27 Comment

  • Hi, I think this is actually 3225 M Street 🙂

    • concur, think that address is a mistake…must be in Georgetown…

      …are there others out there that aren’t overwhelmed with Warby Parker’s product? I find the quality of their frames to be fairly cheap – would rather pay double for a substantial, well made frame that will likely stand up to wear for much longer…ho, hum…great marketing, though!

      • I’ve worn glasses for 20 years and my Warby Parkers are the first frame I’ve felt comfortable wearing in public. They cost $125 and are still kicking after more than a year with nary a scratch on the lens.

      • I’ve actually have a pair from Warby Parker that I’ve worn for over two years (daily) and they have held up just fine. Not bad for $99.

      • Warby Parker are just as good or better quality than most other glasses. The only reason you pay twice as much (or often much more) is the Luxottica monopoly on the industry. See this Forbes article or Google it yourself:
        Glasses are such a huge rip-off, I’m glad someone is finally doing something about it.

        • warby uses a lower quality acetate than, say, moscot. sure, there’s a markup on moscot, but there’s also a markup on warby – I wonder what the percent markup is for each brand, assuming warby uses cheaper materials and assembles their glasses in china (hold a pair of warbies in one hand a pair of moscots in the other and tell me warby doesn’t feel gas-station quality cheap while moscot is heavy and substantial acetate).

          I guess just as I’d rather buy Alden than Rockport, for the same reason, I’d purchase a Moscot or Shuron over a Warby…to each his own, I guess

          • From Moscot’s website FAQ: “MOSCOT Eyewear is designed and prototyped in our New York City office, and then handmade and assembled in our factories in China and South Korea in accordance with our rigorous standards of quality and excellence. ”

            In other words, exactly like Warby Parker.

          • Moscot are one of the few companies not owned by Luxottica. Their markup is huge though. I’ve owned both Moscots and Warbys (I wore Moscots before Warbys existed) and found the quality of the Moscots only marginally better. The lenses are essentially the same and will need to be replaced in a few years. New lenses for your Moscots will cost a fortune while you can buy a new pair of Warbys and still be well under the original cost for a pair of Moscots. That said, if you have extra cash to throw it away, by all means throw it to Moscot or Salt rather than Luxottica.
            Shuron appear to be some random low quality brand you threw in there for no reason. Not sure how they are relevant.

          • I second Salt. Best pair of sunglasses I’ve owned – expensive but worth it.
            I’ve used WP before and I have no problem with the product. 99 dollars is worth it for a “stylish” Product.

          • I want my frames to feel lighter, not heavier.

  • Pablo Raw

    This is good news and bad news (for my wallet).

  • This makes me wish, in some weird way, that I need regular glasses, not just reading glasses.

  • I have never heard of Warby Parker. I am getting old!!

  • I think the quality of them is fine, but not great. however, they are perfect for people like me who wear contacts 85% of the time and need a sturdy and stylish pair of glasses to wear at night, if you acidentally run out of contact, etc. it doesn’t make sense for me to drop $200+ on frames, but $90-100, sure.

    • There are other online stores where you can get glasses for even less, though I’m not sure if any have home try on like Warby.

  • Am I the only one who has been told by Warby Parker that his or her vision is too poor to be accommodated by their oh-so-hip frames? Not only are almost all of their frames too “deep” (the height from the top to the bottom of the lens) to avoid unwanted visual distortion for very nearsighted people, but between my nearsightedness (roughly – 10.5) and an astigmatism, Warby told me that (1) they don’t make glasses in my prescription, and that even if they were able to, (2) their thinnest lens is not the thinnest lens available in the market, and they think I’d be unhappy with how thick the lenses would be.

    Sigh. Back to paying too many hundreds of dollars for not-as-hip frames.

    • kstove

      I have similar issues with my vision, but was still able to order from Warby Parker. You can order the frames with the non-Rx lenses and then just take them wherever you get your Rx filled. Still cheaper than buying frames from the eye doctor.

    • They’re a relatively new company consistently growing, so I’d say don’t give up hope on them. They may yet still advance to being able to do something for you. I’ve got a somewhat strong rx, and getting glasses from them was WAY cheaper than anything I’ve bought before. Plus they had cool enough smaller frames that don’t cause for any distortion.

    • I also have a high prescription (-12/-11) and I’ve had excellent service at Insight Optical on F St. They understand the lense limitations on such a high prescription and work with you to find a frame that looks good. I highly recommend them — it’s worth the investment!

  • Eh. They’re still way overpriced for the quality at $100. You can get prescription glasses for $8 at zenni optical. At that price I order 3-4 pairs and usually half will look good (no try on option). The other half I wear around the house. Currently own about 9 pairs of glasses… At $8 why not? Zenni’s quality is just as good as WB. WB is really just a Sol Moscot knockoff anyway.

    • Agreed! I have over a dozen pairs from Zenni – even if you max out on the transition lenses, high index etc…the most expensive pair is still ~$50.

  • People should check out See in Georgetown. Been there forever and have cool frames – a bit more expensive than Warby Parker

Comments are closed.