a rep at Tom Ford (who by the way says their glasses will be released before November) and they aware of the Oliver People's "situation" and assumes the company will make things right by their clients.
I don't know, it seems to me that Tom Ford knocked off Oliver Peoples' Airman. So if you buy the Tom Ford, you are buying a Bond/Ford branded knock off of the original. Not sure if it's worth it. To me, this is a wake-up call about over-selling and over-branding of Bond.
DG
Edit: Also what does Tom Ford know about sunglasses? I mean, would you buy a Tom Ford watch that looks like a Rolex, or a real Rolex? I know I should have said Omega, but Fleming said Rolex. And the brand change from Rolex to Omega is yet another example of mere branding. In the end it's everyone's personal choice, but I rather have the real deal rather than a knock off no matter how it's branded.
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
I agree with DG and DS. I would much rather have my OP Airman than some cheap looking 255 pounds TF model. I have looked at all the pictures of DG posted on the web with him wearing sunglasses from QOS and in my opinion in a lot of the photos including the one on the OP site he is wearing the OP Airman. AS has also written proof that DG's stylist chose the glasses for him. Perhaps he wears 2 pairs for the QOS film or there is even the possiblity that the sequences wearing sunglasses have been re shot so that he wears TF. As I have stated I am more than happy with my OP and think they look a hell of a lot better than the TF and also the OPs are better quality.
I agree with DG and DS. I would much rather have my OP Airman than some cheap looking 255 pounds TF model. I have looked at all the pictures of DG posted on the web with him wearing sunglasses from QOS and in my opinion in a lot of the photos including the one on the OP site he is wearing the OP Airman. AS has also written proof that DG's stylist chose the glasses for him. Perhaps he wears 2 pairs for the QOS film or there is even the possiblity that the sequences wearing sunglasses have been re shot so that he wears TF. As I have stated I am more than happy with my OP and think they look a hell of a lot better than the TF and also the OPs are better quality.
The one thing that seems indisputable is that Tom Ford do have some licencing agreement for QOS shades. This acknowledgement should please Bondtoys.
However, the following seems to be also indisputable:
1) The Ford's are pretty much dead ringers for the OPs. Which were produced first. IF you take AS at his word, OPs were originally chosen for Craig...
2) EON are very loyal to those who have marketing ties ins with them. As in
In DAD, Brioni shirt packets were placed on Brosnan's bed, yet T & A provided the shirts Brosnan wore for the film...
We all remember how the production team tried disguise the make of both Converse and Nike trainers used in CR...
In another post today on these boards, it would appear the production team have removed labelling and coloured in rivets on jeans seen in QOS...
Many, including Sunspel, suggest they supplied polos for QOS - and yet now Ford's have identical polos in their new range...
Oh, and the Brioni suit worn at the end of CR seems to have been jetisoned in favour of a - you guessed it - Ford - "lookalike"; so screw continuity, even though QOS starts 30 minutes after the events of CR...
As I write this, OP have not removed the image of Craig from their website claiming the shades he wears are the Airman...
The one thing that seems indisputable is that Tom Ford do have some licencing agreement for QOS shades. This acknowledgement should please Bondtoys.
DS, you still don't understand my motivation.
Why should this please me? The licensing agreement is a fact and I have only contributed my informations regarding The Tom Ford shades.
You have been the one, who doubted the credibility of my informations and that's the only thing, where I have had a problem with. And my infos turned out to be accurate.
Infact, I did not enjoy foggy and explicit false informations from Adam Simmonds about the entire OP thing, because he knew more, that he was telling us. I am talking about the limited run etc.
Instead of being a bit more specific (and true) to my questions, he behaved pretty nasty, plus the refund for my sunglasses took ages.
I also did not like, that he tried to control damage for his business in bashing other products. Just an example: As far as I know, the most expensive optical lenses are made out of plastic and they are sold for a good reason: They are light and therefore much more comfortable to wear.
I am wearing glasses myself and after I have had my first pair of high-end plastic lenses, I changed all glasses to this.
I have personally no interest to defend OP or TF, what I don't like are attempts to influence people here in the one or the other direction.
My personal opinion is, that we see too much TF labelled products, which are fundamentally other designs. I am talking mainly about Sunspel Polos.
And, just for the record: US$ 495,-- for a cotton Polo shirt is purely insane! :v
With the TF shades, I have not yet made my decision. At first, I have to see the TF shades in nature, the one pic that we already have leaves out many questions.
But, when talking about the similarity OP-TF with an owner of 10 optical stores, he told me, that he was able to show me 10 different shades in the Airman style, whith only minor differences.
I am not sure, if that is true, but it may be similar with iconic frames from e.g. Ray Ban (Aviator, Wayfarer).
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The fact that you prefer plastic lenses really doesn't mean they're any better. The benefits of plastic lenses are that they're lighter and more impact resistant, depending on the type of plastic.
CR39 is just a cheap plastic lens(not saying that's what's in TF lenses, I don't know) that's in most fashion glasses not made for sports, etc. They're not considered impact resistant and the optics aren't that great.
Polycarbonate lense are very impact resistant but scratch easily. I use polycarbonate lensed Wiley-X glasses to ride motorcycles but would never wear them to knock around, much too easy to scratch.
Glass is by far my favorite for casual glasses. The optics are much better and they are much more scratch resistant. IMO the weight is not a big deal unless it's a massive lens. The only drawback if you can call it that is that, though tempered, they won't have the impact resistance of polycarbonate. I don't wear them while riding and don't think I'll be shot in the eye with a pellet gun so I think I'm safe.
Now all this goes out the window if you're talking about prescription glasses. Scratch resistance isn't as big a deal because most who wear glasses won't be taking them off and laying them on the table as we would with sunglasses.
Otherwise, TF makes some pretty cool wayfarer style glasses, but as far as aviators go, the OP knock-off is the only decent looking one. The rest look like something the Arquette boys would be wearing.
When I am talking about plastic lenses, I am using this as a generic term for non-glass lenses.
I am simply ordering Hoya Japan lenses, which are not glass (they may be polycarbonate or whatever) and scratch-resistant as hell. I don't care much for my glasses but never had trouble with scratches.
And even with thin lenses: The difference in weight is outstanding, I never want glass lenses again.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I understand where you're coming from. What I mean is you prefer plastic, great. I wear reading glasses, which I take on and off, and sunglasses, which I take on and off, and I prefer glass lenses for both. Guess what, we're both right. But, (and I assume this is what Adam Simmonds meant)most high end sunglass manufactureres that are known for great lenses, not pretty frames or sports only, use glass. Maui Jim, Revo, etc. use glass, except in their sport oriented frames, because it's more durable for everyday, on and off, wear.
Again, this doesn't apply to your prescription glasses. They're made for wake up to bed wear and need to be lighter rather than durable. Yours may be pretty scratch resistant, they've come a long way with that, but they won't hold up to a glass lens for scratch resistance.
Whatever Ford(or whoever is making his glasses for him) is making the lenses from, I'll stick with the OP Airmans. I'm not a big fan of every designer having their own line of glasses, especially when they're probably made by Safilo or Lux and are just tripled in price.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
edited October 2008
I think we are all missing the point. We are Bond collectors here and are solely interested in the screen used product. We were severly misled into buying something that was close but not at all screen used. If I was buying the glasses as purely functional non Bond glasses then fine, as QOS Bond glasses and as a possible future collectable, then the OP's are not fine, not at all. Be they better quality or not, they are not screen accurate, screen used Bond glasses, and I'm miffed at the gross misrepresentation of them being such. And now that I have seen the differences between the two glasses, those differences shout out at me everytime I see Craig wearing them.
Comments
Well, I think, it is now time for A.S. to get his facts straight.
Some people speculated about my motivation to speak against everything, which has been announced by him: If you have read my comments carefully, you could see, why.
So, Adam, where are your facts now after reading all this: http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=31149&cpage=4
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Unless his appearance here on the board was only for the purpose damage control for his business.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I have sent A.S. links to these thread and the Sunglasses Shop website link.
I'm looking forwward to future developements...
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I am waiting to see how this plays out, Bondtoys, though a this stage I would agree your hand seems to contain a few aces...
My only observation on the Sunglasses Shop ad is that the Ford's include "a customized Tom Ford James Bond 007 logo"... and that in another post it is accepted that Sunspel supplied polo's which Ford's copied for the film...
Well this is getting interesting isn't it.... I have written proof that the Quantum of Solace production team bought an Oliver Peoples Airman on 31st October 2007 which was chosen to be worn by Daniel Craig. The stills and early videos clearly show that they were being worn by him.
It now transpires that because Tom Ford has the clothes license for the film he also wanted to get in on the sunglasses so had a copy of the Airmans made. The big un-answered question at the moment is which pair is ACTUALLY being worn in the film: the originals or the copies. It's also possible (but highly unlikely) that certain scenes may have been either deleted or re-shot. We (collectively) simply don't know at this stage and, believe me, I want to know as soon as I possibly can and pretty obviously, feel terrible if we've been duped.
One rumour I can certainly put to bed is that Tom Ford originally designed the Airman - this is completely untrue. Also, because the frame was discontinued doesn't mean that the design becomes available for anyone to copy. The design still belongs to Oliver Peoples and there are legal ramifications that I don't wan't to comment on at this stage.
I wanted to reply so that you know that we're looking into things here and keeping a very close eye on developments. 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.
So, you would say, that plastic optical lenses are generally low-end and cheap? Why are you selling such cheap things then in your store?
And would'nt you agree, that a pair of Ti sunglasses with "real" glass lenses are more heavy than sunglasses with a regular metal frame and plastic lenses?
How does weight affect the comfort of sunglasses, especially worn under sunny conditions?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Glad to help out here: {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
They absolutely are. £255 is alot of money to be spending on a 'close enough' item X-(
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I do appreciate the efforts that Adam Simmonds provided to this thread. They stepped up to the plate anytime anyone called them out. I see that as a sign of a good and valued merchant. I am sure that their intentions were admirable but also saw an opportunity for a sale. Any why not? I do not believe it was any attempt to deceive but unfortunately someone’s information and facts changed somewhere along the way.
I also appreciate those on this board who do their own independent investigation rather then taking this as fact. So a cheer goes out to Bondtoys for his efforts and those others who contributed.
I guess this could be one of those situations one can put under the title “lesson learned”.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
To me that would entail a return.
Agree, thanks AB.
DG
Edit: Also what does Tom Ford know about sunglasses? I mean, would you buy a Tom Ford watch that looks like a Rolex, or a real Rolex? I know I should have said Omega, but Fleming said Rolex. And the brand change from Rolex to Omega is yet another example of mere branding. In the end it's everyone's personal choice, but I rather have the real deal rather than a knock off no matter how it's branded.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Clearly, very little or he wouldn't have otherwise had to rip off OPs...
The one thing that seems indisputable is that Tom Ford do have some licencing agreement for QOS shades. This acknowledgement should please Bondtoys.
However, the following seems to be also indisputable:
1) The Ford's are pretty much dead ringers for the OPs. Which were produced first. IF you take AS at his word, OPs were originally chosen for Craig...
2) EON are very loyal to those who have marketing ties ins with them. As in
In DAD, Brioni shirt packets were placed on Brosnan's bed, yet T & A provided the shirts Brosnan wore for the film...
We all remember how the production team tried disguise the make of both Converse and Nike trainers used in CR...
In another post today on these boards, it would appear the production team have removed labelling and coloured in rivets on jeans seen in QOS...
Many, including Sunspel, suggest they supplied polos for QOS - and yet now Ford's have identical polos in their new range...
Oh, and the Brioni suit worn at the end of CR seems to have been jetisoned in favour of a - you guessed it - Ford - "lookalike"; so screw continuity, even though QOS starts 30 minutes after the events of CR...
As I write this, OP have not removed the image of Craig from their website claiming the shades he wears are the Airman...
DS, you still don't understand my motivation.
Why should this please me? The licensing agreement is a fact and I have only contributed my informations regarding The Tom Ford shades.
You have been the one, who doubted the credibility of my informations and that's the only thing, where I have had a problem with. And my infos turned out to be accurate.
Infact, I did not enjoy foggy and explicit false informations from Adam Simmonds about the entire OP thing, because he knew more, that he was telling us. I am talking about the limited run etc.
Instead of being a bit more specific (and true) to my questions, he behaved pretty nasty, plus the refund for my sunglasses took ages.
I also did not like, that he tried to control damage for his business in bashing other products. Just an example: As far as I know, the most expensive optical lenses are made out of plastic and they are sold for a good reason: They are light and therefore much more comfortable to wear.
I am wearing glasses myself and after I have had my first pair of high-end plastic lenses, I changed all glasses to this.
I have personally no interest to defend OP or TF, what I don't like are attempts to influence people here in the one or the other direction.
My personal opinion is, that we see too much TF labelled products, which are fundamentally other designs. I am talking mainly about Sunspel Polos.
And, just for the record: US$ 495,-- for a cotton Polo shirt is purely insane! :v
With the TF shades, I have not yet made my decision. At first, I have to see the TF shades in nature, the one pic that we already have leaves out many questions.
But, when talking about the similarity OP-TF with an owner of 10 optical stores, he told me, that he was able to show me 10 different shades in the Airman style, whith only minor differences.
I am not sure, if that is true, but it may be similar with iconic frames from e.g. Ray Ban (Aviator, Wayfarer).
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
CR39 is just a cheap plastic lens(not saying that's what's in TF lenses, I don't know) that's in most fashion glasses not made for sports, etc. They're not considered impact resistant and the optics aren't that great.
Polycarbonate lense are very impact resistant but scratch easily. I use polycarbonate lensed Wiley-X glasses to ride motorcycles but would never wear them to knock around, much too easy to scratch.
Glass is by far my favorite for casual glasses. The optics are much better and they are much more scratch resistant. IMO the weight is not a big deal unless it's a massive lens. The only drawback if you can call it that is that, though tempered, they won't have the impact resistance of polycarbonate. I don't wear them while riding and don't think I'll be shot in the eye with a pellet gun so I think I'm safe.
Now all this goes out the window if you're talking about prescription glasses. Scratch resistance isn't as big a deal because most who wear glasses won't be taking them off and laying them on the table as we would with sunglasses.
Otherwise, TF makes some pretty cool wayfarer style glasses, but as far as aviators go, the OP knock-off is the only decent looking one. The rest look like something the Arquette boys would be wearing.
When I am talking about plastic lenses, I am using this as a generic term for non-glass lenses.
I am simply ordering Hoya Japan lenses, which are not glass (they may be polycarbonate or whatever) and scratch-resistant as hell. I don't care much for my glasses but never had trouble with scratches.
And even with thin lenses: The difference in weight is outstanding, I never want glass lenses again.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Again, this doesn't apply to your prescription glasses. They're made for wake up to bed wear and need to be lighter rather than durable. Yours may be pretty scratch resistant, they've come a long way with that, but they won't hold up to a glass lens for scratch resistance.
Whatever Ford(or whoever is making his glasses for him) is making the lenses from, I'll stick with the OP Airmans. I'm not a big fan of every designer having their own line of glasses, especially when they're probably made by Safilo or Lux and are just tripled in price.