Jordan Brand will be remastering (building better quality shoes) starting in 2015

[SlamShut]

IMO the retro IV hasn't been properly retro'd since 99. The netting and shape went out the door first, then materials and color followed. I don't have much faith in this remastering gimmick. That green or turquoise color IV that is part of this new status quo in quality still has the L.A. gear netting. It doesn't give me much hope in a better IV.

 

[eltouha]

they've promised this lots of times before. let's see how long it lasts. i say 18 months.

either way, i don't do retros any more (even sold nearly all my jays 1-14). i'd pick up a 16 and 17 if they drop again, but nothing else.

 

[bonez7]

jb will never go back to its original quality standards. The shoes would last too long and they do not want this.

Exactly..99 oreos still goin strong, I sold a pair I wore many many times for 400..they were VNDS and worn many many times..they're heavy like a leather jacket...the best quality there is
Thell never make that mistake again

Like the government curing diseases/polio
Thell never make that mistake again they cash out too much on the re-up

 

[flightalite]

I don't give my money to jb..I enjoy the hunt for older stuff still in tact

Leave the beast games for the boys

agreed........picked up nds cherrywood and navy xvis and redwood xivs for 420$...and can honestly say that im satisfied

 

[SlamShut]

Exactly..99 oreos still goin strong, I sold a pair I wore many many times for 400..they were VNDS and worn many many times..they're heavy like a leather jacket...the best quality there is
Thell never make that mistake again

Like the government curing diseases/polio
Thell never make that mistake again they cash out too much on the re-up

I'm getting the soles restored on my 99 black/red/grey IVs and will do the same to my 2001 black/cement IIIs when the time comes. Buying and restoring older Js is the way to go to get quality back. Jordan Brand is nothing more than a donor supplier to me at this point.

 

[airdhazzal]

Until retro 4s start looking like this, they haven't remastered anything.
View media item 1046718View media item 1046719

 

[SlamShut]

^This. All. Of. This.

 

[PRIME]

I'm not sure if you guys follow Marcus Jordan on Twitter but geez look at these black/white/chrome III's. Whoa!



View media item 1039967

Those are trash

 

[Bert.]

Until retro 4s start looking like this, they haven't remastered anything.
View media item 1046718View media item 1046719

and they still wont like that when they do retro

sorry bruhs

 

[krispy]

Damn that shape is nice, look at the materials n the tongue..make me wanna get rid of my 2012 bull s h i t

 

[Sir chief a lot]

Only difference is tumbled leather?

 

[PRIME]

Until retro 4s start looking like this, they haven't remastered anything.
View media item 1046718View media item 1046719

|I I just wish they would have given us these in a proper retro. The AJ4 is beautiful. I could live with the Bred 4 release if they would have given us the cements with the proper shade of grey


I still got both them ***** though.. I love em too... But I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't buy them again if they were retroed properly

 

[retroflight91]

IMO the retro IV hasn't been properly retro'd since 99. The netting and shape went out the door first, then materials and color followed. I don't have much faith in this remastering gimmick. That green or turquoise color IV that is part of this new status quo in quality still has the L.A. gear netting. It doesn't give me much hope in a better IV.

nothings really been done right since the facebox era of jordans

 

[oldsneakerhead]

Hello all.  This is my first post here after enjoying the conversations on NikeTalk for a bit.  By way of background, I'm old (mid 40s), probably going through my midlife crisis via kicks, and enjoying the purchase and wearing of Jordan Retros on weekends and on casual workdays.  I've been buying occasionally and I don't have the historic frame of reference to compare past quality to present-day, but I wanted to give a few observations based on all the pairs that I've bought from a major online and mall store retailer:

1)  Jordan Retro 10, Cool Grey/Infrared:  This was the single worst quality shoe of all my Jordans.  Glue stains on the very thin suede leather and one was so bad near the jumpman on the back of the shoe that when I removed the stain, the leather went with it.  I'd say that the damage was about the size of one square piece of tumbled leather.  Note that the Jumpman had his fingers and  laces.  The color combination and overall look of the shoe was very nice so I kept this pair, but I was honestly disappointed with its quality.

2)  Jordan Retro 3 Infrared 23:  This shoe seemed like perfection after the Jordan 10 experience.   I could not find one mark of glue, one spot anywhere that should not have been there.  The tumbled leather quality seemed outstanding, it's stood up to many wears, without any cracking in the midsole or meaningful toe-box creasing.  The Jumpman has his fingers and laces.  The elephant print's pattern, boldness, etc., were equal on both shoes.

3)  Jordan Retro 11 Low Green Snake:  Another seemingly impeccable quality shoe.  No faults of any sort that I can identify other than the annoying tendency for white sock fuzz pills to collect inside the shoe's heel area.  The snakeskin could only be better if it were real snakeskin and that would not retail for $150.  Note the Jumpman has his fingers and laces.

4)  Jordan Retro 2 White/Varsity Red:  Once again, right out of the box I cannot find any quality faults whatsoever with this pair.  The quality of the leather, being smooth, seems lesser than on the Jordan 3 above, but candidly it's certainly no worse than the quality of the Jordan 10 that cost $20 more.  There's no Jumpman logo to discuss on this pair.

So I question whether "remastering" is really anything more than some combination of giving us more of the same of the shoes that appear to be meeting already high quality standards combined with quality control to prevent repeats of my (and based on other people's) experience with the Jordan 10s - all coupled with a price increase masked under the auspices of quality enhancement. 

Thanks for indulging this long, first post at NikeTalk and don't be too rough on me!

 

[airthompson]

Hello all.  This is my first post here after enjoying the conversations on NikeTalk for a bit.  By way of background, I'm old (mid 40s), probably going through my midlife crisis via kicks, and enjoying the purchase and wearing of Jordan Retros on weekends and on casual workdays.  I've been buying occasionally and I don't have the historic frame of reference to compare past quality to present-day, but I wanted to give a few observations based on all the pairs that I've bought from a major online and mall store retailer:

1)  Jordan Retro 10, Cool Grey/Infrared:  This was the single worst quality shoe of all my Jordans.  Glue stains on the very thin suede leather and one was so bad near the jumpman on the back of the shoe that when I removed the stain, the leather went with it.  I'd say that the damage was about the size of one square piece of tumbled leather.  Note that the Jumpman had his fingers and  laces.  The color combination and overall look of the shoe was very nice so I kept this pair, but I was honestly disappointed with its quality.
2)  Jordan Retro 3 Infrared 23:  This shoe seemed like perfection after the Jordan 10 experience.   I could not find one mark of glue, one spot anywhere that should not have been there.  The tumbled leather quality seemed outstanding, it's stood up to many wears, without any cracking in the midsole or meaningful toe-box creasing.  The Jumpman has his fingers and laces.  The elephant print's pattern, boldness, etc., were equal on both shoes.
3)  Jordan Retro 11 Low Green Snake:  Another seemingly impeccable quality shoe.  No faults of any sort that I can identify other than the annoying tendency for white sock fuzz pills to collect inside the shoe's heel area.  The snakeskin could only be better if it were real snakeskin and that would not retail for $150.  Note the Jumpman has his fingers and laces.
4)  Jordan Retro 2 White/Varsity Red:  Once again, right out of the box I cannot find any quality faults whatsoever with this pair.  The quality of the leather, being smooth, seems lesser than on the Jordan 3 above, but candidly it's certainly no worse than the quality of the Jordan 10 that cost $20 more.  There's no Jumpman logo to discuss on this pair.

So I question whether "remastering" is really anything more than some combination of giving us more of the same of the shoes that appear to be meeting already high quality standards combined with quality control to prevent repeats of my (and based on other people's) experience with the Jordan 10s - all coupled with a price increase masked under the auspices of quality enhancement. 

Thanks for indulging this long, first post at NikeTalk and don't be too rough on me!

Welcome to NT

Damn that was a long post, but to answer your question the remastering will change materials altogether to more premium higher quality. Glue stains are normal, and will still prolly appear on some shoes.

 

[saunupe1911]

 
Hello all.  This is my first post here after enjoying the conversations on NikeTalk for a bit.  By way of background, I'm old (mid 40s), probably going through my midlife crisis via kicks, and enjoying the purchase and wearing of Jordan Retros on weekends and on casual workdays.  I've been buying occasionally and I don't have the historic frame of reference to compare past quality to present-day, but I wanted to give a few observations based on all the pairs that I've bought from a major online and mall store retailer:

1)  Jordan Retro 10, Cool Grey/Infrared:  This was the single worst quality shoe of all my Jordans.  Glue stains on the very thin suede leather and one was so bad near the jumpman on the back of the shoe that when I removed the stain, the leather went with it.  I'd say that the damage was about the size of one square piece of tumbled leather.  Note that the Jumpman had his fingers and  laces.  The color combination and overall look of the shoe was very nice so I kept this pair, but I was honestly disappointed with its quality.

2)  Jordan Retro 3 Infrared 23:  This shoe seemed like perfection after the Jordan 10 experience.   I could not find one mark of glue, one spot anywhere that should not have been there.  The tumbled leather quality seemed outstanding, it's stood up to many wears, without any cracking in the midsole or meaningful toe-box creasing.  The Jumpman has his fingers and laces.  The elephant print's pattern, boldness, etc., were equal on both shoes.

3)  Jordan Retro 11 Low Green Snake:  Another seemingly impeccable quality shoe.  No faults of any sort that I can identify other than the annoying tendency for white sock fuzz pills to collect inside the shoe's heel area.  The snakeskin could only be better if it were real snakeskin and that would not retail for $150.  Note the Jumpman has his fingers and laces.

4)  Jordan Retro 2 White/Varsity Red:  Once again, right out of the box I cannot find any quality faults whatsoever with this pair.  The quality of the leather, being smooth, seems lesser than on the Jordan 3 above, but candidly it's certainly no worse than the quality of the Jordan 10 that cost $20 more.  There's no Jumpman logo to discuss on this pair.

So I question whether "remastering" is really anything more than some combination of giving us more of the same of the shoes that appear to be meeting already high quality standards combined with quality control to prevent repeats of my (and based on other people's) experience with the Jordan 10s - all coupled with a price increase masked under the auspices of quality enhancement. 

Thanks for indulging this long, first post at NikeTalk and don't be too rough on me!

What people are failing to realize is that a lot of shoes do have good quality but JB has noticed that an extreme amount doesn't, which is why so many B grades hit outlets. All of those are shoes that didn't pass inspections. This "remastering" is more of a manufacturing philosophy change that should increase quality due to better materials and build techniques. So their business process is in place. For example the shoes that they are targeting for 2015 have been the absolute worse quality issues...especially the Xs. Hopefully they will execute their process successfully but anyone in here that works in corporate America knows that new business philosophies take time to perfect. The first shoe release within this new process might not be as good as we expect.

 

[jsonmyfeetz]

|I I just wish they would have given us these in a proper retro. The AJ4 is beautiful. I could live with the Bred 4 release if they would have given us the cements with the proper shade of grey


I still got both them ***** though.. I love em too... But I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't buy them again if they were retroed properly

The cements were retroed with the closest shade to the original this last time. The 99's were lighter than the originals.

 

[vood99]

Past 6 years? A lot of problems begun in 2004 although in all fairness quality hasn't been completely terrible across the board and some have improved. Still, I haven't seen anything with this remastering that is cause for celebration.

The past 6 years have been continuously bad - from 2004 to 2007 they experimented with select colourways (predominantly OG colourways) having garbage materials. I will agree that shapes have been bad for over a decade but let's focus on materials.

CG, White/Green, Pure $, Black Cat IV had lousy shape and netting but materials were fair to good for the price charged. The '06 Military and Mars were variant quality garbage.

'04 Olympic VII had lousy shape and AF1 pleather. Oddly the VIIs that dropped in '06-'07 had decent materials.

'03-'04 XIIs had decent shapes and materials - paint would chip with excessive game use. Some could argue that this retro was an improvement over the OG as they shed weight and made the Zoom very responsive.

'04-'05 XIII were great retros - had 3M mesh, responsive Zoom, leathers were half decent.

'05 X had insoles that squeaked but could be remedied with baby powder. Materials were half decent.

'06 Fire Red & Grape V had AF1 pleather, but the Stealth V had good tumbled, real leather. Green Bean V was nice in theory but the stiff 3M upper made the shoe ridiculously uncomfortable.

Essentially what these guys are saying now is that we outsourced to the lowest bidder, we're willing to pay a bit more for 'slight increases' but we're gonna pass that cost onto the customer.

The 'remastering' bit is just the Nike spin-doctors working their magic. Reebok & Fila have been making 'remastered' retro product for the last 2 years.

 

[apthekid]

The past 6 years have been continuously bad - from 2004 to 2007 they experimented with select colourways (predominantly OG colourways) having garbage materials. I will agree that shapes have been bad for over a decade but let's focus on materials.

CG, White/Green, Pure $, Black Cat IV had lousy shape and netting but materials were fair to good for the price charged. The '06 Military and Mars were variant quality garbage.

'04 Olympic VII had lousy shape and AF1 pleather. Oddly the VIIs that dropped in '06-'07 had decent materials.

'03-'04 XIIs had decent shapes and materials - paint would chip with excessive game use. Some could argue that this retro was an improvement over the OG as they shed weight and made the Zoom very responsive.

'04-'05 XIII were great retros - had 3M mesh, responsive Zoom, leathers were half decent.

'05 X had insoles that squeaked but could be remedied with baby powder. Materials were half decent.

'06 Fire Red & Grape V had AF1 pleather, but the Stealth V had good tumbled, real leather. Green Bean V was nice in theory but the stiff 3M upper made the shoe ridiculously uncomfortable.

Essentially what these guys are saying now is that we outsourced to the lowest bidder and we're willing to pay a bit more for 'slight increases' but we're gonna pass that cost onto the customer.

The 'remastering' bit is just the Nike spin-doctors working their magic. Reebok & Fila have been making 'remasted' retro product for the last 2 years.

Love seeing you older NTers drop in...my join date is 2007 and I sometimes feel like a dinosaur.

I agree with almost everything in this post except for the '04 Olympic VII's...I think that retro was far superior to the later "FTLOG" retro. I have had the FTLOG retro in hand, but I've never owned them. I do, however own the '04 Oly VII...Maybe my opinion is bias, but I do remember feeling like the FTLOG was a step down from the '04.

 

[vood99]

Love seeing you older NTers drop in...my join date is 2007 and I sometimes feel like a dinosaur.

I agree with almost everything in this post except for the '04 Olympic VII's...I think that retro was far superior to the later "FTLOG" retro. I have had the FTLOG retro in hand, but I've never owned them. I do, however own the '04 Oly VII...Maybe my opinion is bias, but I do remember feeling like the FTLOG was a step down from the '04.

I've been around my man, just in the 'Other Brands' forum.

Yes I agree with you the '04 Oly VII had overall great comfort and the 'Generation 1' pleather (plastic leather). The 'Generation 2' pleather started in '07 with the AF1 'Basic'. That's when it literally became 'Plastic Leather' - stiff, hard rubbish that folded when you walked.

 

[vood99]

Most Sneakerheads are idiots end of story.  You can only pull stuff like this on dummies. You know the money ain't a thang, it ain't trickin if you got, YOLO types.

LOL @ my man Rukus. You missed: 'Only God can judge me' and 'Haters gonna hate'.

 

[saunupe1911]

Love seeing you older NTers drop in...my join date is 2007 and I sometimes feel like a dinosaur.

I agree with almost everything in this post except for the '04 Olympic VII's...I think that retro was far superior to the later "FTLOG" retro. I have had the FTLOG retro in hand, but I've never owned them. I do, however own the '04 Oly VII...Maybe my opinion is bias, but I do remember feeling like the FTLOG was a step down from the '04.

I can't speak for the FTLOG Olympics but the 04 Olympics have much better quality than the 12. For example the gold stitching was a gold shiny metallic thread. The shoe string tips were a metallic gold too. The 2012 stitching is just a bronze/gold like thread. It's not metallic looking. The same goes for the shoe string tips. Also the 12 leather is clearly synthetic. It may withstand deep creasing but it easily scratches. I tripped over a curbed and scratched the hell out of them. Thank god for Angelus. I've put the 04 Olympics in the washing machine and they barely even creased. They are extremely durable. I need to restore them but just haven't found time. Checkout out my instagram for pics of them.

 

[seminolesjordan]

I hope the Columbia IV's that come out this year have the quality of those IV's at the top 

 

[mart da god]

LOL @ my man Rukus. You missed: 'Only God can judge me' and 'Haters gonna hate'.

yeah they dont necessarily make sneakers for adults or people with high IQs. most adults want these kicks because of memories they had as a kid. it's a kids game

 

[EddieDoyers]

Most Sneakerheads are idiots end of story.  You can only pull stuff like this on dummies. You know the money ain't a thang, it ain't trickin if you got, YOLO types.

Truth @UncleRukus