Talk:Ray-Ban Wayfarer

Ray-Ban Wayfarer was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 28, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Corey's Wars

Instead of this faded photo of Corey Feldman wearing Wayfarers, why not Corey Hart's album cover to the Sunglasses at Night hit as a illustration of Wayfarers use in the media? The Corey Hart pic is very better and very much cool! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.120.121.64 (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blues Brothers?

My father disputes the fact that the Blues Brothers's iconic sunglasses were in fact Wayfarers. Could someone check this fact? --Jake Papas 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my experience watching the movie and looking at album covers, Dan Akroyd does not wear the classic Wafarer, however John Belushi does wear them, and they are clearly seen in the opening scene of the movie. A close examination of the coloring (tortise shell), and the angle of the lenses to arm pieces on Belushi's glasses are most likely Wayfarers. Dan Akroyd's glasss may have indeed been RayBan brand but usually do not appear to be Wayfarers.

They both wear legitimate RayBan Wayfarers. Aykroid has an early make of the (failed) new Wayfarer line (possibly early Wayfarer 2's). Belushi has more traditional Wayfarers.

there are so many models of Ray Ban stuff, any kind. many colors of wayfarer (sometimes the top and arms are multicolored, i found a few months ago a blue colored one, and saw a red/yellow/orange probably for ladies).

I use a greenish round glasses model, from B&L, on a nickeled frame, rarely seen. found it for about 4 bucks in a flea market... and have a few Wayfarer somewhere.

unfortunately a huge quantity of pirated models appeared on the market recently, (even oficial dealers don't want to keep selling the originals for such reason, here)----

just see site like this one ... http://www.tradekey.com/ks-ray-ban/

Michael Ja(c)kson?

I noticed that Michael Jackson (whose name is spelled wrong) is credited as wearing Wayfarers, but to my knowledge he never did. Michael Jackson is well know for wearing Aviators, but I have never seen a photo of him wearing Wayfarers.

Reply:

Michael Jackson was a prolific Wayfarer wearer. During the release of his Bad albumn and tour (in the late 80s) Michael was regularly seen wearing Wayfarers in photographs, public appearances and television interviews. There are innumerable photographs and video clips of him wearing them during this period. In fact, the inner sleeve of the Bad LP features a photshoot of Jackson wearing Wayfarers.

e.g.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Lover_B/MJNO%20PIxs/img87.jpg http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Lover_B/MJNO%20PIxs/98.jpg http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Lover_B/MJNO%20PIxs/img55.jpg http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Lover_B/MJNO%20PIxs/cimg675.jpg http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Lover_B/MJNO%20PIxs/images2434.jpg http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Lover_B/MJNO%20PIxs/1.jpg http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Lover_B/MJNO%20PIxs/46.jpg

I removed the Michael Jackson reference along with many others while cleaning up this page. Now I think the basic criterion for inclusion is finding a wp:rs that says he was known for wearing wayfarers... many people wore them during this period, so not all can be included unless there's someone reliable (not you or me or another wikipedian) who can be cited to say he was known for doing so. I didn't find anything when I was googling for it. Calliopejen1 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There sure was a period when Jackson wore Wayfarers, but he is better known for sporting Aviator-style sunglasses. http://www.selectspecs.com/blog/michael-jackson-a-life-through-sunglasses/

He wore Wayfarers when he appeared on the Arsenio Hall Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLe71rT03Gg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.238.193.113 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

chloe sevigny

a while ago chloe sevigny started wearing a pair of white wayfarers (that she said her mother got for her in a thirft store in CT). this was the start of the recent revival of these kinds of sunglasses, as they became more and more popular in hollywood/ny after she started wearing them. this was noted in a few fashion magazines (that she started the trend). don't know if this should be mentioned here or it's notable/sourceable info. i did add her to the lsit of celebrity wearers. --Doinelita 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

less than zero

"constant namedropping in Bret Easton Ellis' fiction, particularly Less Than Zero."

I dispute this. There's a lot of sunglasses wearing mentioned, but he doesn't specify wayfarers in particular at all. He does, however, namedrop them a lot in "The Informers".

GA review

This is a short article, but that's OK at GA so long as the subject is adequately covered, In this case though, I don't believe that it is. The article does a reasonable job looking at the fashion and sales aspects of the Ray-Ban Wayfarers, but it's not comprehensive enough in dealing with other areas. For instance it tells me nothing about the technical specification of the lenses. What is it now? Is it the same now as when the design was introduced in 1952? What was Ray Stegeman's brief when he designed the glasses? Who was he designing them for? How were they initially received by the marketplace? Were they instantly successful?

So far as the material that is here is concerned, I've got a few more detailed comments:

The fair use rationale for the Tom Cruise poster is missing a couple of points, like how much of the poster is being used for instance. I'd suggest taking a look at and using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. (See Help:Image page.)
"Wayfarers ... took advantage of new plastics technology". In what way? What new plastics technology?
"In the following years, Ray-Ban sunglasses appeared in over 60 movies and television shows per year." That's the years following 1982 until when? It might be clearer to say something like "Between 1983 and ...".
"Currently, Wayfarers are available in Original Wayfarer, New Wayfarer, and Wayfarer Folding styles." Currently as at when? 2007?
I'd like to see the sales figures brought together in a chart or a table, as well being spread out in the article body.
"After Tom Cruise wore Wayfarers in the 1983 movie Risky Business, sales soared to 360,000 per year". Was that 360,000 in 1983?
In general, I think there needs to be some context for these sales figures. Is 360,000 good or bad in comparison with rival sunglasses during the same period?

In summary, I think this article needs a good deal more work before it can be listed as a GA. I hope that the editors will continue to work on it, and that it can soon be nominated again. In the meantime though I've got not no option other than to fail this nomination, because of the amount of work I think there is left still to be done. If you believe that this review is in error, please feel to take it to WP:GAR.

--Malleus Fatuarum 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythbusters' Adam Savage

Apparently Adam Savage wears Wayfarers. http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9801967776/m/1391909069 — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC) <a href="http://www.oakley-rayban.com">oakley sunglasses</a>[reply]

External Links

I added an external link for the popular seller of Ray-Ban sunglasses. I thought that corresponded well with the rest of the article and the Ray-Ban article has that link, so I figured it would be helpful to include that on here as well. Sed2535 (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Hepburn & John F. Kennedy

The glasses in the pictures are apparently not Wayfarers. Hepburn's appear to be bigger and more rounded. Some people claim these were made by Oliver Goldsmith. The temples of Kennedy's don't look like Wayfarer temples at all. The references to Bob Dylan and Andy Warhol are questionable as well. Try to google for pictures of the wearing Wayfarers and all you'll find are pictures of them wearing similar styles.

Wayfarer temples used to look very much like the ones on Kennedy's shades. However the metal piece on authentic Ray Bans looked a bit different. Starman1984 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found a good picture of Hepburn's glasses in Breakfast at Tiffany's. These are definitely not Wayfarers. ^[1] And I highly doubt the claim that this is a discontinued, oversized style. Too bad the only source for that claim is not available anymore. I guess most claims about icons of the 50's and 60's making them popular are just myths and this article helps to promote them. Great marketing for Ray-Ban.

References

^ http://www.allynscura.com/images/audrey.hepburn.sunglasses.tiffanys_000.jpg

Starman1984 (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further pondering, the statement that Hepburn wore a discontinued oversized style doesn't make much sense. If it was a different style, it would not have been called Wayfarer, even if it was a Ray-Ban model. Ray-Ban made many similar styles back then, such as the Meteor or the Myth.[1] Many manufacturers made models clearly inspired by different Ray-Ban models, Foremost for instance. [2]Starman1984 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hepburn glasses in Breakfast at Tiffany's ARE NOT the Manhattan by Oliver Goldsmith

Your allynscura link is dead, and that's not the way to add links to talk pages. here is a 1080p image (from this Blu Ray disk review; archive) 1. I think the "Other people who prominently wore..." sentence has to go; none of the sources are what I'd call reliable. Interestingly, this image of Hepburn w/ glasses in Breakfast at Tiffany's shows that they're quite different from the Oliver Goldsmith Manhattan! (archive) - clearly NOT an 'exact replica'! 2.I think that proves the info currently in the article to be false and has to go as well. ("Manhattan by Oliver Goldsmith." and the source - eye-wear-glasses.com, and Oliver Goldsmith itself are clearly not reliable.) --Elvey (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source debunking the Kennedy-Wayfarer-Myth: [3] I read somewhere that Hepburn's shades in Breakfast at Tiffany's were made by Persol, tho the truth of that statement is questionable, since "Persol was introduced to the United States in 1962" (WP Article Persol) I am under the impression that either Luxottica itself (or its avid fans) tries to absorb any and all sunglasses even remotely resembling Ray Bans into their marketing strategy (then again, is the "Celebrity Tested" Campaign even original? it falsely states hepburn wore model 2140, the modern re-interpretation of B&L5022). Here's an interesting site trying to debunk the Hepburn-Wayfarer-Myth http://hollygolightlysunglasses.com/ and to debunk yet another myth: http://faosaeyewear.com/Legends_In_Faosa_Eyeglasses.html 93.200.21.187 (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Design changes

Here's chronological list of changes that have been made to the design over the years:

Shape of the temples changed significantly from thin and straight to wide and flared (happened between 1958 and 1966)
Change from a small metal part on the temple to a Ray-Ban logo (1980s?)
Introduction of a Ray-Ban logo on the left lens. (1990s?)

I still need quoteable sources and exact dates for all of these. If you happen come across any source of information, please let me know! Starman1984 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame that there's no reliable sources to be found concerning questions about such historic facts. Where's the collectors of old catalogues or adverts? Where's the opticians with vintage order forms or similar stuff. Before Luxottica bought the Brand "Ray-Ban" from Bausch & Lomb in 1999 - discontinuing the (long established) shapes and features of the original B&L Wayfarer-Design (B&L 5022 and 5024) replacing it with their own designs and often denying historical facts - the Bausch&Lomb "Wayfarer" had made its way through the changes noted above. Also, somwhere along the lines, several Wayfarer-Lines closely based off of the original Wayfarer-Design were created, such as the "Street Neat", "Wayfarer Max", "Wayfarer Woody" and also the "Wayfarer II". Proof of those facts is what should be found in this article, instead of the hardly verified luxottica blurb of success they mostly garnered by acquisition, which bears some similarity to the demise and restored fame of another piece of americana: The Converse "Chuck Taylor All Stars" originally "made in USA", but nevermore.79.214.126.100 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

(moved from Roguegeek's talk page)

Hi Roguegeek,

I strongly disagree with your choice of lead image for the Wayfarer article. First and foremost it doesn't show the actual subject of the article. The "New Wayfarer" model sure deserves it's mention and an image, but not at the top of the page. I think that position should be used for an image of an actual "Wayfarer" model, as it is a fashion classic and the reason the Wayfarer article exists in the first place.

Furthermore, the image quality of the picture you chose leaves a lot to be desired. On first glance it looks quite professional with its perfectly white background, but one can hardly make out any details. The whole front of the glasses appears as one solid black surface. The image in the "1990s decline and 2001 redesign" section is way better, even though the angle is odd.

The image of the 1980's sunglasses is not only representative of the 1980's. It's what Wayfarers looked like for decades. Moreover it shows off the subtleties of the design fairly well. In my opinion the encyclopedic value of the 80's "Wayfarer" image is far bigger than that of the "New Wayfarer" one.

Best regards

Starman1984 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Starman. I can see your point, but I'm gonna disagree here. I honestly don't see much of a difference between the classic and new Wayfarer glasses. I mean yeah, there are differences, but your typical reader (who Wikipedia is suppose to cater to and not the enthusiast) wouldn't know the difference. As far as the actual image quality goes between the two, it's minor and no where close to noticeable. What we have to ask ourselves is this. What is the more encyclopedic image? What shows the subject more clearly? When looked at it this way, my argument is for the white image because it 1) it displays more of the subject and 2) it displays only the subject.

So how do we solve this? Well, I suggest we take this conversation over to the article's talk page and see what other editors say about the issue. Let's build a consensus and however it goes, I'll be happy going in that direction. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alright. Let's move the discussion. Starman1984 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redid my photo. This new version should be more to your liking. Starman1984 (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myths section

"The reason for this mistake stems from the fact that both Persol and Ray-Ban are owned by parent company Luxottica, and it is commonplace to see similar designs in both companies."

I read this and doubted the the truth behind it because Ray-Ban was not sold to Luxottica until 1999 according to the Ray-Ban article. Obviously, Breakfast at tiffany's came out before that. Can someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.50.189 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the Persol reference. There's no source for this piece of information. Maybe somebody is trying to create a new myth. Hepburn's frames were supposedly made by Oliver Goldsmith, but I couldn't find a decent quoteable source for that yet... Starman1984 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name dropping

Large portions of this article are just name dropping. I think it's getting out of control. Everybody's trying to add his favorite Wayfarer-wearer to the list. To keep this article useful, I suggest we separate the name dropping from the more relevant pieces of information by creating a new section. Starman1984 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Endorsement (or Testimonial) is a vital part of many Product Placement Campaigns. The extensive name dropping in this article proves that it works and that people believe (for what reason?) that it is important, yet it adds absolutely nothing of encyclopedic value. It's plain advertising. Fact is: Ray Ban added Product Placement, including various Celebrity Endorsements, to their Marketing Strategy, with temporary success.93.200.30.181 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

We don't need the definitive article top open with here. It looks clumsy. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Style and Product Placement

"Though the sunglasses had faded from the limelight by the 1970s, a lucrative 1982 product placement deal brought Wayfarers to their height of popularity."

Having grown up in the 80's (I can imagine the references, such as "The Terminator", "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "Risky Business") there are no links or information supporting this claim. Considering this statement provides a direct link to a higher topic (product placement), evidence should be included.

"...the sunglasses had faded from the limelight by the 1970s"... according to who?

"a lucrative 1982 product placement deal brought Wayfarers to their height of popularity."... what deal? with who? when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der zukünftige Führer von Amerika (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men in Black

Were these also the glasses used in Men In Black and referenced in the Will Smith song of the same name?Garvin ^Talk 04:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not at all. And even in "Blues Brothers" only Jake Blues (played by John Belushi) wears a pair of Wayfarers, which btw. are not black but a dark tortoise (Elwood's shades remain unidentified). Accordingly, the pair of sunglasses from "Breakfast Club", famously worn by Brian Johnson (played by Anthony Michael Hall) are not Wayfarers but Ray-Ban Meteors. Fact is that there was a steady emergence of Wayfarer-Clones ever since their rise to fame. Understandably, some people have trouble spotting the differences.79.214.126.100 (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wayfarer vs. horn-rimmed glasses

I have noticed that Wayfarer is often used generically as a term for faux horn-rimmed glasses in general, even for regular eyeglasses, but see no mention of this in the article. You can see a lot of eyeglass designs from the 50s and 60s which these days are frequently described generically as Wayfarer style. No doubt it is a classic design, but to what extent did Ray-Ban actually pioneer it? It seems quite similar to other horn-rimmed glasses of the time, like those Buddy Holly wore in the 50s. Was the Wayfarer truly as 'revolutionary' and 'a radical new shape' as the article states? Perhaps 'revolutionary' as a brand, but the design seems quite conventional. Dforest (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date Issue

This page says the Wayfarer originated in 1956. I happened to notice on Amazon the claim was designed in 1952, a claim repeated on Ray-Ban's site. (http://www.ray-ban.com/usa/sunglasses/RB2140%20unisex%201-ORIGINAL%20WAYFARER%20CLASSIC-Black/805289126577). How does Wikipedia resolve such issues?

Advertizment

This article is an insult to Wikipedia. It's as if Rayban paid a slimey marketing guy to write it. The notice at the top about rewriting it in a neutral style is just silly. The onus shouldn't be on new authors to "rewrite" it, most of it should just be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Determining the age of vintage Wayfarers

Since there's a market for pre Luxottica Wayfarers, I wonder which, if any, details have changed between '52 and '98? Some sources say that the etched BL Logo in the glasses was not introduced until the late 1970s and that the screen printed (removable?!?) Logo on the lense was introduced late in 1982. I have yet to find any word on when the tags on the temples were introduced or when (if) the model number stamping of the 5024 changed from using a "4" that's open at the top to one that's closed (or vice versa?). Since WP always pushes itself into the face of everybody, posing as the number one source for information, I would expect such facts to be found here.93.200.10.89 (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Codes on earpiece?

It is understood that, in the beginning, Bausch & Lomb produced Wayfarers in two sizes, marked "B&L 5022" and "B&L 5024". It is also understood that those numbers determine the width of the lens (50mm) and the width of the bridge or distance between the lenses (22 or 24mm). But what is the meaning of the codes imprinted on the rear end of the temple/earpiece, such as "L2009", "L2053", "XNAW", "PSAW", "XRAS", "YNAS". I've seen them on several Bausch & Lomb Wayfarers that have the Ray-Ban Logo on the earpiece/temple. Some of them still had the common B&L 5022 or 5024 imprinted on the frame. Please enlighten me!79.214.114.40 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.allynscura.com/images/audrey.hepburn.sunglasses.tiffanys_000.jpg

[1]