- 8,995
- 5,529
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
Looks like page 23 is dedicated to the sheep of JB. Especially the sheep above. Isn't he preparing to campout for the "superior" CD IV's withfake attributes("27" year olds should know what I mean, unless.....)
You honestly have a mindset of a 17 year old being 27. Not because you like the CD IV's. But....
solezprogression wrote:
. Put a pair of og's and these retro's in front of any person on the street and point out the differences that you see, andthen ask them if, knowing about the differences, do the two shoes look "extremely similar." I guarantee that you will get a yes out of 99% of peopleyou ask. A few minute differences does not negate the fact that the retros are extremely similar to the OG's. Hell, even most fakes look extremely similarto the real thing. Its only us shoe collectors who make a hobby out of knitpicking at the details.
You honestly have a mindset of a 17 year old being 27. Not because you like the CD IV's. But....
solezprogression wrote:
. Put a pair of og's and these retro's in front of any person on the street and point out the differences that you see, andthen ask them if, knowing about the differences, do the two shoes look "extremely similar." I guarantee that you will get a yes out of 99% of peopleyou ask. A few minute differences does not negate the fact that the retros are extremely similar to the OG's. Hell, even most fakes look extremely similarto the real thing. Its only us shoe collectors who make a hobby out of knitpicking at the details.
First of all, a jumpman replacing "Nike Air" does not mean that they are not extremely similar either. So what's your point? What I'm saying is that the shoe, taken as a whole, is extremely similar to both the '99 retro and the OG. Any lay person would agree with that statement. The only difference that a lay person would even notice is the replacement of "Nike Air" with a Jumpman. And like I said, even if you point that out, the average person would still agree that they're extremely similar (i.e., the differences are MINOR). And my point about "fake attributes" is that it is a nonsensical term. Fakes have shoe laces too, does that mean that any shoe with laces has fake attributes? Or if I show you a fake that is (even to your highly trained eye) indistinguishable from an authentic jordan, then that means that the authentic jordan has fake attributes? B/c that's basically what you're saying here.
And nobody is "settling" for the CD IV's. Maybe people want shoes that will last them longer than a pair of '99's. Maybe people have the '99's already, but want these anyway to beat around in. And MAYBE people actually like the look of these (the shape and the jumpman) better than the '99's. See your problem is that you're starting with the %@#-umption that the '99's are aesthetically superior to these. That's a valid OPINION, but that doesn't make it true for everyone.
And like I said, by your own standards if you've ever bought a pair of retro's in the past 4-5 years then you too have "settled," so shut your hypocritical mouth and quit judging people for wanting a pair of fresh kicks.
And you're the one calling me a hypocrite.Andyou're right, there is nothing "variant" with the countdown IV's according to your eyes. I shouldn't explain it to you anymore,you're 27 and your grown right? So you're right and everyone else that says these IV's are inspired by varients are wrong. Yep, you the man, youproved everyone wrong, and pat yourself on the back.
Make sure your the first one in line.