Selecting Glacier Glasses (how're Julbo VT's?)

I am looking for advice and recommendations on GG. I'll be spending a couple weeks on a glacier, then later in the year on a long winter backpacking trip in the Sierras, followed by some further wintery snow and ice conditions in the mountains. a cursory glance at MP and the interwebs brings up Julbos. The Vermonts are attractive but there are enough comments on quality and durability to warrent concern. 

Thanks

I found the nose pads to the Vermont's to be small and painful. They are also flimsy, and bend out of alignment easily. Too bad, since they look nice. I would not buy another pair.

I love my Julbo Shields with 2-4 Reactic/polarized. Just use a separate nose piece. I use a Beko Cheeko.

Vermonts are what you may classify as a heritage model - it hearkens back to a previous design the company is known or is connected with. Kinda like those all leather shoes with the red laces that people think when they think "mountaineering". It's not that they're bad glasses or shoes, but the design is what it is for kinda nostalgia purposes (which can be fun!)

mostly relevant for prescription needs (since they are almost the only option), but I love my pair from opticus.com/

i have vermonts and theyre okay. love the look. the ear pieces hurt my ears and they seem to fog up easily if skinning/hiking uphill. theyre great at staying in place though. nothing about them is bad enough to get me to spend money on something else. 

After two seasons in ak, I really like the smith embarks. Better still now that there is more than one lens option. 

Sigh... OK, my pet peeve rant -- FAIR WARNING, this is gonna offend some of you for your fashion choices:

I have never been able to understand why people gravitate towards the Julbo glasses with the opaque side shields. There is zero practical reason to pay a lot of money just to rob yourself of your peripheral vision and look like an alpine hipster dbag.

The opaque side shields were once a necessity, long ago, before the invention of modern tinted polycarbonate plastic. But as soon as mass-produced poly made big curved plastic lens economical, we got wraparound designs. Overnight, literally everyone threw their ridiculous outdated opaque side shields in the trash -- where they belong.

And then in the early 2000s, Julbo hires some jagoff Fashionosta type who starts flipping through old mountaineering books and magazines, which cause the following brainstorm:

"Let's bring back a design *flaw*, from ancient technologically inferior times, that is literally SO impractical that it was only EVER used for mountaineering glacier glasses and welding goggles? That way, everybody wearing our new pointless peripheral-vision blockers will be SEEN as a mountaineer -- assuming they're not poor enough to be mistaken for a welder."

In other words, glacier glasses like that are mostly a form of "mountaineering cosplay", driven by the inherent human desire to look cool and authentic.

But they're pretty dumb. You can't even safely drive in them, because your field of view is restricted. You won't notice the crevasse that just shook open at your feet, because of the stupid opaque sideshields... God forbid you wear them in a rockfall zone, you're just playing Russian Roulette with ballistic missiles, at that point.

Instead of Julbos, try something sane and normal, like these:

• https://www.amazon.com/3M-Glasses-Anti-Fog-Control-Removable/dp/B00AEY4NPK/ref=mp_s_a_1_1_pp?crid=3EZ9N5P7JGQ2B&keywords=3m+Virtua+ccS+gray&qid=1703168337&sprefix=3m+virtua+ccs+gray%2Caps%2C194&sr=8-1

Very comfortable for all day wear, extremely durable (they're industrial safety glasses), and preserves your entire field of vision -- and CHEAP at $10/pair. Literally superior to the Julbos in every way -- except as a cosplay prop, and an overpriced Veblen good.

Whew! Thanks, I needed to get that out of my system... You should feel free to wear whatever dorkass sunglasses you think make you look cool -- just please don't do it when you're on my rope team, because I didn't want to clean up after your accidents.

Ryan Lynch wrote:

Sigh... OK, my pet peeve rant -- FAIR WARNING, this is gonna offend some of you for your fashion choices:

I have never been able to understand why people gravitate towards the Julbo glasses with the opaque side shields. There is zero practical reason to pay a lot of money just to rob yourself of your peripheral vision and look like an alpine hipster dbag.

...RANT...

Whew! Thanks, I needed to get that out of my system... You should feel free to wear whatever dorkass sunglasses you think make you look cool -- just please don't do it when you're on my rope team, because I didn't want to clean up after your accidents.

Something must have gone over my head.  Did you forget to type "/s"?  Either way, it seems like terrible advice. I've been on 4 rescues in the past 5 seasons to get snow blind dummies off of Mt Rainier because they were not wearing proper glacier eye protection (ie <15% VLT, 99.9% UV blocking and near zero light leakage around the frames).  Whether you achieve those requirements through 100% opaque temple coverage or by finding glasses that really really fit your dome, makes no difference.  The 3M glasses you posted are totally inadequate for long days on a glacier. 3M doesn't even rate the VLT spec for them.

I'm guessing you have the most gorgeous, perfectly shaped face ever for fitting closely to the frames you use and/or magical retinas to somehow get by with tinted safety glasses as eye pro on a glacier.  Either way your approach and attitude sound like a liability in the alpine.  But I'm just one of those dbags that wants to entirely avoid itchy eyes at the end of a long day on the glacier.  And since faces come in all shapes and sizes I'm not going to shit on someone for wearing glasses that are effective for them.  

To the OP- I highly highly recommend trying on in person whatever glasses you might want.  Check for VLT spec.  If they fit closely around the entire frame and are 15% VLT or less and you can afford them- good to go.  Yes that includes blocking light bouncing in from the temple.  Taking recommendation from what works for other people doesn't seem like the best strategy for eyewear that must actually fit to be effective. What's comfy and functional for one person could be total garbage for another.

Ryan Lynch wrote:

Sigh... OK, my pet peeve rant -- FAIR WARNING, this is gonna offend some of you for your fashion choices:

I have never been able to understand why people gravitate towards the Julbo glasses with the opaque side shields. There is zero practical reason to pay a lot of money just to rob yourself of your peripheral vision and look like an alpine hipster dbag.

The opaque side shields were once a necessity, long ago, before the invention of modern tinted polycarbonate plastic. But as soon as mass-produced poly made big curved plastic lens economical, we got wraparound designs. Overnight, literally everyone threw their ridiculous outdated opaque side shields in the trash -- where they belong.

And then in the early 2000s, Julbo hires some jagoff Fashionosta type who starts flipping through old mountaineering books and magazines, which cause the following brainstorm:

"Let's bring back a design *flaw*, from ancient technologically inferior times, that is literally SO impractical that it was only EVER used for mountaineering glacier glasses and welding goggles? That way, everybody wearing our new pointless peripheral-vision blockers will be SEEN as a mountaineer -- assuming they're not poor enough to be mistaken for a welder."

In other words, glacier glasses like that are mostly a form of "mountaineering cosplay", driven by the inherent human desire to look cool and authentic.

But they're pretty dumb. You can't even safely drive in them, because your field of view is restricted. You won't notice the crevasse that just shook open at your feet, because of the stupid opaque sideshields... God forbid you wear them in a rockfall zone, you're just playing Russian Roulette with ballistic missiles, at that point.

Instead of Julbos, try something sane and normal, like these:

• https://www.amazon.com/3M-Glasses-Anti-Fog-Control-Removable/dp/B00AEY4NPK/ref=mp_s_a_1_1_pp?crid=3EZ9N5P7JGQ2B&keywords=3m+Virtua+ccS+gray&qid=1703168337&sprefix=3m+virtua+ccs+gray%2Caps%2C194&sr=8-1

Very comfortable for all day wear, extremely durable (they're industrial safety glasses), and preserves your entire field of vision -- and CHEAP at $10/pair. Literally superior to the Julbos in every way -- except as a cosplay prop, and an overpriced Veblen good.

Whew! Thanks, I needed to get that out of my system... You should feel free to wear whatever dorkass sunglasses you think make you look cool -- just please don't do it when you're on my rope team, because I didn't want to clean up after your accidents.

That's a pretty rude and unnecessary thing to say. If you don't think the discussion is worthwhile, then don't participate.

Ryan Lynch wrote:

Sigh... OK, my pet peeve rant -- FAIR WARNING, this is gonna offend some of you for your fashion choices:

I have never been able to understand why people gravitate towards the Julbo glasses with the opaque side shields. There is zero practical reason to pay a lot of money just to rob yourself of your peripheral vision and look like an alpine hipster dbag.

The opaque side shields were once a necessity, long ago, before the invention of modern tinted polycarbonate plastic. But as soon as mass-produced poly made big curved plastic lens economical, we got wraparound designs. Overnight, literally everyone threw their ridiculous outdated opaque side shields in the trash -- where they belong.

And then in the early 2000s, Julbo hires some jagoff Fashionosta type who starts flipping through old mountaineering books and magazines, which cause the following brainstorm:

"Let's bring back a design *flaw*, from ancient technologically inferior times, that is literally SO impractical that it was only EVER used for mountaineering glacier glasses and welding goggles? That way, everybody wearing our new pointless peripheral-vision blockers will be SEEN as a mountaineer -- assuming they're not poor enough to be mistaken for a welder."

In other words, glacier glasses like that are mostly a form of "mountaineering cosplay", driven by the inherent human desire to look cool and authentic.

But they're pretty dumb. You can't even safely drive in them, because your field of view is restricted. You won't notice the crevasse that just shook open at your feet, because of the stupid opaque sideshields... God forbid you wear them in a rockfall zone, you're just playing Russian Roulette with ballistic missiles, at that point.

Instead of Julbos, try something sane and normal, like these:

• https://www.amazon.com/3M-Glasses-Anti-Fog-Control-Removable/dp/B00AEY4NPK/ref=mp_s_a_1_1_pp?crid=3EZ9N5P7JGQ2B&keywords=3m+Virtua+ccS+gray&qid=1703168337&sprefix=3m+virtua+ccs+gray%2Caps%2C194&sr=8-1

Very comfortable for all day wear, extremely durable (they're industrial safety glasses), and preserves your entire field of vision -- and CHEAP at $10/pair. Literally superior to the Julbos in every way -- except as a cosplay prop, and an overpriced Veblen good.

Whew! Thanks, I needed to get that out of my system... You should feel free to wear whatever dorkass sunglasses you think make you look cool -- just please don't do it when you're on my rope team, because I didn't want to clean up after your accidents.

I have those 3M glasses you mentioned as my safety glasses at work, they are grossly inadequate for glacier travel, wearing those on a big day on a glacier would be a great way to go snowblind.

 Also if having side shields on your glasses is the reason you walk into a crevasse or get hit by rockfall then you have a situational awareness problem, that has nothing to do with the glasses.

Ryan Lynch wrote:

Sigh... OK, my pet peeve rant -- FAIR WARNING, this is gonna offend some of you for your fashion choices:

I have never been able to understand why people gravitate towards the Julbo glasses with the opaque side shields. There is zero practical reason to pay a lot of money just to rob yourself of your peripheral vision and look like an alpine hipster dbag.

The opaque side shields were once a necessity, long ago, before the invention of modern tinted polycarbonate plastic. But as soon as mass-produced poly made big curved plastic lens economical, we got wraparound designs. Overnight, literally everyone threw their ridiculous outdated opaque side shields in the trash -- where they belong.

And then in the early 2000s, Julbo hires some jagoff Fashionosta type who starts flipping through old mountaineering books and magazines, which cause the following brainstorm:

"Let's bring back a design *flaw*, from ancient technologically inferior times, that is literally SO impractical that it was only EVER used for mountaineering glacier glasses and welding goggles? That way, everybody wearing our new pointless peripheral-vision blockers will be SEEN as a mountaineer -- assuming they're not poor enough to be mistaken for a welder."

In other words, glacier glasses like that are mostly a form of "mountaineering cosplay", driven by the inherent human desire to look cool and authentic.

But they're pretty dumb. You can't even safely drive in them, because your field of view is restricted. You won't notice the crevasse that just shook open at your feet, because of the stupid opaque sideshields... God forbid you wear them in a rockfall zone, you're just playing Russian Roulette with ballistic missiles, at that point.

Instead of Julbos, try something sane and normal, like these:

• https://www.amazon.com/3M-Glasses-Anti-Fog-Control-Removable/dp/B00AEY4NPK/ref=mp_s_a_1_1_pp?crid=3EZ9N5P7JGQ2B&keywords=3m+Virtua+ccS+gray&qid=1703168337&sprefix=3m+virtua+ccs+gray%2Caps%2C194&sr=8-1

Very comfortable for all day wear, extremely durable (they're industrial safety glasses), and preserves your entire field of vision -- and CHEAP at $10/pair. Literally superior to the Julbos in every way -- except as a cosplay prop, and an overpriced Veblen good.

Whew! Thanks, I needed to get that out of my system... You should feel free to wear whatever dorkass sunglasses you think make you look cool -- just please don't do it when you're on my rope team, because I didn't want to clean up after your accidents.

Tell me you’ve never spent significant time on a glacier, without saying it directly, in 1000 words or more…

Bonus points, insult an entire field of skilled professionals (welders) in one sentence.

Extra credit, insult an entire subgroup of users who you may wish to seek advice from in the future and ensure that they view you as someone not worth the time.

Final grade: 100%. Nice job. 

I like the Oakley Clifden with really low VLT lenses + a Beako nose piece.  

All right -- I was pretty over-the-top with shitting on those Julbo glasses. Apologies to the folks who I offended. I could have expressed my negative opinions about the glasses without calling you guys stupid, but I chose to be a dick. No excuse -- just me being a jackass. I am sorry for that.

Real talk: The 3M glasses I Iinked earlier are a little short of the recommended spec for glacier travel. In terms of leakage, they're fine -- foam gasket to fit flush on most (human) faces, comfortably, with zero light transmission at the edges like ski goggles.

But those 3Ms only have a class 3 tint, which is a little shy of the glacier travel recommendations... I've spent several weeks in those, on moderate-altitude (10-14k') snowfields on sunny days, with zero symptoms of snow blindness or other eye problems. And plenty of people on those same mountains DO get snow blindness.

I think the most likely explanation is that the glacier spec is meant to encompass much higher altitudes than 10-14k', with correspondly higher UV flux. At 20k' or 25k', it may be possible to cause damage through a class 3 tint -- I just don't know.

But even so, there are still plenty of better options that do meet the glacier travel recommendations, without the downsides of opaque sides. Class 5 tint would meet or exceed all of the glacier recommendations. Amazon has dozens of cheap, comfortable, reliable safety glasses that provide that level of protection, with zero edge leakage, and no interference with peripheral vision.

The thing is, the mountaineering gear industry is a lot like the wedding industry, in that there's a LOT of companies built on taking advantage of people who are anxious about the success of an infrequent, high-pressure event. But there's really no reason why things *need* to be the way they are, except fashion trends and conspicuous consumption.

I mean -- how many people are buying Dead Bird name brand full shells for $1500, when there are work-wear brands that have the same capabilities for $300 -- but just aren't as hip or fashion cut?

Ryan Lynch wrote:

 Apologies to the folks who I offended. I could have expressed my negative opinions about the glasses without calling you guys stupid, but I chose to be a dick. No excuse -- just me being a jackass. I am sorry for that.

Real talk:

Forget about offending anyone.  Real talk is you're giving borderline dangerous advice.  

There is no reason to recommend someone buy glacier specific eye protection that is not suitable for glacier travel.  You seem far more fixated on the physical appearance than on the real world performance.  When people have sight issues in the alpine often times other people have to volunteer their time to go provide assistance while being subject to objective hazards.  

Get eye protection that will reasonably guarantee you can see in the alpine. Sunski's are a little more reasonably priced than Julbos.  Hard to find to try on in person though.  Sierra Trading post sometimes has some behind the glass.

Have beat several sets of Julbo Sherpa models to hell and back. Superglue the side pieces on. Be warned- the metal aviator model side pieces  are simply held on by spring tension, not holes in the frame, and if you bump them they can snap off the frame and scratch your eyeball. The Sherpa model is great though- comfy, secure, and great optics for less than other models. Also saved me from a rock to the face so there’s that. 

I went with the Smith Embark with Chromapop lenses and here's the glacier I spent my week working around and on. They'll next be accompanying me for a long weekend in the desolation Wilderness 

Andy Shoemaker wrote:

Forget about offending anyone.  Real talk is you're giving borderline dangerous advice.  

There is no reason to recommend someone buy glacier specific eye protection that is not suitable for glacier travel.  You seem far more fixated on the physical appearance than on the real world performance.  When people have sight issues in the alpine often times other people have to volunteer their time to go provide assistance while being subject to objective hazards.  

Get eye protection that will reasonably guarantee you can see in the alpine. Sunski's are a little more reasonably priced than Julbos.  Hard to find to try on in person though.  Sierra Trading post sometimes has some behind the glass.

And that's 100% my fault, for how I started off this whole thing, by offending you guys.

At any rate, 3M does actually specify their VLT info. But it's in a different format than you might be experienced with, because these are ANSI Z87.1 rated safety glasses. The screenshot above is taken from the 4th page of the product data sheet:

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1487166O/3m-virtua-sport-ccs-and-virtua-ccs-series-protective-eyewear-technical-specifications.pdf?&fn=Virtua-Sport-CCS-and-CSS-Series-TS_R1.pdf

Check out the graph titled "Representative Transmittance Spectrum (200 - 2000 nm)" and the table titled "ANSI Z87.1 Transmittance
Requirement Classification"... That's where your VLT & UV data lives:

• Over the 380-780nm range, the graph varies between 10% and 25%, with an "eyeball average" of ~15%.
• The first item in the table, labelled "Visible Light Filter (380-780 nm)", has the value "L3" which is defined in the standard as total visible-light transmittance between 18% and 8%.
• The second item in the table, labelled "Ultraviolet Filter (200-380 nm)", has the value "U6" which is defined in the standard as total UV transmittance of no more than 0.1%.

FYI, the ANSI VLT "L scale" is approximately equivalent to the EN standard VLT classes ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun…)... Unfortunately, like all ANSI standards, the Z87.1 documents are only available behind a paywall. I'm looking at a copy of the 2020-revised standard document right now. But there's no easy/legal way for me to share a link.

In your earlier comment, you I believe you mentioned that the Rainer guides recommend:

... 15% VLT, 99.9% UV blocking and near zero light leakage around the frames) ...

which would be an L3+U6 ANSI rating.

So the 3M glasses do seem to be consistent with your own recommendations -- in a comfortable and ergonomic package with full peripheral vision, and priced under $10.

Besides what you mentioned, I did look around for other recommendations for glacier / mountaineering glasses... There are a few recommendations suggesting that deeper tints (EN class 4 / ANSI L4) might be desirable at extreme altitudes, but most of what I'm reading says the EN class 3 is sufficient.

From the perspective of everyday/fashion sunglasses, I can see how the tints and protection of glacier glasses might seem uncommon, or drastic. But by the standards of industrial safety glasses, glacier glasses are really nothing special.

Oh, and for those who need to wear prescription glasses, but still want to experience mountaineering... You can also find tinted, wraparound safety glasses that meet/exceed all of the recreational glacier-travel recommendations, and are designed to fit comfortably *over* your prescription frames.

My favorite tinted over-glasses are the 3M Nassau Rave... They came in two different tint levels -- L3 (<15% VLT & <0.1% UVT) and L5 (overkill). Instead of a foam gasket, they took a different approach for side/top/bottom protection -- they fit closely and the lenses are oversized enough that there's just no direct light path from the edge to your eyes.

Unfortunately, I don't think 3M makes them anymore. They're still available from some retailers, and 3M still has all the data sheets -- but I'm actively looking for a replacement option when the retailers run out.

Ryan Lynch wrote:

There are a few recommendations suggesting that deeper tints (EN class 4 / ANSI L4) might be desirable at extreme altitudes, but most of what I'm reading says the EN class 3 is sufficient.

I would def. recommend Class 4 for anytime it's both sunny and snowy - most mountains are at some sort of elevation, but even at 10k' I prefer them. Speaking purely for myself, reducing glare drastically increases my enjoyment on the mountains: cuts down on glare, reduces related headaches, etc.

From the perspective of everyday/fashion sunglasses, I can see how the tints and protection of glacier glasses might seem uncommon, or drastic. But by the standards of industrial safety glasses, glacier glasses are really nothing special.

One of the killer features of those Julbos are the transition lenses, which does allow them to function as ~Class 3 when the sun is not as bright. Low level/flat light detail is not super duper given the tint of the lenses (brown). Not too fashionable, unless you want to feel as if you're trying to make the scene in Chamonix (so living in Boulder, yeah: fashionable).

I may check out those cheap 3M glasses to have as a backup - why not? 

Since I am terribly myopic, spending several hundred dollars on my eyes/year is not all that uncommon. I've strained the customer support on Julbo a number of times, and they've always been extremely friendly and receptive on doling out spare parts and warrantying broken glasses.  

Hopefully one can see past the heritage fashion pairs - it would be like judging La Sportiva rock shoes purely on the Mythos.

Long Ranger wrote:

I would def. recommend Class 4 for anytime it's both sunny and snowy - most mountains are at some sort of elevation, but even at 10k' I prefer them. Speaking purely for myself, reducing glare drastically increases my enjoyment on the mountains: cuts down on glare, reduces related headaches, etc.

Have you ever tried a class 5 tint? It's a bit much for day-to-day stuff, but it comes in handy. You can nearly stare directly at the sun with those on -- great for Winter driving when the sun is low... Also, arc welding!

I guess 3 vs 4 might come down to personal preference, below 20k'? Some people are just more susceptible to strain/headaches from bright light. I've don't normally have the kind of problems you're describing -- but when I get a sinus headache during allergy season, I go scrambling for those class 5 tint shades for driving.

One of the killer features of those Julbos are the transition lenses, which does allow them to function as ~Class 3 when the sun is not as bright. Low level/flat light detail is not super duper given the tint of the lenses (brown). Not too fashionable, unless you want to feel as if you're trying to make the scene in Chamonix (so living in Boulder, yeah: fashionable).

I have not tried transition lenses for this kind of thing -- sounda pretty cool, though. Would be nice to get that feature in a wraparound.

I may check out those cheap 3M glasses to have as a backup - why not? 

Since I am terribly myopic, spending several hundred dollars on my eyes/year is not all that uncommon. I've strained the customer support on Julbo a number of times, and they've always been extremely friendly and receptive on doling out spare parts and warrantying broken glasses.

Fair point -- the 3Ms are cheap enough that I just throw them away and grab another pair, if anything breaks. That might not be so ideal, from an environmental perspective.

Hopefully one can see past the heritage fashion pairs - it would be like judging La Sportiva rock shoes purely on the Mythos.

And with that insult to the honor of my second-favorite climbing shoe (which I assure you I take VERY personally)... The shoe's on the other foot!