I’ve worn AO’s since sometime in the early 2000’s as they were alot cheaper than Randolph’s as AO no longer had the military contract. Since TG2, they are nearly double the price at ~$200+. I had not noticed that much of a difference with Randolph’s but now that you mention it, it seems that the spacing on the bridge and the shape is a little different.
I lost my AO pair a few years back and replaced them with Randolph’s. I wanted to get another pair of AO but they’ve become too expensive.
Wow. I think I paid just over 100 for my Randolph’s.
I agree dimitri, ray bans are over rated, though I have many pairs. I only have 3 or 4 jackets, but I have at least 20 pairs of sunglasses. I guess I’m a bit of a collector. My favourite are my AO tear drop style. There’s just something about the clarity that leaves the rest in the dust. I flew with my dad from the age of 12 and got my license in 1979, so I’ve been flying quite a while now, and to be honest I don’t wear sunglasses when I’m flying unless it’s absolutely necessary. Probably 90percent of my flying has been from short grass strips with lots of obstacles, so coolness takes a back seat usually. I need the best unobstructed view I can get. Comfort wise you’re absolutely right. Some sort of plastic is way more comfortable. Bigger problem for me is my ears hurt from the headset when I’m wearing glasses.Over the years have had dozens of sunglasses, most of which were broken (dropped from a windows or from ladders), forgotten in hotels, in cockpits. The cockpit glass good blocks uv, so the main criterion was the largest possible area and lightweight (but that they fit comfy in a uniform shirt pocket). Sometimes had to wear glasses for many hours, when your course coincides with the sun and the flight lasts 7 or 8 hours, the bridge of your nose gets tired from heavy glasses.The most comfy ones were monolenses made of lightweight polycarbonate (forgot the maker), which I bought at a pilotshop in Singapore. They were with me for almost 3 years until I broke them too. For some reason, I never liked Raybans, and when the first (and last) pair of these glasses slipped out and broke on the concrete, I was not very sadNow there are only two pairs of AOs left - with classic temples and bayonets, bought many years ago somewhere in the US - very good glasses for flying and life - flown with me a lot too, love them. And two vintage style Polaroids for the beach and snow.
That’s why I haven’t replaced the ones I lost. With a dresser drawer filled with 20 plus pairs of sunglasses I can live without them. Rarely wear that style anyway. I find the straight bayonet temples uncomfortable and they’re forever falling off my face.The current AO prices so high too
… but tomorrow maybe someone may chime in with Taliban or Kim Il Sun ideal googles etc.. )…
I think I must have missed something here myselfApologies if I missed something… but I was under the impression we are discussing history of ( maybe US ) sunglasses…
Not personal whatever issues… financial or health related or any others ( sorry for my ranting
Sorry Ladies and Gent.. related to the OP please …
BTW.. price paid for what and when?
5 years ago an ELC or GW B-3 was at 900 Euro
AN-6531. AN is army/navy. All aircraft hardware are AN numbers as well. But they’ve also added MS, NAS, NSA etc.
I am well aware of what AN denotes, but some AN gear was mostly, if not exclusively used by the USN. The AN6552 jacket for example, you may find a few USAAF aircrew who had it, but a ton of Navy aircrew were issued that jacket.
Yep
Wow. Pretty rare these days. I do love the tint and clarity of the Randolph’s. Very similar to my AO teardrop style. I don’t wear mine a lot because I’m not a fan of the straight temples.
I’ve never figured that one out. They look more like ray ban aviators of today.
The AN is actually a standard that they’re manufactured to rather than who they’re issued to. Like with aircraft hardware. Used on all aircraft and the AN was the standard it was manufactured to.
