Jordan XI's: 2001 releases vs 2010 & 2011 releases

[track silencer]

So I just purchased a pair of Columbia's that released in 2001 and I noticed that the bottom was in very good condition as far as yellowing. My Cool Grey XI's that released in 2010 are already yellowing a lot more and have never been worn. They are in a dark place where they can stay dry and still seem to be yellowing. This made me question of the quality of the XI's. Does anyone notice the quality being better in the 2001 XI's? If so, what parts of the shoe?

 

[track silencer]

Originally Posted by Nowitzness41

I dont even know where to start with this one. You could post this statement/question over in the jordan brand forum (where it belongs)- but these issues of quality declining and yellowing of XI soles have been talked about til people are blue in the face- youd be better off just browsing through the jordan forum, where your questions and statements have been discussed, and youre certainly free to add to those. Yes quality has decreased over the years, and yes- shoes (especially the soles of XI's) tend to yellow over time, just the world we live in

Thanks

 

[balloonoboy]

Also, dudes just expect too much from a quality perspective for a performance-based shoe. Granted, the retros that are being released right now are probably geared more to casual wear than performance wear, but spending $180 on a shoe that has so many components and expecting real leather, midsoles that don't crack, and patent leather without dimples may be asking too much.

If one is really that nitpicky about "quality", basketball shoes or Jordan Brand (or Nike) isn't really the place to look. We're talking shoes that last the wearer a few decades through multiple resolings. That is quality.

A shoe who's dual purpose is not only to carry an athlete through a season and double as a casual shoe is already asking a lot. The pricepoint it would be at if these companies really used the good *%!* would turn many away, and the companies would not make money.

The happy medium has been to produce a performance shoe with casual appeal that will not break the bank, but, either from the name or logo on it, sell fairly well in the process.

Jordan Brand could release shoes for $400 with the best quality there is, but then dudes would be whining of the outrageous price jump. And to this end, the demographic the company caters to is satisfied with okay quality at an okay price. The others are probably putting their Js down for more sophisticated (and costlier) footwear anyhow.

 

[vood99]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Also, dudes just expect too much from a quality perspective for a performance-based shoe. Granted, the retros that are being released right now are probably geared more to casual wear than performance wear, but spending $180 on a shoe that has so many components and expecting real leather, midsoles that don't crack, and patent leather without dimples may be asking too much.

If one is really that nitpicky about "quality", basketball shoes or Jordan Brand (or Nike) isn't really the place to look. We're talking shoes that last the wearer a few decades through multiple resolings. That is quality.

A shoe who's dual purpose is not only to carry an athlete through a season and double as a casual shoe is already asking a lot. The pricepoint it would be at if these companies really used the good *%!* would turn many away, and the companies would not make money.

The happy medium has been to produce a performance shoe with casual appeal that will not break the bank, but, either from the name or logo on it, sell fairly well in the process.

Jordan Brand could release shoes for $400 with the best quality there is, but then dudes would be whining of the outrageous price jump. And to this end, the demographic the company caters to is satisfied with okay quality at an okay price. The others are probably putting their Js down for more sophisticated (and costlier) footwear anyhow.

You bring up fantastic points and I like your train of thought but the OP is talking about ONE particular shoe model that has seen several drops in quality over the years with a steady price increase. He does have a right to complain but at the same time he is also beating a dead horse.
  

 

[jbv1]

Agreed this is in the wrong forum but before it gets moved to the JB forum;

We can complain all we want but this business model is not broken, hence no impetus on Nike's part to fix it. Smart company, they are simply riding the legacy of a great bball player and the mythos that goes with owning a part of that legacy, albeit in a shoe form. Good marketing that has endured for decades, now.

Nike's not changing anything. If anything if there is a return to the OG material grade it will just justify Nike marking up the price of these "exclusive" "luxe" models even more..

Balloonoboy def. makes some great salient points about what the market is willing to bear & the general agreement of the common consumer as to the relative quality of the product.

If Nike was in the car business this approach wouldn't might work as well though, with tech advances coming through at an eventually cheaper price & with MORE bells & whistles being included as the de rigeur standard. I know comparing cars to shoes is not exactly on par & they don't retro cars at the rate they do shoes (if at all) but you get my drift that QUALITY should be improving but Nike's cost cutting on sourcing alternate grade materials is glaring at times, most notably on Jordans since they are held in such high esteem by buyers, especially NTers & Jordan aficionados.

They might cut us a break & surprise us though, a la the SC Trainers Qs recently that actually had good quality leather (as other NTers have commented)

I'd like to reiterate a point I made some posts back though that really, at the end of the day, it's a manufactured good meant to be worn & abused, & in time there is a projected lifespan. These kicks aren't meant to last forever, they will break down (worn or not)

(Sort of makes me question keeping most of my kicks collection DS, but that's just my OCD talking...)

 

[vood99]

Originally Posted by jbv1

Agreed this is in the wrong forum but before it gets moved to the JB forum;

We can complain all we want but this business model is not broken, hence no impetus on Nike's part to fix it. Smart company, they are simply riding the legacy of a great bball player and the mythos that goes with owning a part of that legacy, albeit in a shoe form. Good marketing that has endured for decades, now.

Nike's not changing anything. If anything if there is a return to the OG material grade it will just justify Nike marking up the price of these "exclusive" "luxe" models even more..

Balloonoboy def. makes some great salient points about what the market is willing to bear & the general agreement of the common consumer as to the relative quality of the product.

If Nike was in the car business this approach wouldn't might work as well though, with tech advances coming through at an eventually cheaper price & with MORE bells & whistles being included as the de rigeur standard. I know comparing cars to shoes is not exactly on par & they don't retro cars at the rate they do shoes (if at all) but you get my drift that QUALITY should be improving but Nike's cost cutting on sourcing alternate grade materials is glaring at times, most notably on Jordans since they are held in such high esteem by buyers, especially NTers & Jordan aficionados.

They might cut us a break & surprise us though, a la the SC Trainers Qs recently that actually had good quality leather (as other NTers have commented)

I'd like to reiterate a point I made some posts back though that really, at the end of the day, it's a manufactured good meant to be worn & abused, & in time there is a projected lifespan. These kicks aren't meant to last forever, they will break down (worn or not)

(Sort of makes me question keeping most of my kicks collection DS, but that's just my OCD talking...)

Amen jbv!

I do have to point out that retroing cars and kicks is a flawed analogy due to the fact that retro cars lack the safety features and emission features that are demanded of today's vehicles. Believe me, if the automakers could even do a limited re-issue of 60s, 70s or 80s vehicles they would but the lack of the aforementioned features stops them from doing so. That's why you see a re-imagining of classics like the present Mustang and Challenger or in some cases just carryover of the car name itself.

You're on the money re: the exclusive and 'luxe' categorizing - Nike's already doing it with the AF1 and I believe JB's dabbling with it via the BIN series. Guess it won't be too long before we start seeing the Jordan IV Basic, Jordan IX Premium and Jordan XI Supreme!

  

 

[bip roberts]

Move this!

Ok, with that out of the way -

Sorry, but I don't think Balloonboy's points are valid at all. Basically Nike/JB already met the goal the purists are asking for. They did so decades ago with the originals. The issue isn't anything about manufacturing technology or performance-based shoes vs. casual shoess - it's just that the quintessential JB customer now doesn't even remember the glory days and has no standards. Therefore, JB doesn't have any reason to emulate OG quality AND can get away with jacking up the price.

Another thing to remember is that the glory days of Jordans were also the glory days of Nike Basketball, Cross Training, and Running too. So, the shoes on the marketplace really had to compete with each other, even internally, within the brand. Nowadays, how many NEW models get popular enough to really compete for the "sneakerhead" dollar - probably just a handful. Nike Retro does okay on quality sometimes, giving them an advantage over JB, but they're spotty at best. So, what it comes down to is there is no economic incentive for JB not to cut every corner possible. They are acting completely rationally because their customer base positively reinforces their behavior.

Look at the non-Nike brands and the quality of their retro releases. Why don't they suffer from the same problem? They have to actually put out a high quality shoe to get customer dollars because they can't just coast on their past laurels like Nike/JB. So, they do it. Anything about cost to Nike is a canard when excusing the lack of high quality materials. Gucci could make substantial profit selling their leather handbags at the pricepoint of a AJ XI Retro. Economies of scale - this stuff is not at all expensive to produce. They use crappy materials for the same reason they don't produce their goods in the US - because the customer base has voted with their wallets and the verdict is that they don't care about these issues enough to stop them from purchasing. 

 

[sbsallday12]

To make it simple, yes the difference in quality is obvious, on all parts of the shoe

 

[lbcexx]

def better quality back then

 

[midnight hype]

Its better than nothing, I have yet to wear my cool grey and concords. my cool greys are ziplocked and double bagged and placed in a dark area. The soles are already starting to yellow. meanwhile I wore my eggplant foamposites a handful of times with sole savers and there more icyer than the cool creys. whats up with that? I consider myself to be fortunate that i can afford the shoe, rather than complain about the quality would you rather wear KEDS Instead. I bet sneakers from payless proably have great quality control as well as material.....

 

[JRaW’d]

why is this even a discussion?