- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
COUNTERKICKS
SPRING 2012
98 dollars Pine Green Atom Red Black
COUNTERKICKS
85 DOLLARS RETAIL
Ironstone/ white/ Bam
Black/Midnight Navy/ White/Midnight Fog
Midnight Navy/Black
2012 SPRING NIKE SB DUNK LOWS NEW PICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread in 'Nike Retro' Thread starter Started by elcerrito91,
- Start date
COUNTERKICKS
SPRING 2012
98 dollars Pine Green Atom Red Black
COUNTERKICKS
85 DOLLARS RETAIL
Ironstone/ white/ Bam
Black/Midnight Navy/ White/Midnight Fog
Midnight Navy/Black
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
COUNTERKICKS
SPRING 2012
98 dollars Pine Green Atom Red Black
COUNTERKICKS
85 DOLLARS RETAIL
Ironstone/ white/ Bam
Black/Midnight Navy/ White/Midnight Fog
Midnight Navy/Black
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
BUMP
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
BUMP
- Dec 22, 2005
- 707
- 10
do those look like the grits to you? idk none of these really appeal to me but looks like nike's going back to older designs/colorways for inspiration
- Dec 22, 2005
- 707
- 10
do those look like the grits to you? idk none of these really appeal to me but looks like nike's going back to older designs/colorways for inspiration
- Dec 28, 2004
- 18,903
- 1,184
i somewhat like that last c/w posted. wont cop tho...still dont own any dunks...
- Dec 28, 2004
- 18,903
- 1,184
i somewhat like that last c/w posted. wont cop tho...still dont own any dunks...
- May 7, 2006
- 12,293
- 6,813
All of them copped. Probably not the blue pair with the yellow stitching.
But why release another pine green when we just got a pair this year?
But why release another pine green when we just got a pair this year?
- May 7, 2006
- 12,293
- 6,813
All of them copped. Probably not the blue pair with the yellow stitching.
But why release another pine green when we just got a pair this year?
But why release another pine green when we just got a pair this year?
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
because they are out of ideas and Bavaretto sucks at designing shoes thats why. Nike SB needs stories in its cws, themes. There is very little pop in these shoes. Bisons had no story, but at least they had pop with that red toe you know?
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
because they are out of ideas and Bavaretto sucks at designing shoes thats why. Nike SB needs stories in its cws, themes. There is very little pop in these shoes. Bisons had no story, but at least they had pop with that red toe you know?
- May 5, 2005
- 833
- 110
I disagree. Give me clean colorways and gimmick-free releases any day over that nonsense.
- May 5, 2005
- 833
- 110
I disagree. Give me clean colorways and gimmick-free releases any day over that nonsense.
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
What specific nonsense are you referring to? which cws specifically?
Okay I'll give you the gimmick point, but you can't deny 02-05 Nike SB was better than now cws wise. Back in 02, they had clear skate themes and nobody can say they are gimmicks. In 04, Hufs were not a gimmick either. IMO, SJs are a clear gimmick because they are trying to look like XIs, where as the black and white low Supremes were a shoe with cement rather than one trying to look like IIIs. You know what I'm saying?
Sharks, Mulders, Supas, Bisons, Sea Crystals, Ginos, J Packs, Jedis, Fogs ALL were just cws, it was the collectors that came up with the nicknames. Most of the shoes 02-05 were collabs by the way. Bavaretto sucks at designing period.
The shoes in the first post have very little pop, they are just there and are plain. While Jedis and Sea Crystals are simple, they have pop. Even Grits look better than these. The colors on these are very dull. I do give Nike SB credit for trying though, especially with a variation in materials, but the cws themselves are just very dull imo.
Okay I'll give you the gimmick point, but you can't deny 02-05 Nike SB was better than now cws wise. Back in 02, they had clear skate themes and nobody can say they are gimmicks. In 04, Hufs were not a gimmick either. IMO, SJs are a clear gimmick because they are trying to look like XIs, where as the black and white low Supremes were a shoe with cement rather than one trying to look like IIIs. You know what I'm saying?
Sharks, Mulders, Supas, Bisons, Sea Crystals, Ginos, J Packs, Jedis, Fogs ALL were just cws, it was the collectors that came up with the nicknames. Most of the shoes 02-05 were collabs by the way. Bavaretto sucks at designing period.
The shoes in the first post have very little pop, they are just there and are plain. While Jedis and Sea Crystals are simple, they have pop. Even Grits look better than these. The colors on these are very dull. I do give Nike SB credit for trying though, especially with a variation in materials, but the cws themselves are just very dull imo.
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
What specific nonsense are you referring to? which cws specifically?
Okay I'll give you the gimmick point, but you can't deny 02-05 Nike SB was better than now cws wise. Back in 02, they had clear skate themes and nobody can say they are gimmicks. In 04, Hufs were not a gimmick either. IMO, SJs are a clear gimmick because they are trying to look like XIs, where as the black and white low Supremes were a shoe with cement rather than one trying to look like IIIs. You know what I'm saying?
Sharks, Mulders, Supas, Bisons, Sea Crystals, Ginos, J Packs, Jedis, Fogs ALL were just cws, it was the collectors that came up with the nicknames. Most of the shoes 02-05 were collabs by the way. Bavaretto sucks at designing period.
The shoes in the first post have very little pop, they are just there and are plain. While Jedis and Sea Crystals are simple, they have pop. Even Grits look better than these. The colors on these are very dull. I do give Nike SB credit for trying though, especially with a variation in materials, but the cws themselves are just very dull imo.
Okay I'll give you the gimmick point, but you can't deny 02-05 Nike SB was better than now cws wise. Back in 02, they had clear skate themes and nobody can say they are gimmicks. In 04, Hufs were not a gimmick either. IMO, SJs are a clear gimmick because they are trying to look like XIs, where as the black and white low Supremes were a shoe with cement rather than one trying to look like IIIs. You know what I'm saying?
Sharks, Mulders, Supas, Bisons, Sea Crystals, Ginos, J Packs, Jedis, Fogs ALL were just cws, it was the collectors that came up with the nicknames. Most of the shoes 02-05 were collabs by the way. Bavaretto sucks at designing period.
The shoes in the first post have very little pop, they are just there and are plain. While Jedis and Sea Crystals are simple, they have pop. Even Grits look better than these. The colors on these are very dull. I do give Nike SB credit for trying though, especially with a variation in materials, but the cws themselves are just very dull imo.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 176
- 24
^well put, elcerrito
- Sep 13, 2002
- 176
- 24
^well put, elcerrito
- May 5, 2005
- 833
- 110
I haven't kept up with any SB dunk release since the Tiffs so I can't rattle off a lot of "cw nicknames" but those Lobsters and Freddy Kreugers come to mind. I would also be the last person to argue that today's cw are better than the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd series - the only purple box SB I have are the SBTGs - so yeah, no argument there.
Not all of the nicknames came from the collectors. More than a few got their names from the SB skate team member that "designed" the shoe. Mulders, Ginos, Supa, etc...
Oh yeah, how are the Supremes just a "shoe with cement"? They're clearly influenced by the IIIs so by that rationale, you can file them in your "gimmick" category.
- May 5, 2005
- 833
- 110
I haven't kept up with any SB dunk release since the Tiffs so I can't rattle off a lot of "cw nicknames" but those Lobsters and Freddy Kreugers come to mind. I would also be the last person to argue that today's cw are better than the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd series - the only purple box SB I have are the SBTGs - so yeah, no argument there.
Not all of the nicknames came from the collectors. More than a few got their names from the SB skate team member that "designed" the shoe. Mulders, Ginos, Supa, etc...
Oh yeah, how are the Supremes just a "shoe with cement"? They're clearly influenced by the IIIs so by that rationale, you can file them in your "gimmick" category.
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
black box was late 05 and 06 and imo a lot of the cws that year were whack as hell. Thats when SBs fell off. Black box on, cws got worse and worse. While black and white Supreme lows are III looking (yes they are) they are not trying to imitate the III as SJs are the XIs, they are more of a tribute than a clear bite. And they are one of the most liked dunks ever. Plus, the material on Supremes isnt trying to be like III. The leather on Supremes is smooth where as on III it is tumbled. The SJs, on the other hand, even have laces similar to those of the XIs, again a clear imitation rather than just a cw resemblence. The only thing Supremes and III have in common is the toecap, lining, and eyelets. Where as SJs have the mesh sidepanel, and PL toe/toecap, mesh tongue, and skinny rope laces. A straight up bite on the XIs.
Yes Mulders, Ginos, Supas are named after the skaters, but shoes like sharks, sea crystals, jedis, J Packs, etc are collector named, meaning collectors deemed them those titles (Sea Crystals, Bisons, Sharks etc for cw and jedi, J Pack etc for theme). Would you call Heinnys a gimmick?
If you are gonna call Freddys a gimmick would you call Jedis one? Freddys were clearly trying to resemble the character, but I'm not so sure about Jedis, then again on the Nike site, it says "Yoda" is the designer, so go figure haha. That was actually their original nickname before Jedis caught on. SBs are not selling like they were even back in 08. Collectors aren't fiending after pairs like they were. Nike SB had to resort to limiting their QS's to 1000 pairs and telling the public that. That shows that shoes aren't the same as they were. It also shows that the number of collectors has dwindled over the years and thats the sad part. Nike SB's inability to make good looking cws, in the majority's eyes, has driven away collectors. Sure some have left due to lack of interest and money, but I would bet that is most cases it was due to whackness of cws and lack of relatability to the cws.
These cws are a bite on past releases btw, the brown pair with red resembles Grits and the green/ black lows resemble Deftone highs....they need to be original in their ideas to be successful, and the stuff has to look good as well.
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
black box was late 05 and 06 and imo a lot of the cws that year were whack as hell. Thats when SBs fell off. Black box on, cws got worse and worse. While black and white Supreme lows are III looking (yes they are) they are not trying to imitate the III as SJs are the XIs, they are more of a tribute than a clear bite. And they are one of the most liked dunks ever. Plus, the material on Supremes isnt trying to be like III. The leather on Supremes is smooth where as on III it is tumbled. The SJs, on the other hand, even have laces similar to those of the XIs, again a clear imitation rather than just a cw resemblence. The only thing Supremes and III have in common is the toecap, lining, and eyelets. Where as SJs have the mesh sidepanel, and PL toe/toecap, mesh tongue, and skinny rope laces. A straight up bite on the XIs.
Yes Mulders, Ginos, Supas are named after the skaters, but shoes like sharks, sea crystals, jedis, J Packs, etc are collector named, meaning collectors deemed them those titles (Sea Crystals, Bisons, Sharks etc for cw and jedi, J Pack etc for theme). Would you call Heinnys a gimmick?
If you are gonna call Freddys a gimmick would you call Jedis one? Freddys were clearly trying to resemble the character, but I'm not so sure about Jedis, then again on the Nike site, it says "Yoda" is the designer, so go figure haha. That was actually their original nickname before Jedis caught on. SBs are not selling like they were even back in 08. Collectors aren't fiending after pairs like they were. Nike SB had to resort to limiting their QS's to 1000 pairs and telling the public that. That shows that shoes aren't the same as they were. It also shows that the number of collectors has dwindled over the years and thats the sad part. Nike SB's inability to make good looking cws, in the majority's eyes, has driven away collectors. Sure some have left due to lack of interest and money, but I would bet that is most cases it was due to whackness of cws and lack of relatability to the cws.
These cws are a bite on past releases btw, the brown pair with red resembles Grits and the green/ black lows resemble Deftone highs....they need to be original in their ideas to be successful, and the stuff has to look good as well.
- Apr 4, 2003
- 4,184
- 2,800
I think these plain releases are dope, I could live without the contrast stitching. Every shoe doesn't need a story or gimmick behind it and not every shoe needs a bright color on it either. They definitely have a mid 90's vibe going on
- Apr 4, 2003
- 4,184
- 2,800
I think these plain releases are dope, I could live without the contrast stitching. Every shoe doesn't need a story or gimmick behind it and not every shoe needs a bright color on it either. They definitely have a mid 90's vibe going on
- Dec 14, 2006
- 3,205
- 160
true, but these days in order for an SB dunk to have a WOW effect, they need a story.... dope for you doesnt always mean dope to the majority and if a shoe isnt appealing to the majority then it isnt desired and thus sits and sits at shops. I feel you on plain cws, in a sense a lot of SBs are actually simple. These two toned ones though are literally too plain though imo
