- 3,969
- 535
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
You used the wrong wording. The regular AJ17s had that Jordan tab (similar to the 13s while the 17+ has that shiny plate. OG is not the right term as the OG 17+ had that too
Air Jordan 17+ Retro "Copper" - The Aftermath - NO BUYING/SELLING/TRADING
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by kennmo08,
- Start date
- 3,969
- 535
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
Have u ever played basketball in the 17s? Back then they were the best performing air jordans. Before i liked to play in the 14s most. 16s were very good too. 15s sucked on court.
- 3,121
- 287
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
These always seemed mad heavy for ball. Im sure the support is decent but im not sure how well they are for bball. All that smooth leather is bound to crease in no time.
- 12,388
- 6,823
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2000
17s were performance beast back in the day. Loved playing in them.
- 234
- 126
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
4-10 release date
- 5,853
- 9,372
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
Image Via thekid_dex's Twitter
Last edited:
- 56,145
- 64,507
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
4/10 is a Sunday it's definetly 4/9
and the $250 price tag :x
and the $250 price tag :x
- 94,278
- 33,317
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
Better be coming with a briefcase at $250
- 18,075
- 8,588
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
the 17+ never came with a briefcase
- 108
- 26
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2001
I had these in college when I was broke as hell. $250 is a lot but I need these back in my life. If I could pay for them back then, I got to get my hands on them now
- 24,441
- 22,120
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2015
250? Hmm not sure bout that
- 1,804
- 500
- Joined
- May 12, 2015
Not gonna work out..... See $250 is like a warning.... Basically its telling my legs,pockets and hands to stay away... I do better waiting on the college blues with the accessories...
- 1,001
- 437
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2015
The $250 prediction seems official. I knew it. These were almost double the price of retros when they dropped. They were never cheap. I don't know how well they will move at that price though. I was a junior in hs when they dropped and thought these were the best out of all the 17s.
- 1,804
- 500
- Joined
- May 12, 2015
These may move not the same day tho... Alot kids didn't have a chance @ these.... They were babies....
- 18,192
- 27,334
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
airthompson
Staff member
- 13,815
- 9,593
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
Yeah def sitting this one out.
- 94,278
- 33,317
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
These look bulky and ugly compared to the actual 17
Why did they call these 17+?
Why did they call these 17+?
- 1,804
- 500
- Joined
- May 12, 2015
Well captain its been good in here kicking [emoji]128169[/emoji] with my brothers.... I'm off to a thread with lower prices... Thanks JB I want the college joints anyway....
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,771
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
$250 for some 17s?
.....
.....
- 1,001
- 437
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2015
It's not crazy. They were $200 retail back in 2002. What is crazy are retros that sold for $100 back then are now $220! Whether someone likes them or not is a different story. A 25% markup after 14 years ain't crazy.
Edit: I'm not sure now of the original msrp. I saw a box with $165 although I'm not sure if that was original or discount. Still were not cheap.
Last edited:
- 918
- 252
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
they were not
Modified version of original shoes were given the + sign in the early 2000's the 2000 infra red 6 had the + because originally they were supposed to have more red and they just left the tag.
- 1,001
- 437
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2015
They look fresh on feet. I didn't have them but one of my boys did. Wait till you see them in person.
- 918
- 252
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- 33,425
- 39,187
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
$272.50 for me with tax. Nah, I'm good. Jordan Brand can jump off of a cliff Jumpman style with their briefcase-less 17+'s.
- 10,240
- 2,966
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2009
Why is the price still a shocker? It's been confirmed for months. Everyone is acting like it's new news
