Can't find Tony Stark's sunglasses from Iron Man 3

[Naihanchi]

I just couldn't bring myself to pay MSRP on these, even though they look really fun... it's up there with titanium Matsuda prices. Really mulling over getting a second frame in another color while they are on sale.

I completely agree. They comfortably surpass Cutler and gross on price. For that they need to be very good indeed, especially when we take into account they're supplied with only clear lenses, so no fancy lens technology like the beautiful reverse gradient flash mirror of the Cutler and gross 1306 03 for example.

I may browse the sale options myself.

Oh dear!!!!

 

[Naihanchi]

Nice that you ordered a pair , looks like there is (or was) only 4 pair left.

I decided on an early Christmas present too!! Lol.

I've tried to capture the AR coating on the demo lenses in this pic...
View attachment 1639518

Looking at the 2 YouTube videos again, you can definitely see the AR coating throughout the show, as it turns a slight green when it catches the light...
View attachment 1639521 View attachment 1639522

How do the Carter compare in size to the Polaroid 6089s?

The spec of the 6089s is 53mm wide, 38mm high with a 19mm bridge.

I found info that says the Carter is 54mm wide with a 19mm bridge.

That would suggest they're very similar when worn which is great.

I couldn't find any reference for height of the lenses if anyone happens to have that info available

 

[UV400]

How do the Carter compare in size to the Polaroid 6089s?

The spec of the 6089s is 53mm wide, 38mm high with a 19mm bridge.

I found info that says the Carter is 54mm wide with a 19mm bridge.

That would suggest they're very similar when worn which is great.

I couldn't find any reference for height of the lenses if anyone happens to have that info available

They are both quite similar when worn with regard to the overall frame width, but the Carter is obviously a lot more square due to that larger lens height...



Okay, I've measured the PLD 6089/S lens height and it is 38mm as stated.
I'm getting only just over 51mm in width if measured horizontaly, but 53mm if measured diagonally on the lens.

I've measued the Carter's lens height and it's 42mm, possibly 43mm at a stretch.
Similar to the 6089/S, I'm getting only 51mm width horizontally and 54mm if measured diagonally.

Some frames use diagonal lens width measurement instead of horizontal, just to keep everyone confused!!

Here's both the Carter and 6089/S lenses together to show to the difference in height and shape...



So the Carter must have a 1mm larger "diagonal" lens width over the 6089/S.

 

[Naihanchi]

They are both quite similar when worn with regard to the overall frame width, but the Carter is obviously a lot more square due to that larger lens height...

View attachment 1639888 View attachment 1639889 View attachment 1639890 View attachment 1639891

Okay, I've measured the PLD 6089/S lens height and it is 38mm as stated.
I'm getting only just over 51mm in width if measured horizontaly, but 53mm if measured diagonally on the lens.

I've measued the Carter's lens height and it's 42mm, possibly 43mm at a stretch.
Similar to the 6089/S, I'm getting only 51mm width horizontally and 54mm if measured diagonally.

Some frames use diagonal lens width measurement instead of horizontal, just to keep everyone confused!!

Here's both the Carter and 6089/S lenses together to show to the difference in height and shape...

View attachment 1639892 View attachment 1639893 View attachment 1639894

So the Carter must have a 1mm larger "diagonal" lens width over the 6089/S.

Fantastic analysis, thank you!

I notice the arm position on the Carter seems to be seated slightly higher, closer to the top of the frame.

Is that actually the case?

Thanks in advance

 

[gio]

I just wore those polaroid this morning before reading the new posts, it’s serendipity

 

[UV400]

Fantastic analysis, thank you!

I notice the arm position on the Carter seems to be seated slightly higher, closer to the top of the frame.

Is that actually the case?

Thanks in advance

You're more than welcome!!

Yes, the arm position is a lot higher up on the frame front, it's way past center...


It's 10mm from the top of the frame and 25mm from the bottom...



Actually, looking at the arms, I've spotted that inside the hinge ends are are rough and unfinished...Urghhh!!


Unfortunately, I've seen this on quite a few high end frames and it always annoys me. It's fine details like this that matter to me on $500 frames.
There needs to be more attention to detail in presenting the finished product.

It's an easy fix so I'm going to carefully polish that out so it looks like the rest of the frame, or it's going to drive me nuts!!
Still, I shouldn't have to do this!!

 

[Naihanchi]

I just wore those polaroid this morning before reading the new posts, it’s serendipity

I looked at my Polaroid to compare with the Carter images.

They are really cool glasses, taking their price into account, one of the best in my opinion.

 

[Schlegel]

I have a few purchases I didn't mention when they arrived...
The Prada SPR55H:

 

[Schlegel]

The Givenchy 7125

 

[Schlegel]

Caddis RCA in seawater to go with the black ones

 

[Schlegel]

And Caddis Navin in burnt tortoise. This may get turned into a Gruncle Ford costume for a con, my oldest wants to be Dipper from Gravity Falls.

 

[Schlegel]

Salvatore Ferragamo SF634. Shape makes me think of old Persols the way it has the slightly drooping teardrop shape.

 

[Schlegel]

Oh, and Caddis Miklos. All the Caddis I found used and pretty cheap, which is good because the bridge fit isn't quite what I want on most of them, they sit a little lower than I prefer and there isn't much you can do about that. I suspect they think you will want to look over your readers sometimes and so made it easy to do so.
Construction seems quite satisfactory, especially considering the price point.

 

[Naihanchi]

Any confirmation on which kirk and kirk are being worn here?

 

[UV400]

Any confirmation on which kirk and kirk are being worn here?

Kirk & Kirk "Percy" in Royal C6.
Here's a slightly better pic...

It's the same pair from here...

 

[Naihanchi]

Kirk & Kirk "Percy" in Royal C6.
Here's a slightly better pic...

View attachment 1640100

It's the same pair from here...

View attachment 1640101

Thanks for that my friend

 

[Schlegel]

I looked at some old pics today... here are some frames from the 1999 set of Black and White.

 

[Schlegel]

and one shield shaped frame from 1995 issue of the magazine Detour.

 

[Schlegel]

Now that brushed silver pair from Black and White I had the pic for a while, but figured I'd never ID it, too far back and not much in the way of identifying details. But while I was searching Ebay a pair of frames randomly appeared at the top of the best matching list that looked very familiar!
I believe these are Dolce and Gabbanna DG302S in color 757 (matte or brushed silver).
and I made an offer and got a silver pair for $25!

 

[Schlegel]

Thank you for this, much appreciated

So I've done a bit of further investigating on the 2 sizes.

I can confirm these are:
58□15 140
61□13 140

Strange as 3mm is gained in the larger lens size, but 2mm is lost in the bridge width.

I found this in a listing which confirms the exact size of the larger versions...
View attachment 1635477

You can see the size indicated on the arm...

View attachment 1635478 View attachment 1635479

So the next question up for debate is, which size pair are in IM1??

Great, so regardless if the IM1 screen accurate versions are 58mm or not, now I also want a pair of 61mm with red lenses!!

after a bunch of holding up the 2 Corsairs in hand in front of enlarged pics from page 280 or so which luckily were taken from straight on, I am now confident that the RDJ Corsairs are the 58mm. The lens corners at the bridge and the lens height make it pretty distinct. Though IMO the 61 are really only a tiny bit bigger, so if they fit your face better it's fine, it's not a big change like 58mm vs 62mm Ray Ban aviators, it's a more subtle size change.