Grey market discussion thread (Let's keep the discussion mature) Rules on pg 1 please read before yo

[Methodical Management]

-i don't think your money analogy works. taking the equipment/specs to produce product elsewhere is what produces the poor quality fakes we've all known about for years. we come to the conclusion that the products in question are unauthorized pairs from the same factories on the balance of probability. independent producers tend not to use material like carbon fibre, zoom and high quality leather.

How does it "not work" if it accounts for an end product that is virtually identical to the source?  Again, my example even allotted for the possibility that the "unauthorized" production was taking place on site.  The unauthorized bills would obviously be characterized as counterfeit regardless. 

People refuse to do so here because they want to pretend that, since they're visually or functionally similar, they're "authentic."  Again, "third shift" products aren't necessarily being subjected to the same quality control standards and they may very well cut corners in ways that can't be easily discerned from a photograph.  

There's nothing positive to be gained from attempts to legitimize illegal merchandise. 

To say "they're hard to detect, so be careful and the only way to be 100% certain is to purchase ONLY from authorized retailers" is fine.  It helps protect consumers.  Saying, "they're authentic, because they're just as good and maybe they even come from the same place", however, only serves to promote products that, by law, would likely be considered counterfeit (or, at the very least, a trademark violation.)  That's where I take issue.  

the word "fake" merely rubs the wrong way here in my opinion.

A "fake" implies deception - and indeed these products are being sold and labeled in deceptive ways. 

If you wanted to object to the term "knock-off", I could understand that - but even "third shift" counterfeiters are faking something.  College blue Air Jordan XVIIs produced last year and labeled with a 2001 production date have FAKE tags.  They are FAKE 2001 Air Jordan XVIIs.  

When people resist "fake," what they're actually resisting is the stigmatization of an illegal and unauthorized product.  They want to justify it so they can purchase and wear them without compunction, and there's no valid reason to grant them that.  There IS something inherently wrong with these products and they should be classified as such. 

 

[mycojoan23]

this brings me back to something i had to huntdown on the idea of real/authorized/bgrade vs fake/counterfeit/early release/etc:
BIP Roberts posts (http://niketalk.com/t/321285/early-jordan-release-info-its-time-everyone-knows/300)

My $.02... I only purchase new kicks from authorized nike retailers (find mom/pop stores & intl stores on ndc too not just the major retail stores). With that, u know this:
1) materials are what they are supposed to be 2) you know that there is a QA PROCESS in place.
3) molds and blueprints are official vs replicated

Sure its not perfect (fire red 4 with one sz 9 and one sz 8 in the box) but ish happens and im sure there a lot of other examples out there just wanted to give one.

If i purchase from a reseller or from consignment (ebay, craigslist, etc) gotta have original receipt and boxing.

The idea that the shoes "are basically the same or came from the same factory" doesnt matter bc they're illegal and i dont support that personally. Not knocking others who buy replicas, fakes, gray market.... Smdh at the sellers who claim their legitimacy in order to take advantage of the new thirsty culture we live in now.

 

[dro3000]

like i said before, i AGREE that they're made illegally made if we're using american copyright laws, this has been ESTABLISHED


since page 1, but like i said before, you must got me ALLLL effed up in da game. like i said before


if these grey market sneakers are being made by da EXACT people who are making da ones sold by footlocker/champssports/finishline


then they're AUTHENTIC, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, thats da truth... PERIOD.


at this point what you're splitting hairs about is something we like to call "context" ill use you're example of game worn products...


i own this...

     its a game worn Charles Barkley procut jersey from da 1994-1995 season, its made by Champion and made in da USA..if someone


decided to power up da old machines that made these back in da day and start selling em again, they're authentic, there's just no


way to cut it any other way...sure it

it wouldn't be "game worn" but thats a context which has no bearing on da physicality of da jersey.. because this is EXACTLY how mitchell and ness got into business. *ahem*

In 1985, a customer walked into the store and asked if M&N could repair his 1960 Pirates game-worn vest, and his 1949 St Louis Browns game-worn shirt. They were both made of wool flannel as all baseball uniforms had been. Mitchell & Ness found that it could do it, and with the realization that M&N was capable of this task, an idea was born: Reproduce historically accurate wool-flannel baseball uniforms.
Mitchell & Ness recruited history buffs and sports gurus. They dug through old newspapers, periodicals, books, programs, and old film footage. They consulted vintage uniform collectors throughout the country and visited the archives at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY.
Major League Baseball teams had stopped wearing wool flannel jerseys by 1972. Teams now wear double-knit polyester jerseys. In a dusty warehouse in North Philadelphia, Mitchell & Ness discovered rolls of old baseball flannel from 50 years earlier. They were still carefully wrapped, untouched, and in like-new condition ready to be cut and sewn.
The flannel was sewn. The lettering and patches were recreated and applied. The jerseys were completed, and they were offered for sale. The first shirts sold almost overnight. So did the second batch of a dozen or more. In time, Mitchell & Ness attracted customers from across the United States. Sports Illustrated wrote a flattering piece about M&N in June 1987. The New York Times wrote about the company two years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_&_Ness


imagine if jersey collector zealots decided that Mitchell & Ness were making "fake jerseys" since those jerseys weren't from da actual


game worn era



 and as far as "vintage shoe collectors" lemme tell you my opinion about those guys and they're collections, if you can't wear a sneaker


its WORTHLESS to me, i dont care if its a 1 of 1 Jordan was taking a crap in da middle of half time while he was rocking em, i look at


its manufacturing origin. if da SAME people who made that pair made, decided "hey you know what Jordan exploded in that game, we're


gonna make more of em" then you can't say those same shoes aren't SAME sneakers Jordan was wearing, they may not hold da same


CONTEXT,( and ill admit, context is important to alot of things) but you can't say


they aren't da same thing if we're talking about SNEAKERS here, thats da bottom line.


this is why these are LABELED grey market jordans, because da truth, whether anybody here likes it or not is that whoever is in charge


of making da ones we buy in retail stores are also now behind selling em thru da backdoor. yes they're illegitimate, but you can't say


they're not authentic...like i told everyone else, i seen da space jams in person, held them, compared them to mine..they were made


EXACTLY da same way...da truth hurts, but da truth has to be told, because if you was REALLY about integrity, then sugar coating


da truth to protect da interests of "vintage shoe collectors" isn't part of it in da grand scheme...


 i dont care if da "flattens out" da value of w/e i've bought, you know why? because sneakers dont last forever,

sneakers are made to be worn, i bought everything i ever had sneaker wise cuz im a sports fan and i like being fly.


i dont ever plan on getting rid of anything i bought so i dont care about da ramifications of these grey markets


on da sneaker world, because at da end of da day, they're made to be worn,and i intend to wear ever pair.

M&N also pays royalties to the leagues for which they replicate the jerseys, thus making them legal and legit. They also mark that the item was made in present day, not when they were originally released, no matter what the materials they use, original or replicated

 

[dro3000]

im just a consumer at da end of da day, but as it stands, those grey markets are exactly da same thing thats being sold in stores..shame

would you like proof theyre not the same?? I can give you multiple examples if you like!

 

[ninjahood]

like i said before, i AGREE that they're made illegally made if we're using american copyright laws, this has been ESTABLISHED


since page 1, but like i said before, you must got me ALLLL effed up in da game. like i said before


if these grey market sneakers are being made by da EXACT people who are making da ones sold by footlocker/champssports/finishline


then they're AUTHENTIC, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, thats da truth... PERIOD.


at this point what you're splitting hairs about is something we like to call "context" ill use you're example of game worn products...


i own this...

     its a game worn Charles Barkley procut jersey from da 1994-1995 season, its made by Champion and made in da USA..if someone


decided to power up da old machines that made these back in da day and start selling em again, they're authentic, there's just no


way to cut it any other way...sure it

it wouldn't be "game worn" but thats a context which has no bearing on da physicality of da jersey.. because this is EXACTLY how mitchell and ness got into business. *ahem*

In 1985, a customer walked into the store and asked if M&N could repair his 1960 Pirates game-worn vest, and his 1949 St Louis Browns game-worn shirt. They were both made of wool flannel as all baseball uniforms had been. Mitchell & Ness found that it could do it, and with the realization that M&N was capable of this task, an idea was born: Reproduce historically accurate wool-flannel baseball uniforms.
Mitchell & Ness recruited history buffs and sports gurus. They dug through old newspapers, periodicals, books, programs, and old film footage. They consulted vintage uniform collectors throughout the country and visited the archives at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY.
Major League Baseball teams had stopped wearing wool flannel jerseys by 1972. Teams now wear double-knit polyester jerseys. In a dusty warehouse in North Philadelphia, Mitchell & Ness discovered rolls of old baseball flannel from 50 years earlier. They were still carefully wrapped, untouched, and in like-new condition ready to be cut and sewn.
The flannel was sewn. The lettering and patches were recreated and applied. The jerseys were completed, and they were offered for sale. The first shirts sold almost overnight. So did the second batch of a dozen or more. In time, Mitchell & Ness attracted customers from across the United States. Sports Illustrated wrote a flattering piece about M&N in June 1987. The New York Times wrote about the company two years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_&_Ness


imagine if jersey collector zealots decided that Mitchell & Ness were making "fake jerseys" since those jerseys weren't from da actual


game worn era



 and as far as "vintage shoe collectors" lemme tell you my opinion about those guys and they're collections, if you can't wear a sneaker


its WORTHLESS to me, i dont care if its a 1 of 1 Jordan was taking a crap in da middle of half time while he was rocking em, i look at


its manufacturing origin. if da SAME people who made that pair made, decided "hey you know what Jordan exploded in that game, we're


gonna make more of em" then you can't say those same shoes aren't SAME sneakers Jordan was wearing, they may not hold da same


CONTEXT,( and ill admit, context is important to alot of things) but you can't say


they aren't da same thing if we're talking about SNEAKERS here, thats da bottom line.


this is why these are LABELED grey market jordans, because da truth, whether anybody here likes it or not is that whoever is in charge


of making da ones we buy in retail stores are also now behind selling em thru da backdoor. yes they're illegitimate, but you can't say


they're not authentic...like i told everyone else, i seen da space jams in person, held them, compared them to mine..they were made


EXACTLY da same way...da truth hurts, but da truth has to be told, because if you was REALLY about integrity, then sugar coating


da truth to protect da interests of "vintage shoe collectors" isn't part of it in da grand scheme...


 i dont care if da "flattens out" da value of w/e i've bought, you know why? because sneakers dont last forever,

sneakers are made to be worn, i bought everything i ever had sneaker wise cuz im a sports fan and i like being fly.


i dont ever plan on getting rid of anything i bought so i dont care about da ramifications of these grey markets


on da sneaker world, because at da end of da day, they're made to be worn,and i intend to wear ever pair.

M&N also pays royalties to the leagues for which they replicate the jerseys, thus making them legal and legit. They also mark that the item was made in present day, not when they were originally released, no matter what the materials they use, original or replicated

You're makin a ETHICS point which has already been

Established, but doesnt make da fact that these

Unauthorized grey market jordan are coming

From da same folks who are pumpin out da retail

Counterparts. Da issue here is corruption with

Whoever runs these factories, da actual products

In only part of da bigger issue.

 

[dankenstien88]

like i said before, i AGREE that they're made illegally made if we're using american copyright laws, this has been ESTABLISHED


since page 1, but like i said before, you must got me ALLLL effed up in da game. like i said before


if these grey market sneakers are being made by da EXACT people who are making da ones sold by footlocker/champssports/finishline


then they're AUTHENTIC, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, thats da truth... PERIOD.


at this point what you're splitting hairs about is something we like to call "context" ill use you're example of game worn products...


i own this...

     its a game worn Charles Barkley procut jersey from da 1994-1995 season, its made by Champion and made in da USA..if someone


decided to power up da old machines that made these back in da day and start selling em again, they're authentic, there's just no


way to cut it any other way...sure it

it wouldn't be "game worn" but thats a context which has no bearing on da physicality of da jersey.. because this is EXACTLY how mitchell and ness got into business. *ahem*

In 1985, a customer walked into the store and asked if M&N could repair his 1960 Pirates game-worn vest, and his 1949 St Louis Browns game-worn shirt. They were both made of wool flannel as all baseball uniforms had been. Mitchell & Ness found that it could do it, and with the realization that M&N was capable of this task, an idea was born: Reproduce historically accurate wool-flannel baseball uniforms.
Mitchell & Ness recruited history buffs and sports gurus. They dug through old newspapers, periodicals, books, programs, and old film footage. They consulted vintage uniform collectors throughout the country and visited the archives at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY.
Major League Baseball teams had stopped wearing wool flannel jerseys by 1972. Teams now wear double-knit polyester jerseys. In a dusty warehouse in North Philadelphia, Mitchell & Ness discovered rolls of old baseball flannel from 50 years earlier. They were still carefully wrapped, untouched, and in like-new condition ready to be cut and sewn.
The flannel was sewn. The lettering and patches were recreated and applied. The jerseys were completed, and they were offered for sale. The first shirts sold almost overnight. So did the second batch of a dozen or more. In time, Mitchell & Ness attracted customers from across the United States. Sports Illustrated wrote a flattering piece about M&N in June 1987. The New York Times wrote about the company two years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_&_Ness


imagine if jersey collector zealots decided that Mitchell & Ness were making "fake jerseys" since those jerseys weren't from da actual


game worn era



 and as far as "vintage shoe collectors" lemme tell you my opinion about those guys and they're collections, if you can't wear a sneaker


its WORTHLESS to me, i dont care if its a 1 of 1 Jordan was taking a crap in da middle of half time while he was rocking em, i look at


its manufacturing origin. if da SAME people who made that pair made, decided "hey you know what Jordan exploded in that game, we're


gonna make more of em" then you can't say those same shoes aren't SAME sneakers Jordan was wearing, they may not hold da same


CONTEXT,( and ill admit, context is important to alot of things) but you can't say


they aren't da same thing if we're talking about SNEAKERS here, thats da bottom line.


this is why these are LABELED grey market jordans, because da truth, whether anybody here likes it or not is that whoever is in charge


of making da ones we buy in retail stores are also now behind selling em thru da backdoor. yes they're illegitimate, but you can't say


they're not authentic...like i told everyone else, i seen da space jams in person, held them, compared them to mine..they were made


EXACTLY da same way...da truth hurts, but da truth has to be told, because if you was REALLY about integrity, then sugar coating


da truth to protect da interests of "vintage shoe collectors" isn't part of it in da grand scheme...


 i dont care if da "flattens out" da value of w/e i've bought, you know why? because sneakers dont last forever,

sneakers are made to be worn, i bought everything i ever had sneaker wise cuz im a sports fan and i like being fly.


i dont ever plan on getting rid of anything i bought so i dont care about da ramifications of these grey markets


on da sneaker world, because at da end of da day, they're made to be worn,and i intend to wear ever pair.

M&N also pays royalties to the leagues for which they replicate the jerseys, thus making them legal and legit. They also mark that the item was made in present day, not when they were originally released, no matter what the materials they use, original or replicated

You're makin a ETHICS point which has already been

Established, but doesnt make da fact that these

Unauthorized grey market jordan are coming

From da same folks who are pumpin out da retail

Counterparts. Da issue here is corruption with

Whoever runs these factories, da actual products

In only part of da bigger issue.

Ethics isnt the only issue.

From a collectors standpoint accurate manufacturing dates are big issue.

 

[ninjahood]

^ they are accurate... Problem is its da equivalent of

Selling calendars that are 11 years old

Thats a ethics issue.

 

[eltouha]

How does it "not work" if it accounts for an end product that is virtually identical to the source?  Again, my example even allotted for the possibility that the "unauthorized" production was taking place on site.  The unauthorized bills would obviously be characterized as counterfeit regardless. 

Analogies work by their similarities. End result is not enough to go on, as i actually explained in my post.

People refuse to do so here because they want to pretend that, since they're visually or functionally similar, they're "authentic."

True, that is indeed how i define "not fake".

Again, "third shift" products aren't necessarily being subjected to the same quality control standards and they may very well cut corners in ways that can't be easily discerned from a photograph.  

Maybe, maybe not. This is not any different to store bought shoes.

There's nothing positive to be gained from attempts to legitimize illegal merchandise. 

I think it is an improvement to go beyond "real/fake" divide and split it into three categories instead. buyers have a lot more to gain from identifying "real/unauthorised/fake" from one another than the former two categories.

To say "they're hard to detect, so be careful and the only way to be 100% certain is to purchase ONLY from authorized retailers" is fine.  It helps protect consumers.  Saying, "they're authentic, because they're just as good and maybe they even come from the same place", however, only serves to promote products that, by law, would likely be considered counterfeit (or, at the very least, a trademark violation.)  That's where I take issue.

well, i think there is a difference between fakes and unauthorised pairs. clearly they are both illegal, and i understand your issue.

A "fake" implies deception - and indeed these products are being sold and labeled in deceptive ways. 

Not really. By this rationale, $5 fakes in non existent colours and models are deceptive, but they are clearly fake. No one is being deceived by them. On the other hand, there is a thriving market for fake goods in which buyers are completely aware of what they are buying into.

If you wanted to object to the term "knock-off", I could understand that - but even "third shift" counterfeiters are faking something.  College blue Air Jordan XVIIs produced last year and labeled with a 2001 production date have FAKE tags.  They are FAKE 2001 Air Jordan XVIIs.  

Although a little more difficult to spot, anyone even remotely awake on NT will be able to tell that there have been no XVII's produced since the originals (except for cdp's). That's hardly deceiving.

When people resist "fake," what they're actually resisting is the stigmatization of an illegal and unauthorized product.  They want to justify it so they can purchase and wear them without compunction, and there's no valid reason to grant them that.

I'll lump this in with the other assumptions you made in your previous post, to which i responded to the contrary using my own example. this may very well be the case in some examples, but it certainly doesn't cover everyone.

There IS something inherently wrong with these products and they should be classified as such. 

Questionable? yes. Wrong? I don't think so.

In the end of the day, we actually do see eye to eye on deceptive actions. I don't know why you keep ignoring this fact.

 

[whodatiz]

Such unwavering loyalty to a company that could care less about its most loyal customers....

 

[eltouha]

^mostly, but methodman is right in the point that it is still illegal, and NT can't promote illegal activity.

it's really very hard to have this discussion of definition without the appearence of said promotion. the topic may very soon become subject to instant close/bans, but i think at the end of the day we are all on the same page in trying to help each other identify when shoes are authorised or unauthorised/fake/doesn't matter what you call it.

 

[whodatiz]

^mostly, but methodman is right in the point that it is still illegal, and NT can't promote illegal activity.

I definitely agree. NT moderators/staff shouldn't be endorsing/cosigning/whateveryouwannacall it grey market Nike products. As far as the argument is concerned, Nike gets no sympathy from me. As a matter of fact, I think these gray market sites are great. I wish they'd mass produce some of the more expensive designs (ie Yeezys).

 

[alp]

I definitely agree. NT moderators/staff shouldn't be endorsing/cosigning/whateveryouwannacall it grey market Nike products. As far as the argument is concerned, Nike gets no sympathy from me. As a matter of fact, I think these gray market sites are great. I wish they'd mass produce some of the more expensive designs (ie Yeezys).

with the more limited stuff like yeezys nike is way more careful lol.

 

[WhatisLove]

The only point of contention that I'm even seeing is whether the "unauthorized" pairs are being made in the same factories as the retail pairs or not.

Either way... it doesn't matter. They are still illegal, no matter how you slice it. Honestly, that should be the end of the story.

You can divide them up in as many categories as you want... "real".... "fake"... "unauthorized"... etc. At the end of the day, there's only one that is legal ("real"), and that's how it should be viewed.

I also agree that the need to distinguish between "unauthorized" and "fake" is petty... again, regardless of where the "unauthorized" pairs are being made, they are still breaking copyright/trademark laws by selling the products (and don't try to start the "maybe it's legal in China" thing... these pairs are openly marketed to consumers in the United States, where the copyright/trademark laws surely apply to the situation).

I just wish Nike would put an end to this (at least if these "unauthorized" shoes are coming from their own contracted factories)... obviously, it is something that is very hard to control (if not impossible, with the reverse engineering that is possibly also going on as well), but they should do more.

 

[ez primo]

What i think is funny is that most shoe sites like to showcase the pictures from these gray market sellers to promote the upcoming releases they already have.... Sites are already selling the red jordan iv, and websites are showing the actual picture of the shoes...
By doing this, are the sneaker blog websites promoting that these shoes are authentic in some way? If we don't think these gray market sellers are legit, why showcase their pictures?

 

[believethehype]

ninjahood.. you on that NT hierarchy with your 40,000 posts and you out here condoning illegitimate jordans.. yes its authentic materials but its not the way the folks in the United States get their shoes.. let it go.. we know they the same shoes but its not the way "most" people get their "deadstock" jordans... but you cant deny there are differences.. grey market is heavy in San Francisco as it is in NYC.. there is always something off when comparing a grey market pair to an original.. you cant just go by tags.. it can be stitching, paint, cuts etc. whatever.. if you got knowledge about what the grey market pair is trying to copy then you'll understand

 

[Bert.]

Nike can stop this by ordering less materials

hence why not Yeezys on the market, they were a very limited, high priced shoe. No idea if it was a different/special factory but its clear that there wasnt enough material and what not for these owners to go out and make extra pairs.

 

[Bert.]

What i think is funny is that most shoe sites like to showcase the pictures from these gray market sellers to promote the upcoming releases they already have.... Sites are already selling the red jordan iv, and websites are showing the actual picture of the shoes...
By doing this, are the sneaker blog websites promoting that these shoes are authentic in some way? If we don't think these gray market sellers are legit, why showcase their pictures?

uh i said this before, thats why they are becoming more popular and market is getting flooded. all these early release sites got their names all over the place by tagging pics and having all these Blogs and sites showcase their products.

Just like i went to slam magazine a few weeks ago and they had pictures of a shoe with the wordmark and link to the early release/grey market site

 

[Methodical Management]

The only point of contention that I'm even seeing is whether the "unauthorized" pairs are being made in the same factories as the retail pairs or not. Either way... it doesn't matter. They are still illegal, no matter how you slice it. Honestly, that should be the end of the story.

Exactly.  It's not difficult to understand. 

Such unwavering loyalty to a company that could care less about its most loyal customers....

Actually, I haven't purchased a Nike or Jordan sneaker in over five years.  The difference is, I haven't purchased any fakes, either.  

What we're talking about here isn't "unwavering loyalty to [Nike]", it's merely an observance of federal law.  If you don't like Nike's artificial scarcity or outsourced labor strategies, don't buy their products.  That's a perfectly legal means of voting with your wallet.

well, i think there is a difference between fakes and unauthorised pairs. clearly they are both illegal, and i understand your issue.

I actually have no problem with people referring to these as "third shift counterfeits" to signify that they're unauthorized products made at the same facilities as authentic products (if indeed this is the case and not merely assumed.)  What I'm actually opposed to, here, is referring to these items as "authentic" or using this "third category" to try and legitimize a product that is clearly illegitimate.  

In terms of legality, as you've pointed out, there is no difference here:  no authentic pair is unauthorized.  No fake pair is authorized.  

Point being:  it is merely a TYPE of illegal product.  It does not straddle the line.  It is not its own separate "thing."  "Third shift" counterfeits are a TYPE of counterfeit. 

It's really that simple.  I don't want people trying to obscure the illegitimacy of these products by cloaking them in euphemisms and rationalizations. 

Analogies work by their similarities. End result is not enough to go on, as i actually explained in my post.

Oh is that how analogies work?  Thank you for that.  

Come on now.  I didn't feign to lecture you on how analogies worked as though you were a child, I simply explained how my hypothetical potentially included both the same PROCESS (after hours, same facility) and the same result (a product that is virtually indistinguishable from the genuine article.)  

A $100 bill produced at a US Mint facility without authorization is a counterfeit bill, not an "early release."  

Now, if you were discussing the crime you could also call it an "inside job" - and that's perfectly valid, but I just think it's silly to take an act we know to be counterfeiting and try to call it something else, like "grey market."  

Quote:

A "fake" implies deception - and indeed these products are being sold and labeled in deceptive ways. 

Not really. By this rationale, $5 fakes in non existent colours and models are deceptive, but they are clearly fake. No one is being deceived by them. On the other hand, there is a thriving market for fake goods in which buyers are completely aware of what they are buying into.

You're looking at this from the perspective of a knowledgeable collector.  A knock-off Air Jordan product IS attempting to pass itself off AS an Air Jordan product.  How many kids walking around in Air Jordan XIs with bright orange "patent leather" think that they own "exclusives" rather than fakes?  It's a substantial number.  Almost every day we get PMs and emails from people who want us to help them determine if products from various websites are authentic, and many of these messages involve websites dealing in what you and I would consider "obvious" fakes:  Air Jordans in colorways that were never produced in every single size for $75.  

It's kind of baffling that anyone would argue that counterfeit products aren't inherently deceptive.   If you put the Nike swoosh on an otherwise blank, generic t-shirt, the goal of that is obvious:  to make people think that it's a Nike t-shirt.  What's the logic here?  It's not fake if it's a really shoddy fake?!  They're still misappropriating another company's IP and attempting to reproduce and sell their designs without consent. 

That some consumers know they're buying fakes doesn't make them any less fake.  

Quote:

Again, "third shift" products aren't necessarily being subjected to the same quality control standards and they may very well cut corners in ways that can't be easily discerned from a photograph.  

Maybe, maybe not. This is not any different to store bought shoes.

So you're suggesting that authentic Nike shoes "may or may not" cut corners and "may or may not" have even passed through Nike's own QA process?

A counterfeiter's reputation isn't on the line when they're producing illegal merchandise after hours.  The brand they're ripping off is the one harmed.  Obviously they have MORE of an incentive to cut corners - in part because the brands themselves often monitor supply chains to determine, for example, how many prefabricated cushioning units a contractor is consuming.  This is part of the reason why, years ago, examples of "third shift" counterfeits might include cardboard in place of internal air units.  

Nike is legally responsible for the contents of the air units in its consumer products.  EU environmental standards actually forced some changes to the contents of those air units a few years back.  (The old ones contained sulfur hexafluoride, a greenhouse gas.)  A counterfeiter doesn't have to care about that.  

If Nike's required to use non-toxic adhesives, but it's cheaper to use toxic adhesives... where do the incentives align for "after-hours" counterfeiters?  You can see where this leads.  

No matter how shoddy you think Nike's quality control practices are, it doesn't make a lot of sense to suggest that their QA process is "not any different" from that of a counterfeiter.  Yes it may involve the same facility, but the responsibilities and incentives are aligned quite differently when you deliberately set out to produce illegal merchandise for maximum profit.

Although a little more difficult to spot, anyone even remotely awake on NT will be able to tell that there have been no XVII's produced since the originals (except for cdp's). That's hardly deceiving.

If you've been following the discussion, you know that people are attempting to pass off recently produced Air Jordan XVII's as originals, complete, it seems, with backdated tags.  The entire argument is that it's becoming harder and harder to tell the difference.  That's very deceptive.  

Going back to the earlier example:  if you'd paid top dollar for a rare shoe made 10 years ago only to discover that they'd been illegally manufactured 10 weeks ago, I'd tend to think that you'd feel deceived.  

Counterfeiters aren't labeling their products "replicas."  

Questionable? yes. Wrong? I don't think so.

In the end of the day, we actually do see eye to eye on deceptive actions. I don't know why you keep ignoring this fact.

Well, I guess I'm just one of those people who considers illegal and deceptive products to be "wrong."  

As for the deception, I'd like to think that we're on the same page - but if you can't even agree that a back-dated "replica" being foisted as a legitimate product produced over a decade ago is "deceptive" then we're sort of at a cross. 

 

[ninjahood]

ninjahood.. you on that NT hierarchy with your 40,000 posts and you out here condoning illegitimate jordans.. yes its authentic materials but its not the way the folks in the United States get their shoes.. let it go.. we know they the same shoes but its not the way "most" people get their "deadstock" jordans... but you cant deny there are differences.. grey market is heavy in San Francisco as it is in NYC.. there is always something off when comparing a grey market pair to an original.. you cant just go by tags.. it can be stitching, paint, cuts etc. whatever.. if you got knowledge about what the grey market pair is trying to copy then you'll understand

condoning =/= admitting da reality of da situation.

da fact that i've been here so long and have such a extensive collection doesn't blind me from da fact of whats

going on. da fact that da grey markets have now flooded da aftermarket is something that is now a reality, and

ALOT of people from da United States purchase their shoes thru aftermarket channels.

i aint gonna front and act like these are in some way inferior to da pairs i own, they're not if we're talking physicality

of da product...on da ethics issue i've ALWAYS said they were unauthorized from day one, at this point da implication

is there already.

 

[alp]

I don't know about all that "made in the same factory" crap. I either read or watched a video about Nike switching factories from time to time for various reasons such as keeping wages lower and etc.

One sure fire way Nike could eliminate this or reduce it greatly is by using the certilogo system found in Moncler jackets. Of course this is a pipe dream but if Nike actually gave a damn this would not be an issue we the consumer have to face.

I disagree with most of ninjas viewpoints on this matter, but he is right in saying that buying Jordan's online ain't no joke. These grey markets are very very close to authorized Nike's and could( in certain cases) temporarily fool the best. Judging these solely with online pics on eBay can be difficult, and as ninja said, 99% of the ppl just don't give a ****.

Im not one of those people, and in the case of icy space jams it's obvious, but for other pairs it's too close for online pics to show. It's truly disapointing how good these fakes are, buying shoes should not require you to become a Nike detective( they should pay us NTers, some of us are pretty damn accurate lol).

 

[eltouha]

I actually have no problem with people referring to these as "third shift counterfeits" to signify that they're unauthorized products made at the same facilities as authentic products (if indeed this is the case and not merely

assumed
.)  
What I'm actually opposed to, here, is referring to these items as "authentic" or using this "third category" to try and legitimize a product that is clearly illegitimate.  

Ok, then we are in accord.

In terms of legality, as you've pointed out, there is no difference here:  no authentic pair is unauthorized.  No fake pair is authorized.  


Point being:  it is merely a TYPE of illegal product.  It does not straddle the line.  It is not its own separate "thing."  "Third shift" counterfeits are a TYPE of counterfeit. 



It's really that simple.  I don't want people trying to obscure the illegitimacy of these products by cloaking them in euphemisms and rationalizations. 

Good, because that is not what i am doing.

Oh is that how analogies work?  Thank you for that.  

Come on now.  I didn't feign to lecture you on how analogies worked as though you were a child, I simply explained how my hypothetical potentially included both the same PROCESS (after hours, same facility) and the same result (a product that is virtually indistinguishable from the genuine article.)  


A $100 bill produced at a US Mint facility without authorization is a counterfeit bill, not an "early release."  


Now, if you were discussing the crime you could also call it an "inside job" - and that's perfectly valid, but I just think it's silly to take an act we know to be counterfeiting and try to call it something else, like "grey market."  

Sorry for that one. Your response and query seemed to completely ignore what i had already written, where i noted the striking dissimilarities between analogues. I think it is more of a case of stolen property than copyright infringement.

You're looking at this from the perspective of a knowledgeable collector.  A knock-off Air Jordan product IS attempting to pass itself off AS an Air Jordan product.  How many kids walking around in Air Jordan XIs with bright orange "patent leather" think that they own "exclusives" rather than fakes?  It's a substantial number.  Almost every day we get PMs and emails from people who want us to help them determine if products from various websites are authentic, and many of these messages involve websites dealing in what you and I would consider "obvious" fakes:  Air Jordans in colorways that were never produced in every single size for $75.  

It's kind of baffling that anyone would argue that counterfeit products aren't inherently deceptive.   If you put the Nike swoosh on an otherwise blank, generic t-shirt, the goal of that is obvious:  to make people think that it's a Nike t-shirt.  What's the logic here?  It's not fake if it's a really shoddy fake?!  They're still misappropriating another company's IP and attempting to reproduce and sell their designs without consent. 

That some consumers know they're buying fakes doesn't make them any less fake.  

I was only using these examples in response to your assertion that deception = fake. I noted that this is not always the case. With certainty in many ways it is, but there are many examples where people happily and knowingly buy fake products, and i'm not just talking shoes. Your blanket statement "a fake implies deception" is not applicable in ALL cases, is all i was saying with this.

I never contested what you describe, with kids being fooled by those sites. Part of what this great community is good for is minimising this as much as possible.

So you're suggesting that authentic Nike shoes "may or may not" cut corners and "may or may not" have even passed through Nike's own QA process?

Yes, absolutely. Some of the crap that gets through Nike QA is really shocking. This quality point has been exhausted in previous threads. Ultimately, both legit and dodgy sources can be hit or miss, and it is not a real differentiating factor.

A counterfeiter's reputation isn't on the line when they're producing illegal merchandise after hours.  The brand they're ripping off is the one harmed.  Obviously they have MORE of an incentive to cut corners - in part because the brands themselves often monitor supply chains to determine, for example, how many prefabricated cushioning units a contractor is consuming.  This is part of the reason why, years ago, examples of "third shift" counterfeits might include cardboard in place of internal air units.  

Nike is legally responsible for the contents of the air units in its consumer products.  EU environmental standards actually forced some changes to the contents of those air units a few years back.  (The old ones contained sulfur hexafluoride, a greenhouse gas.)  A counterfeiter doesn't have to care about that.  

If Nike's required to use non-toxic adhesives, but it's cheaper to use toxic adhesives... where do the incentives align for "after-hours" counterfeiters?  You can see where this leads.  

No matter how shoddy you think Nike's quality control practices are, it doesn't make a lot of sense to suggest that their QA process is "not any different" from that of a counterfeiter.  Yes it may involve the same facility, but the responsibilities and incentives are aligned quite differently when you deliberately set out to produce illegal merchandise for maximum profit.

Those old third shift examples you refer to are the very cheap fakes which are still around, and they don't apply to what we are talking about. As for reputation, business works the same, being legal or not.

If you've been following the discussion, you know that people are attempting to pass off recently produced Air Jordan XVII's as originals, complete, it seems, with backdated tags.  The entire argument is that it's becoming harder and harder to tell the difference.  That's very deceptive.  


Going back to the earlier example:  if you'd paid top dollar for a rare shoe made 10 years ago only to discover that they'd been illegally manufactured 10 weeks ago, I'd tend to think that you'd feel deceived.  

The XVII ninjahood keep raising are an interesting example. They would undermine the argument of same factory. It's hard to say whether they are good or not without someone buying a pair. It is common for taobao to advertise using a legit pair only to send cheap fakes. I'd be surprised if this is not the case here.

And if it isn't, then the beast is not what we think it is.

Counterfeiters aren't labeling their products "replicas."  

a fair point

Well, I guess I'm just one of those people who considers illegal and deceptive products to be "wrong."  

 
As for the deception, I'd like to think that we're on the same page - but if you can't even agree that a back-dated "replica" being foisted as a legitimate product produced over a decade ago is "deceptive" then we're sort of at a cross. 

I don't subscribe to law as holy writ, and as an individual agree with laws only proportionately to the actual harm they prevent. This is probably one of the main areas we disagree in, and i'm fine with that.

 

[bossdonvah]

fakejordansrealjordans.blogspot.com this should help people determine the difference

 

[madamimadam]

there is always something off when comparing a grey market pair to an original.. you cant just go by tags.. it can be stitching, paint, cuts etc. whatever.. if you got knowledge about what the grey market pair is trying to copy then you'll understand

This is such a poor argument. I got news for you: no two authentic, store-bought pairs are alike either! The patent leather cut of the Concords would sometimes vary from shoe to shoe. The elephant print on the 2013 WC 88s is different from each sneaker. Most left and right pairs didn't even match. How many flaws are there on authentic Js these days? The quality control has been an issue for years. You gonna say that a store bought pair is "fake" because it has a widow's peak on the toebox?

Grey market pairs mirror store bought pairs, and if you think you can tell the difference between the two, you're lying and/or delusional.

 

[dtb00201]

I'd like to see a lab test the materials from store bought and grey market pairs and see what the results would be. I know there is no way in hell those 17s have exact materials as originals. It might me close, but there's no way they got those identical. I don't care what it LOOKS like from a picture. This would be huge if a blog did that. They would get a ton of traffic.

If any people from blogs are reading this, feel free to steal that idea lol.

 

[kicksb4tricks]

What's the deal with online stores like SneakerSpy, SoleDivision and CopKickz? How are they able to re-up on Royal 1's after all this time?