Whoever cropped the jumpman out the midsole a few pages back had it perfect. Idk why the jumpman has been plastered everywhere possible on the sig line. Look at the 1-13, or any iconic silhouette, it's simple and you knew exactly what it was without all the branding.
Air Jordan XXXII (32)
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by airtwo3jrdn,
- Start date
- 566
- 790
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
The above statement drives me nuts! Especially if your complaining about the amount of branding.
Not counting soles, laces, these are the total visible branding logos per pair you mentioned and implied had little to no branding marks:
1- 4 Nike logos, 2 Nike air logos = 6 total branding marks
2- 2 wings logos, 2 Nike logos = 4 total
3- 2 jumpmans and 2 Nike airs = 4 total
4- 2 jumpmans and 2 Nike airs = 4 total
5- 2 jumpmans and 2 Nike airs = 4 total
6- 2 jordan on tongue, 2 jumpmans on lace locks, 2 Nike air logos, 2 jumpmans on laces = 8 total
7- 2 air Jordan’s on tongue 2 jumpmans = 4 total
8- 2 jumpmans, 2 air Jordan’s on straps = 4
9- 2 jumpmans, 2 air jordan on tongue = 4
10- 2 air jordan on tongue, 2 jumpmans = 4
11- 2 jumpans on side, 2 on tongue = 4
12- 2 jumpmans on tongues, 8 jumpans on lacelets, 2 jumpmans on pull tap, 2 jordans on back = 14 total branding marks
13 - 2 jumpmans on tongue, 2 jumpans in holographic, 2 jordan tags at the end of the tongue = 6 total branding
32 - 2 wings, 2 on sides = 4 total visible branding marks.
- 84,862
- 112,774
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- 12,388
- 6,823
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2000
Looks like Gtown PE
- 45
- 47
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
I can only speak for myself, but i'm not one of the "most people". Whether or not you like the logos is subjective and I respect your opinion. The 32's look pretty good to me as is.
Now a Jordan with some serious logo on display would be the 29's with the huge jumpman that won't even fit completely within the upper lol. That said, I still copped a pair
Them joints were beasts on court.
Last edited:
- 566
- 790
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
Your original statement included “you knew exactly what it was without all the branding.” Specifically pointing out shoes flooded with branding seems a bit ridiculous now. Lol. And as far as you not noticing the branding..... how the hell do you miss 4 huge Nike logos and 2 Nike air tongue brandings on the 1’s.... give me a break.
Ok, I don't think you get my point. Count the logos you see here. None.
babyjs23
Staff member
- 19,955
- 26,571
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- 12,806
- 27,844
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
There's one small jumpman on the midsole.... what's the big fuss about
That's perfect imo
That's perfect imo
Beats me I just said it's looks perfect without. Still a beautiful shoe.
- 3,241
- 2,331
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2000
Waiting to see if I get early access to the 32s...
- 566
- 790
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
Actually you said:
Whoever cropped the jumpman out the midsole a few pages back had it perfect. Idk why the jumpman has been plastered everywhere possible on the sig line. Look at the 1-13, or any iconic silhouette, it's simple and you knew exactly what it was without all the branding.
- 566
- 790
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
Ok, I don't think you get my point. Count the logos you see here. None.
Ok. So now your changing your opinion to logos being visible at a certain perfect angle for your liking. Again your 1-13 argument fails even if you use that specific angle.
At that angle you could see branding on the 1,7,9,11,12,13 if I were you I’d take your statement and change it once again to say 3-6 And include only the specifics of an outer side view angle of the shoe and then you’d actually have a valid point.
OK clearly we are not on the same page at all dude. Just get over it.
- 3,969
- 535
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
Claiming that only AJ 1 to 13 were so iconic without the jumpman is a lie.
Even from 14 - 21 each air jordan was very unique and eye catching in design,
Then the 22 was a bit less loud and conventional compared to the previous models. Then we have 23 to 29 which looked also very unique in design. 30 was again not fresh in terms of design as JB reused the whole sole design from 29 and only altered the surface a bit.
Only because you dont like the more recent models does not mean they are not special anymore.
Tell me if the kids still buy old retros if they dont have any jumpman on the shoes. But that's a different story
Even from 14 - 21 each air jordan was very unique and eye catching in design,
Then the 22 was a bit less loud and conventional compared to the previous models. Then we have 23 to 29 which looked also very unique in design. 30 was again not fresh in terms of design as JB reused the whole sole design from 29 and only altered the surface a bit.
Only because you dont like the more recent models does not mean they are not special anymore.
Tell me if the kids still buy old retros if they dont have any jumpman on the shoes. But that's a different story
- 566
- 790
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
Claiming that only AJ 1 to 13 were so iconic without the jumpman is a lie.
Even from 14 - 21 each air jordan was very unique and eye catching in design,
Then the 22 was a bit less loud and conventional compared to the previous models. Then we have 23 to 29 which looked also very unique in design. 30 was again not fresh in terms of design as JB reused the whole sole design from 29 and only altered the surface a bit.
Only because you dont like the more recent models does not mean they are not special anymore.
Tell me if the kids still buy old retros if they dont have any jumpman on the shoes. But that's a different story
Thank You!!!
- 7,438
- 12,603
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2015
Nike with their stupid way if reserving crap. I struck out on both these and the XI I.E's. But I get a reservation for the camo 5s (ugh) and for some GS pair of Jordan's a month ago. I don't have kids!! Why am I getting a reserve for them?!!!
Good post. They don't always hit a home a run but there a lot of post XIV Jordans that look stunning and perform.Claiming that only AJ 1 to 13 were so iconic without the jumpman is a lie.
Even from 14 - 21 each air jordan was very unique and eye catching in design,
Then the 22 was a bit less loud and conventional compared to the previous models. Then we have 23 to 29 which looked also very unique in design. 30 was again not fresh in terms of design as JB reused the whole sole design from 29 and only altered the surface a bit.
Only because you dont like the more recent models does not mean they are not special anymore.
Tell me if the kids still buy old retros if they dont have any jumpman on the shoes. But that's a different story
I personally liked the
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX3
XX8
XXXI
I prefer spending my money on sigs than the retros. The same silhouettes get a bit stale after a while. As an example, I missed out on the white/red XIIIs back when they came out. I always wanted that shoe. I could have purchased the retro but it didn't excite me as much as if I had gotten them back in 1998. I bought the bred XIIIs, they're really nice but they can't compete with modern shoes that are 20 years more advanced. I sent them back and got some XXXIs instead which look nice and are more use to me since i can play in them. If I could afford both I would have kept the XIIIs and XXXIs but given the choice I had to go with the performance shoe
- 45
- 47
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
The same thing happened to me. I couldn't add it to cart and got the "no access" error message when I tried. So I called into Nike stating my issue, if you provide them with your Nike+ account info, they will see that you have access and you can place the order over the phone. Best of luck!
Dude I called too and the rep told me he doesn't see access on my account. What a let down.
Butttt I tried the app again like an hour later and it went through! Took me on a roller coaster but glad I locked in my pair
- 18,192
- 27,334
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
