- Dec 3, 2013
- 22,403
- 32,764
that red insole
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Materials are definitely lit. But the shoe looks like it's going to collapse into itself. The cuts and angles on the 2000 looks much better put together. I'd take them OGs DS n a second though
These look like they're hurting. Take 2
#1
ALL DAY.
No Contest.
Shout out to @Sneekaz, @jaylaw15, @Paleface, @Kolossus & @AirSakuragi!!!
Like I said, I'd gladly take #2 though....
At the best least, we'll get something like the supreme 5s. I'm no longer worried. These early GM pairs are obvious fakes with really bad materials
Attempting to use logic, I've come to the conclusion that since the black Supremes have the black Durabuck and the silver 3m that the 2016 metallics will be similar in shape and materials since the black metallics essentially are expected to feature the same look
Yes, I'll be happy @doublemesh96 also.... Clear, or blue tint, it doesn't really matter to me.Originally Posted by doublemesh96
^ill be happy with that clear bottom and that 3M
Black Supreme's didn't have clear bottom, light blue tint.
^ill be happy with that clear bottom and that 3M
Preach.People complain about the Ashy Larry Suede on the 2011's but eager to see that chalky, ashy, matted down Durabuck on the OG's. There's a good reason Nike doesn't use that material anymore.
2000>>>>>
They are all opinions anyways, I never owned an OG pair of the 5's but just love the slimmer design If they gave me an option which to choose id say the OG, I like the slimmer toebox, people are judging a shoe built in 1989-1990 from pictures taken in 2010+ in those 20 years the shoes will age/degradeI'm sure the OG purists are infuriated at the blasphemy towards the OGs in here.
I used to sleep on the 2000's ankle puffs, now I have to use women instead. And that's why they're the best J's ever made.2000 pair is superior.
It's really no debate.
not really, many OG shape have been the same. I've seen pics of OG pairs back in the 90s and the shape looked distinct.They are all opinions anyways, I never owned an OG pair of the 5's but just love the slimmer design If they gave me an option which to choose id say the OG, I like the slimmer toebox, people are judging a shoe built in 1989-1990 from pictures taken in 2010+ in those 20 years the shoes will age/degrade
I meant how the materials look Aka Ashy larry lolnot really, many OG shape have been the same. I've seen pics of OG pairs back in the 90s and the shape looked distinct.