- 2,372
- 5,054
2016s aren't tall enough against the 99s. The banana shape is still there. Don't close the door on sole wrapping just yet.
Last edited:
Nike Air Jordan 4 Retro "White/Cement" - The Aftermath - NO BUYING/SELLING/TRADING
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by kennmo08,
- Start date
- 4,467
- 1,493
Didn't buy one Jordan this year, last was white LMs and I must have these then i'll wait on the blacks or military blues
- 1,853
- 694
Banana shape is alive and well. Even the 2004 retro shape was NOTHING like the 1999's.
- 123
- 562
It all comes down to what paint is used for the midsole.
Nike will occasionally use a thicker, more pliable paint on certain retro models. This paint is less prone to cracking and is able bend and flex with pressure rather than crack.
The 2015 run of AJIVs has used it and I can attest that it holds up extremely well after multiple wears.
You can tell pretty quickly whether a sneakers has "good paint" or not.
The paint used on the black/red AJIVs from 2012 is applied with an extremely thin coat and obviously does not hold up well to flexing or pressure.
This is an example of the garbage eggshell thin paint that became common from 2005 onward.
Paint will eventually crack, wear, and fade if you actually wear your sneakers. This is even holds true with the old PU midsoles (I have a bunch of pairs from the late 80s - early 90s that did not hold up with normal wear).
Bottom line, quality paint applied properly will hold up very well over time, even with the new midsoles.
- 7,437
- 10,220
That Speckle Density THO!!
- 3,004
- 1,005
yup im here for these. Wtf do i do with my 2012 pair? Only worn like 5-6 times 
- 1,853
- 694
Paint some speckles on the heeltab using a magic marker.yup im here for these. Wtf do i do with my 2012 pair? Only worn like 5-6 times
- 2,227
- 2,157
yup im here for these. Wtf do i do with my 2012 pair? Only worn like 5-6 times
Just keep the 2012 and pass on this price-increase garbage
To my eyes, the changes between the 2012 and 2016 are next to nonexistent, and not worth the extra $40
If I didn't have 2012's I'd be kinda interested in the NA and better cement.
But with the same bad shape, banana toe, and low ankle I don't see how anyone who owns the 2012's feels like the $220 is a worthy upgrade
- 1,853
- 694
Word. OG shape is WAY more important than NA.
Gimme a properly shaped retro with a jumpman and= I ain't eem mad.
Although OG shape and NA would be ideal, of course.
- 99
- 26
Cant wait for these
- 13,529
- 9,454
Do you have a pic?That '99 Columbia Sample
Always been one of my favorites. I really wish JB would drop those sometime.
IIRC only the left shoe exists. Right one got lost or destroyed or something.
- 777
- 471
^that looks amazing.
- 5,259
- 6,875
My experience with the WC in '89 was no paint issues on the grey area of the midsole; it would just wear off from getting scraped; no cracking, chipping, etc. Also, the white area of the midsole didn't experience any such issues. I don't think it was actually painted back then. Either the material was naturally white, or it was died during the manufacturing process. It just turned yellow. This was the same with the Trainer TW.
- 3,018
- 1,252
Yeah, based on the comparison pics, they definitely improved the netting material. Im excited! They look good to me. Of Course not 99 retro good, but improved and good enough for me. 2 pairs easy.
- 676
- 1,174
I want to like these due to the netting, nike air, proper paint and what looks to be a better quality leather. My personal issue is the shape. It blows my mind that Nike/JB can't for the life of them get the shape right. This is a shoe. Its not like its figuring out how to send people to mars. The walker-shoe-old-man-hospital-speacial toe box kills me.
Aquamanjay_
formerly jaylaw15
- 8,180
- 9,262
Boy Jordan got yall on a leash
The Fresh Prince
formerly airsakuragi
- 13,534
- 9,570
There are two reasons why I believe Nike/JB won't get the shape right:
1. The machines and factories used to make the shoes back then are gone/changed.
2. Some people (other than hardcore OG fans) would think the shoes will look too bulky if they used the OG shape.
I believe the could make the shape the same but want to adhere to this generations standards (sleeker and skinny rather than padded and bulky).
- 2,227
- 2,157
There's nothing sleek or skinny about the banana toe. It's the defining feature of why the retros look like boots
JB certainly could fix the problem, but the reason they don't definitely has nothing to do with some perceived respect for the younger collectors or for the sanctity of the OG pairs
It's simple penny-pinching and laziness
Last edited:
- 2,924
- 914
Shape has nothing to do with cost. I really don't know why people think that way. The only thing that has to do with cost are the materials. And they are bringing back the better materials.
Last edited:
- 2,715
- 9,057
Originally Posted by EightFiveFresh I couldn't care less about "Quality Control" if the Materials, Shape & Everything Else is TRASH and not even close to the OG.Quality Control at that point is just saying, "Well, Hey, atleast our TRASH Quality Shoes are CONSISTENTLY Trash with Every Pair you get."
Co-sign, & REPPED to the FULLEST @EightFiveFresh, and @Zephyr1983.
I couldn't have said it any better myself....
The shape is technically the same, and the height is like 2cm higher than the 2012's
The only real difference is the Cement color, NA, speckle density, and the leather.
The heel tab is also bigger, which kinda makes height of the shoe look taller, but it's really no difference...
All of these additions on this retro, we should've got with the $160 price tag.
Like I said before, by the year 2020 Jordan Retros will retail at $300.
Especially if they keep up with $20 price increase every ****** year.
Also, I repped you @dankenstien88, those Columbia samples are the definition of perfection.
Here's some more Samples y'all, from the 1999, and 2004 era....
Now I could be wrong, but the White/Red sample above from 2004 is when they started to fool with the shape...
It could just be how the pics were taken, but it looks like they were trying to make them less bulky looking...
In the mid foot area...
Either way, the shapes on the White/Blue, and the other Columbia samples are perfection...
I don't care what y'all say, think, or what you gotta say about the way I post my ****.
If you like it rep me, if not **** it...
Last edited:
Aquamanjay_
formerly jaylaw15
- 8,180
- 9,262
I almost laughed out loud at the shape with more material drives up cost comment. Not calling people stupid but you know Nike sells unpopular Nike shoes with much more leather than these for like $100.
Nike is a business and longevity is important. Get the netting right this time but not the shape, you create something for people to look forward to the next time they release. then just release the shoe some years down the line with the proper shape. It's a hustle on us, yet we call it the sneaker game lol.
Last edited:
- 886
- 1,857
The material quality on the 2012 versions are terrible. They actually feel like plastic and that color they passed off as "cement" is so way off from the original it's ridiculous.
Just from the few images of the 2016's you can clearly see the difference in quality. Are they worth the $220 price tag? Idk, but they're definitely an upgrade from the garbage 2012 versions.
- 2,715
- 9,057
Some more pics of the 2016's I just found on Instagram....
I'm not sure if they're authentic, I apologize if not.
I kinda hope they're not authentic, the right shoe looks like it smoked a LOUD blunt....
The NA logo, and the shape of the shoe is on FULL TILT!!!
Last edited:
young_keafor24
formerly meo280
- 2,242
- 649
More pics of the 2016's I just found on Instagram....I'm not sure if they're authentic, I apologize if not.I kinda hope they're not authentic, the right shoe looks like it smoked a LOUD blunt....The NA logo, and the shape of the shoe is on FULL TILT!!!
- 2,372
- 5,054
