- 2,950
- 3,276
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2014
thats Cory Matthews bustedThese things are white boy wasted, and I love it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
thats Cory Matthews bustedThese things are white boy wasted, and I love it.
more like tiger woods busted lolthats Cory Matthews busted
Man the more I hear this the more sure I'll pass, told myself moving forward that I'll no longer buy releases that people claim "looks better in person than pictures"
You're about to open up a huge can of worms by saying this
After reading the past few pages of this thread, I just want to say... As an owner of many 1's, including the SBB... You guys saying the SBB is better quality than the breds and royals are either crazy or are trying to justify the amount of money you spent on them. Literally the same quality as every other RECENT remastered 1. The edges of the leather cuts just aren't as smooth. Kind of gives them a "real" vibe that could be confused with quality.
Or... You could look at it as being sloppy leather work compared to every other 1 that has ever come out.
Not hating, I love mine and all. They are a neat Halloween shoe. LOL. Also looks dope with Bengals gear. Who dey.
The truth hurts a lot of people. Hahaha.
You're about to open up a huge can of worms by saying this
the best leather I've ever felt is these bad boys [emoji]128526[/emoji][emoji]128293[/emoji]
*Hides
and my stance will NEVER change on that. i don't see how anyone could argue that creases make ANY shoe look better. all that, "it adds character" nonsense is straight up laughable. the cleaner, fresher and newer a shoe looks, the better. how is this even debatable?i judge based off thickness coupled with softness. for instance, everyone was saying laser 1s were great quality bc they were so soft. but i didn't think they were all that great bc the leather was paper thin. again, in terms of quality, there is not a 1 that i know of that is on par with '17 BHM. the whole upper is plush, not just select panels.
You lost your voice in here when you decided creases didn't look nice one 1s
frags are not on par with BHMs, i can confirm this. i don't have '11 banneds tho so i can't definitively say, but my guess would be that banneds aren't BHM quality either.2017 BHM's are definitely a top quality shoe, and have the absolute best leather all over the entire shoe out of the 1s I do own (SBBs, Royals, Breds, Black Toes, Cyber Mondays, Lasers). I don't know how the BHMs compare to Frags or 2011 Banneds since I don't own those.there is not a 1 that i know of that is on par with '17 BHM. the whole upper is plush, not just select panels.
and my stance will NEVER change on that. i don't see how anyone could argue that creases make ANY shoe look better. all that, "it adds character" nonsense is straight up laughable. the cleaner, fresher and newer a shoe looks, the better. how is this even debatable?i judge based off thickness coupled with softness. for instance, everyone was saying laser 1s were great quality bc they were so soft. but i didn't think they were all that great bc the leather was paper thin. again, in terms of quality, there is not a 1 that i know of that is on par with '17 BHM. the whole upper is plush, not just select panels.
You lost your voice in here when you decided creases didn't look nice one 1s
These things are white boy wasted, and I love it.
Those are just broken in.
they need to remaster thesethe best leather I've ever felt is these bad boys [emoji]128526[/emoji][emoji]128293[/emoji]
*Hides
as a lady sneakerhead i definetly know that the idea of tumbling among the pocketbook buying crowd is that it is lesser than quality -- the belief is inferior leather is used and the faux tumbling is done to hide the cheaper leather. Vachetta tans are a great option and definetly upset I slept on them for the Chocolate Pinnacles option instead.
Outside of the BIN series or other limited/lux series like pinnacle, we haven't seen anything premium from Jordan. I think tumbled leather creates some sort of illusion of perfect quality. Shattered backboard are the same as royals and black/reds and reverse shattered and all that. It's funny that shattered backboards are flaunted as the pinnacle of Jordan 1 and sneaker leather quality when there were literally pinnacle Jordan 1s made. Old photo from when I first got them (they were used and have gotten a lot of wear since):
I dont like any of my shoes to look brand new. I feel like a f-boy wearing prestine shoes. I dont want mud caked up and stains everywhere but I like creases and light yellowing. Its like wanting your raw denim to look brand new forever, break that **** in and make them unique... Just my view on it.and my stance will NEVER change on that. i don't see how anyone could argue that creases make ANY shoe look better. all that, "it adds character" nonsense is straight up laughable. the cleaner, fresher and newer a shoe looks, the better. how is this even debatable?
wings quality> sbb
I dont like any of my shoes to look brand new. I feel like a f-boy wearing prestine shoes. I dont want mud caked up and stains everywhere but I like creases and light yellowing. Its like wanting your raw denim to look brand new forever, break that **** in and make them unique... Just my view on it.and my stance will NEVER change on that. i don't see how anyone could argue that creases make ANY shoe look better. all that, "it adds character" nonsense is straight up laughable. the cleaner, fresher and newer a shoe looks, the better. how is this even debatable?
@CharmCityKid
so what do you do, wear a pair of shoes five times and throw em out/sell em? Or obsessively clean them?