# Best goggles from this list?...



## maybeitsjustme (Dec 1, 2008)

i hate amber lenses. get any with a rose lense. you'll be glad you did.


----------



## crazyface (Mar 1, 2008)

id go with the a frames. oakley makes the best goggles along with smith


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

Assuming that all of those goggles have decent double-paned anti-fog lenses:

The fit of the goggle (in terms of now it sits on your face & nose bridge) is important, as well as wehther it is compatible with your helmet (if you wear one).

Then there is FOV (field of view), and lens type. 

You should really go to a shop and try some on. I usually give shops a 10%-15% window in terms of price.


----------



## bakesale (Nov 28, 2008)

Pick between one of the Anon Figments or Solaces. Oakley A-Frames aren't as good as people claim and the Smith / Uvex ones are crap.


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

I know I love my A-Frames, my girl loves hers, and everyone I know that owns them loves em.

It's pretty much A-Frames and Smith goggles in the circle of people that I know......

A-Frames come thru brociety for $35 from time to time.


----------



## bakesale (Nov 28, 2008)

Milo303 said:


> I know I love my A-Frames, my girl loves hers, and everyone I know that owns them loves em.
> 
> It's pretty much A-Frames and Smith goggles in the circle of people that I know......
> 
> A-Frames come thru brociety for $35 from time to time.


I've never been a fan. I got a pair as a gift one christmas and hated them. Hated the look, hated how limited my field of view was, hated how they felt on my face and hated how every third kid on the hill has a pair.


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

bakesale said:


> I've never been a fan. I got a pair as a gift one christmas and hated them. Hated the look, hated how limited my field of view was, hated how they felt on my face and hated how every third kid on the hill has a pair.


Grats on your face uniqueness?

I went from Anon Figment to A-Frames actually.

The Anons were alright, but I did have some fogging issues. I never ever ever have that with the A-Frames. As far as comfort goes they're about the same for me, field of vision I think is slightly better in the A-Frames as well.

It's all personal preference really.


----------



## bakesale (Nov 28, 2008)

Milo303 said:


> Grats on your face uniqueness?
> 
> I went from Anon Figment to A-Frames actually.
> 
> ...


You're right, it is all about personal preference and proper fit for your face. My gripe is that people think A-Frames are the end all be all of goggles when they aren't and that they unconditionally recommend them to everyone.


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

Oh gotcha. 

I was just looking back at your conditions as to why you recommended the Anons, but I couldn't find any...

And A-Frames do fit a lot of peoples faces, which is probably a large part of why people recommend them. Not to mention the anti fog tech they use.

I've got a pair of the regular A-Frames and the Jap fit and the jap will need some break in time, but the regular ones fit me perfect out of the box.

The J's basically have thicker foam to fit the flatter faces.... Maybe that style of A-Frame would've fit you better?

Either way I'm glad you found a good fit for you, and I hope this guy does also. Shitty goggles suck


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2009)

if i were youd i say fk burton and buy some drag0n goggles ;]


----------



## AWNOW (Sep 12, 2009)

Hard to go wrong for Aframes at 60 CAD. Run by a shop and see if they fit you okay, if they do, get them.


----------



## bakesale (Nov 28, 2008)

AWNOW said:


> Hard to go wrong for Aframes at 60 CAD. Run by a shop and see if they fit you okay, if they do, get them.


Fuck, this type of behaviour pisses me off. Local shops DO NOT exist so you can go try shit on and turn around to buy it online for cheaper. If you're going to try them on at a local shop, buy them at a local shop. 

Maybe you aren't aware of this but local shops often run on razor thin margins and online shopping is severely hurting their business.

If you try at shops with the intent of buying online then Jesus hates you


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

bakesale said:


> Fuck, this type of behaviour pisses me off. Local shops DO NOT exist so you can go try shit on and turn around to buy it online for cheaper. If you're going to try them on at a local shop, buy them at a local shop.
> 
> Maybe you aren't aware of this but local shops often run on razor thin margins and online shopping is severely hurting their business.
> 
> If you try at shops with the intent of buying online then Jesus hates you


BDFU. An online shop is just another store, meaning increased competition for the brick & mortar stores in your area.

They enjoy a distinct advantage over online shops in that they get customers walking through their door that they can interact with (or upsell, or create a relationship with), AND the brick & mortar shop can get the customer the merchandise immediately.

Basically, if the employees at a brick & mortar shop are such sh*tty salespoeple that they can't move merchandise to willing customers (over an online store) then either:
1. The prices at the b&m shop are just too high
2. They need to fire their sales staff and get people in there who know how to chat up a customer.

Online shops means increased competition. There's nothing wrong with trying something in one shop and buying it elsewhere. Why can't I try on a laptop at Best Buy, but get it at Fry's if its cheaper? This is the entire reason that these stores price match with each other.

Its not like the manufacturer's and distributors don't play the game either. Funny how new snowboards cost the exact same price all over the entire country. Price fixing is supposed to be illegal in this country.... but they get around this law with restrictions on advertised prices and penalties for selling below a certain value.

If you don't like the free market, then move to North Korea!


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying out products at stores first. In fact, any good shop will encourage it which in turn creates a customer for other buys. I recently went to a jewelry store and told them I purchased an engagement ring through an online retailer. They complimented the ring and the deal I received instead of trying to make their product seem better. I was very pleasantly surprised and now I will buy a wedding band from them even though I could probably find that one cheaper online too. This type of customer service is what consumers like and that will ultimately create good business. You can't expect a consumer to purchase solely from one shop. People are in this game to save money and these local shops need to respect that.

Tarzanman is absolutely right about competition being good. Do you seriously want every single shop that is erected to survive? That is not even feasible. Competition is meant to weed out the excess and create better quality products at better prices. Innovation would not be as nearly frequent as it is now without a competitive market place. Online shopping isn't even the future. It is what is happening now and it will only increase. If you can't keep up with the internet, then frankly, you won't succeed in business.

As for price fixing, new snowboards have a universal price because that is what the vendors want the stores to charge for the current year. This is called retail value. It is perfectly legal and common. The main reason why companies force retailers to charge a set rate especially for the current year is so that they can ensure themselves enough revenue to cover the costs associated with the products. Same goes for video game consoles and games. They have a universal price tag with the exception of games going on sale after about a year. This is not price fixing. Price fixing is two or more supposed competitors in the same market agreeing to set a price for their products. ATI and NVIDIA were being watched some time ago for price fixing. Their graphics cards were consistently being released at around the same time at the same price for all levels of their products. Although they were found innocent, you can get the idea here. Price fixing is meant for the top companies to weed out any smaller companies so they can be the only ones in the market. That is the reason why it is illegal.

Even though snowboards have a universal price for the current year, they are not the same exact prices as competing brands. For example, a 2010 Burton board will cost $500, but a 2010 equal level NeverSummer board will cost $300. If both companies charge $500 for their boards and all of their other levels of boards are matched in this fashion, then you have suspicion of price fixing.


----------



## AWNOW (Sep 12, 2009)

bakesale said:


> Fuck, this type of behaviour pisses me off. Local shops DO NOT exist so you can go try shit on and turn around to buy it online for cheaper. If you're going to try them on at a local shop, buy them at a local shop.
> 
> Maybe you aren't aware of this but local shops often run on razor thin margins and online shopping is severely hurting their business.
> 
> If you try at shops with the intent of buying online then Jesus hates you


Lolumad brah?

I have actually ran a shop, so go ahead and STFU.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Leo said:


> As for price fixing, new snowboards have a universal price because that is what the vendors want the stores to charge for the current year. This is called retail value. It is perfectly legal and common. The main reason why companies force retailers to charge a set rate especially for the current year is so that they can ensure themselves enough revenue to cover the costs associated with the products.


I don't mean to pick nits, but it's called "MSRP" not "retail value", and although it is perfectly legal and very common, it's a pretty bogus tactic which benefits established corporations at the expense of consumers and smaller start-ups who don't have an established brand name yet. It's legal protectionism, the equivalent of intramural trade restrictions, really.

Everything you need for snowboarding would be much less expensive if they couldn't enforce these "agreements".

...and everyone likes "less expensive".


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2009)

its nice to actually read a thread with intelligent discussions...but...more importantly...my girlfriend is buying me some goggles for christmas, i just need to pick them out. right now i have some cheap smith with the amber lens...i have already decided on the a-frames they just fit my face way to well not to get them and my buddy gets like 55% off...soo that being said...i want to know which lens color is best for all around day and night riding...thanks for the help.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

excusemeflow said:


> its nice to actually read a thread with intelligent discussions...but...more importantly...my girlfriend is buying me some goggles for christmas, i just need to pick them out. right now i have some cheap smith with the amber lens...i have already decided on the a-frames they just fit my face way to well not to get them and my buddy gets like 55% off...soo that being said...i want to know which lens color is best for all around day and night riding...thanks for the help.


Rose/persimmon tint is going to be best for all-around day, night, twilight riding. Amber would be OK, too.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

david_z said:


> I don't mean to pick nits, but it's called "MSRP" not "retail value", and although it is perfectly legal and very common, it's a pretty bogus tactic which benefits established corporations at the expense of consumers and smaller start-ups who don't have an established brand name yet. It's legal protectionism, the equivalent of intramural trade restrictions, really.
> 
> Everything you need for snowboarding would be much less expensive if they couldn't enforce these "agreements".
> 
> ...and everyone likes "less expensive".


Yes, you are correct. Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price. I didn't want to get completely technical. You say tomato I say tuhmahto :laugh:

About it being a bogus tactic, this is not true. I think you are thinking about price fixing which is illegal and a bogus tactic. Even smaller start-ups have their own MSRP for their current year products. Brand name plays no role in MSRP because as I have stated, Burton can charge $500 for a current year board while NeverSummer can charge $300 for their equivalent. There is nothing wrong with what Burton is doing since a consumer can easily go get a NeverSummer or even a $100 current year Lamar. In fact, the smaller start-ups benefit from Burton charging so high for their current year products because price conscious consumers will look to the cheaper brands (cheap in price, not quality).

The fact is, MSRP is needed for the companies to be able to cover their costs. If all of their products are constantly below their profit margin, then they wouldn't produce these products. Granted, a lot of "brand name" companies charge more than they need to, but hey... money makes the world go around and as long as there is a market for them, they'll keep on doing it. Morality only comes into play for consumers because ultimately it is up to them whether or not to buy from these pricey vendors.


----------



## bakesale (Nov 28, 2008)

I couldn't disagree more with what has been said by you two. Yes there is absolutely something wrong with trying at a local shop before buying online. If you are going to try something on at a shop with the intent of buying it online for cheaper then you have just taken advantage of the local shop and basically used them without giving back anything in return, this is morally reprehensible. Sure you say this could potentially create good customer relations but to what end? If this type of behaviour continues then the brick and mortar mom and pop shops will eventually disappear, which is not only bad for the businesses but also bad for the snowboarding community. Is that online shop going to detune the edges on your new board? Are they going to set you up with a new binding strap the night before you go riding? Are they going to foster a community element that has been longstanding and unique to the sport? Are they going to provide kids with talent an opportunity to get recognized by the larger sponsors? The answers to all those questions are quite simply; no.

Back in the day shops would sign agreements with vendors that they could be the only game in town to sell that line. It helped to protect the identity of the brand and protect the shop from having to be price competitive. Nobody could afford to be price competitive back in the day. The way they were competitive was by having a better crew, better sales staff, better couch for the kids to sit on and talk about the sport with their friends. This business model made the sport what it is today and it will be a sad sad day when assholes who pull a dickhead move by trying stuff in the shop and buying online are the ones that make the mom and pop shops close their doors.

If you want to buy it online, buy it online and take the risk that it doesn't fit. If you want to ensure proper fit and talk to a human being before buying, buy it at a local shop. You shouldn't expect to have it both ways.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

bakesale said:


> I couldn't disagree more with what has been said by you two. Yes there is absolutely something wrong with trying at a local shop before buying online. If you are going to try something on at a shop with the intent of buying it online for cheaper then you have just taken advantage of the local shop and basically used them without giving back anything in return, this is morally reprehensible. Sure you say this could potentially create good customer relations but to what end? If this type of behaviour continues then the brick and mortar mom and pop shops will eventually disappear, which is not only bad for the businesses but also bad for the snowboarding community. Is that online shop going to detune the edges on your new board? Are they going to set you up with a new binding strap the night before you go riding? Are they going to foster a community element that has been longstanding and unique to the sport? Are they going to provide kids with talent an opportunity to get recognized by the larger sponsors? The answers to all those questions are quite simply; no.
> 
> Back in the day shops would sign agreements with vendors that they could be the only game in town to sell that line. It helped to protect the identity of the brand and protect the shop from having to be price competitive. Nobody could afford to be price competitive back in the day. The way they were competitive was by having a better crew, better sales staff, better couch for the kids to sit on and talk about the sport with their friends. This business model made the sport what it is today and it will be a sad sad day when assholes who pull a dickhead move by trying stuff in the shop and buying online are the ones that make the mom and pop shops close their doors.
> 
> If you want to buy it online, buy it online and take the risk that it doesn't fit. If you want to ensure proper fit and talk to a human being before buying, buy it at a local shop. You shouldn't expect to have it both ways.


I respect your opinions and I admire your compassion towards small businesses. However, you have now heard from a person who ran a shop and myself, an employee of a very small retailer that has recently boomed, that we condone this type of activity. Even as an employee of a company that owns a few brick and mortar stores in Michigan along with several successful online sites, you'll still see me recommend competitors should they have better deals that we cannot match. I see nothing wrong with consumers doing the best they can to create value for themselves.

I do feel bad for the "mom and pop" shops, but at the same time, I can't possibly hope to see each and every one of them survive. A lot of these shops are the result of poor business decisions. I know from experience as I warned my parents against opening a restaurant in a town of 2000 population. It was a bad decision and I was correct with my concerns. This is life in the market place. Nobody said it will be easy. If people are going to open a sporting goods store, they better have a solid internet backbone or they will fail. Unless of course they are located in a resort town.

It sucks, no doubt about it. But you have to remember, most of these successful businesses started out as "mom and pop" shops themselves. Every business owner wants to be successful and continue to be that. Besides, how many people do you see walking around malls and window shopping only to never purchase a single thing in the store nor online. Are you suggesting they are reprehensible as well? It's plain and simply shopping around. Everyone does it one way or another. To say it is wrong, is to say that people shouldn't shop around and try things out.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Leo said:


> Yes, you are correct. Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price. I didn't want to get completely technical. You say tomato I say tuhmahto :laugh:
> 
> About it being a bogus tactic, this is not true. I think you are thinking about price fixing which is illegal and a bogus tactic.


No, I'm definitely not thinking about price fixing (I have a graduate degree in economics for whatever that's worth these days) which is collusion between two or more manufacturers (and an inherently unstable "thieve's pact" since there's no mechanism by which to enforce this sort of agreement). 



Leo said:


> Brand name plays no role in MSRP


Of course it does. Aside from quality of workmanship (and we're assuming equal quality boards by Burton & NS, for example) brand name is the only thing they use to justify the price. Just like a t-shirt at Abercrombie & Fitch costs $29.95 but same quality at Kohl's might only cost $14.95 - the quality is the same, but the brand name is why you pay a premium for some brands. That's it.



Leo said:


> The fact is, MSRP is needed for the companies to be able to cover their costs.


Cost-plus or Labor Theory of Value. Take your pick. They're both flawed. If a company can't cover its costs by selling competitively (and MSRP foisted upon retailers and consumers _is_ anti-competitive) then it probably shouldn't be in business. For example, General Motors doesn't get to charge $30,000 for a G6 simply because of its bloated cost structure.


Leo said:


> If all of their products are constantly below their profit margin, then they wouldn't produce these products.


Indeed. But why would they continue to sell things below their profit margins? Retailers won't sell things, at least not for very long before they go out of business, below their costs, so as long as the OEMs charge the retailers a price sufficient to cover the costs of production, it's the retailers who ought determine the final selling price. Brands like to control this selling price because advertisers have convinced the majority of us that a high price is indicative of high quality. Often, it is. Often, it is not.

But yeah, i didn't want to hijack this thread...

Cheers.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Leo said:


> If people are going to open a sporting goods store, they better have a solid internet backbone or they will fail. Unless of course they are located in a resort town.


I 100% agree with this statement. 

But no matter what internet does, a well-run brick & mortar shop will always be able to stay in business. Maybe not one on every corner, but they'll always exist, because people like to have things _now_, because people like to try things on, because people like to talk to & learn from the experienced staff, etc. Internet shopping is great, and it is revolutionizing how we transact, but it's not a killer app. It's not going to replace brick & mortar. Brick & mortar just needs to adapt and leverage the internet to their advantage. Some of them will do this successfully, others will not. That's the way the cookie crumbles I suppose.


----------



## jay777 (Dec 20, 2009)

I was in the market for a new set of googles and stumbled across this thread. 
I went with a pair of Anon Majestics. 

Definitely couldn't argue with the price.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

david_z said:


> Of course it does. Aside from quality of workmanship (and we're assuming equal quality boards by Burton & NS, for example) brand name is the only thing they use to justify the price. Just like a t-shirt at Abercrombie & Fitch costs $29.95 but same quality at Kohl's might only cost $14.95 - the quality is the same, but the brand name is why you pay a premium for some brands. That's it.


I was talking more along the lines of the theory behind MSRP. It is supposed to set based on the companies' costs and profit goals. That is why I said brands like Burton will charge higher prices than they need to while brands like NeverSummer charge much less. Brands like NeverSummer are using MSRP the right way. But I totally agree with you that brands charge insane prices because of their name.

This thread was totally hijacked lol :laugh::laugh:

I love these types of discussions though. Food for your brain :thumbsup:


----------

