Selima for J.Crew crystal-clear glassesClick here to visit product page
Item 98388
Regular: $325.00
Matt nominated (in the "Want to win a J. Crew Coconut Straw Bag?" post) the Selima for J.Crew crystal-clear glasses for the next "Love it or Leave it" and I couldn't agree more. :) Where to begin...
According to J.Crew's wesbite, "Selima Optique has crafted this special pair—its classic "Menrad" style—for J.Crew. The frame is made of rhodoid, a natural, vegetable-based, hypoallergenic material." First, I don't even know what "rhodoid" is in order to be impressed by it (frankly, it sounds like a made-up word). :) Second, is this material why the pair of glasses cost so much? I mean $325 seems (to me) rather pricey for a pair of glasses with clear- that's right clear- lens!
It's almost insulting (for that price) for J.Crew to even suggest that you can "swap them (the clear lens) out for prescription lenses or have them fitted with tinted sunglass lenses". I am just saying, for that price tag, these glasses should at the very least include prescription or tinted lenses. Especially since the Selima for J.Crew aviator sunglasses (Item 95605; $275) and the Selima for J.Crew Rivington sunglasses (Item 98387; $325) both provide tinted lenses (and are in the same price range).
Also did anyone else notice the warning label that comes with the description: "eyeglasses may be cleaned easily with water or, if necessary, warm soapy water—do not use alcohol. They should be rinsed from time to time to avoid oxidization of the frame (a whitening of the surface), caused by sweat and oil from skin contact." This may be just my opinion, but if I have to worry about my (expensive) sunglasses getting ruined from skin contact!, then maybe these glasses aren't for me. :)
What do you think of the Selima for J.Crew crystal-clear glasses? Do you love it or would you leave it? Do you think I am being overly critical about the glasses? Let us know what you think! :)
If I WERE going to pay the $325 for J.Crew glasses, then I would opt for the Selima for J.Crew Rivington sunglasses that already have the tinted lenses...J.Crew should have just made the Rivington in "Clear", too...also, not sure WHY you would pay that much for glasses that have no real purpose, unless you "transform" them into prescription or sun protection glasses...sad thing is, that someone WILL pay that much, and I would really be curious to know why...
ReplyDeleteOff topic...any opinions on the Solid Kelly jacket ? If you own it...do you like it, is it true to size, and is it too heavy to wear in Florida now?
ReplyDeleteHi FabulousFloridaMommy!
ReplyDeleteI have the Kelly Jacket in both navy and flame and absolutely love them, I bought them in April and have gotten lots of use out of them. The fit is nice and they complement a large range of outfits nicely.
However, i live in Toronto and the weather is still tempermental here. I think its way too thick for Florida right now, its a heavier cotton knit, but maybe for fall?
The flame colour is brighter than it looks online, a nice orangey-red. Very pretty!
It might be easier to digest if you think of them not as glasses but as frames only, like picking something from an optical shop and still having to pay for your prescription. $325 is about the price of Prada or other designer frames. Not that I'm trying to compare J. Crew to designer, even though they clearly are. My vote is Leave It.
ReplyDelete(Alexis: I have opinions on swimwear if you want to blog about that.)
Personally I am not a fan of the frames $325 or not.... They remind me of the horrible early 80's glasses worn in grade school!
ReplyDeleteYogachicki: Received the Owen bag last nite and it is worth every penny..... I stopped at Neiman Marcus on my way home to view bags in preparation for my compare and in my opinion-- the quality is worth it..... While I know that J. Crew is not YSL or LV--- it was amazing to see $300-$500 price tags for clear plastic handbags!
FFM: I agree with a said-- this jacket may be too heavy for FL now-- but come fall it would be perfect.
Oops I see you already did that.
ReplyDeleteI wore clear sunglasses when I was 13! So I'm only 25 now, but I'm not about to revert back to my middle school "fashion." Especially for over $300. If you really wanted, you could get a similar pair at urban outfitters for less than $50.
ReplyDeleteI , personally, like them. Yes, they cost as much as Prada, but I bet their distribution is much smaller, hence thay are in a way more exclusive then Prada. This is interesting phenomenon , in my opinion: in Europe, there are so many little family-owned boutiques that charge way ahead of LV, Prada and such for their leather goods and accessories. Seems, that Selima might be one of those small shops. We can't really compare it to big mainstram labels, it's just not the same, and ultimately it comes down to the question: is the price justified? I would rather splurge on these then on Prada, but that's my personal preference.
ReplyDeleteThere was an a interesting artcile in Elle couple of years ago about eyeware in general . How expensive it is and how little it costs to manufacture, yet, people would pay crazy amounts of money for the label- b/c clearly it's seen as a status piece.
These glasses are stupid. They are grossly overpriced for what looks like little more than plastic. They are kind of fun-looking, but I would never wear them.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of Selma. But, I am a fan of owning things that others don't have. There is just something fun about being asked.. "hey where did you buy that?" These Selma glasses are not that cute. I feel like they would be sold in an over flowing bucket of shades on a table at Urban Outfitters with those translucent frames. I think I would just opt out for Persols, Ray Bans or something of the sort. I don't even feel these glasses have the stamana of Versace, Prada or even Kate Spade. Who forsees these shades in the final sale at the end of the summer?? I do, I do! However, I do think they would make a nice eyeglass frame. But.. for $235.00.. um nooo and not to mention JCrew is bascially saying it's not everyday eyewear if you have to wash it so much. I wonder why JCrew is opted out of selling them instore? Sunglasses are an accessory that have to fit the face and be tried on.. not once.. not twice.. but mulitple times until perfection is met.
ReplyDeleteHate it! Please leave it.
ReplyDeleteTo abijha:
ReplyDeleteSpoken as a true man.LOL!
To Alexis:
ReplyDeleteHow about making a separate post about items that we purchased recently at a FULL price and how we justified it? That should be fun. :)
My wife is probably going to make fun of me for participating (and suggesting) this discussion, haha...
ReplyDeleteI just thought of the site when looking through the catalog becuase I thought these looked stupid even on the model... I'm sure there's not that many guys here, I mainly visit for the coupons ;-)
I guess I don't "get" women's fashion, but I can't see these looking good on anyone. Even the model.
They are cute, but "forever21" cute if you know what I mean! Leave it!
ReplyDeleteTo matt:
ReplyDeleteI can see a very distinct trend among men in general. Resisting a change:)
Everytime fashion introduces smth new, my husband is reluctant to accept it at first. I remember too well how he opposed a pointy toe in shoes: he thought those were ugly, made my feet long and such.. In couple of months , it kind of grew on him,after a year he did not find them ugly anymore and then he started to think they were actually quite cute. Then ,as abruptly, the round toe was in. Now all I hear is "grandma" shoes.:) What I am trying to say is just b/c those frames do not look like an aviators or sleek square shapes that are in fashion right now, it does not mean they are ugly. They are just unusual and require time to accept/adapt to the trend.
I guess the "problem" is that my wife and I don't exactly follow trends, in fact usually we're against them ;-) If we happen to like what's "in style" we go for it, otherwise we just dress like we always have.
ReplyDeleteI happen to like the current madras "trend", but will probably be wearing it long after it's "in style" haha. But you'll NEVER catch me with a popped collar...
I do not think these need any adapting. They are not hideous.. but the description, price, and quality do not make them attractive. Just because JCrew sells something does not make it "in style." They are somewhat following current trends of boxy, aviatorish, and oversized. But they do not have the big brand power behind them to make them remotely seem worth paying $325.00 for.It takes a big hit to set a tone for fashion and I think these are a miss. unfortnatly. Soemthing fashionable looking should be items that can't be easliy replocated in style, look, and feel. I think these are just an odd impression of something less expensively found at Wet Seal, URBN, or the Target sunglass rack.
ReplyDeleteI have what I call 'sexy librarian' glasses and I've had quite a few compliments on them because they really do go well with my face shape. In fact, I gave up contacts, which I'd worn for the past 7 years, because I love them so much. I do rather like the J. Crew frames, and as one comment suggested, would consider that weird 'swapping out' sentence just a part of purchasing one's frames + prescription lenses... but not for $325. My glasses frames are not really a big name brand (purchased in Taiwan, made in Japan), and I've not seen the shape or style in U.S. or European shops... but they were only about $100 with the conversion.
ReplyDeleteThat said, if the frames go on sale to something reasonable, I'd consider them.
I will say quickly, that I use to wear fake glasses even though my vision is fine (as in, I don't need glasses). I would wear them once in awhile for fun, like another accessory. (I have them still, the two pairs, which I paid like $10 each for them.) Yes, I agree it is stupid when you think about it- wearing glasses with fake lens. ;)
ReplyDeleteFabulousFloridaMommy: I agree with your first post in that if you are already paying that much for the pair of glasses, why not get the tinted lenses with the price. :)
Incidentally, I do really like the Solid Kelly Jacket but believe it has the same heft to it like the Katie Sweater Jacket.
Chini: I did have a post awhile back about J.Crew Swimwear (Sun, Sea, Sand, and J.Crew!). But I think it is definitely worth bringing back now that "beach season" is here. :)
Nicole R: I have to agreee with you, the frames aren't the most universally appealing. :)
Also congrats on the Owen bag!!! If you wouldn't mind, maybe you can write a quick post about the bag that I can publish on the main page. I think there are many of us interested in hearing your review of the bag. It is up to you of course. ;)
Heather: Totally agree that you can find a cheaper pair of clear lens glasses elsewhere! :)
Slastena: I see where you are coming from. I also think you raised a great point about glasses costing so much & being seen as a status symbol when they cost so little to make! :)
I will also definitely make a post (perhaps tomorrow) about paying full price. I think that is a great idea!!! :)
Anonymous at 9:02 AM: I have a feeling they will go on sale as well! :0) I also agree that glasses are the type of accessory that needs to be tried on (in order to see if it works with your face).
Abijah: Too funny! :)
Matt: I think it is great that you suggested this post and are participating in it!!! And in all fairness, sometimes I don't get women's fashion either. I see some items on the runway or on a "celebrity" and think, "really?"
Anonymous at 9:55 AM: Great point that these pair of glasses aren't bad, but nothing truly unique that warrants the price tag.
ReplyDeleteAudrey: I am a fan of eye glasses as well. :) For instance, I think Tina Fey looks great with her glasses on 30 Rcok.
As some other people have commented, I totally had a pair of glasses and sunglasses like them when I was in fifth grade. They were so not styling then, and I'm not feeling them now, esp. with that price tag.
ReplyDeleteI tend to buy on the cheap for sunglasses because I lose them/destroy them a lot. I ran over my last pair.
As for eyeglasses, I see those as an investment, so I wouldn't mind paying more (even though I usually just wear contacts). But that $325 should include prescription lenses. Not just frames.
I'm a fan of glasses on women as well, but... not these ;-) I'm actually not a fan of the "big sunglasses" fad either.
ReplyDeleteMy wife wears glasses, and I love the way they look on her... she wears Tina Fey type glasses as well. On another note, she LOVES Tina Fey as well.
She laughed when I showed these to her and (jokingly) said she should wear them.
haus_frau: I think it is great that you, Heather, and others had those glasses and now the style is back! One way to look at it is that you were all ahead of the trend! :)
ReplyDeleteI also buy "cheaper" sunglasses (typically from Marshalls, or even Urban Outfitters). This way if they fall, scratch, or break- I don't feel so bad about it.
Matt: I am a huge fan of 30 Rock- (Love Tina Fey!) I also think Tina Fey's glasses make her look cute & smart at the same time. :)
I agree with you in that I am not a fan of the super-huge sunglasses (aka: bug eye glasses). Those just look weird. Especially on super tiny/ thin "celebrities."
Alexis,
ReplyDeleteyou've hit on one of my favorite pet peeves: insanely expensive sunglasses. I can understand paying for high-quality shades (I'm moving to southern california, so I was recently guilty of paying $300 for a pair--though mine comes with lens placements, is completely adjustable, unbreakable, non-fogging, polarized, transition, poly-carbon-lightweight sports sunglasses)...but most glasses seem to be simply plastic and glass, and molded into whatever stylist shape is gracing the newest fashion catalogues. I'll pay for the quality, the material, the technology, and the replacement guarantees...but not for simply a label
I love them, but they're SO hard to pull off, and the price is very steep. I feel like I would buy them, and never wear them because I feel like a ridiculous clown.
ReplyDeleteAuryane: I completely agree with you in that the cost should reflect the quality & durability of the item. I mean, $300 for a great pair of sunglasses, that are going to last for 10+ years is totally worth it. But like you said, for plastic, glass & a "brand name"... the price may be too much.
ReplyDeleteMelissa: I laughed when I read the "ridiculous clown" part. I think 99% of the population would not look good in those glasses. ;)
I wrote my own blog post on those very same glasses! *Laugh*
ReplyDeleteI think they are hideous, personally!
-E
YUCK! Look like "safety glasses" to me.... :)
ReplyDeletePrep-e-girl: The glasses are definitely post worthy! :)
ReplyDeleteKirbydog: Now that you mentioned it, they DO look like those safety glasses! ;)
Have you seen the september front cover of FORTUNE MAG. with the CEO of J. CREW looking nice...I like the look but the price is a lil high. POLO has a similar brand for cheap price (199) but i need a bigger size 52 etc...
ReplyDeleteThis is the first time i am hearing and seeing Selima work. Keep up the creativity and hope, I will my eye open for the future.
I think they are fabulous! I wear prescription glasses and own a couple pairs of 'smaller' frames. I like the idea of having another pair of a bit more oversized, masculine-type frames and the crystal color is so neutral that it will compliment many things in your wardrobe. Selima glasses are pretty exclusive and worn by a lot of actors & musicians.
ReplyDeleteThe pricetag is pretty much in line with Bevel, Prada, Oliver Peoples, and other designer eye frames. Cost is not that much considering if you own 3 pairs of glasses and they're on your face every day...you're getting approx. 100 days/year of wear for $325. Not too bad. How many times a year will you wear the Babette jeweled-feather peeptoe heels at $328?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing. Informative. Visit our site for "Optical vision centre Toronto".
ReplyDelete