Air Jordan 5 OG “Black Metallic” Reimagined 2025 !

[Blkjckss]

Five pairs

 

[suchafraud23]

The new silver tongues definitely look weird.

I also don’t know why they didn’t use white reflective for the back

 

[dakingii]

Why do EVERY SINGLE YOUTUBER make that goofy "Oh" face in their thumbnails?

Children are more likely to react and click on it.

 

[kingsin]

Why do EVERY SINGLE YOUTUBER make that goofy "Oh" face in their thumbnails?

A while back I remember some YouTubers saying that thumbnails with that pose are more favored in the algorithms and helps their videos get more views

 

[1978S]

I also don’t know why they didn’t use white reflective for the back

What do you mean?

 

[Nujavez]

What do you mean?

I think he means like instead of using the regular "grey" color 3m reflective for the Nike Air, they could've used some white colored 3m reflective material.


Like i used to have some different color reflective material new era caps back in the day, these ain't mine but example



I remember the reflective effect wasn't as strong as the regular grey color tho

 

[1978S]

I think he means like instead of using the regular "grey" color 3m reflective for the Nike Air, they could've used some white colored 3m reflective material.


Like i used to have some different color reflective material new era caps back in the day, these ain't mine but example



I remember the reflective effect wasn't as strong as the regular grey color tho

Oh gotcha, thanks.

Yeah whatever color the NIKE AIR is on the back of these (grey/white) they indeed give off more of a white vibe IMO than anything especially when being reflective.

 

[therealest1]

 

[Kierris]

Was never big on the black metallics. The Reimagined gimmick makes these an easy pass.

P PremioBinSoleFlyUnion were you trying to be funny by reacting to this old post? I'm akin to a meteorologist, my opinions on shoes change like the weather. First day cop.

 

[AllGrails]

These are dope but doubling up in 2025…

There’s just so many great pairs. My double up candidates are the 85 Bred 1s. Besides that I’ll be happy to land 1 of each of all these crazy drops.

Trying to go on some big trips this summer > more and more shoes lol

 

[kingsrborn]

Flame suit on. I actually like these more than the OG’s, because of the exposed outer lining on the edges. It adds way more detail to this model in my opinion. By comparing these to the OG, the OG version is just a solid all black shoe, that doesn’t have that much detail to it, when it comes to the front and top of the front of the shoe.

The crazy part about all of this, when it comes to debating, about which shoes have better materials, shape, details, in comparison to previous models. Is that the majority of everybody that are into shoes, will automatically say that the OG’s are better, just because it was the first release of that specific model. Not necessarily because it’s the better model of them all.

We can all take a look at the Aqua 8’s. The OG’s are actually better than any retros in my opinion. Because they have the OG version, the white piping outline on the edges on them, just like they put on these Metallic 5’s. Meanwhile, every Aqua 8 retro that we’ve gotten after the OG’s. Only have that flat all black look on the edges of them, just like the OG and previous metallic 5’s have on them.

Everybody complains about the glitter aspect of the aqua 8’s. But I’ve never heard anyone complain about, how the retros have never had the exposed white lining/edges on them. Everybody has opinions, but I personally like the reimagined 4’s Blk/Cement and metallic 5’s better than the OG’s. Because the execution was done better in my opinion. Of course y’all are going to argue me down about shape and cuts over and over. But the miner details (good leather on the 4’s, and exposed lining on the metallics) that have been added to these releases, give them more of a spark visually to me.

Simply put, the majority of us, just love the OG’s, because it was the first release that we received of that model, but it doesn’t necessarily make it the best version of that shoe in my opinion. Imagine if the metallics had exposed lining on the OG’s but never on the retros, like how they do the aqua 8’d retros. Everybody would be complaining about that specific detail on every retro release.

 

[forest hills]

 

[headdetective]

Bro asking for trouble

 

[s dubl]

*Googles pics of originals to make sure my judgement is validated*

Carry on.

 

[Kierris]

Flame suit on. I actually like these more than the OG’s

 

[Nujavez]

Flame suit on. I actually like these more than the OG’s, because of the exposed outer lining on the edges. It adds way more detail to this model in my opinion. By comparing these to the OG, the OG version is just a solid all black shoe, that doesn’t have that much detail to it, when it comes to the front and top of the front of the shoe.

The crazy part about all of this, when it comes to debating, about which shoes have better materials, shape, details, in comparison to previous models. Is that the majority of everybody that are into shoes, will automatically say that the OG’s are better, just because it was the first release of that specific model. Not necessarily because it’s the better model of them all.

We can all take a look at the Aqua 8’s. The OG’s are actually better than any retros in my opinion. Because they have the OG version, the white piping outline on the edges on them, just like they put on these Metallic 5’s. Meanwhile, every Aqua 8 retro that we’ve gotten after the OG’s. Only have that flat all black look on the edges of them, just like the OG and previous metallic 5’s have on them.

Everybody complains about the glitter aspect of the aqua 8’s. But I’ve never heard anyone complain about, how the retros have never had the exposed white lining/edges on them. Everybody has opinions, but I personally like the reimagined 4’s Blk/Cement and metallic 5’s better than the OG’s. Because the execution was done better in my opinion. Of course y’all are going to argue me down about shape and cuts over and over. But the miner details (good leather on the 4’s, and exposed lining on the metallics) that have been added to these releases, give them more of a spark visually to me.

Simply put, the majority of us, just love the OG’s, because it was the first release that we received of that model, but it doesn’t necessarily make it the best version of that shoe in my opinion. Imagine if the metallics had exposed lining on the OG’s but never on the retros, like how they do the aqua 8’d retros. Everybody would be complaining about that specific detail on every retro release.

 

[SneakerheadNets]

Flame suit on. I actually like these more than the OG’s, because of the exposed outer lining on the edges. It adds way more detail to this model in my opinion. By comparing these to the OG, the OG version is just a solid all black shoe, that doesn’t have that much detail to it, when it comes to the front and top of the front of the shoe.

The crazy part about all of this, when it comes to debating, about which shoes have better materials, shape, details, in comparison to previous models. Is that the majority of everybody that are into shoes, will automatically say that the OG’s are better, just because it was the first release of that specific model. Not necessarily because it’s the better model of them all.

We can all take a look at the Aqua 8’s. The OG’s are actually better than any retros in my opinion. Because they have the OG version, the white piping outline on the edges on them, just like they put on these Metallic 5’s. Meanwhile, every Aqua 8 retro that we’ve gotten after the OG’s. Only have that flat all black look on the edges of them, just like the OG and previous metallic 5’s have on them.

Everybody complains about the glitter aspect of the aqua 8’s. But I’ve never heard anyone complain about, how the retros have never had the exposed white lining/edges on them. Everybody has opinions, but I personally like the reimagined 4’s Blk/Cement and metallic 5’s better than the OG’s. Because the execution was done better in my opinion. Of course y’all are going to argue me down about shape and cuts over and over. But the miner details (good leather on the 4’s, and exposed lining on the metallics) that have been added to these releases, give them more of a spark visually to me.

Simply put, the majority of us, just love the OG’s, because it was the first release that we received of that model, but it doesn’t necessarily make it the best version of that shoe in my opinion. Imagine if the metallics had exposed lining on the OG’s but never on the retros, like how they do the aqua 8’d retros. Everybody would be complaining about that specific detail on every retro release.

Facts

 

[Davey Magoo]

Flame suit on. I actually like these more than the OG’s, because of the exposed outer lining on the edges. It adds way more detail to this model in my opinion. By comparing these to the OG, the OG version is just a solid all black shoe, that doesn’t have that much detail to it, when it comes to the front and top of the front of the shoe.

The crazy part about all of this, when it comes to debating, about which shoes have better materials, shape, details, in comparison to previous models. Is that the majority of everybody that are into shoes, will automatically say that the OG’s are better, just because it was the first release of that specific model. Not necessarily because it’s the better model of them all.

We can all take a look at the Aqua 8’s. The OG’s are actually better than any retros in my opinion. Because they have the OG version, the white piping outline on the edges on them, just like they put on these Metallic 5’s. Meanwhile, every Aqua 8 retro that we’ve gotten after the OG’s. Only have that flat all black look on the edges of them, just like the OG and previous metallic 5’s have on them.

Everybody complains about the glitter aspect of the aqua 8’s. But I’ve never heard anyone complain about, how the retros have never had the exposed white lining/edges on them. Everybody has opinions, but I personally like the reimagined 4’s Blk/Cement and metallic 5’s better than the OG’s. Because the execution was done better in my opinion. Of course y’all are going to argue me down about shape and cuts over and over. But the miner details (good leather on the 4’s, and exposed lining on the metallics) that have been added to these releases, give them more of a spark visually to me.

Simply put, the majority of us, just love the OG’s, because it was the first release that we received of that model, but it doesn’t necessarily make it the best version of that shoe in my opinion. Imagine if the metallics had exposed lining on the OG’s but never on the retros, like how they do the aqua 8’d retros. Everybody would be complaining about that specific detail on every retro release.

I respect your honesty.

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

Facts

Flame suit on. I actually like these more than the OG’s, because of the exposed outer lining on the edges. It adds way more detail to this model in my opinion. By comparing these to the OG, the OG version is just a solid all black shoe, that doesn’t have that much detail to it, when it comes to the front and top of the front of the shoe.

The crazy part about all of this, when it comes to debating, about which shoes have better materials, shape, details, in comparison to previous models. Is that the majority of everybody that are into shoes, will automatically say that the OG’s are better, just because it was the first release of that specific model. Not necessarily because it’s the better model of them all.

We can all take a look at the Aqua 8’s. The OG’s are actually better than any retros in my opinion. Because they have the OG version, the white piping outline on the edges on them, just like they put on these Metallic 5’s. Meanwhile, every Aqua 8 retro that we’ve gotten after the OG’s. Only have that flat all black look on the edges of them, just like the OG and previous metallic 5’s have on them.

Everybody complains about the glitter aspect of the aqua 8’s. But I’ve never heard anyone complain about, how the retros have never had the exposed white lining/edges on them. Everybody has opinions, but I personally like the reimagined 4’s Blk/Cement and metallic 5’s better than the OG’s. Because the execution was done better in my opinion. Of course y’all are going to argue me down about shape and cuts over and over. But the miner details (good leather on the 4’s, and exposed lining on the metallics) that have been added to these releases, give them more of a spark visually to me.

Simply put, the majority of us, just love the OG’s, because it was the first release that we received of that model, but it doesn’t necessarily make it the best version of that shoe in my opinion. Imagine if the metallics had exposed lining on the OG’s but never on the retros, like how they do the aqua 8’d retros. Everybody would be complaining about that specific detail on every retro release.

Detail? They made the lines white on the 2025 because they were white on the OGs.

They were INTENTIONALLY white on the OGs, so is that detail? Because I can guarantee you if the lines accidently came out some wild color on accident, Nike wouldn't have released them like that.

And your other points are pretty misinformed because OGs were designed better, they were more aerodynamic and functional. The retros are just copies made to mimic the OGs.

 

[jordanhead718212]

 

[AIR J XIII]

Flame suit on. I actually like these more than the OG’s, because of the exposed outer lining on the edges. It adds way more detail to this model in my opinion. By comparing these to the OG, the OG version is just a solid all black shoe, that doesn’t have that much detail to it, when it comes to the front and top of the front of the shoe.

The crazy part about all of this, when it comes to debating, about which shoes have better materials, shape, details, in comparison to previous models. Is that the majority of everybody that are into shoes, will automatically say that the OG’s are better, just because it was the first release of that specific model. Not necessarily because it’s the better model of them all.

We can all take a look at the Aqua 8’s. The OG’s are actually better than any retros in my opinion. Because they have the OG version, the white piping outline on the edges on them, just like they put on these Metallic 5’s. Meanwhile, every Aqua 8 retro that we’ve gotten after the OG’s. Only have that flat all black look on the edges of them, just like the OG and previous metallic 5’s have on them.

Everybody complains about the glitter aspect of the aqua 8’s. But I’ve never heard anyone complain about, how the retros have never had the exposed white lining/edges on them. Everybody has opinions, but I personally like the reimagined 4’s Blk/Cement and metallic 5’s better than the OG’s. Because the execution was done better in my opinion. Of course y’all are going to argue me down about shape and cuts over and over. But the miner details (good leather on the 4’s, and exposed lining on the metallics) that have been added to these releases, give them more of a spark visually to me.

Simply put, the majority of us, just love the OG’s, because it was the first release that we received of that model, but it doesn’t necessarily make it the best version of that shoe in my opinion. Imagine if the metallics had exposed lining on the OG’s but never on the retros, like how they do the aqua 8’d retros. Everybody would be complaining about that specific detail on every retro release.

 

[JMB10215]

Liking more than the OG's is crazy lol. However these are the best black metallics in 20+ years. Unfortunately those are the facts

 

[doublemesh96]

The 3M is still not right and the toebox is still not right. The translucent rubber is still not right.

 

[Mos718]

I know this is beating dead horse at this point, and I STILL coppin' a pair, but If these just had the nubuck that the 2016's had I have ZERO negative complaints about this release.



​

Same bro..same

 

[bigjny88]

Flame suit on. I actually like these more than the OG’s, because of the exposed outer lining on the edges. It adds way more detail to this model in my opinion. By comparing these to the OG, the OG version is just a solid all black shoe, that doesn’t have that much detail to it, when it comes to the front and top of the front of the shoe.

The crazy part about all of this, when it comes to debating, about which shoes have better materials, shape, details, in comparison to previous models. Is that the majority of everybody that are into shoes, will automatically say that the OG’s are better, just because it was the first release of that specific model. Not necessarily because it’s the better model of them all.

We can all take a look at the Aqua 8’s. The OG’s are actually better than any retros in my opinion. Because they have the OG version, the white piping outline on the edges on them, just like they put on these Metallic 5’s. Meanwhile, every Aqua 8 retro that we’ve gotten after the OG’s. Only have that flat all black look on the edges of them, just like the OG and previous metallic 5’s have on them.

Everybody complains about the glitter aspect of the aqua 8’s. But I’ve never heard anyone complain about, how the retros have never had the exposed white lining/edges on them. Everybody has opinions, but I personally like the reimagined 4’s Blk/Cement and metallic 5’s better than the OG’s. Because the execution was done better in my opinion. Of course y’all are going to argue me down about shape and cuts over and over. But the miner details (good leather on the 4’s, and exposed lining on the metallics) that have been added to these releases, give them more of a spark visually to me.

Simply put, the majority of us, just love the OG’s, because it was the first release that we received of that model, but it doesn’t necessarily make it the best version of that shoe in my opinion. Imagine if the metallics had exposed lining on the OG’s but never on the retros, like how they do the aqua 8’d retros. Everybody would be complaining about that specific detail on every retro release.