Can £130 for a goggle be justified?

A snowHead

I use a thin carrier bag ( dark grey - but interchangeable yellow version also available ) stretched over a wire coat hanger, and I never have any problems....... well, except finding my way out of the lift station rolling eyes

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

This is so subjective! No one knows how much any goggles cost to produce or what the profit margin is. And people's incomes vary by so much. FWIW, I own 3 pairs of goggles. First pair were bought when I first started skiing. "Hi, I'm going skiing, I need some goggles." "You have a very small face, try these." "Thanks, they're fine." I had no idea what I was looking for but they were cheap, and fine.

Second pair were bought in a French ski village. I had gone out in sunnies but when the weather changed at lunchtime I realise I had forgotten my goggles. As it was, we were a long way from the chalet so I popped in a shop and explained in bad French that I needed goggles as it was now snowing and I had left mine behind. As it was obvious I was not going to spend much time and money he got some for me to try. They were about £20 ish and they were fine.

Last year, after reading on snowHeads just how wonderful Oakley's were, and being caught in an "I'm worth it!" mood, I bought some Oakleys. (They were on the net, not list price, so maybe I'm not worth it rolling eyes

) and they did look cool. And the foam was comfy. But were they much different? Well, no, not really. Neither of the ones I had ever fogged up, (I am a "cool" skier Cool

). I only wear goggles when it's snowing so the supposedly brilliant optical quality is lost when covered in flakes. So to me, paying a lot is not justified.

However, some people wear goggles all the time in all weather conditions. For them, it probably is worth any amount of money, within reason, because cost per wear is minimal and they want, and can justify paying for, the best.

But I do think Queen B has a point about branding. I bought the Oakleys because of the hype on here Embarassed

.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

My cheap goggles (30 Euros?) did absolutely fine in avoiding fogging, apart from when I was crying due to an encounter with a large mogul field, followed by a sideways off piste excursion through some trees with lots of soft snow to bury skis in and bumps to fall over in a lesson. I somehow doubt that the most expensive, high tech set of goggles in existence would cope with tears due to sense of humour failure on the piste... So given I've not had problems with my existing goggles, that I can imagine a "better" pair solving, I won't be spending more on goggles until my existing pairs are in need of replacement.

Likewise with my ski jacket, my £40 Trespass jacket is about to go into its 3rd Winter, and does the job adequately, although I suspect I need more layers than I would with a more expensive jacket. As it was a £40 jacket, I also wear it when it's cold in the UK and don't worry about mud splashes and encounters with brambles and tree branches when darling OH's navigation has let me down! My trousers were a 80 Euros in resort, and seem to have been worth it - they are warmer than my £30 initial pair, which have been relegated to indoor skiing and snow walks in the UK.

As for gloves, I'm a bit torn, in that my dodgy wrist is sensitive to cold, so I need good gloves, but the chances of me remaining in possession of a pair of gloves for any length of time are low (currently wondering what happened to one of my nice, well fitting, well shaped ones from last year - last seen during the March snow I think!).

What I hate most of all is wearing something that is really heavily branded, and paying for the privilege of being someone's walking advert. I just about tolerate Adidas branding if the price is low enough!

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

I know I'm getting these in my stocking:

I'll review them once I've used them, but they seemed okay value to me!

You'll need to Register first of course.

ski-finder, impressive! Not the goggles per se, just that reading the review it says they have a "specially engineered youth fit." You young devil, you! Toofy Grin

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

ski-finder, At that price, you can't really go wrong, so long as they fit.

I suspect they are an obsolete model, but that is one of the best ways to get good stuff at bargain prices. Smile

After all it is free

andyph,

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

alex_heney, included p&p too... and they do fit quite nicely actually, must be youth like face eh andyph wink

I only get limited time on the slopes (about 4 days per year! Shocked

) so i'm hoping they will be fine!

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

So to sum up what we've learned so far (cue the rousing music):

if you're not a tourist but a powder-hound, if you're the sort of skier who regularly pushes the envelope, who thinks that if you're not living on the edge you're taking up too much space, if you're the sort of skier who takes it to the max and beyond, a skier who's shredding the big mountain lines when all the rest are hiding in their chalets drinking gluhwein then you're a skier who can't afford to compromise. You're not just out there piddling about on red runs, you're out there putting your life and your eyesight on the line every time you step out that damn door.

You cannot afford your goggle to be the weak link in your skiing arsenal. You my friend, deserve a hero's goggle. You deserve....no...you've earned....Oakley.

(I hope someone from their marketing department has been reading this thread, it will give them a nice rosy glow and more than justify their Christmas bonus.)

You know it makes sense.

Mattgcp, brilliant!

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Mattgcp, Complete b*llocks, a career ahead in marketing for you I think Laughing

A snowHead

seems that the snobs on both side of the argument always feel the need to put across either how careful they are or by hint or otherwise how much disposable income they have.

personally i like to know if these bits of kit are worth the extra expense. However surely at the end of the day it's a bit like religion if payng x or y for something gives you a warm glow then great. But please have a mind to take account of the "unbelievers".

so to sum up.
it's personal choice and ability to pay, not always mutually exclusive.

A snowHead

maybe ..... ignore the labels/names, try them on, see what are the best for you, if you can afford them then buy them, if not just buy the best you can afford Very Happy

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Mattgcp, not me, I'm a boarder wink

You need to Login to know who's really who.

If I spend 500 quid on a pair of skis, 300 on boots etc., etc., I'd be a fool to spend 20 quid on goggles... but then I like quality equipment. (I wear rags though! Smile

)

Anyway, to set this argument adrift - what kind of a lunatic (recreational skiier) skis in cheap sunglasses? Don't the eyes water/freeze/bleed? I'm yet to invest in Oakley sunnies - can't quite get over the price yet Embarassed

- but I know skiing in regular cheapie sunglasses is a joke. Or do you have to ski at 5mph to think it's "great"?

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Are people comparing £20 single lens no air vent goggles with £50+ dual lens air vented goggles? If you are then of course the cheaper pair will be inadequate in almost all conditions.

When I was shopping for gear for my first ski holiday I read the online advice and decided I needed dual lens, air vents, anti-fogging and persimmon lenses for versatility if buying only one pair of goggles.

I bought a reasonably priced Smith pair meeting the minimum specs I'd set. They've been good enough, so far, in sunshine, low light conditions and a snow storm, no fogging. January & Feb skiing only so far.

The first time I wore them I put them on my forehead during the chairlift ride up. At the top, I unloaded a noticed all the condensation on the lenses. At this point I thought 'OK if the advertising is true the lenses will clear when I start skiing', they did in less than a minutes skiing at the equivalent of walking pace on a green run. I smiled when I thought about how the advertising blurb was true, this time.

I'd accept less expensive goggles might not perform safely in more extreme conditions. In the end buy you want. I still want a more expensive pair because they look better Very Happy

You'll need to Register first of course.

Can I add another twist to look at it from another point of view - lets ignore cost here for a second - assuming that there are simplistically two camps out there - one who thinks that any goggle will do, and another camp who've done that, and sworn that single-glazed without anti-fog coating, basic tinted lens with UVA and UVB protection are next to useless in more demanding and adverse conditions that some skiers/boarders in the other camp are never out in.

Ok - so, ignoring that Seth Morrison or Andreas Wiig are sponsored athletes with Oakley and Electric.....if you asked them to choose.....and pay their own money.....do you think they will buy £20-£30 goggles with little or none of the performance features that they would demand?

So if we think we know the answer, then we must conclude that there are £20-£30 goggles that suit some, and not others; and there are £130 goggles that suit others, and not some. Which means that there has to be a difference in their 'performance parameters' between such goggles, and therefore there has to be a price differential - but whether it NEEDs to cost £130 or not is a different story - we as consumers are stuck with each company's marketing and pricing structure. There is a REASON why some goods are cheaper than other goods. Some of it is related to quality and features, some aren't and you are just paying for the brand. A Ralph Lauren cotton polo shirt isn't discernibly different from M&S's range of cotton polo shirts. So we conclude that you are paying for the cachet of the logo. We all understand that. However, we all can SEE and feel the difference between a £20 goggle and a £130 goggle (materials, lens, coatings, construction etc), so we are more accepting of the price differential.

So to pay exponentially more for something that is not discernibly different apart from the logo is daft - but I personally think this is not the case for goggles. So if you want a more expensive goggle because it has the performance features and parameters you need, then look around and get them as cheaply as you can!!

Surely that's the moral of the story? (In the nicest possible way) I think QB's way of looking at some of us spending more on expensive technical kit is a little naive, or perhaps borne of lack of information or knowledge about the product? (not wanting to be disrespectful to QB as she's entitled to her opinion of course!)

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

You lot are all wasting your money mine came free with my ski's

http://www.luxury-insider.com/Current_Affairs/post/2008/10/16/Limited-Edition-Lacroix-Courchevel-Exclusive-Skiing-Kit.aspx

After all it is free

E50,000!!!

Laughing

cfc5mu0, PMSL but I didn't get on with mine and reverted to my Kastles

Laughing

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

the solution i use. tkmax

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

I don't believe many people are well served by single lens no air vent goggles. Neither do I believe that Oakleys will afford any performance advantage over any double lens vented pair from another major manufacturer. I don't believe the designs/materials/coatings used are particularly secret/special/difficult in this age, so all manufacturers will have access to them or similar. It's just the about the brand and I really care very little about brands.

snow reports

Jonny Jones, You don't say what ones you have got. Maybe other people have the same goggles and they are the bargain of the decade.

I think we should get a few reviews on them so we can decide.

You know it makes sense.

Smith are easily on par or better than Oakley in all terms, btw. Lenses, frames and customer service have been faultless with most I've spoken to. I switched to Smith I/Os after strictly wearing oakleys and loving Wisdoms and Crowbars and the high yellow lens. Much prefer Smith's low light and high light lens to Oakley alternates though for all round use.

To me, the question is just one of return on investment to quality. Ski a lot, and you'll appriciate the benefit and mitigate the cost of higher quality goggles. Same argument as rent vs buy to me....

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

It's not as simple as £20 vs. £130, though is it?

At £20 and below, you'll get something that looks a lot like a ski goggle but really isn't up to the job. You don't have to spend a lot more though to get something that performs much better. My main goggle is a Spy that I got for ~£40. It's a double lens with vents, anti-fog coating etc etc. It fits well and works really well in all but the worst light conditions. The only thing I reckon that would beat it in really crap light is a goggle with a specialist low light lens, not a more expensive general goggle.

I reckon you can get all the performance you need in a goggle that RRPs around the £60-80 point and if I can pick one up for about £40-45, that'll do for me.

I'm going skiing three times this winter and it's a racing certainty that one or other pair of goggles will be lost at some point (and probably some sunglasses too).

So, for me and me alone ...

really

A snowHead

Higs, I think you have summed it up there.

I have only spent around £80-£90 on my current Oakleys (Fire Iridium), even though they retail at £110+ and I have an alternative light lens (Hi Yellow), rather than alternative goggles. I regret not spending the money and just buying a second set of goggles as whilst the lenses are easy to change, I hate touching them for fear of damaging the coating.

I lent my last pair to a mate who lost them - the ones I bought after finding my cheapo ones didn't work. Because I had bought cheapos, I had no choice but to pay full retail 'in resort' prices for something that worked. As someone said above, buy cheap - buy twice.

By the way, there is a ski shop in the middle of Chamonix that has a massive selection of goggles. If you think £130 is expensive you really should stay away from this shop.

A snowHead

When buying goggles : Is there a lens type/colour which is good in sun and flat light. Primarly need em for flat light/snowy conditions

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

kendub, Not really.

The ones which are good in flat light will let through too much light to be really good in full sun.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Hi Alex
So i guess I need interchangeabe lenses ? what shade/finish is best for
flat light
and also
sun

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

kendub, Oakley's Hi Yellow are the best I have used for flat light.

You'll need to Register first of course.

bar shaker, good. That's what I just got. (I use sunnies - Oakleys wink

- when it's sunny.)

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

kendub, Either interchangeable lenses or two pairs of goggles.

You want some sort of yellow tint for flat/poor light - what it will be called will depend on manufacturer. I believe persimmon is highly recommended among Oakley users.

For good (bright) conditions, it is much more a matter of personal choice. I like orange or pink tints for that, some people prefer mirrored lenses.

After all it is free

Firstly (and this is not a dig at anyone) I just can't understand how/why people would lose or scratch up their goggles - as I've been wearing glasses since I was a wee child or about 6 or 7 yrs old, looking after something that helps me see is second nature - so my goggles are always in their protective bag when not around my face - without fail. Same for my glasses in their protective case.

I've just replaced my 2 x Oakleys this year - they've served me well for almost a decade - and yes, I think that there are other goggles out there that are the same, if not better, than Oakleys - eg Smiths, Scott, Spy, Dragon etc. In my opinion, the cheap ones don't do as good a job - just my experience.

Secondly, to respond to kendub, when light is flat there is too much blue light in the light spectrum - therefore you can't see shadows or contours - so you need a lens that filters blue light - eg persimmon, rose, yellow - how it works is like this - yellow is a mixture of red and green, so it lets through only a mixture of red and green light; orange (red and yellow) only lets through orange light, and rose-pink (a mixture of red and a little bit of white) lets through mostly red and white light.

So in bright light you want a brown or bronze shade to give depth (pref with a iridium/chrome/ion coating to reflect rays coming off snow), and in flat light you want a lens that filters as much blue light as possible. That's why most people have two goggles or at least, one goggle and two lenses.

But one caveat is this - different people's eyes are different when looking through orange/yellow/rose tints - some will see better shadows and contours using a yellow lens, and some will see better with orange, and some will see better through rose. Experiment and see.

Lastly there have recently been a number of racers who use blue lens - yes blue in flat light - blue lenses filter white light, and only lets blue light through - apparently only blue wavelength light without the other spectrum of colours (eg white light combined) will show up contours better - I personally have no experience of this but aim to test this out soon if I get the chance. I suspect that this counter-intuitive lens colour option is probably for folks who are colour blind with poor or non-existent red/green discrimination.

Colour-blindness and tint options have not been discussed on here as far as I can tell!

I know that Orange works ok for me, and also rose - haven't tried yellow but it should work ok since orange is red + yellow anyway!

Good luck kendub in searching for suitable goggles! Laughing

Interesting thread with many valid points. The retail sector when this argument really gets interesting is watches! I think with all products a lot of the cost is percieved value and what the custumer is prepared to pay is the upper limit brands push to.

Much of this perceived value being generated with v expensive global marketing which also adds a huge amount to end costs. How much do the likes of Omega / Brietling / Rolex spend on advertising and endorcements - a hell of a lot that impacts on price. But then look at a company like Sinn who spend virtually nothing, with a very tight global distributor network - and yet produce phenominal watches at half the price.

Like most things the best stuff is under the radar - same with skiing - Kingswood or Igneous skis anyone?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Help!!

Can £130 for a goggle be justified?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste