THE SCEPTICAL SHOPPER: SUNGLASSES

PRINT EDITION CONTENTS past issues

PAST GALLERIES

They’re often overpriced and celebrity-fixated—but a few styles for men and women do earn their place in the sun ...

From INTELLIGENT LIFE Magazine, Summer 2010

“With my sunglasses I’m Jack Nicholson. Without them, I’m fat and 60.” It’s a sad admission: even a movie star like Nicholson seems to need sunglasses to feel like, well, a movie star. How so?

The roots of sunglasses are anything but glamorous. Amber-tinted spectacles first appeared in the late 1800s as a prescription for syphilitics, whose eyes
became oversensitive to light. The first mass-produced versions—made by Sam Foster, the founder of the American glasses company Foster Grant—were sold in the drab surroundings of Woolworth’s, on the boardwalk in 1920s Atlantic City.

It was the American armed forces that began to lend sunglasses their patina of mystique, in the mid-1930s, by giving its pilots Ray-Ban’s anti-glare glasses—“aviators”. The airmen who dashed about in the sky fighting the Japanese were real-life heroes. Down on the ground, actors keen to poach a little of that glory realised that a pair of shades were also a shortcut to intrigue: think of the dagger of ice that is Barbara Stanwyck in “Double Indemnity”, or Cary Grant hiding his innocence behind his Persol 714s in “North by Northwest”. Audiences couldn’t see their eyes, so couldn’t read their thoughts; and so, being human, they wanted to know more. Thus began the Faustian pact between fame and a pair of dark glasses.

Tiringly, celebrity still dominates the industry. Although the recession may have dampened customers’ enthusiasm for £1,000 handbags, they’re still all afire for designer sunglasses, particularly if associated with someone famous. Just look at the names of some of the styles on these pages—the “Keira”, the “Cary” (see below).

Even designs with names like wigs in a suburban hair salon don’t seem to put us off (“Annice”, “Brunelle”, “Sacha”, I’m talking to you). In Britain £228m a year is spent on shades, and in 2009 the European eyewear giant Luxottica, which owns Sunglass Hut worldwide, reported net sales of €5 billion.

Sunglasses are sold everywhere from Prada to petrol stations. Yet if their presence is overwhelming, their diversity is not. Having inspected hundreds of pairs, I’d say that 70% of them look the same. This summer, the most common women’s style has a large, squared-off lens with a subtle cat’s-eye curve along the top. Rather than solid black, it will have a graduated tint in a smoky grey or brown. And the frame, which sits thinner and flatter against the face than in recent years, is likely to be either tortoiseshell or a neutral shade—taupe, cream, mauve—rather than dark. I found versions of this style at Zara, Topshop, Matthew Williamson for Debenhams, Gucci, Chloé and Fendi, before I ran out of space in my notepad. At least it flatters most face-shapes.

There is another, more pressing reason than flattery to wear sunglasses: the sun. According to Dr Rob Hogan, president of the British College of Optometrists, “it’s essential to wear sunglasses in bright sunlight, because with prolonged exposure, ultra-violet (UV) light causes macular degeneration—the main cause of irreversible blindness in Britain”. To provide adequate protection, he stresses, the lenses “must have a special coating that blocks the transmission of damaging UV light”. Otherwise your pupils simply open wider to compensate for the dark lens, letting in more UV.

In the European Union, sunglasses carrying the CE certification mark will block out 95% of UV rays with wavelengths up to 380 nanometres (nm); but the requirement to block out 95% of rays up to 400nm is becoming the unofficial norm here and in America—almost every pair I saw, from £7 Superdrug sunnies to £300 designer brands, used the UV400 standard.

If you shop in department stores, it pays to familiarise yourself with the labelling beforehand. At House of Fraser I asked whether one pair offered proper eye protection. The assistant didn’t know, but said that, “given they cost £200”, she’d be “very surprised if they weren’t completely safe”. Hmmm. At Accessorize, however, the assistant arranging a display of £15 shades knew not only that all of them carried UV400 labelling, but also what it meant.

Dr Hogan, meanwhile, recommends buying your sunglasses at an optician’s, even if you don’t need prescription lenses. “You wouldn’t buy reading glasses without having them properly fitted to your nose, ears and face shape, and fitting sunglasses is equally important.” Indeed—if the lens sits too far away from the eye, stray light gets in around the top and bottom of the frame; similarly, wraparound styles reduce UV-seepage from the sides. But my experience at several high-street opticians proved disappointing, both in the choice of sunglasses available and the quality of advice. At both Vision Express and Dolland & Aitchison, counter staff were eager to tell me about special deals, but less confident when asked for hard information about the glasses, such as how scratch-resistant they were.

Most pairs of sunglasses may look the same, but prices range as wide as the oceans. If you can get a pair of sun-safe glasses for £20 which look much like a pair that cost ten times as much, is there any point in paying the difference? Yes—sometimes. When you shell out for a sports brand such as Maui Jim and Oakley, you get hingeless (and therefore rustless) arms, polarised lenses and non-slip eartabs, which may be worth it if you spend weekends hurtling down an icy slope or taking off on a six-metre wave. And the more expensive fashion brands tend to have a higher-quality finish, with smooth, sturdy hinges, comfortable arms and more scratch-resistant glass lenses. But in the end choices often come down to simple lust. Buy a pair of Tom Fords and you’ll also get a strokable moleskin case that thunks shut as satisfyingly as a sports-car door: whether you feel that detail is worth paying £200 for is, I’m afraid, a test of character.

A final surprising discovery was the lack of decent-sized mirrors and good lighting; this applied almost everywhere. Why do retailers think we need to see only what our face—and in many cases just a strip of it—looks like when we’re trying on sunglasses? We should be allowed a look at the bigger picture, if only to make sure our sunglasses complement what we’re wearing, not throw it in the shade.

Tom Ford, “Cary” (top, left)
A modern alternative to the Ray-Ban Wayfarer. As ever with Ford, the devil is in his detail: brown rather than black lenses, and a T-shaped metallic insert at each temple. A tiny logo is etched discreetly at the top of one lens, almost—but not quite—out of view. £200

Topshop, “Small Round Rubber” (top, right)
A retro shape combined with bold styling (teal blue rubberised frame, contrasting lenses) gives these glasses a sophistication that distinguishes them from others at this price. No, they don’t have a nice name—but once you’ve bought them, you don’t have to think about that. £18

Cutler & Gross, model 0983
C&G is an individualistic British brand that explores the outer shores of optical design. These chunky, cartoonishly round frames with cool blue lenses epitomise its bold and slightly kooky appeal. If you need prescription lenses, its Knightsbridge store also offers eye tests. £275

Maui Jim, “Ka’anapali”
At ten grams, this ultra-light sports design includes flexible, hingeless frames (so no screws to lose), adjustable nosepads, protection against saltwater corrosion, and optically correct, anti-glare, poly-carbonate lenses. Plus they look good—sports shades don’t have to be neon-bright. £176

Fabris Lane Homme, “Jean”
If I wanted to buy high-quality, well-designed sunglasses for under £80, this independent, Anglo-Italian brand is the one I’d go for; and they’re often sold at airports, for emergency purchases. These smoky, gunmetal aviators would work equally well with a suit or beach shorts. £49

Chloé, “Myrte”
Chloé’s strength is casual, feminine chic with a crisp finish. This 1970s style is subtly updated with metal inserts; the big, softly rounded brown lenses and mink-coloured frame would add glamour to a floaty dress or faded denim. Extremely comfortable, they flatter all but the narrowest faces. £180

Oliver Peoples, “Sacha”
An underrated brand—perhaps because those able to afford its prices veer towards high fashion instead. Yet Peoples’ quality, design and fit are all superb. Here’s a prime example. Sexy, smooth and elegant, it stands out from the season’s samey styles, but shouldn’t date in a hurry. £268

Jigsaw, “Keira”
There’s something of old Hollywood about these elliptical, coffee-and-cream striped frames: I imagine Grace Kelly wearing them with a scarf round her hair. They have the look of a retro boutique find, rather than mid-price, high-street. £89

(This is the latest in the "sceptical shopper" series, in which undercover experts give impartial advice on how and where to find the best buys. Past articles dealt with cashmere, sofas and men's trainers.)

Picture credit: Omer Knaz