- 2,227
- 2,158
I think you missed my point in your excitement.....:x
What Nike charges for a shoe has little do do with the cost to produce it. This is a point often debated on these forums. I'm saying they're not related. Nike doesn't price in a cost plus model. Jordans let alone other models don't cost more than $30 to produce and ship to the US, the highest cost of the shoe is the sole.
Another topic that often comes up is how molds play into producing a given shoe. My point was that Nike uses multiple molds over a given run. With that said molds do wear over production so there are differences between the first sole that comes off a mold and the last sole. The molds are 'good' until they no longer produce a product that is considered in spec. Molds do wear out and are scrapped, and remade often, but this wasn't the point I was making.
Your point of changing a mold to save money isn't correct. Minor variances in design have little to no cost impact on producing the mold itself. If Nike changes the design of the mold, it's for other reasons like design improvements or material cost reduction (less material used in the soles which again are the highest cost of the shoe). The highest cost factors are how many cavities the mold has which equates to more steel (or aluminum in low run production).The actual cost of molds are amortized over the production run.
Nike can source any quality materials they'd like to. My point was that the sources may not be the same as 27 years ago.
Your point about the quality of a full grain leather on a team Jordan vs. a synthetic is comparing apples and oranges. Why Nike chooses to use a different material we won't know. I'm assuming on this statement because I don't know, but real leather is a natural product and has variation which could affect how the product is dyed, where synthetic can be better controlled in that process which could be argued as higher quality (variation of process vs. quality of materials).
Overall, it's that consumers have unrealistic expectations.They compare a product, this IV to their vision of what it should be as opposed to what it is. Then they complain and either buy the product or not, then repeat the same thing over and over, and over again. I think that time could be better spent.
For me, I like the shoes, grew up wearing them all. I'm now in a position where I work in the garment industry and I try to help people on these boards with better information about how the products are made.
Here's another gem for those that care....we'll start seeing made in the USA Nike products in the not too distant future. They'll be around the ID line(s) and any of the flyknit or similar construction products. Adidas has already started the process of bringing manufacturing back to Oregon which personally for me is super cool. For those that don't know both Nike and Adidas are headquartered here in OR.
Nope
JB promised a remastered line that explicitly mentioned a return to OG molds and manufacturing
JB failed to meet their promise, and then doubled down on that lie by producing WC IV's that are not only supposed to be remasters, but are supposed to be an extra special 1989 release with NA and all.
JB set these expectations, and the consumer was specifically invited to make comparisons to the 89 OG because the accuracy of 16 retro is inherent to the product be sold.
Everything else is just Jordan Brand PR spin