- 14,054
- 14,243
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
I get what the other guy is saying. How noticeable the change is has absolutely nothing to do with with the actual amount of (re)work put into the shoe. And he is correct. Although the 5 may APPEAR "drastically" different, there were actually more changes and (re)working done to the 2s. It's just more subtle with the 2s. But in all actuality, it's not as subtle as you think. I have 2016 Chi 2 lows and Chi OWs and when compared the differences are pretty major. Maybe not to the untrained eye/casual wearer, but it's night and day. As soon as you hold both in hand, you know it's a big difference.Do you not see the entire upper of the 5s being completely different than the plain leather on the OG's? Forget the piss tint and the giant hole, the material in itself is more noticeable than the improved shape of the 2s. Your main point is they did alot of work to the shape, yes while that is true, is it not an immediately noticeable thing. You have to look at pictures of both or have both in hand to see the difference in shape. The other poster said the same thing and gets it. Youre just being dense man.
(Stock pics for reference. Obviously the majority of differences can't be seen here)
Last edited: