- Oct 11, 2007
- 6,710
- 7,352
dag that comparison makes the 09's look like crap. but since theres really nothin that can be done these will be copped
OH MY LORD! Return of the 34 via TheShoeGame.com
- Thread in 'Nike Retro' Thread starter Started by uncle ice,
- Start date
- Feb 15, 2008
- 5,017
- 1,021
Material does look suspect but I still want a pair, nice shoe for the fall/winter. Will cop next F&F
- Jul 9, 2002
- 3,842
- 442
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,049
- 24,223
churrch
- Feb 2, 2007
- 3,532
- 47
you ain't lyin'.Originally Posted by AceBoogie
with this economy, if nike can go any cheaper they probably will
- Jul 8, 2009
- 676
- 37
There not all that to me
- Jul 3, 2007
- 785
- 11
Those arent Bad , Would like too see them in person...
- Apr 8, 2009
- 627
- 41
Originally Posted by SinnerP
Me too...
OP, throw in "Bo Jackson" in the title so there's no confusion...
- Apr 4, 2003
- 4,184
- 2,801
Originally Posted by Uncle Ice
Comparison video was also added to the 1st page. They also provided images. More pix at TheShoeGame.com Nothing like OGs.
Great video, the attention to detail and the CONTRAST on the shoe is what made the shoe what it is, nothing pops on the retro, and i would have no reason tospend 100 dollars on this shoe, atleast on the white orange and blue they couldn't !!$@ up the contrasting colors with the crappy materials however thatformula did not work for the raiders colorway thus why just because you throw the number 34 on the back you can't honestly tell yourself that its evenclose to the same shoe because it isnt.
- Aug 26, 2006
- 468
- 13
I need these but i dont think imma pay retail... prolly just trade somethin for them
- Jan 22, 2008
- 13,868
- 44
the varsity
Banned
- Apr 7, 2009
- 133
- 10
Damn that suede on the OG makes the shoe look marvelous. Bun'cha munkeys workin' over there @ Nike. Them idiots could ____ up a cup of coffee....
- Oct 17, 2000
- 7,823
- 291
I know we are on the "Enthusiasts" side but, real talk, you are never wrong with a company when you can shave costs and profit more.
However, I argue that if they charged $160 with using the right materials with these "raiders" joints, people would still cop.
So I don't get it, although I do get it....
But whatever...
However, I argue that if they charged $160 with using the right materials with these "raiders" joints, people would still cop.
So I don't get it, although I do get it....
But whatever...
- Feb 19, 2003
- 327
- 61
They do look very nice....I had the OG orange back in 1990, but these are nice.....I just got the orange again as they were the first nikes I ever owned, but icould see these having some sentimental value of some people
For Sale in size 12: DS Retro X Black/White, DS Retro VII Frenchies, DS Melo 5.5 Black/University Blue, DS OG XVI Gingers, NDS OG XVI Black/Varsity Red, NDSRetro XI Low White/Columbia Blue, NDS Retro VI Low Black/Metallic Silver, NDS Air Trainer SC High White/University Blue
For Sale in size 12: DS Retro X Black/White, DS Retro VII Frenchies, DS Melo 5.5 Black/University Blue, DS OG XVI Gingers, NDS OG XVI Black/Varsity Red, NDSRetro XI Low White/Columbia Blue, NDS Retro VI Low Black/Metallic Silver, NDS Air Trainer SC High White/University Blue
- Dec 3, 2000
- 1,480
- 1,020
No...consumers would NOT buy a Trainer SC for $160...not going to happen...
That is what you guys on Niketalk do not understand...99% of consumer walking into DTLR to cop these have never heard of Niketalk and are not on Internetmessage boards looking at sneakers...
There is a VERY small percentage of people that care about the supposed "quality" issue of these and even a smaller percentage of people that wouldpay EXTRA for better quality materials...
Why do you think that Nike Outlets were FULL of Premium and Supreme AF1s after the 25th Anniversary...it is a SMALL niche market that will pay that additional$$ for the "better" quality on a shoe, etc...
The VAST MAJORITY of Nike's target consumers want the following from a shoe:
1. Good looks
2. THERE IS NO #2!
If the majority of the sneaker buying public wanted quality materials and comfort, then Brooks and Mizuno would have a huge market share...but, theydon't...they want a shoe that looks good and that is what Nike does best, and that is why Nike is on top and will continue to stay on top...
JM
jbirdz23
Banned
- Dec 10, 2008
- 718
- 15
sick
- Oct 17, 2000
- 7,823
- 291
I beg to differ.
The "consumer" you speak of won't pay $200 for a "half cent" either... Or $145 for a AM95...
So your entire stance is off if you're attempting to challenge my opinion.
Make these a "made the right way" special edition urban release (that Champs won't get), and they'll be sold out all up and down the EastCoast...
I get the business tatics, I have best friends on campus for Christ's sakes, but that was not my point...
It's about owning a piece of history. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't give a hoot.
These deserve the attention to give a hoot.
Again, my opinion.
- Oct 17, 2000
- 7,823
- 291
Yeah.
[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]YOU[/color] keep thinking that.
The hood keeps up Champ, brighten up...
- Jul 2, 2009
- 6,279
- 986
same here
- Dec 3, 2000
- 1,480
- 1,020
Give me an example of a shoe that is $100 in material A and $200 in material B that has sold well OUTSIDE of sneaker boutiques? You aren'teven addressing my points...I said "water is wet" you came back with "well, the sky is blue"
It's not about $190 1/2-Cents...or $160 AM09's...It is about up charging for better materials on the same silhouette...it just DOES NOT WORK...it hasbeen tried and been unsuccessful, over and over and over again when done in any significant way...
Why do you think that Nike and other footwear vendors allocate that kind of product to a few NICHE retailers vs Footlocker, Footaction, Champs and Finishline? Your stance on footwear does not apply the 99% of the shoe buying public...
If Nike and retailers thought that a $160 Trainer SC with better materials would sell better than a $105 Trainer SC with lesser materials, why would they notdo that? That is a significant increase to both companies sales volume on that style...the answer is that it has beenproven repeatedly incorrect...
You can have your opinion, just know that it is not based in fact...
JM
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,049
- 24,223
jmaddias, can we get a agreement going though? We as sneaker enthusiast are da ones that are da "early adopters" so we, although small in numbers areBIG in influence.
sooner or later consumers one by one are getting more and more educated on general sneaker attributes (thanks to da hundreds of sneaker sites online).....itsgonna be like computers
and cars, eventually people are gonna want to know "whats under da hood" that justifies certain prices (material, cushioning, history, etc)
if you can't already tell its happening already with consumers from this generation selling out "OG" colors or certain models because we assneaker enthusiast deem those colors da
important ones from that style.
for now i'll also agree that for every person "in da know" regarding da quality of certain styles, there's like 50 people that can't tellyou what real leather is if it smacked em in da face.
sooner or later consumers one by one are getting more and more educated on general sneaker attributes (thanks to da hundreds of sneaker sites online).....itsgonna be like computers
and cars, eventually people are gonna want to know "whats under da hood" that justifies certain prices (material, cushioning, history, etc)
if you can't already tell its happening already with consumers from this generation selling out "OG" colors or certain models because we assneaker enthusiast deem those colors da
important ones from that style.
for now i'll also agree that for every person "in da know" regarding da quality of certain styles, there's like 50 people that can't tellyou what real leather is if it smacked em in da face.
- Oct 17, 2000
- 7,823
- 291
You can have your opinion, just know that it is not based in fact...
99%, er?
You can have your opinion, just know that it is not based in fact...
I guess that makes both of us.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 1,352
- 12
Such a bummer. The rounded toe box on the OG's vs the sharp, flat one one the 09's really hurts this shoes overall look. Not to mention the fact thatwe should have tumbled leather, not the hard cheap plastic looking crap we got on the 09's.
This was the one signature shoe I always check for. Now, not so much.
This was the one signature shoe I always check for. Now, not so much.
- Aug 26, 2006
- 468
- 13
Has anyone seen these in nyc anywhere besides mercer n lenox?
- Dec 16, 2005
- 799
- 10
Originally Posted by SinnerP
Me too...
OP, throw in "Bo Jackson" in the title so there's no confusion...
