- 407
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
yeh i think so too
Give/Show examples of the decline of quality in Jordan retros...
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by dj proto j,
- Start date
- Status
While I agree that the same materials cant be purchased, I do agree with some complaints about going out and getting the best ones possible then. Im afraid to even wear my DS aqua 8's cause of the paint chipping problem, and forget about my true blues. its for the fear of them chipping that I probably will wind up getting rid of two of my grails. Thanks JB...
While I agree that the same materials cant be purchased, I do agree with some complaints about going out and getting the best ones possible then. Im afraid to even wear my DS aqua 8's cause of the paint chipping problem, and forget about my true blues. its for the fear of them chipping that I probably will wind up getting rid of two of my grails. Thanks JB...
- 1,079
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
QUOTE FOR THE REAL REALITY OF NIKE/JORDAN BRAND..
- 1,079
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
QUOTE FOR THE REAL REALITY OF NIKE/JORDAN BRAND..
- 603
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2009
bigj im just curious, how come you think i have a point, but im 100% wrong? what brings you to that conclusion?
I think maybe the questions are the only true retro i have ever seen that was nearly identical to an "OG" -im sure it cost them a lot too
Companies dont use the same materials they did 25 years ago, they use cheaper, more durable, more sustainable materials. FACT
The thing is Nike is throwing out SOOOOO many retros, some are bound to be lame, some are gonna be poor quality. Not EVERYTHING can be heat, not everything is supposed to be heat. You gotta look at it from a marketing stand point, who is their target market? Its not just "og heads" or die hard "sneakerheads" its the 13 year old who wants some cool shoes, or the kid who just wants some basketball shoes, or the dude who grew up liking jordan and just wants a jumpman logo on his sneakers. Or the kid that doesnt know anything about OG's, and just wants a signature series J. I think JB does a good job of trying to cater to the whole market.
I agree with you though, that im sure Nike cuts corners, or doesnt use the appropriate "attention to detail" when making some of these retros they KNOW will sell out, reguardless of material, color, quality etc etc
I think maybe the questions are the only true retro i have ever seen that was nearly identical to an "OG" -im sure it cost them a lot too
Companies dont use the same materials they did 25 years ago, they use cheaper, more durable, more sustainable materials. FACT
The thing is Nike is throwing out SOOOOO many retros, some are bound to be lame, some are gonna be poor quality. Not EVERYTHING can be heat, not everything is supposed to be heat. You gotta look at it from a marketing stand point, who is their target market? Its not just "og heads" or die hard "sneakerheads" its the 13 year old who wants some cool shoes, or the kid who just wants some basketball shoes, or the dude who grew up liking jordan and just wants a jumpman logo on his sneakers. Or the kid that doesnt know anything about OG's, and just wants a signature series J. I think JB does a good job of trying to cater to the whole market.
I agree with you though, that im sure Nike cuts corners, or doesnt use the appropriate "attention to detail" when making some of these retros they KNOW will sell out, reguardless of material, color, quality etc etc
- 603
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2009
bigj im just curious, how come you think i have a point, but im 100% wrong? what brings you to that conclusion?
I think maybe the questions are the only true retro i have ever seen that was nearly identical to an "OG" -im sure it cost them a lot too
Companies dont use the same materials they did 25 years ago, they use cheaper, more durable, more sustainable materials. FACT
The thing is Nike is throwing out SOOOOO many retros, some are bound to be lame, some are gonna be poor quality. Not EVERYTHING can be heat, not everything is supposed to be heat. You gotta look at it from a marketing stand point, who is their target market? Its not just "og heads" or die hard "sneakerheads" its the 13 year old who wants some cool shoes, or the kid who just wants some basketball shoes, or the dude who grew up liking jordan and just wants a jumpman logo on his sneakers. Or the kid that doesnt know anything about OG's, and just wants a signature series J. I think JB does a good job of trying to cater to the whole market.
I agree with you though, that im sure Nike cuts corners, or doesnt use the appropriate "attention to detail" when making some of these retros they KNOW will sell out, reguardless of material, color, quality etc etc
I think maybe the questions are the only true retro i have ever seen that was nearly identical to an "OG" -im sure it cost them a lot too
Companies dont use the same materials they did 25 years ago, they use cheaper, more durable, more sustainable materials. FACT
The thing is Nike is throwing out SOOOOO many retros, some are bound to be lame, some are gonna be poor quality. Not EVERYTHING can be heat, not everything is supposed to be heat. You gotta look at it from a marketing stand point, who is their target market? Its not just "og heads" or die hard "sneakerheads" its the 13 year old who wants some cool shoes, or the kid who just wants some basketball shoes, or the dude who grew up liking jordan and just wants a jumpman logo on his sneakers. Or the kid that doesnt know anything about OG's, and just wants a signature series J. I think JB does a good job of trying to cater to the whole market.
I agree with you though, that im sure Nike cuts corners, or doesnt use the appropriate "attention to detail" when making some of these retros they KNOW will sell out, reguardless of material, color, quality etc etc
- 4,177
- 2,767
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
09's not as bad as everyone thinks eh? Sorry I don't like my sneakers to look like the leaning tower of pisa.
And to those of you that don't realize the difference in quality, its either because you didn't own the original, or your lying to yourselves. Don't get me wrong, JB did a great job on the Carmine VI's, grape V's and white black fire red V's but outside of that its pretty much been a mess.
- 4,177
- 2,767
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
09's not as bad as everyone thinks eh? Sorry I don't like my sneakers to look like the leaning tower of pisa.
And to those of you that don't realize the difference in quality, its either because you didn't own the original, or your lying to yourselves. Don't get me wrong, JB did a great job on the Carmine VI's, grape V's and white black fire red V's but outside of that its pretty much been a mess.
- 6,998
- 2,790
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
How about you try untying them, and what does that have to do with quality anyway? Quality and craftsmanship are two separate things. Also if those are your pictures, why would you buy a shoe you thought was crappy and leaned funny? Now I'm not saying the quality was better, I just think it wasn't as terrible as everyone made it out to be.
not to mention I don't see the problem in this picture.
- 6,998
- 2,790
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
How about you try untying them, and what does that have to do with quality anyway? Quality and craftsmanship are two separate things. Also if those are your pictures, why would you buy a shoe you thought was crappy and leaned funny? Now I'm not saying the quality was better, I just think it wasn't as terrible as everyone made it out to be.
not to mention I don't see the problem in this picture.
- 1,079
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
That is why when I bought in stores, I would pick through all my sizes and get the best retro I could find.
- 1,079
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
That is why when I bought in stores, I would pick through all my sizes and get the best retro I could find.
- 24,927
- 23,240
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2010
Besides the 23 on the back of the shoe the 09 space jams don't look too much off from the 2000 pair
- 24,927
- 23,240
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2010
Besides the 23 on the back of the shoe the 09 space jams don't look too much off from the 2000 pair
abstrakt
Banned
- 1,353
- 12
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
Everything's crooked.
abstrakt
Banned
- 1,353
- 12
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
Everything's crooked.
abstrakt
Banned
- 1,353
- 12
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
First off, don't hate on my undisputed talents in the ability to use MS Paint. Second, good lookin to the guy allowing these images to be posted.
You can tell in this first pic that there is an obvious lack of materials being used here, which is why everything is slanted. Patent leather is lacking, like everyone else has said.
Here, you can identify obvious "craftsmanship" in the way the sneakers sit off-balance. Again, note the lack of patent leather.
Lastly, the infamous "banana boat" silhouette. Also noting the lack of patent, "slanting" of the back and heel area and just lack of a sneaker altogether.
Lastly, these pictures don't even describe the fit and comfort of each sneaker either. I own and have worn the 00's and won't even imagine what the new ones feel like.
You can tell in this first pic that there is an obvious lack of materials being used here, which is why everything is slanted. Patent leather is lacking, like everyone else has said.
Here, you can identify obvious "craftsmanship" in the way the sneakers sit off-balance. Again, note the lack of patent leather.
Lastly, the infamous "banana boat" silhouette. Also noting the lack of patent, "slanting" of the back and heel area and just lack of a sneaker altogether.
Lastly, these pictures don't even describe the fit and comfort of each sneaker either. I own and have worn the 00's and won't even imagine what the new ones feel like.
abstrakt
Banned
- 1,353
- 12
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
First off, don't hate on my undisputed talents in the ability to use MS Paint. Second, good lookin to the guy allowing these images to be posted.
You can tell in this first pic that there is an obvious lack of materials being used here, which is why everything is slanted. Patent leather is lacking, like everyone else has said.
Here, you can identify obvious "craftsmanship" in the way the sneakers sit off-balance. Again, note the lack of patent leather.
Lastly, the infamous "banana boat" silhouette. Also noting the lack of patent, "slanting" of the back and heel area and just lack of a sneaker altogether.
Lastly, these pictures don't even describe the fit and comfort of each sneaker either. I own and have worn the 00's and won't even imagine what the new ones feel like.
You can tell in this first pic that there is an obvious lack of materials being used here, which is why everything is slanted. Patent leather is lacking, like everyone else has said.
Here, you can identify obvious "craftsmanship" in the way the sneakers sit off-balance. Again, note the lack of patent leather.
Lastly, the infamous "banana boat" silhouette. Also noting the lack of patent, "slanting" of the back and heel area and just lack of a sneaker altogether.
Lastly, these pictures don't even describe the fit and comfort of each sneaker either. I own and have worn the 00's and won't even imagine what the new ones feel like.
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,771
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
honestly, i say you are wrong because materials dont magically morph or change over time. its the company's choice to make the change. it was nike's choice to move from taiwan to china where quality automatically takes a fall.
using the excuse that it costs nike too much to maintain original materials could be a valid point but it gets nullified when you consider that nike has raised retro prices $25 - $50 bucks. That would cover the cost change by far.
4s used to be 115 and are now 150
11s were 125 and are now 175
shoes dont cost that much to make. its just a matter of greed. nike has an aggressive profit growth plan and it uses every chance it can get to cut costs to reach it.
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,771
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
honestly, i say you are wrong because materials dont magically morph or change over time. its the company's choice to make the change. it was nike's choice to move from taiwan to china where quality automatically takes a fall.
using the excuse that it costs nike too much to maintain original materials could be a valid point but it gets nullified when you consider that nike has raised retro prices $25 - $50 bucks. That would cover the cost change by far.
4s used to be 115 and are now 150
11s were 125 and are now 175
shoes dont cost that much to make. its just a matter of greed. nike has an aggressive profit growth plan and it uses every chance it can get to cut costs to reach it.
- 3,454
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
I mean to be Honest. the shoe is shapped more like a foot and Shape doesnt have a thing to do with quality
- 3,454
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
I mean to be Honest. the shoe is shapped more like a foot and Shape doesnt have a thing to do with quality
- 6,998
- 2,790
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
I'm not arguing with anyone that the shape changed, because it obviously did. There are certainly things about the 2009 space jams that i would have changed, but overall it is not a bad shoe at all and they definitely addressed many of the issues from the cdp 11s. I still can't understand why they didn't just keep the dmp mold though.
- 6,998
- 2,790
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
I'm not arguing with anyone that the shape changed, because it obviously did. There are certainly things about the 2009 space jams that i would have changed, but overall it is not a bad shoe at all and they definitely addressed many of the issues from the cdp 11s. I still can't understand why they didn't just keep the dmp mold though.
- Status
Similar threads
