- 2,317
- 312
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
I assumed all the shoes were genuine leather also. Guess that's why they are so light now and back in the day they were heavy af. LolWow, so it certainly isn't anything new.. Guess I never really thought about it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I assumed all the shoes were genuine leather also. Guess that's why they are so light now and back in the day they were heavy af. LolWow, so it certainly isn't anything new.. Guess I never really thought about it.
Jordans have always been light, even when they were made with real leather. I played high school ball in the OG III's back in 1988 and they were extremely light. The were a genuine tumbled leather and were amazing.I assumed all the shoes were genuine leather also. Guess that's why they are so light now and back in the day they were heavy af. Lol
What about how the market and economy were different from 88 to the present day? I would think that would play a part in cost wouldn't it?Jordans have always been light, even when they were made with real leather. I played high school ball in the OG III's back in 1988 and they were extremely light. The were a genuine tumbled leather and were amazing.
The reason they stopped using genuine leather is because synthetic is cheaper. Think about it...
OG III's made with genuine leather and premium materials, retail price was $100.
Recent retro III's made with synthetic materials and cheap paint, retail is $160, $200 for the '88s. An inferior product for a much higher price... Nike/Brand Jordan is making major profits.
Jordans have always been light, even when they were made with real leather. I played high school ball in the OG III's back in 1988 and they were extremely light. The were a genuine tumbled leather and were amazing.
The reason they stopped using genuine leather is because synthetic is cheaper. Think about it...
OG III's made with genuine leather and premium materials, retail price was $100.
Recent retro III's made with synthetic materials and cheap paint, retail is $160, $200 for the '88s. An inferior product for a much higher price... Nike/Brand Jordan is making major profits.
Of course inflation plays a part. But think about this for a minute...The price of sneakers go up, because of inflation. Nike uses cheaper products to maximize profit.
Ya speaking of the price difference in 2001-03 I remember when the XVI's came out and the $160 price tag was nuts for a shoe at that timeOf course inflation plays a part. But think about this for a minute...
1988 OG III's = $100
1994 retro III's = $100
2001 retro III's = $100
2003 retro III's = $100
2007 retro III's = $125
2011 retro III's = $160
2013 retro III's = $160
It took 19 years for the price to increase $25.
It took 8 years for the price to increase by $60
It took 4 years for the price to increase by $35
So, unless inflation only occurred in the last 4-8 years, how much of a role does inflation really play? How much does the increase in price have to do with popularity/demand?
I'm not sure what you are saying makes any sense. They used better materials in the early years. Plus, the retail price of the 3's did not increase until 2007, 19 years after the OG's released, so what exactly are you considering to be the "early years"? Are you saying the use better materials now? I hope not.They more than likely didn't have to raise the prices in the early years, because of using cheaper products. Also, I'm sure Nike looks for the equilibrium price when looking at supply and demand too.
That was crazy, but I'm referring strictly to retros. The price of the "legacy" models (new models that release every year) has historically increased pretty much every year.Ya speaking of the price difference in 2001-03 I remember when the XVI's came out and the $160 price tag was nuts for a shoe at that time
That was crazy, but I'm referring strictly to retros. The price of the "legacy" models (new models that release every year) has historically increased pretty much every year.Ya speaking of the price difference in 2001-03 I remember when the XVI's came out and the $160 price tag was nuts for a shoe at that time
This.What about how the market and economy were different from 88 to the present day? I would think that would play a part in cost wouldn't it?
at anyone defending Nikes price increases....
A whole essay and it ignores the bottom line. Retros require no r&d while shoes like Kobe's, kds, and more have lower price points than retroes.
Nike can pay tiger woods and bron $100 mill each doe.
As far as materials go, consider the fact that it's generally discouraged nowadays to use real leather for obvious reasons (animal's rights for example).
LOL capo, you edited your original post. You originally said nothing about labor costs, but simply said they made a cheaper product in the "early years", which is not true. You can see what you originally wrote because I quoted it in an earlier post. I hope you didn't edit your post to kind of make it match something frosandaviators/Yousif wrote.^^that just backed up what I said about pricing not raising due to cheaper product and labor being used.
in all reality.... we all know the price increases are because Jordan purchased the Bobcats/Hornets and needs up to help his struggling, non profiting franchise
in all reality.... we all know the price increases are because Jordan purchased the Bobcats/Hornets and needs up to help his struggling, non profiting franchise
Let's put that to the test. I quickly put together a table with the retro shoe prices as laid out by scollard23 and the respective buying power for each year.Of course, as I mentioned earlier, inflation is always going to play a part in the price of products, but I truly believe that, in this case, the labor costs are the main factor in why retros increased so dramatically in such a short period of time.