Anon Figment

Because not every piece of gear in the world is perfect, I felt like I had to post a review with more cons than pros. I said it initially and I'll say it again- the primary reason that I don't have a lot of 'negative' reviews is that I don't buy gear that sucks. And the gear that I have that isn't the greatest is usually just because it's old, and generally relegated to the "use in case of gearless friends" category- aka the "I don't remember what this is called and I'm 99% certain it's not even made anymore but it still works just fine so why get rid of it" category. Not really a category I can write reviews about.
That being said, I have a few things to say about this particular goggle. We'll switch it up by starting with the cons.

CONS:

• Number one. Changing the lenses on these goggles is seriously more difficult than brain surgery. I bought these in the 2009-2010 season, because I started skiing a lot more when I moved to a place with a resort less than an hour away and the goggles I had gave me serious gaper gap (LAME). The lenses they came with performed a little less than desirably in bright conditions, so I bought some replacement lenses. Oh my goodness gracious. Getting the old lenses out was slightly difficult, but getting the new ones in? FUHGEDDABOUTIT. Seriously there was one point when I thought I had it, went skiing, and the top separated, and all four of us tried on the lift to get it to fully fit... no dice. When I got home I literally had to warm up the plastic with my blow dryer to get it to be supple enough to really fit together like it was supposed to. Blech.
• Not the greatest ventilation on the face of the planet, but for me, after what I had been dealing with, they were fine. After what I have now (the Smith I/Os), they're a little lacking.
• Made for a little bit narrower of faces, which isn't a problem for me, but made it difficult to hand-me-sideways to my large-noggined lover boy. 

PROS:

• The reason I bought these goggles in the first place was because I thought they were incredibly good looking. I bought them in white with black writing/accents. They really are quite, as the kids say, 'fly.' Not so sure about some of the other colors I see...
• The straps are attached to the goggle with little hingy things (that I'm sure they have a fancy word for, but I don't know it) that help the goggles fit well with helmets and beanies alike. As a helmet wearer, I appreciated not have drafts on my cheeks.

Overall, these goggles are fine, as long as you don't want to change the lenses. B+ for looks, C for user friendliness.

Salomon SPK 90 (2012)

First off, I have to explain something. I have a personal belief that if you're a good enough skier, you can take any ski, with any binding, with any boot, on any snow, and have a great time. NOW, I'm not saying I'm the world's greatest skier, because I'm certainly not. But I am saying that I'm perfectly capable of taking a park boot and skiing GS in it and having a blast, because you know what? Like I would if I shopped at Men's Wearhouse, I like the way I look. I look good. And when I look good, I feel good. And when I feel good, I ski good. So before you go criticizing my boot choice, just remember that I'm in it for the good times, not the fastest times.

Anyway, that being said, let's get on with it. The Salomon SPK 90 (one of a few in the SPK series) has a 90 flex rating and a 104 last. (Admittedly a little bit of a soft flex for the type of skiing I enjoy, but I've always struggled with staying out of the back seat, so a little bit of extra flex allows me to not constantly check and re-check my stance. Less thinking, more skiing.) 

PROS:

• Brace yourselves... they're colorful. Just look at those GIANT YELLOW BUCKLES! Squee. I also really dig the overall sort of 'chunky' vibe of the boot. Gosh, was I raised in the 90s or what.
• In relation to the buckles yellow-ness, more important is their giant-ness. I'm a mitten wearer when I ski, so having super easy buckles is basically my favorite thing ever.
• The lace system in the inner boot. I love to jam my heel back into my boot as far as it will go and then cinch those babies up. It keeps my feet in place laterally while still allowing me to unbuckle the foot buckle on the lift to let my toesies breathe.
• The slippery thing on the inside/calf area. Makes sliding your heel into the boots a BREEZE.
• The strap around the shin also has a nice little space in the back for me to hook my boot heater packs. Go ahead. Call me a wimp. DO IT.
• Shock absorption in the heel. It's probably silly but I'm so much less afraid to throw bigger tricks because I'm not as worried about hurting myself.

CONS:

• A little on the flexy side for "all-mountain" weekend warriors. Park lovers and weirdos like me are definitely the best crowd for this boot.
• Only having two buckles doesn't allow for as specific of a 'dialed in' fit.
• This is a little silly, but I think the lacing system needs some sort of keeper or pocket to fit in, like Salomon has done with their running shoes. I try and tuck them in the strap, but often find the ends dangling out of my pants. Classy.
• The SCS toe cushioning system is great, but having little white dalmatian spots on my toes is a little dorky. I personally would have preferred an all-black look.

Overall, I love these boots. I got them two seasons ago, but I found them recently on the Evo outlet here. I give them a solid A.

Armada Cantika (2010)

First off, I know these skis are now four years old. Ask me if I care. Do it.
I know skis change a little every year, but the basic premise of the Cantika is going to be the same- your one-ski-quiver, solid, all-mountain ski. The Cantika may very well be my all-mountain ski forever, until I get a chance to ski on something else that pleases me.

PROS:

• True twin tip for total backwards-skiing compatibility. I taught on this ski (aka many hours of backwards pizza). I mess around in the park on this ski. It's pretty much always in my Fat Cats when I head up to the mountain, just in case. I have yet to experience issues attempting to ski any direction on the Cantikas.
• Wood core. I'm pretty sure it's poplar. Whatever, it's wood, and is light, springy, and absorbs vibrations like a champ.
• Not too 'girly' of a design. You'll learn very quickly that I absolutely despise when outdoor companies slap pink on something to call it 'women's specific.' Actually, you'll learn I absolutely despise pink in general. Yes, I'm a female. Yes, I want people to know it when I have my hood up and my helmet on and my most mirrored goggles on. I have been called 'sir' in liftlines before. Not a fan. HOWEVER. I'm not what you might call a 'girly girl.' I'm not saying you can't be a girly girl and shred like a champ, but I actually enjoy being taken seriously right off the bat. Of my three pairs of skis, only my GS skis are men's skis, and that's because I need something a little heavier to keep up (I weigh 125 pounds on a good day, shut up).
• Positive camber. When I see people in the liftline with reverse-camber skis on a bluebird day, I just have to laugh. I'm sorry, you can disagree all you like, but unless you're skinning out into the slackcountry, there's not going to be powder deep enough in resort boundaries to warrant a ski like that. If that's the only pair of skis you own, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you made the best choice. Positive camber, especially if it's your only skis and you're going to be in-bounds 99% of the time, is going to help you enjoy yourself MUCH better.
• Good amount of sidecut. I have the 164, which is 119-83-109. Not so much that it's going to throw off your landings in the park, but enough that you aren't having to grit your teeth every time you want to turn.
• 83 underfoot. Not SO fat that you look like you're on waterskis, but fat enough that powder days are enjoyable- especially if you're good enough to handle them.

CONS:

• It's a one-ski-quiver kind of ski. This is the biggest con for me, and for some people, it's a pro, but it's definitely something to consider, with ANY all-mountain ski. The Cantika pretty good at everything, which means it's not GREAT at anything. Yeah, it'll carve, but not like a GS ski. Yeah, it can handle powder, but not like something 100+ underfoot. You can mess around in the park, but it's not as light or easy to throw around as a more 'park specific' ski.
• The base is a little soft for me. I'm by no means a "who cares if there are rocks, I want to ski it anyway" kind of gal, in fact, I'm very protective of my bases and rocks upset me. But I swear I have to p-tex this ski every time I take it out. (Before you tell me "you're skiing wrong, dude" keep in mind that this will be my 20th season skiing, and I'm a PSIA certified ski instructor.) It's not a big deal, especially when you're me and have access to great equipment that can easily rectify soft-base issues, I just tend to get lazy sometimes.
• The base is white/clear. This is a pretty dumb con, but I use quite a bit of base cleaner trying to keep these lovelies looking beautiful, especially in rough winters when the snow gets a little dirtier than we like. This goes back to me being lazy, but also very vain.

Really, I love the Cantikas. They're a great go-to ski that can help me enjoy really any terrain, especially if the weather is changing or the snow is weird or whatever. For the hard-packed groomer bluebird days (my absolute favorite) I've got my Atomic I-can't-remember-what-they're-actually-calleds; the waist-deep Snowbird powder, the Surface My Lifes. Everything else, I've got my favorite Armadas. Going on my third season with them and still just as pleased as the first day I got them.

Grade: A-