- Sep 1, 2012
- 622
- 869
2016 Retro vs. 2000 Retro.
Both are size 13 so the proportions should be identical. This particular 2000 pair was the final pair of 2000s I ever bought and was a store display model for a couple months after they released. Thus, because of the light exposure, over time they have become more yellow than some of my other 2000 pairs. I didn't realize this was the one I pulled until after I started taking pics.
I'll let the pics speak for themselves, but here are the differences I can see between these.
- Of course, the 2000s came in the black and silver, long used MJ "Face" box. With a Retro card.
- Toe box shape looks pretty sleek on both.
- The Durabuck is identical in appearance and again, a little different in touch. The 2000 Durabuck is very slightly fuzzy like the 2016s, but is actually a little bit softer to the touch, while the 2016 Durabuck is a little firmer/stiffer. A little.
- The 2000s have this small dimple that someone here called the "Widow's Peak" the other night. This is present both on the toe AND the heel right above NIKE AIR. The 2016s don't have this.
- The NIKE AIR branding on the 2016 heels is clearly bigger.
- The 2016s have a red insole with white NA branding which is true to the 1990s, but the 2000s have a black insole with white NA branding.
- The red toggles inside the lace locks on the 2000s don't have branding. The 2016 toggles have NIKE on one side and the Jumpman on the other.
- The NIKE font on the sole is different and not as slanted/italicized.
- Of course the differences in material on the tongues that we've already noted. The 2000 tongues seem to be coated Durabuck like the 1990s. Tongue height on the 2016s seems higher.
- The Air Jordan tag inside the tongue is upside down on the 2016, which is true to the 1990 OG. Oddly, it was right side up on the 2000s.
- Mesh hole size is identical and "skinny slit shaped" on the 2016s and 2000s. On the 1990s they were more oval shaped.
- The lines on the 2016 midsoles (around and above the Vis-Air window) are a little more defined, similar to the 1990s. On the 2000s, they were "softer."
I think that's about all I can come up with. I may also do 2016 vs. 2007 and 2011 comparisons later, because I'm going to be getting rid of some of my 2007s and 2011s so I will have to photograph them anyway.
View media item 2112104
View media item 2112107
View media item 2112108
View media item 2112114
View media item 2112116
View media item 2112118
View media item 2112119
View media item 2112121
View media item 2112123
View media item 2112124
View media item 2112128
View media item 2112129
View media item 2112130
View media item 2112131
View media item 2112132
View media item 2112134
BONUS PIC - My Y2K army of black Vs. Sitting next to them folded up is the one black t-shirt that Nike released with these in 2000. Size XL, DS, still with the tag attached. It was an extra that I tucked in one of these boxes and forgot about. Tees cost $20 back then. Now they're $40 or more. Screw inflation.
View media item 2112155
Both are size 13 so the proportions should be identical. This particular 2000 pair was the final pair of 2000s I ever bought and was a store display model for a couple months after they released. Thus, because of the light exposure, over time they have become more yellow than some of my other 2000 pairs. I didn't realize this was the one I pulled until after I started taking pics.
I'll let the pics speak for themselves, but here are the differences I can see between these.
- Of course, the 2000s came in the black and silver, long used MJ "Face" box. With a Retro card.
- Toe box shape looks pretty sleek on both.
- The Durabuck is identical in appearance and again, a little different in touch. The 2000 Durabuck is very slightly fuzzy like the 2016s, but is actually a little bit softer to the touch, while the 2016 Durabuck is a little firmer/stiffer. A little.
- The 2000s have this small dimple that someone here called the "Widow's Peak" the other night. This is present both on the toe AND the heel right above NIKE AIR. The 2016s don't have this.
- The NIKE AIR branding on the 2016 heels is clearly bigger.
- The 2016s have a red insole with white NA branding which is true to the 1990s, but the 2000s have a black insole with white NA branding.
- The red toggles inside the lace locks on the 2000s don't have branding. The 2016 toggles have NIKE on one side and the Jumpman on the other.
- The NIKE font on the sole is different and not as slanted/italicized.
- Of course the differences in material on the tongues that we've already noted. The 2000 tongues seem to be coated Durabuck like the 1990s. Tongue height on the 2016s seems higher.
- The Air Jordan tag inside the tongue is upside down on the 2016, which is true to the 1990 OG. Oddly, it was right side up on the 2000s.
- Mesh hole size is identical and "skinny slit shaped" on the 2016s and 2000s. On the 1990s they were more oval shaped.
- The lines on the 2016 midsoles (around and above the Vis-Air window) are a little more defined, similar to the 1990s. On the 2000s, they were "softer."
I think that's about all I can come up with. I may also do 2016 vs. 2007 and 2011 comparisons later, because I'm going to be getting rid of some of my 2007s and 2011s so I will have to photograph them anyway.
View media item 2112104
View media item 2112107
View media item 2112108
View media item 2112114
View media item 2112116
View media item 2112118
View media item 2112119
View media item 2112121
View media item 2112123
View media item 2112124
View media item 2112128
View media item 2112129
View media item 2112130
View media item 2112131
View media item 2112132
View media item 2112134
BONUS PIC - My Y2K army of black Vs. Sitting next to them folded up is the one black t-shirt that Nike released with these in 2000. Size XL, DS, still with the tag attached. It was an extra that I tucked in one of these boxes and forgot about. Tees cost $20 back then. Now they're $40 or more. Screw inflation.
View media item 2112155
Last edited: