Air Jordan III OG Black Cement returns Feb 2018 - Nike Air on the back

What’s the sizing?

  • 1/2 Size Big (buy a half size down)

    Votes: 57 8.4%
  • True to Size (buy your true size)

    Votes: 551 80.9%
  • 1/2 Size Small (buy a half size up)

    Votes: 73 10.7%

  • Total voters
    681
you're in da extreme minority.

88's arguably look da way they do cuz of constraints on manufacturing technology, and 94 actually make them a more polished product.

I agree, but the Nike Air logo looks better on the OG's, IMHO. I was never was a fan of the 3D, embossed logo the 94's & 01's have. The 2016 True Blue had the OG style logo, so I'm sure the 2018's will have it.
 
I was 4 in 1988. No, I didn’t own a pair of 3s in 1988.

I did own the 1994 white cements as a adult though and really liked the shape and leather quality. The midsole was still dyed on them so they didn’t chip, the color just faded with wear

I was 11 in 88 and I owned the OG's. I have also owned the 94 & 01 retros. Since you have never owned a pair of originals, your opinion really holds no weight when discussing it. Looking at pictures online or in a magazine doesn't qualify you really to make a fair comparison. I'd be willing to bet if you held a pair of the originals side by side to the 94, 01 & every other model JB has released, you'd sing a different tune.
 
I was 11 in 88 and I owned the OG's. I have also owned the 94 & 01 retros. Since you have never owned a pair of originals, your opinion really holds no weight when discussing it. Looking at pictures online or in a magazine doesn't qualify you really to make a fair comparison. I'd be willing to bet if you held a pair of the originals side by side to the 94, 01 & every other model JB has released, you'd sing a different tune.

I respect your input, but that has no bearing on me thinking the 1994s looking worse than the 1988s. The jagged cut tounges look sloppy and the elephant print of the toebox looks too low. It’s a defining feature of the 3s and should have been a little higher from the beginning. The 1994s was the perfect ratio of the toebox leather and elephant style print. I can have both the 1988 and 1994 in front of me and I’ll pick the 1994 retro as the superior version, just like the 1994 retro of the 1 was superior to the original in looks and durability. I don’t care what came first, refinement is what matters to me. That’s like saying the original NES has better graphics than the SNES simply because it came first.
 
I d k if posted or if it's true but....
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2017-10-21-17-34-24-1.png
    Screenshot_2017-10-21-17-34-24-1.png
    99 KB · Views: 83
  • Like
Reactions: PJS
I’m buying regardless if they’re 250k or not. I’ll pay resell if I have to as long as it’s not over $240. Ain’t paying more for a shoe less limited and less hyped than the Royal 1s which have resell at $240
 
And it doesn’t matter if you had them in 88 or 2018, it is possible to prefer the look of the newer version versus the old. OG certainly ha it’s flaws. Not everyone will blindly like the Og no questions asked. Sheesh
 
Between my 94s, 07 fire reds, and my jumpman air white cements, I like em all. Just want a newer pair with Nike Air on the back. I'm expecting last years tb shape and quality. Id love to see an 88 or a 94 form but we all know were not getting that. Getting the newer shape Imo is not all that bad.
 
I’m buying regardless if they’re 250k or not. I’ll pay resell if I have to as long as it’s not over $240. Ain’t paying more for a shoe less limited and less hyped than the Royal 1s which have resell at $240

Royal 1s

I remember thread lots of NTers say “everybody eats”

Lmfao I had no luck copping
But I copped Undefeated AM97s

F Royals


I would pay BC3 retail only
 
I respect your input, but that has no bearing on me thinking the 1994s looking worse than the 1988s. The jagged cut tounges look sloppy and the elephant print of the toebox looks too low. It’s a defining feature of the 3s and should have been a little higher from the beginning. The 1994s was the perfect ratio of the toebox leather and elephant style print. I can have both the 1988 and 1994 in front of me and I’ll pick the 1994 retro as the superior version, just like the 1994 retro of the 1 was superior to the original in looks and durability. I don’t care what came first, refinement is what matters to me. That’s like saying the original NES has better graphics than the SNES simply because it came first.

Just cannot compare/contrast electronics to snkrs. They are like literally the opposite in direction. Tech gets better and cheaper
For Nike it seems quality gets cheaper (and looks) and prices expensive :lol::lol:
 
Just cannot compare/contrast electronics to snkrs. They are like literally the opposite in direction. Tech gets better and cheaper
For Nike it seems quality gets cheaper (and looks) and prices expensive :lol::lol:
Focus on the topic at hand. The comparison as it applies to the 94 vs the 88 is sound. They actually had the same retail price as the 88. They look look like more attention to detail was added. It looked like an updated version of the OG. People now may see that as bad, but why are people ruling out the the 94 may actually have have better quality and materials? The point about the tongue looking weird i agree with. OG tongues on 3s and 4s were not nearly as symmetrical and shapely as the retros
 
Back
Top Bottom