- Jan 29, 2009
- 1,571
- 23
I'll pass on these.
OH MY LORD! Return of the 34 via TheShoeGame.com
- Thread in 'Nike Retro' Thread starter Started by uncle ice,
- Start date
only hohs collected
Banned
- Jun 6, 2009
- 898
- 10
It is a shame you guys are still struggling 2 figure this out. I just cracked the Da Vinci Code
I cop strictly from outlets because of this
- Jul 31, 2001
- 7,269
- 41,642
Is if the basketball shoes bearing the tecmo bo logo isn't bad enough, they go and ruin the Trainer SC's. The pleather and the 34 on the back leaves abad taste in my mouth.
- May 15, 2003
- 56,662
- 65,626
I have to agree with JM
Most people aren't in to kicks like we are.
Then a good percentage who are in to sneakers are really hypebeast, and probably only concerned with the 34 on the back.
The nostalgia guys are like 40. At 30-40 you're worried about your family and career, not necessarily sneakers. They probably wouldn't run out and pay$145 or $160 for premium sneakers. Heck, most people up here do the, I'll buy them when they go on sale. So that $160 will be $129 and then $99.
The dudes on NT are a small segment of the sneaker buying public. Just look at the Air Trainer topics even up here, it's the same people posting over andover. That's why I can go to one of my local DTLR's and purchase the Auburn's again or get them from Finishline.
The average person sees black and gray and likes the colorway or design. When I wore my Auburn's, girls were saying they were cute. I started to explainthe whole Bo Jackson thing, but I was just like forget it.
Most people aren't in to kicks like we are.
Then a good percentage who are in to sneakers are really hypebeast, and probably only concerned with the 34 on the back.
The nostalgia guys are like 40. At 30-40 you're worried about your family and career, not necessarily sneakers. They probably wouldn't run out and pay$145 or $160 for premium sneakers. Heck, most people up here do the, I'll buy them when they go on sale. So that $160 will be $129 and then $99.
The dudes on NT are a small segment of the sneaker buying public. Just look at the Air Trainer topics even up here, it's the same people posting over andover. That's why I can go to one of my local DTLR's and purchase the Auburn's again or get them from Finishline.
The average person sees black and gray and likes the colorway or design. When I wore my Auburn's, girls were saying they were cute. I started to explainthe whole Bo Jackson thing, but I was just like forget it.
- Oct 17, 2000
- 7,823
- 291
"Magic1978,"
I feel you 100%. But you are underestimating the current economic conditions as well. That's a huge factor. Back in 99 - 05, nothing sat the way it doesnow. Stores are closing left and right (especially in FL, Inc.), everything has bottomed out with sales compared to those times.
My only request is, put these on display as the crappy joints they released them (for guaranteed profit gains), and put one made "the right way besideit" (kinda like a jersey shop, replica jersey on one side, Pro-cut jersey right beside it), and watch the "premiums" fly.
This is just one of "those" shoes in Nike's history that deserves it. NOT some crappy AF1s in a "cool" new colorway for $200+.
Nike has lost money doing more stupid things (special "packaging" etc.)... If you consider the idea "stupid."
But it is what it is, as usual.
Just debating to debate at this point...
I feel you 100%. But you are underestimating the current economic conditions as well. That's a huge factor. Back in 99 - 05, nothing sat the way it doesnow. Stores are closing left and right (especially in FL, Inc.), everything has bottomed out with sales compared to those times.
My only request is, put these on display as the crappy joints they released them (for guaranteed profit gains), and put one made "the right way besideit" (kinda like a jersey shop, replica jersey on one side, Pro-cut jersey right beside it), and watch the "premiums" fly.
This is just one of "those" shoes in Nike's history that deserves it. NOT some crappy AF1s in a "cool" new colorway for $200+.
Nike has lost money doing more stupid things (special "packaging" etc.)... If you consider the idea "stupid."
But it is what it is, as usual.
Just debating to debate at this point...
- Apr 4, 2003
- 4,184
- 2,801
Thats pure bull $$@!. The outlets were full of supreme and premium af1's because they were unappealing and as the street would say.......HOT GARBAGE. Theycould have marked those things down to 20 dollars and i wouldn't have spent my money on that tacky crap, they were heavy, ugly looking, and not comfortableAT ALL. Reebok is doing retro's RIGHT. Why can Reebok retro a shoe dead on looks and quality wise with no awkward banana shape, pre creased toe boxes,original technology in the shoe and Nike cannot? Please answer me that. Did Reebok find some magical statistics that Nike did not? Reebok retro twilight zonepump (which is much more to manufacture than a trainer sc) Original Looks dead on to me. original firstpump Original and here are some more that reebok got dead on then we get this generic crap from nike And they slap us in the face with the 34 on the back
- Jul 18, 2008
- 3,454
- 10
whatsup with niketalk and not noticing that the shoe shape changes to fit the foot better lol
and no shoes are "banana shaped"
and no shoes are "banana shaped"
- Apr 4, 2003
- 4,184
- 2,801
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,049
- 24,223
i agree with this....
function >> form
i also agree that Nike shoots itself in da foot when it doesn't faithfully re-create a retro..it turns off people and that cooling off of da sneakerstrickles down
to da average consumer...that like to feed on hype that da sneaker enthusiast create.
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,049
- 24,223
you just re-enforced his argument..look how HIGHER da retro's leather mudguard/toecap is..its so da foot has more volume in da overallfootbed.Originally Posted by trethousandgt
get out of here with that B.S. the shoe shape didn't change for the better all the shoes are long and narrow and if you think there is no banana shape to them think again, not only are the shoes LONGER and much more narrow (which is causing the sizing problems) but they tend to arch upward toward the front of the shoe. Anyone defending is going to continuously get shutdown you have no argument.
- Apr 4, 2003
- 4,184
- 2,801
Originally Posted by ninjahood
you just re-enforced his argument..look how HIGHER da retro's leather mudguard/toecap is..its so da foot has more volume in da overall footbed.Originally Posted by trethousandgt
get out of here with that B.S. the shoe shape didn't change for the better all the shoes are long and narrow and if you think there is no banana shape to them think again, not only are the shoes LONGER and much more narrow (which is causing the sizing problems) but they tend to arch upward toward the front of the shoe. Anyone defending is going to continuously get shutdown you have no argument.
More volume? Whos foot is fat enough to use up that much area above the foot? Last time i checked shoes are sold in widths NOT volumes
- May 15, 2003
- 56,662
- 65,626
You're right about Reebok. Adidas does it too.
But it's not a true comparison, because people aren't buying Reebok retros like Nike. Though I have a couple of pairs of retro.
I've just come to the conclusion, Nike just doesn't care about quality. They seem to have the attitude at least we're giving you what you askedfor. The people they hire care about profit margins and not the actual sneaker. They hire the dude with the 4.0 grade point average who didn't care aboutwhat sneakers he wore instead of the dude with a closet full of Jordan's or Nike's.
I've made the comments up here for the longest that it's cheaper for Nike to make retros. The odd thing is that they keep raising the prices, like onthe 95's. And didn't Air Trainer SC's used to cost $90?
I'm just waiting for the Bo Fusion that's bound to come. The sad thing is, I'd probably rather for that to happen then to tack his gimmicky imageon to some Blazer's.
But it's not a true comparison, because people aren't buying Reebok retros like Nike. Though I have a couple of pairs of retro.
I've just come to the conclusion, Nike just doesn't care about quality. They seem to have the attitude at least we're giving you what you askedfor. The people they hire care about profit margins and not the actual sneaker. They hire the dude with the 4.0 grade point average who didn't care aboutwhat sneakers he wore instead of the dude with a closet full of Jordan's or Nike's.
I've made the comments up here for the longest that it's cheaper for Nike to make retros. The odd thing is that they keep raising the prices, like onthe 95's. And didn't Air Trainer SC's used to cost $90?
I'm just waiting for the Bo Fusion that's bound to come. The sad thing is, I'd probably rather for that to happen then to tack his gimmicky imageon to some Blazer's.
- Apr 4, 2003
- 4,184
- 2,801
Your right people are buying more retro Nike shoes than retro reebok shoes but that should mean more profit and better quality on the Nike side not worsequality. They just don't care.
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,049
- 24,223
people have gotten larger..this is why foot lasts are changed through out da years.
- Jul 24, 2008
- 632
- 18
i expect better from nike because when i was growing up even though im younger than most people on here they made quality shoes for great athletes now all theyare about is making money of an og model with cheap materials and whoring the model out with ridiculous colorways. i hope they decide to go back to making goodquality shoes
- Apr 4, 2003
- 4,184
- 2,801
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,049
- 24,223
a wide majority of nike retro's have tinkered with da shape for more of a comfortable fit.
i dunno how this isn't common knowledge....
any other factors has to do with da fact that a 100 dollar shoe in 1990 isn't gonna be da same 100 dollar shoe in 2009 because of inflation.
i dunno how this isn't common knowledge....
any other factors has to do with da fact that a 100 dollar shoe in 1990 isn't gonna be da same 100 dollar shoe in 2009 because of inflation.
- Apr 4, 2003
- 4,184
- 2,801
Once again more BS, they do ZERO marketing for retro shoes, which is a HUGE chunk of what goes into the all around cost of a product, and if inflation was thecase then why is that A Brand new pair of cross trainers from nike, which has more up to date technology, and better performance costs the same amount? Not tomention they have to do extensive research, and marketing for this shoe in TODAYS Dollars, just give up this +!%@++%@ argument you lose.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 1,352
- 12
Bo Jackson Fusion. Tre please don't give them any ideas.
- Sep 28, 2004
- 13,924
- 5,900
preach. a $100 dollar pair of shoes in 1990 with inflation is around $190 in todays dollar terms. but with technology advancements as well asR&D and marketing nearly ZERO, you can have a $100 dollar retro perform at or above what the original did. The best example Ive personally seem is with the2004 zoom trainer 1 mid. it retailed at $110 and had some of the best technologies and materials around. 4 years later, its rereleased at a CHEAPER pricepoint, with cheaper materials, at $80 bucks... If anything, these bo's should be on that lower tier level of $70-80 bucks since they are below the higherquality tier. Instead you pay $100 for something that compares in no way to a $110 dollar performance trainer... Funny aint it? a shoe that spent years inR&D, that has superior technology etc. has only a $5 dollar increase in MSRP vs. the bo trainer sc. Throw in other trainers that ive personally seenretailed at both $80 and $90 that were NEW edition model retros that had better materials than these recent bo's really leaves you wondering WTH is goingon. Here you have a nike retro model that has been around for 12 years now being MSRP'ed at prices above what other retros cost with worse off materials..thats a recipe for CRAP.
i just believe they know when they can be cheap and not be so cheap. its not even about charging more for a premium product, but having a shoe really be worththat $105 MSRP. They were smart with the zoom trainer a few years back. they knew a shoe couldnt sell at $110 even with great materials so went with a cheaperrouter.. Here they just know most people are foolish enough to buy no matter what. They are just really inconsistent and it makes them look bad when logicalconsumers point out things like that. "hey why doesnt my 110 dollar shoe the same as this other nike shoe at $105 dollars"
take a look at the trainer max 91 retro if you want to see banana shape. in no way is it because its roomier for the present lol.
- Jul 18, 2008
- 3,454
- 10
aint no shoes shaped llike a banana
- Jun 25, 2007
- 838
- 12
They sold out of my size at Niketown LA so somebody is buying them.
I don't know if a shoe deserves this much backlash.
If they look good on your feet should be the only thing that matters.
I don't know if a shoe deserves this much backlash.
If they look good on your feet should be the only thing that matters.
uniquekickz
Banned
- Apr 18, 2008
- 3,034
- 675
^ my point exactly!
- May 15, 2003
- 56,662
- 65,626
Some of us have higher standards of what actually looks good
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,049
- 24,223
this is where Niketalk fails.
ya never factor in da casual fan's reaction to these...and for them to drop da OG raiders and auburn colorway after more then a decade from da last
retro is marvelous.
i seen da raider's color in person...da leather is pretty comparable to what most black leather nikes use...is it super fancy? no..is it still durable andget
da job done? absolutely. i already told ya to get a 1/2 a size down so da toebox wouldn't crease wierd because for some reason these sneakers to me
were always cut long.
