- Apr 23, 2004
- 2,434
- 422
i still dont like em but damn i shouldve gotten a pair to trade for LM's 
2024 NIKE SB DUNK THREAD_____GRs and QSs added
- Thread in 'Nike Retro' Thread starter Started by elcerrito91,
- Start date
- May 7, 2014
- 17
- 17
- May 31, 2011
- 1,700
- 498
That Twitter employee didn't get the memo
- Aug 6, 2013
- 5,390
- 2,593
That's the second Official Nike Tweet confirming release on 6/21 in the past two days.
- May 4, 2012
- 5,368
- 7,589
Just got my size 12. Soooooooooooooooooooooo Happy. 
- Jan 9, 2014
- 3,458
- 2,069
You sure you work for kixify and not Nike
- Dec 29, 2013
- 3,035
- 1,440
Maybe the agreement is that nike sells the pairs themselves and gives the cut that the retailer would have made over to a certain company.
- May 4, 2012
- 5,368
- 7,589
I just saw the other day that NB is suing Karl Lagerfeld over a pair of his shoes that look similar to theirs. If they can sue him for that, Gucci can sue nike for the colors and the patterns being used on the SB easily.
- Apr 16, 2014
- 475
- 214
There's a few of us who actually did. I know for a fact I won't be dropping that kind of bread on these or any shoe for that matter. I'm a lil salty for not getting the sz 11 @ flight club yesterday. Had it in the Cart and this spot this morn for $200, though I'm proud I stuck to my principles and didn't pay 100% mark up on a $100 shoe.
- Jan 25, 2014
- 1,031
- 938
I haven't been turned very often but I'll admit the SOMPs got me big time.
- Sep 24, 2013
- 808
- 400
they're definitely bringing hype to nike sb in general this year. And these ugly *** scrapped BS are helping them
- Feb 15, 2014
- 44
- 26
Are we SERIOUSLY supposed to believe that a corporation like Nike wouldn't do the legal legwork before committing to a manufacturing run? There's no chance that they were blissfully ignorant throughout the design process and actually went to production if there was even the slightest chance of a legal issue. Either Nike's legal department was SLEEPING (damn near impossible), or this is some sort of guerilla marketing stunt by Black Sheep/Nike. If the latter rings true, my hat's off to both, as it'll be front page sneaker news tomorrow for an otherwise mediocre (and I'm being generous) collaboration.
ps- if you're older than 16 years old, you shouldn't be wearing this shoe. Under any circumstances.
ps- if you're older than 16 years old, you shouldn't be wearing this shoe. Under any circumstances.
- Oct 8, 2009
- 8,513
- 3,513
But the design should only really appeal to people that are over 35 or so and grew up in that era of hip hop.
I said I was mildly interested, not enough to buy, and this nonsense makes me even less interested. The only scrapped dunk that I wish I could get my hands on is a pair of the Heaven's Gates. Those things were so simple and cool.
I said I was mildly interested, not enough to buy, and this nonsense makes me even less interested. The only scrapped dunk that I wish I could get my hands on is a pair of the Heaven's Gates. Those things were so simple and cool.
- Jan 9, 2014
- 3,458
- 2,069
- Aug 27, 2012
- 2,070
- 693
Are we SERIOUSLY supposed to believe that a corporation like Nike wouldn't do the legal legwork before committing to a manufacturing run? There's no chance that they were blissfully ignorant throughout the design process and actually went to production if there was even the slightest chance of a legal issue. Either Nike's legal department was SLEEPING (damn near impossible), or this is some sort of guerilla marketing stunt by Black Sheep/Nike. If the latter rings true, my hat's off to both, as it'll be front page sneaker news tomorrow for an otherwise mediocre (and I'm being generous) collaboration.
ps- if you're older than 16 years old, you shouldn't be wearing this shoe. Under any circumstances.
You wouldn't believe a company like nike would have such a underperforming site but here we are. I doubt the black sheep
Sb was discussed as major mtgs lol, sb I'm sure move with a good deal of autonomy. As to production, they weren't making a boatload of them anyway so let's not act like nike is crying on way or the other.
- Feb 15, 2014
- 44
- 26
It's strange because you're right, but at the same time... that was then, and this is now. The all-over Gucci print is outdated and tacky, and i mean outdated from 2003, not from the era that these took inspiration from. It's too soon to bring it back, if you know what I mean.
That being said, definitely not a personal attack towards anyone.
- Feb 15, 2014
- 44
- 26
I believe that if this was a guerilla marketing stunt, it is not Nike desperately clawing at something to make a sale, but more so an experiment in the manipulation of social media and current sneaker culture. Nike is constantly adapting and experimenting as a corporation, and that, in part, is what makes me endorse their products. They seem more socially adept than their competition, and have for many years.
- Nov 7, 2011
- 3,175
- 1,266
Wtf ?
Last edited:
- Jul 22, 2012
- 6,273
- 14,131
Above is an example of Nike allowing something to go into production while somewhat knowing that there could be legal ramifications. I could throw a couple more dunks up there as well.
Are we SERIOUSLY supposed to believe that a corporation like Nike wouldn't do the legal legwork before committing to a manufacturing run? There's no chance that they were blissfully ignorant throughout the design process and actually went to production if there was even the slightest chance of a legal issue. Either Nike's legal department was SLEEPING (damn near impossible), or this is some sort of guerilla marketing stunt by Black Sheep/Nike. If the latter rings true, my hat's off to both, as it'll be front page sneaker news tomorrow for an otherwise mediocre (and I'm being generous) collaboration.
ps- if you're older than 16 years old, you shouldn't be wearing this shoe. Under any circumstances.
I don't think that this is some marketing stunt by Nike or BS. It is what it is, a RTV because Gucci or Island Records is on that *** about this drop. More than likely it's Gucci because that's what held the "RESN" from dropping for so long, but it could be Island records too because BS in their hype building fail put the shoe in line with shoes that had been signed off by musical artist to go into production. Some of ya'll need to let it go. All the signs point to this being recalled. Shops outside of BS dropping them before BS drops them themselves. Shops getting rid of them with the quickness and not really saying anything about it.
Last edited:
- Oct 8, 2009
- 8,513
- 3,513
It's strange because you're right, but at the same time... that was then, and this is now. The all-over Gucci print is outdated and tacky, and i mean outdated from 2003, not from the era that these took inspiration from. It's too soon to bring it back, if you know what I mean.
That being said, definitely not a personal attack towards anyone.
I see what you're saying, but at the same time this is the PERFECT time to bring stuff like that back, those of us that grew up in that era are getting to the points in our life where we're finding ourselves in decent financial positions and able to spend whatever on treats to ourselves. Nike and BS were genius in trying to mine that at the same time that you've got Supreme mining another facet from that era with their Phade designed shirts. Just reminiscing over stuff from that era I ended up buying a Coca Cola rugby (which is probably showing my age here) and has me looking for Benetton shirts too.
I don't think I'd have gone for these because even though I was into the music, the other aspects of hip hop from that era still seem like something from a foreign land to me.
- Feb 15, 2014
- 44
- 26
The difference is that the Heinekens used a generic star and a colorway. The BS sb's are using Gucci's exact monogram, just with the letters changed. Justifying a star is much easier than justifying a monogram.
- Jul 22, 2012
- 6,273
- 14,131
Really?
Last edited:
- Jun 28, 2013
- 627
- 442
wish I could find a 10.5 in the LM for a decent price
