Never once.

>>18468830 (OP)
>flexing the DeBethune
Absolutely based Zuck

I never got the hype for Oakley. They're cheap glasses cheaply made.

>>18468832
I genuinely thought the watch was some kind of OALKEY collab too.
Way to waste 50K on a shit looking watch. At last Richard Milles have an iconic design.

>>18468846
I don’t think he is worried about the cost.

De Bethune was one of my fave watch brands, what a shame

I liked Oakley too, they make great cycling shades but I'll probably switch to 100 percent for my next pair

Luckily I'm at no risk of buying a De Bethune

>>18468841
They’re not my preference, but they’re usually good enough to pass as safety glasses on job sites that require them, so I wear them to work over cheap shit I could get at a gas station or hardware store.
Got these ones yesterday cuz the pair I had were getting old and scratched up.

>>18468841
>never got the hype for Oakley.
You didn't grow up in a era where they were the first in the world to build titanium glasses. What they did was amazing but that was over 30 years ago now.

>>18468889
Those are amateur oakleys

>>18468964

>>18468964
Yeah, but they need to have the side-eye protection to pass. I only wear them at work

I like my clifdens