Air Jordan IV White/Cement 2012 Via Modern Notoriety Update **Nov 2nd 2011** 1st Page VOL ON POINT!

[djness23]

^ the Shoe Looks great. but yes that kind of bothers me. i Prefer the shade used on the heel tab.

 

[djness23]

^ the Shoe Looks great. but yes that kind of bothers me. i Prefer the shade used on the heel tab.

 

[djness23]

^ the Shoe Looks great. but yes that kind of bothers me. i Prefer the shade used on the heel tab.

 

[dtb00201]

*Waits for nooblee*

 

[dtb00201]

*Waits for nooblee*

 

[dtb00201]

*Waits for nooblee*

 

[scoop0625]

Originally Posted by sthebest

Originally Posted by elcerrito91

Originally Posted by Wayne141

+1 to all of that. A pair of shoes is frankly no good to me unless I can wear them, especially one that I'd have to pay 400-500+ for. I know the older retros/OGs have better quality, owning several pairs myself, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.

 I wouldn't pay MP for a unwearable used pair, but would pay MP for a DS pair (to stock and leave on ice)....if I found a cheap used pair that was wearable, I'd just beat em to death. I don't see what the big deal is with buying certain pairs to collect, but not wear. I've seen many collections of just DS pair after DS pair, it's not that uncommon either, especially with vintage (70-80s) stuff. Yeah I agree with buying unwearable shoes for high prices, unless they are DS. Of course there is a line though, if they have noticeable cracks, peeling, etc then I'll pass, but if I found a PERFECT DS pair of 99s then why not?

Even buying them DS is a waste. The older they are, the more fragile they are. And the more you handle them, the more likely they are to crack, peel, etc. For me, it would be a slap a face to have a beautiful shoe and know that I could never wear them. That would be like be buying size 7 shoes knowing damn well I wear a 10-10.5
Anyone else think the 2012s have a higher speckle ratio than the 99s? Especially around the wings and back tab. Its hard to tell for me, but they look like they have slightly more speckles than the 99s but still not nearly enough as the 89s. Also, is it me or do these have a different shape than the DB IVs? It seems the DB IVs have the 2006 shape and these have a newer, more visually appealing shape. 

I get what you are saying, but out of respect, he said that he would keep a DS pair on ice as collectibles. I'm 100% positive that he understands the older they are the more fragile they are. The funny part is that other members buy old/vintage sneakers that are most likely unwearable for even higher prices, but they buy to stock but not not to rock. So I do not see the big deal of buying some DS 1999's although the price is $400+ as long as you can afford it. 

 

[scoop0625]

Originally Posted by sthebest

Originally Posted by elcerrito91

Originally Posted by Wayne141

+1 to all of that. A pair of shoes is frankly no good to me unless I can wear them, especially one that I'd have to pay 400-500+ for. I know the older retros/OGs have better quality, owning several pairs myself, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.

 I wouldn't pay MP for a unwearable used pair, but would pay MP for a DS pair (to stock and leave on ice)....if I found a cheap used pair that was wearable, I'd just beat em to death. I don't see what the big deal is with buying certain pairs to collect, but not wear. I've seen many collections of just DS pair after DS pair, it's not that uncommon either, especially with vintage (70-80s) stuff. Yeah I agree with buying unwearable shoes for high prices, unless they are DS. Of course there is a line though, if they have noticeable cracks, peeling, etc then I'll pass, but if I found a PERFECT DS pair of 99s then why not?

Even buying them DS is a waste. The older they are, the more fragile they are. And the more you handle them, the more likely they are to crack, peel, etc. For me, it would be a slap a face to have a beautiful shoe and know that I could never wear them. That would be like be buying size 7 shoes knowing damn well I wear a 10-10.5
Anyone else think the 2012s have a higher speckle ratio than the 99s? Especially around the wings and back tab. Its hard to tell for me, but they look like they have slightly more speckles than the 99s but still not nearly enough as the 89s. Also, is it me or do these have a different shape than the DB IVs? It seems the DB IVs have the 2006 shape and these have a newer, more visually appealing shape. 

I get what you are saying, but out of respect, he said that he would keep a DS pair on ice as collectibles. I'm 100% positive that he understands the older they are the more fragile they are. The funny part is that other members buy old/vintage sneakers that are most likely unwearable for even higher prices, but they buy to stock but not not to rock. So I do not see the big deal of buying some DS 1999's although the price is $400+ as long as you can afford it. 

 

[scoop0625]

Originally Posted by sthebest

Originally Posted by elcerrito91

Originally Posted by Wayne141

+1 to all of that. A pair of shoes is frankly no good to me unless I can wear them, especially one that I'd have to pay 400-500+ for. I know the older retros/OGs have better quality, owning several pairs myself, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.

 I wouldn't pay MP for a unwearable used pair, but would pay MP for a DS pair (to stock and leave on ice)....if I found a cheap used pair that was wearable, I'd just beat em to death. I don't see what the big deal is with buying certain pairs to collect, but not wear. I've seen many collections of just DS pair after DS pair, it's not that uncommon either, especially with vintage (70-80s) stuff. Yeah I agree with buying unwearable shoes for high prices, unless they are DS. Of course there is a line though, if they have noticeable cracks, peeling, etc then I'll pass, but if I found a PERFECT DS pair of 99s then why not?

Even buying them DS is a waste. The older they are, the more fragile they are. And the more you handle them, the more likely they are to crack, peel, etc. For me, it would be a slap a face to have a beautiful shoe and know that I could never wear them. That would be like be buying size 7 shoes knowing damn well I wear a 10-10.5
Anyone else think the 2012s have a higher speckle ratio than the 99s? Especially around the wings and back tab. Its hard to tell for me, but they look like they have slightly more speckles than the 99s but still not nearly enough as the 89s. Also, is it me or do these have a different shape than the DB IVs? It seems the DB IVs have the 2006 shape and these have a newer, more visually appealing shape. 

I get what you are saying, but out of respect, he said that he would keep a DS pair on ice as collectibles. I'm 100% positive that he understands the older they are the more fragile they are. The funny part is that other members buy old/vintage sneakers that are most likely unwearable for even higher prices, but they buy to stock but not not to rock. So I do not see the big deal of buying some DS 1999's although the price is $400+ as long as you can afford it. 

 

[rhinosport]

Originally Posted by dtb00201

*Waits for nooblee*

I know. Me too. I haven't seen him for over a month. Maybe two.

 

[rhinosport]

Originally Posted by dtb00201

*Waits for nooblee*

I know. Me too. I haven't seen him for over a month. Maybe two.

 

[rhinosport]

Originally Posted by dtb00201

*Waits for nooblee*

I know. Me too. I haven't seen him for over a month. Maybe two.

 

[sickickz23]

Originally Posted by MINOTAURO NOGUEIRA

Hmmmm they look the same to me. Just because the '12 has a jumpman and is tech grey doesn't mean it's a totally different shoe, you got to be reaching

I'm just wondering why would people go through all the trouble of sole swapping just for the "Nike Air". Does it really make a difference? Would someone really come up to you and call you out on the jumpman? Afterall, it is a Jordan shoe. If you are really desperate with the Nike Air, it'll be more efficient to do that Nike Air tutorial on Youtube by that Niketalker. Plus, the '12 are closer to the OGs color-wise, they have a darker tint of grey compared to the '99s (Well the OGs looked darker because it had hella speckles compared to the 99s and '12s). I personally own a pair of '99s and unfortunately, they are unwearable. I'm just gonna retire those and rock the new ones.

for a person that claims to own the 99s....then you can tell the difference once you put your foot in 99s and recent retro 4s....and to many other Air Jordan fans that been wearing J's since the late 80s (myself included)....Nike Air on Air Jordans is a big difference compared to the jumpman....

 

[sickickz23]

Originally Posted by MINOTAURO NOGUEIRA

Hmmmm they look the same to me. Just because the '12 has a jumpman and is tech grey doesn't mean it's a totally different shoe, you got to be reaching

I'm just wondering why would people go through all the trouble of sole swapping just for the "Nike Air". Does it really make a difference? Would someone really come up to you and call you out on the jumpman? Afterall, it is a Jordan shoe. If you are really desperate with the Nike Air, it'll be more efficient to do that Nike Air tutorial on Youtube by that Niketalker. Plus, the '12 are closer to the OGs color-wise, they have a darker tint of grey compared to the '99s (Well the OGs looked darker because it had hella speckles compared to the 99s and '12s). I personally own a pair of '99s and unfortunately, they are unwearable. I'm just gonna retire those and rock the new ones.

for a person that claims to own the 99s....then you can tell the difference once you put your foot in 99s and recent retro 4s....and to many other Air Jordan fans that been wearing J's since the late 80s (myself included)....Nike Air on Air Jordans is a big difference compared to the jumpman....

 

[lucky42190]

Is it me or is the cement looking darker then usual

 

[lucky42190]

Is it me or is the cement looking darker then usual

 

[minotauro nogueira]

Originally Posted by sickickz23

Originally Posted by MINOTAURO NOGUEIRA

Hmmmm they look the same to me. Just because the '12 has a jumpman and is tech grey doesn't mean it's a totally different shoe, you got to be reaching

I'm just wondering why would people go through all the trouble of sole swapping just for the "Nike Air". Does it really make a difference? Would someone really come up to you and call you out on the jumpman? Afterall, it is a Jordan shoe. If you are really desperate with the Nike Air, it'll be more efficient to do that Nike Air tutorial on Youtube by that Niketalker. Plus, the '12 are closer to the OGs color-wise, they have a darker tint of grey compared to the '99s (Well the OGs looked darker because it had hella speckles compared to the 99s and '12s). I personally own a pair of '99s and unfortunately, they are unwearable. I'm just gonna retire those and rock the new ones.

for a person that claims to own the 99s....then you can tell the difference once you put your foot in 99s and recent retro 4s....and to many other Air Jordan fans that been wearing J's since the late 80s (myself included)....Nike Air on Air Jordans is a big difference compared to the jumpman....


   How is NIKE AIR a big difference? It is a logo for christ sakes! Appreciate what JB is doing here! I know michael himself wore the IVs with NIKE AIR, but his shoes are now sold under his name now, not by Nike. So of course, Jordan brand is gonna drop the Nike Air and put the jumpman. Again, this is a jordan shoe, so it's not a big deal. As i said before, JB is subsidiary of Nike, so you can say Nike Air and the jumpman are basically equivalent. So are we getting the shoes in honor of the greatest player, or the fact that it was sold by Nike?....
And obviously JB revamped the model on the IVs, so we really don't know how the new cements feel. With the recent IVs (Pures, Blackcats, Fire reds,...), they felt like a cage around your foot, it wasn't comfortable. I had alotta problems with the recent retroes, like sharp pains near the bony areas of my foot. With the 99s, it had more comfort and was more articulate, in terms of arching. Don't know how the OGs felt, but knowing that they were played by the best himself, it was on par, if not better than the 99s. Let's just hope this new revamp on the IVs is better than the recent retroes

 in terms of quality. It sure looks better.

 

[minotauro nogueira]

Originally Posted by sickickz23

Originally Posted by MINOTAURO NOGUEIRA

Hmmmm they look the same to me. Just because the '12 has a jumpman and is tech grey doesn't mean it's a totally different shoe, you got to be reaching

I'm just wondering why would people go through all the trouble of sole swapping just for the "Nike Air". Does it really make a difference? Would someone really come up to you and call you out on the jumpman? Afterall, it is a Jordan shoe. If you are really desperate with the Nike Air, it'll be more efficient to do that Nike Air tutorial on Youtube by that Niketalker. Plus, the '12 are closer to the OGs color-wise, they have a darker tint of grey compared to the '99s (Well the OGs looked darker because it had hella speckles compared to the 99s and '12s). I personally own a pair of '99s and unfortunately, they are unwearable. I'm just gonna retire those and rock the new ones.

for a person that claims to own the 99s....then you can tell the difference once you put your foot in 99s and recent retro 4s....and to many other Air Jordan fans that been wearing J's since the late 80s (myself included)....Nike Air on Air Jordans is a big difference compared to the jumpman....


   How is NIKE AIR a big difference? It is a logo for christ sakes! Appreciate what JB is doing here! I know michael himself wore the IVs with NIKE AIR, but his shoes are now sold under his name now, not by Nike. So of course, Jordan brand is gonna drop the Nike Air and put the jumpman. Again, this is a jordan shoe, so it's not a big deal. As i said before, JB is subsidiary of Nike, so you can say Nike Air and the jumpman are basically equivalent. So are we getting the shoes in honor of the greatest player, or the fact that it was sold by Nike?....
And obviously JB revamped the model on the IVs, so we really don't know how the new cements feel. With the recent IVs (Pures, Blackcats, Fire reds,...), they felt like a cage around your foot, it wasn't comfortable. I had alotta problems with the recent retroes, like sharp pains near the bony areas of my foot. With the 99s, it had more comfort and was more articulate, in terms of arching. Don't know how the OGs felt, but knowing that they were played by the best himself, it was on par, if not better than the 99s. Let's just hope this new revamp on the IVs is better than the recent retroes

 in terms of quality. It sure looks better.

 

[celticsfan9783]

MINOTAURO --- A lot of us had Nike Air on our Jordan sneakers in the early 90's (maybe even some late 80's JB owners on NT). Earlier Air Jordans have a lot of sentimental value for 80's babies and bring us back to childhood. Recreating these sneakers as close to their original versions as possible would pay homage to the OG design and give us the chance to wear basically the same sneaker 20+ years later. It doesn't really matter to me too much, but if I had to choose I'd keep the OG design with the Nike Air.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but they still have the Nike Air technology so it wouldn't be a huge stretch to keep that logo.

 

[celticsfan9783]

MINOTAURO --- A lot of us had Nike Air on our Jordan sneakers in the early 90's (maybe even some late 80's JB owners on NT). Earlier Air Jordans have a lot of sentimental value for 80's babies and bring us back to childhood. Recreating these sneakers as close to their original versions as possible would pay homage to the OG design and give us the chance to wear basically the same sneaker 20+ years later. It doesn't really matter to me too much, but if I had to choose I'd keep the OG design with the Nike Air.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but they still have the Nike Air technology so it wouldn't be a huge stretch to keep that logo.

 

[fourreal]

Originally Posted by sthebest

Originally Posted by Souljaman22

Originally Posted by freshlikedasani91

looking suspect. air randy pair looking super high top from the back

Probably just the angle he shot them at.
Call me crazy but these are to sell MUCH faster than the white cement IIIs.

i believe that also
i regret copping those cements 3 their weren't my style after wearing them only 2x smh... glad i got rid of them quick 

 

[fourreal]

Originally Posted by sthebest

Originally Posted by Souljaman22

Originally Posted by freshlikedasani91

looking suspect. air randy pair looking super high top from the back

Probably just the angle he shot them at.
Call me crazy but these are to sell MUCH faster than the white cement IIIs.

i believe that also
i regret copping those cements 3 their weren't my style after wearing them only 2x smh... glad i got rid of them quick 

 

[sthebest]

Originally Posted by CelticsFan9783

MINOTAURO --- A lot of us had Nike Air on our Jordan sneakers in the early 90's (maybe even some late 80's JB owners on NT). Earlier Air Jordans have a lot of sentimental value for 80's babies and bring us back to childhood. Recreating these sneakers as close to their original versions as possible would pay homage to the OG design and give us the chance to wear basically the same sneaker 20+ years later. It doesn't really matter to me too much, but if I had to choose I'd keep the OG design with the Nike Air.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but they still have the Nike Air technology so it wouldn't be a huge stretch to keep that logo.

Look at it this way, if it did have a Nike logo on the back, on the insole, and on the bottom of the shoe...all hell would break loose. These are arguably one of the most iconic sneakers of all time. Having Nike Air would just unleash the floodgates of skinny jean wearing hypebeasts and money hungry resellers. With a OG box and hangtag, these would not only sell out INSTANTLY, but would resell for $500 instead of the $200 that recent releases have topped out at.

  

 

[sthebest]

Originally Posted by CelticsFan9783

MINOTAURO --- A lot of us had Nike Air on our Jordan sneakers in the early 90's (maybe even some late 80's JB owners on NT). Earlier Air Jordans have a lot of sentimental value for 80's babies and bring us back to childhood. Recreating these sneakers as close to their original versions as possible would pay homage to the OG design and give us the chance to wear basically the same sneaker 20+ years later. It doesn't really matter to me too much, but if I had to choose I'd keep the OG design with the Nike Air.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but they still have the Nike Air technology so it wouldn't be a huge stretch to keep that logo.

Look at it this way, if it did have a Nike logo on the back, on the insole, and on the bottom of the shoe...all hell would break loose. These are arguably one of the most iconic sneakers of all time. Having Nike Air would just unleash the floodgates of skinny jean wearing hypebeasts and money hungry resellers. With a OG box and hangtag, these would not only sell out INSTANTLY, but would resell for $500 instead of the $200 that recent releases have topped out at.

  

 

[youngcurse]

Im thinking that these will have those newly retro gloss finish on them smh