- Apr 22, 2012
- 85,136
- 114,030
OFFICIAL SEPTEMBER 2015 WDYWT THREAD
- Thread in 'Sneaker Showcase' Thread starter Started by modzzilla,
- Start date
- Aug 6, 2012
- 109
- 388
- Feb 17, 2006
- 5,296
- 11,855
Cabin fevers 
- Sep 3, 2010
- 1,383
- 7,409
KanyIZZY
formerly j o 19
- Oct 1, 2004
- 18,667
- 49,656
THOSE NEON WHATEVER NIKES ON THE LAST PAGE.. LOOKED VERY DOPE
SlamShut
formerly cement greyman
- Jul 10, 2005
- 5,201
- 7,045
- Aug 5, 2012
- 27,875
- 27,684
- Feb 1, 2010
- 5,915
- 2,959
- Mar 31, 2011
- 73,028
- 117,278
- May 11, 2008
- 13,096
- 28,978
- Oct 23, 2006
- 3,096
- 8,112
Cement Greyman 
- Nov 12, 2007
- 6,206
- 19,196
- Jun 2, 2010
- 2,010
- 2,047
KanyIZZY
formerly j o 19
- Oct 1, 2004
- 18,667
- 49,656
- Jan 11, 2013
- 354
- 182
New Nike Zoom Jet 97. Is it normal the orange part is lighter on one shoe than the other (see last pic)? I got them on eBay.
- May 3, 2008
- 2,637
- 3,460
- Feb 21, 2010
- 6,862
- 36,636
- Nov 15, 2013
- 6,920
- 2,433
Nice shot. I just checked out your website and its pretty cool. Keep it up!
- Feb 21, 2010
- 6,862
- 36,636
Thanks homie! Appreciate any support / visits while I'm still building it up!
- Mar 29, 2008
- 26,528
- 3,623
Miami night 8s
og_Rodney
formerly airodney23
- Jun 13, 2004
- 2,553
- 339
More than likely just the way they were displayed. One shoe was probably exposed to more light than the other. Nice vintage joints, though.
- Jan 11, 2013
- 354
- 182
I took those pics, and the difference in darkness is even more visible in person. Not really a big deal as you can't really see both sides at the same time when they're worn so for that reason it's not really noticeable.
Edit: Oh wait, did you mean as if one was maybe exposed to the sun and faded over time? I assumed you meant it was just how the photo was taken and that they would be the same in person.
Last edited:
alp
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 39,966
- 8,990
- Dec 2, 2011
- 9,407
- 8,127
- May 11, 2008
- 13,096
- 28,978
