# sunglasses



## ddiesel (Apr 23, 2014)

Any recommendations for good pair of sunglasses for sailing


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Rudyproject.com


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

The least expensive, medium-amber, polarized sunglasses you can find - they're gonna get scratched up, beat up and probably lost overboard. This policy has worked for more than 50 years for me and has saved me a lot of money. My son purchased a $400 pair or sunglasses and a week later they were part of the Chesapeake Bay Artificial Reef Program.

Gary


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Polarizing lenses make some "screens" hard to read.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I am 71 years old and have been on the water almost continuously since I was 12 years old. I will be going in for my first set of prescription glasses this summer. Almost every other one of my peers has had some sort of eye problems, mainly from the sun on and the relection off the water, including glaucoma, etc.
By 16 I was sick and tired of squinting all day long. I went out and bought a very expensive (for the 60's) pair of Vuarnet glass ski glasses made specifically for whiteout conditions. It worked out this also made them ideal for seeing through the water, for navigating, especially in the tropics.
Over the years the prices on Vuarnets went through the roof and I ended up with Ray Ban ambermatics or Hobie something sun glasses, but never the chique stylish ones, only ones that completely cover my eye sockets. They always had amber lenses and were always glass. Then those glasses were discontinued or the prices skyrocketed an Vuarnets became affordable again, in comparison. It's been round and round like this for over half a century. Right now I'm wearing 12 year old Vuarnets, but last I checked this $160.00 pair was now $480.00, so I'll be looking for something less expensive when I need new glasses (or the Vuarnet price will drop again).
I will not wear plastic sun glasses for 2 reasons. Few, if any, are quality lenses and most have faults in the lenses that distract the eye (I'm not sure I'm describing it correctly, so I hope you understand), and this gives me headaches. Secondly, glass lenses are heavier and do not blow off your face in less that 70 knots of wind (like in a bass boat, lol).
I take really good care of what I wear for eye care. I have a case on my belt, one in the companionway and never, ever set them down uncased. I wash them frequently with soapy fresh water, and never, again ever, wipe them until I have rinsed the salt off the lenses first.
There's no proof that using quality sunglasses is the reason why my eyes have been so good to me, but it isn't heredity, that is certain.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

SanderO said:


> Polarizing lenses make some "screens" hard to read.


Too true, which is why one of my favorite pairs of sunglasses are my Barz. I'm at the stage of life where I need "cheaters" to read, and finding a good pair of sunglasses with built in readers is tough. You can get reader sunglasses (where the entire lens is a magnifier), but finding the bifocal-style is a little harder. I found Barz at a boat show. They are an Australian company, and they make readers with polarized main lenses, with the reader part of the bifocal non-polarized. Makes it really easy to see your LCD screens in the sunlight without taking off your polarized glasses.

Other than my Barz (which are not in such good shape these days), I buy polarized, amber polycarbonate lens glasses. Pretty much whatever I can find that fits and doesn't make my wife laugh (I've given up on getting my kids' approval; that just ain't happenin').

My "good" pair of glasses is made by Bolle; amber lenses, polarized, polycarbonate. I'm guessing if I had to buy them today, they'd run about $100. I generally try to spend no more than $35 on a new glasses. I'm always breaking, losing, sitting on or otherwise demolishing whatever I have. I've had the Bolle's for about 15 years, and the only reason they lasted that long was because I stashed them on the boat and forgot about them for about 10 of those years.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I have always worn 'glacier glasses' with leather side curtains. Like Capta, I don't wear glasses for distance and prefer amber tinted glass lenses. For racing I prefer non-polarized lenses since they allow me to pick out more subtle differences in surface color and so see wind patterns more clearly. For cruising, polarized are better since the cut the glare and let you see better below the surface.

The deal with the glacier style glasses are that they have leather side pieces that block the light from the side. The theory is that when you wear sunglasses out on the water the pupils dilate because the sunglasses block some of the light from directly in front of you, but there is a huge amount of light that is reflected from the sides. In normal life you would turn your head to reduce that glare, but when you are sailing there is a tendency to look at specific places on the sail and the boat and so don't turn your head allowing the eye to get sunburned.

Anyway I have worn the the same cheap pair of glacier glasses for 30 years now. I actually bought three pairs ($12 each) in 1988 and promptly damaged two pairs which I have cannibalized to keep one pair fully intact (as in faux tortoise shell frame with black ear pieces and tan leather side covers and heat shrink where they sit on my ears. Hey its sailing and not a fashion show). These are me in those glasses probably 10-12 years ago.









A couple years ago my wife got me an expensive pair of Julbo Vermont Classics and special ordered non-polarized glass lenses for them. I like them but only wear them on special occasions. They sort of look like the Julbo Sherpas below which have plastic polarized lenses like this










The Sherpas are on sale at REi this weekend for $49 but again that is with the plastic lenses.

Jeff


----------



## dadio917 (Apr 4, 2011)

maui jim glass amber. great optics in sun or clouds. Very tough and incredible support. worth every penny. I've had several pairs over the years. only once did I have a problem after sailing from nz to Hawaii. a little delamination. they replaced free without question. I have a plastic pair now but will get a pair with their new lite weight glass soon. I prefer the polarized for the water glare.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

Dittoes on going cheap, amber, and non-polarized. Cheap for obvious reasons already stated, amber because they retain more true-to-life colors AND enhance contrast, and non-polarized for the screen issues. I had a couple of really nice prescription sunglasses over the years (minor distance correction, and then eventually progressive lenses so I could also read close up as I ... umm... became increasingly chronologically enhanced). Both pairs of expensive prescription sunglasses are now in the hands of Neptune. 

Sooo.. I wear only what I call "Geri-shades" now.. wear-overs. Big ones, with side lenses. Finding them in amber and non-polarized is difficult, but when I do, for about $15/each, I buy a couple of them and just use them until they wear out, get too scratched, disappear, or are claimed by Neptune. I love the fact that I can still wear my regular prescription glasses, see at all distances just as well, and contrast is enhanced even on cloudy days. I pretty much wear them whenever I go out of the house, no matter what... driving, sailing, walking, sunny, cloudy, whatever..

Edit for addition: AND.. for anyone who loves to play with paracord.. you can make some GREAT chubs for your cheap shades very easily. Just remove the core, work the ends of the sheath over the bow ends, and melt'em on.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

One more vote for quality over quantity! I discovered the joys of quality sunglasses years ago, and there is no going back to cheapo glasses. The optics and clarity are far superior. I take care of my glasses so I don't mind the cost. I always use a croakie so I won't loose my glasses even if I have a flogging spinnaker in my face! 

Currently I am using Maui Jims. I got my first pair back in 2010, and the lenses are still perfect. I have the Matt black frames, the the matt coating started to come off, possibly from salt, sunscreen or uv. I showed them to the Maui Jim rep, and they just took them from me, sent them off to the factory, and had my lenses put into new frames free of charge! Great service considering they were long out of warranty.

A few years ago I found I was having trouble reading charts etc with sunglasses on as my eyes get worse. First I got a pair of Maui Jim readers which were very nice, and they did the trick, until I found myself using the magnified part for looking at things farther away, and not just reading. Last year I splurged and bought a pair of progressive prescription Maui Jims, and life is good! Sure, they were expensive, and my healthcare plan didn't cover all of the cost, but money well spent!

When it comes to motor cycle helmets I have always said "if you have a $5 head buy a $5 helmet", and I think sunglasses fall into the same category. As sailors we subject our eyes to extreme amounts of sunlight, and we should be protecting them accordingly.

On the subject of polarizing, I wouldn't do without it either. I havent found a screen I can't read with my Maui Jims, although ocassionally I might have to tilt my head slightly. The way polarization cuts glare off the water I find it makes it easier to see the ripples on the water, and it allows me to see past the surface glare and into the water which is nice when I am in shallow waters.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

travlin-easy said:


> The least expensive, medium-amber, polarized sunglasses you can find - they're gonna get scratched up, beat up and probably lost overboard. This policy has worked for more than 50 years for me and has saved me a lot of money. My son purchased a $400 pair or sunglasses and a week later they were part of the Chesapeake Bay Artificial Reef Program.
> 
> Gary


LOL Exactly the post i was going to write! So exactly the story I was going to tell about a friend losing hers overboard was exactly the same price $400! Fine artificial reef in Sydney Harbour.

I have made reefs around the world


----------



## SV Siren (Mar 8, 2013)

I have both Maui Jim's and Kaenon's, one on board and one in the car, sometimes when crewing on someone else's boat I don't want to run to my boat just to fetch a pair. Mine are both polarized prescription lenses, so I can submit the bill for re-imbursement from my insurance, so my total cost runs around $70 US. I love them both, nice quality, but I sure don't want to lose them over the rail...


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Over the years, I have made many, many donations to the Artificial Reef Programs worldwide. The first I can recall was my wedding ring. My new wife and I were out fishing on Chesapeake Bay when a red wasp tried to light on my nose. I swatted at it with my left hand and watched my wedding ring fly through the air and splash in 70 feet of water. At the time, I had serious thoughts about diving overboard to try and retrieve the ring before my wife grabbed me by the shirt and screamed no! We purchased another ring the following day. Back then, 1962, it cost $14 for a white gold, mans, wedding band. And that included the inscription charge. How things have changed.

Somewhere on the bottom of Boca Grande Pass is a great looking Timex waterproof watch that went airborne when the watchband pin popped loose when I was casting to rolling tarpon. 

At least 3 pairs of sunglasses, plus one pair or eyeglasses have went to Davy Jones' Locker over the years for various reasons along with countless hats. 

All the best,

Gary


----------



## SHNOOL (Jun 7, 2007)

These:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XZL68LC/ref=twister_B06XZKZNLZ?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

Every time I buy from Amazon, I buy another pair, because I know I'm going to crush a pair. at $13, it doesn't bother me much.

The nose pieces pop off sometimes, and the ear rubbers come off too easily sometimes... superglue fixes both.

They are dark, and polarized... and the black rim ones with mirror finish are darkest, the silver rimmed ones with blue lenses add better water contrast.
I'm shocked anyone says no polarization for water shows them MORE contrast... I may just try it... but my own experience is that I can see way better areas of holes and puffs with polarization, overcast days you want the more amber lenses, bright clear days you want dark lenses.

In one of my many hobbies, I fished, and lived the life of what glasses work best. One thing that is endlessly true is if you can cover your whole eye, it'll work better. Large lenses help and are a good second choice. I prefer air around my eyes if I need more coverage, I wear a hat (baseball type hat). When I race I'll probably flip the cap backward though, just to see the top telltales and masthead.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Whatever glass you use... consider cable temple style which wrap around your ears. They will stay on and secure. Unfortunately they are hard to come by. They do make a conversion add on "cable temples" this would allow any glassed to be "converted". I find I move my head... look down and so forth and glass with out cables can slip off..and have. The conversions only work for relatively thin metal temples.

https://qtena.com/cable-temple-end-...ilicone-2-pair-br-made-in-germany-p-4767.html

If you find some comfortable attractive cable frames, get the lenses you need installed... and get several... because you should have a spare.


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

If planning on reef navigation by eye a pair of polaroid sunglasses are a good investment.

Buy two pairs.

Buy regular non polarised glasses sunglasses for use with any kind of LCD screen. 

Raybans sink and corrode as fast as Walmart special offers.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I've never had a problem being able to read my GPS/Plotter/Depth Finder displays while wearing polarized glasses. Maybe it is because Lowrance uses Supertwist technology, which actually gets brighter when in direct sunlight.

Now, hats are another important factor. Be sure to get one with a dark underbrim, preferably dark green. This absorbs much of the reflective glare off the water and makes it much easier for you to see in bright sunlight. This is especially true of objects just beneath the surface in murky water such as Chesapeake Bay's upper reaches.

Gary


----------



## jwing (Jun 20, 2013)

I have used the same sunglasses for 20 years or more - the same set - for many different activities such as backcountry skiing, whitewater kayaking, mountain biking, climbing, swimming, sailing. Here are the features that I love and why they have lasted so long:

I hate cheap sunglasses. They distort the view and break easily.

The shape of the frame and lens was carefully chosen with the priority being that no unfiltered sunlight can reach my eyes, from any angle. This requires curved and raked lenses.

The lens must come from a high quality manufacturer so that there is no optical distortion. This is a challenging proposition for curved lenses. 

The tinting must be done to protect the eye while keeping colors discernible and focus sharp. Cheap glasses just darken the view.

The weak points for most glasses is the hinge and the nose pads. For that reason, I have been a fan of Oakley sunglasses because they don't use the typical flimsy metal hinge; their stems are designs to snap away from the glasses before the frames break and are easily snapped back in place with no damage. There are no nose pads stuck onto tiny wires, the frames have nose pads molded in. This is the way Oakleys were made 20 years ago. I haven't shopped for glasses since, so I don't know if Oakleys are still like that. Maybe all sport glasses are like that now?

I have my glasses on an adjustable retainer - ALWAYS. When my glasses are not on my face, then they are dangling at my chest or pulled up around my neck, or hanging securely in a safe place. They never get put down or into a pocket. Nothing has ever touched the lenses of my sunglasses except air, water, and soapy water. After cleaning, I use the retainer to sling them dry.

Twenty years ago, I paid about $120 for my Oakleys. I'll probably still have them 20 years from now. That is a whole lot less expensive that running through dozens of cheap sunglasses.


----------



## PhilCarlson (Dec 14, 2013)

I concur with going cheap. They are going to the bottom eventually.

If prescription lenses are required try zennioptical. com (US) Super cheap, decent quality.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

9 years on the same Rayban Wayfarer frames, polarized and Rx. Just had new lenses done again this spring at my eyes seem to be getting worse with age. Either on my face with a leash or in the case, not rocket science.
Only get one set of eyes, forget the cheap glasses. Unless you like cataract surgery.....


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

for 20.95, polar shield or solar shield over glasses sunglasses are the best things i have ever found. 
good with glasses and without. these keep light out of ones eyes, from above, sides and under. love em. have 2 pairs will collect more.. for these i will hoard.. hahahahaha never know when your glasses or sunglasses will go gone. best be ready


----------



## Statesman15 (Mar 24, 2018)

I've used a pair of glasses for fishing, but have not had them out sailing yet, but they're great around the water. They're made by Norton Point, they're not cheap, but a good pair of croakies keeps them safe. Best part is for every pair of sunglasses they sell they will remove one pound of plastic from the ocean and they donate 5% of net profits. A nice pair of glasses to goes towards what I think all sailors would like to see...cleaner waters. And I failed to mention that the glasses frames are made of the recycled ocean plastic.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I have an expensive pair of sunglasses (for me at $80) and I have a couple pair of cheap $12 100% UV polarized glasses. I can't really tell the difference in the vision part using them. ButI tend to wear the cheap ones because I feel bad about scratching up the "expensive" ones. 

I'm sure the real expensive $400 glasses are nice, but come on be real. Expensive glasses aren't really about protecting your eyes, they are about status and fashion.

So my advise is to go to the get some $10-20 pair of sunglasses that are 100% UVA/UVB and polarized and go sailing. hell get 10 pair and be way ahead still in the boating budget over a pair of the "nice" sunglasses.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Don0190 said:


> I have an expensive pair of sunglasses (for me at $80) and I have a couple pair of cheap $12 100% UV polarized glasses. I can't really tell the difference in the vision part using them. ButI tend to wear the cheap ones because I feel bad about scratching up the "expensive" ones.
> 
> I'm sure the real expensive $400 glasses are nice, but come on be real. Expensive glasses aren't really about protecting your eyes, they are about status and fashion.
> 
> So my advise is to go to the get some $10-20 pair of sunglasses that are 100% UVA/UVB and polarized and go sailing. hell get 10 pair and be way ahead still in the boating budget over a pair of the "nice" sunglasses.


Fake news....you get what you pay for..you can try and convince yourself that those crackerjacks prize glass are as good as Carl Zeus's quality glasses, besides crackerjack doesn't make prescription ones yet do they.

My glasses full price are $400, on sale with a discount $180. With my medical benefits covering 50% that's now $90.

For that they replace the frame , arms , nose pads lifetime.

The style I wear are wraparound that the bike racers wear so very little side light enters and I can keep my eyes wide open behind them no squinting.

You can fool yourself into thinking crackerjacks are the same as quality, but in reality you must drink a few more microbrews to have that become a reality. You get way you pay for


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

Chef.. the point isn't that I, or Travlin' and Zeehag, if I may be so bold as to speak for them, disagree with your point. Yes, quality optics ARE better than $20 drugstore sunglasses. My take on it is that SOME of the cost of high end designer glasses is solely the name and style. That part is of no interest to me. The part that is based on the increased quality of the optics is more than offset, at least for me and possibly others, by the likelihood of loss or damage in other-than-sedate usage. For me, $20 (or less) wear-overs serve 90% of the function for 5% of the cost. Good enough.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

bblument said:


> Chef.. the point isn't that I, or Travlin' and Zeehag, if I may be so bold as to speak for them, disagree with your point. Yes, quality optics ARE better than $20 drugstore sunglasses. My take on it is that SOME of the cost of high end designer glasses is solely the name and style. That part is of no interest to me. The part that is based on the increased quality of the optics is more than offset, at least for me and possibly others, by the likelihood of loss or damage in other-than-sedate usage. For me, $20 (or less) wear-overs serve 90% of the function for 5% of the cost. Good enough.


I will be so bold as to only speak for myself.

The OP original post was for " a good pair of sunglasses "

If you think your answer was appropriate , that's good for you, but you failed to answer the OP question.

If you think you gave him a specific "good pair of sunglasses" ....well you didn't . What you gave was an unasked for personal opinion on buying real sunglasses and what a waste they were. 
I assume he's/ she is an adult and has already decided to not go the crackerjack box route, he was asking what others bought, not your opinion if it was a waste of money.

Notice it was not about price as Jeff H gave a specific good suggestion without an accompanying value judgement.

Some even answered how bad they were about taking care of their equipment ( glasses) . Also many did not address he / she may have to use perscription sunglasses.

Personally I wear good perscription sun glasses when I drive also, the same ones I use on the boat. Because I don't trash them, loose them in the water , I get a new pair every 4 years or so and have multiple pairs. My favorites are Rudy Projects and Bolle.

My eyes health is important to me , so purchasing a lens and proper fitting frame, with the right coloring and emission of light, protection of my eyes from side light, and preserving my retina also go into my choice. Cheap sunglasses won't do any of the above. Course you don't see the damage until it is done.

Does it cost a little more than the crackerjack prize.....you bet . My eyes are worth it, and it has nothing to do with buying a name brand or style as you and others shallowly ascribed to the choice.


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

chef2sail said:


> ..
> Does it cost a little more than the crackerjack prize.....you bet . My eyes are worth it, and it has nothing to do with buying a name brand or style as you and others shallowly ascribed to the choice.


My apologies if what I wrote seemed like I was denigrating your decision; I wasn't, and didn't mean to. It is undeniable that a recognized and desired name brand adds to the cost (and value for many) of an item, as does it's appearance. All I said was that those things are unimportant to me, not that they should be unimportant to anyone else. When folks ask for advice or recommendations, all we can offer is our own viewpoints, and let them choose what matters to THEM.

Quality optics and effective UV protection ARE important to me, and I am willing to pay for them. I've had them, loved them, and had the ocean rip them from me on two occasions (neither sailing-related). Since then, a $20 pair of wear-overs have met MY definition of "good" sunglasses for sailing; they are effective, help me see better, protect my eyes, the wrap-around design protects from light and glare from all angles, and I don't worry about scratching, damaging, or losing them so they're stress-free. That's where my values are. Not ascribing "shallowness" or any other negative terms to ANYONE whose values differ. I'm sorry you took it that way...

Best to you.

Barry

Edit: I went back and reread my earlier posts, and am completely mystified as to what I wrote that could possibly have caused such a harsh reaction. "Fake news" .. "fooling yourselves" ... implying I'd have to be drunk to use the glasses I use. Not very nice. I mentioned that I'd had quality prescription glasses and loved them. Not sure why you took such offense to my valid points. BTW.. it's Carl Zeiss, not Zeus, and yes, they make excellent optics. I have one of their vintage cameras from the 50s, and it's a treasured posession. Additionally, nowhere did I ever say that quality optics were a waste of money. Where did you get that idea?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

bblument said:


> My apologies if what I wrote seemed like I was denigrating your decision; I wasn't, and didn't mean to. It is undeniable that a recognized and desired name brand adds to the cost (and value for many) of an item, as does it's appearance. All I said was that those things are unimportant to me, not that they should be unimportant to anyone else. When folks ask for advice or recommendations, all we can offer is our own viewpoints, and let them choose what matters to THEM.
> 
> Quality optics and effective UV protection ARE important to me, and I am willing to pay for them. I've had them, loved them, and had the ocean rip them from me on two occasions (neither sailing-related). Since then, a $20 pair of wear-overs have met MY definition of "good" sunglasses for sailing; they are effective, help me see better, protect my eyes, the wrap-around design protects from light and glare from all angles, and I don't worry about scratching, damaging, or losing them so they're stress-free. That's where my values are. Not ascribing "shallowness" or any other negative terms to ANYONE whose values differ. I'm sorry you took it that way...
> 
> ...


Barry,

I apologize as I didn't mean to come off harsh to you. The fake news/ micro brew comment was not I intendeded for you but another poster. Damn auto corrected to Zeus...I meant Zeiss. I also have a older very fine lense camera with lens made by the Zeiss Labs.


----------



## SHNOOL (Jun 7, 2007)




----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Jeff, we might have the same glacier glasses. I had bought two pair of Bolle from LLBean back in the 80's, very reasonably priced and "unbreakable". The lenses are gold flashed thin glass, excellent optics. And when one pair did break, LLB apologized and said they no longer could replace them with glass, the new ones were required by the FDA to be shatter-resistant and that meant plastic. I concede the point, but I still have the one glass pair that I'm not giving up. The leather side shads can mean things sneak up on you, you've got to swivel your head a bit more. But they're wonderful at preserving night vision on those blinding days. Or, when the 'scop kicks in.
A Croakies strap or other similar (the Bolles come with a cord) ensures the glasses don't go to a reef project. And if you've got those plastic tips over the earpieces, that are old and cracking and wearing off? Yeah, Amazon sells some and a couple of optics houses sell more on the web. If you've got rx glasses from a local optician, they often will replace them for free.
There are SO many good choices out there. These days, either ridiculous prices from that Italian conglomerate that owns most of the brands, or much cheaper ones out of China, sold at Wallyworld and others, and damn few in between. Considering the markups on the "Italian" brands, I'm surprised West Marine doesn't carry them.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Keep in mind that nearly all UVB rays are blocked with ordinary, clear glass and 75 percent of UVA rays are blocked by ordinary glass. So, the price you pay has absolutely nothing to do with eye safety - NOTHING! 

Additionally, wearing sun glasses or eye glasses will not likely prevent cataracts from occurring. Cataracts are primarily part of the aging process, though they are sometimes caused by various injuries, infections and even some medications. Just because you spent a lot of money on designer sunglasses doesn't preclude you from cataracts. 

So, from a medical perspective, those crackerjack box sunglasses are equally as effective as a pair of $400 designer glasses. You may not look as pretty, but the protection from the harmful rays of the sun are the same. 

One more thing, and this I learned from the TV show "How It's Made". Car and truck windshields provide nearly 100 percent protection from both UVA and UVB rays. This is because tiny flecks of aluminum are embedded in the glass to reflect the rays outward, though these flecks are so tiny that you can only see them with a microscope. I wonder why the makers of eye wear don't utilize this technology?

All the best,

Gary


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Raybans for me.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

travlin-easy said:


> Keep in mind that nearly all UVB rays are blocked with ordinary, clear glass and 75 percent of UVA rays are blocked by ordinary glass.


Glass transmits 75% of UVA, not blocks it. Glass must be treated to block UVA.

There is more to the vision story for lenses than blocking UV - optical clarity, optical distortion, color and contrast reproduction, tint level and uniformity, blocking specific frequencies of light outside of UV, scratch resistance, anti-reflective coating, among others. I have both cheap and expensive sunglasses, and the optical quality differences between them are night and day. Not to mention, the cheap ones get scratched easily and regularly from modest use and environments.

There is also more to the frames than branding - better quality and properties of materials, hinges and other hardware, etc. I have cheap sunglasses that can twist/distort enough to pop lenses out, and their hinges corrode and break regularly. I have expensive sunglasses with frames and hardware that look and perform like new after 20yrs.

Whether any or all of these are important to you is a personal decision, but for sure there are significant differences between cheaper and more expensive glasses than just branding.

If prescription glasses are necessary, then the cost difference between lower and higher quality frames and lenses is very little.

I own, and regularly use, both types. I have several pairs of relatively cheap ones (but polarized) that get used when I'm spearfishing, doing exterior work on the boat like sanding, gelcoat, polishing, etc. I also have expensive ones for use in everyday activities and conditions.

There are large differences between the cheap and expensive ones in both construction quality and optical qualities - with the latter being very large. I have often met people who make noise about cheap glasses being the same as expensive ones, but when I hand them my expensive ones to look through, it almost always stops their argument regarding quality.

Price, however, remains a personal preference - you do get what you pay for, but one may not regard the price/quality tradeoff the same as another.

Mark


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

You are correct about UVA - my error, which I attribute to being old, cantankerous and infirmed.  

I meant to say that 25 percent is blocked by ordinary glass, which is the case. 

As for scratching, there is no denying that plastic scratches much easier than glass lenses, however, they are much heavier, which is the primary reason poly-carbonate plastics were introduced into the lens equation many years ago. It can easily be tinted, and easily polarized. 

For marine use, plastic frames hold up better than any other material, including titanium, which I have. It took a decade, but those titanium frames finally began to oxidize, something I didn't think would happen considering how much they cost. 

Now, I just use my $12 clip-on, light amber, polarized glasses I purchased from Amazon a decade ago. They're still pretty much scratch free, no corrosion, work as well as the day they were purchased and continue to allow me to see objects beneath the surface better than any high priced sun glasses I've ever owned. I originally purchased them for fly fishing the flats of the Florida Keys for bonefish, permit, tarpon and barracuda. They served their purpose extremely well.

Good luck,

Gary


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

Maui Jims... you can find last years models at Costco for about $80.00

I still have my first pair from 1998... and 5 others, all MJs.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Who would have thought a sunglasses thread would get almost as contentious as an anchor thread.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

JimsCAL said:


> Who would have thought a sunglasses thread would get almost as contentious as an anchor thread.


Yes. Status, fashion and money spending justification tend to do that.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

Ya, all comming from people who claim they can afford a sailboat!
Last time I checked my bills it was a few thousand dollar a year hobby, cost of sunglases SHOULD be a squirt of pee on a plate.



Don0190 said:


> Yes. Status, fashion and money spending justification tend to do that.


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

And "they" say sailors are cheap lol


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

T37Chef said:


> And "they" say sailors are cheap lol


ZZ Top had something to say about that..


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

T37Chef said:


> And "they" say sailors are cheap lol


frugal


----------



## elliowb (Jun 8, 2015)

dadio917 said:


> maui jim glass amber. great optics in sun or clouds. Very tough and incredible support. worth every penny. I've had several pairs over the years. only once did I have a problem after sailing from nz to Hawaii. a little delamination. they replaced free without question. I have a plastic pair now but will get a pair with their new lite weight glass soon. I prefer the polarized for the water glare.


I second Dadio's suggestion. Currently I have a pair of Stingrays with the amber, polarized, ultra light glass. Great coverage and excellent clarity. I've used their support several times for scratched lenses and have been extremely happy with the result.

My backup pair are a cheap pair of Hobies.


----------



## Damon Gannon (Mar 3, 2017)

But they also make it possible to see the shoals...


----------



## Damon Gannon (Mar 3, 2017)

Go to a fishing tackle shop and buy a pair of inexpensive polarized glasses that either wrap-around or have side shields. If the polarized lenses make it difficult to see your screens, just tilt your head or lift your glasses and the screens will magically appear. You certainly may be able to see those screens easier with non-polarized lenses, but it's more important to see the actual shoals around you (which polarized lenses help with) than it is to see the shoals on your screens. Besides, if it is bright and sunny, you should be looking out at the water around your boat much more than at your screens.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Damon Gannon said:


> Go to a fishing tackle shop and buy a pair of inexpensive polarized glasses that either wrap-around or have side shields. If the polarized lenses make it difficult to see your screens, just tilt your head or lift your glasses and the screens will magically appear. You certainly may be able to see those screens easier with non-polarized lenses, but it's more important to see the actual shoals around you (which polarized lenses help with) than it is to see the shoals on your screens. Besides, if it is bright and sunny, you should be looking out at the water around your boat much more than at your screens.


I hate to harp on this point, but with an expensive pair of high-quality sunglasses like the Vuarnets, it's not a matter of one or the other, but both. And far superior through the water visibility than any other lens I have ever used, including the very best fishing lenses, in good or poor light. They even help to look through rain and fog, to some degree.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

If with your Vuarnets, you can see LCD screens that are not visible with cheaper polarized glasses, then your Vuarnets are not polarized.

For me, polarization is a must on the water. 

In the 80's and 90's, I had several pair of Vuarnets, as well as Bolle's and Smith's. While good optics, they were not of the optical quality that Maui Jim and Costa del Mar are presently. They were far above all other optics at the time, and they might very well have improved since the 90's.

Luckily, the newer instrument screens do not have the bad polarization issues that the older ones did. They are easily readable with polarized glasses. By newer, I mean at least since 2011, since that is when we replaced our older instruments, and all of our 2011 B&G, Simrad, and Furuno screens are fully visible with polarized glasses. So as one replaces instruments over time, this issue will become less of a problem. 

Mark


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> If with your Vuarnets, you can see LCD screens that are not visible with cheaper polarized glasses, then your Vuarnets are not polarized.
> 
> For me, polarization is a must on the water.
> 
> ...


My prescription Bolle sunglasses are Ziess lenses. Can't do much better, so those issues are not present day. It's a choice what type you want inserted also.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

If you are referring to the issue of reading LCD screens with polarized lenses, this has nothing to do with the quality of the lens itself - only the fact that it is polarized. In this regard, the best lenses perform as poorly as the worst.

What solves this problem is the newer bonded instrument displays themselves. 

Mark


----------

