Why do Nike Retros not look and fit like OG's....?

[kapepper]

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

great comparison you can definitely see that the shape of the shoe is very off but the color placement is pretty much dead on, Nike could make a dead on retro if they wanted to believe that, look what they have done with the whole Vandal vintage, Blazer vintage editions, the fit and shape on those are pretty much dead on, they went to the extent of pre yellowing them

Nike can do it if they want to, they choose not to.

co-sign

i was very impressed when Nike released those blazers
although it is getting difficult to compare the ogs (which are from 1976) with the retros, they look like a 100 porcent match

 

[wallyhopp]

yep most of you guys are right. $$$$ compiled with excuses.

ive heard the excuse "factories have different colors and means of production now so we may not get the correct colors or materials" many times.you're NIKE making billions.

Some 'off' retros:

we can go back to 1999 with this retro:

-color on the box is "pimento". which is a chile pepper, a damn vegetable. mudguard color was probably chosen because it was all the factory had...great excuse

2000:

-med ball was almost a BROWN color with white straps... Nike retroed this shoe in 2000 and 2003 with a pre yellowed strap and a lighter med. ball color. Thecombo works but that's not the point. accuracy is off and as a billion dollar company they could care less. 2009 fall retro looks different with the perf.leather being too big but somehow the med ball color getting darker closer to its og color, but the plastic straps also taking on a darker color

2004:

-materials... shapes.... colors... its like a totally different colorway that they envisioned.


1990 vs. 2000:

-what we know as the CHLOROPHYLL trainers should never have been. Chlorophyll taken from some science term is more like kermit the frog green than what theoriginals possessed.

2000 retro vs 1987 og:

-Black sockliner

OG vs. 2006 retro if im not mistaken:

-OG had a real nice gold tone and speckled internal bubble. Retro is a yellow color

og vs. 06 retro:

-speckled midsole, hints of gold that make the shoe pop. retros midsole has a SHINE to it lol. Shape is right however. go figure. they would go this far with amodel only to get it wrong?



og vs. 06 retro

-color bag color was one of many variables wrong with the uptempo 2 retro.


We all know about the ATC sonic yellows lol

Shall I continue?

I'll give nike a pass on its signature models as some retailed at $110 such as the bo trainer max 91. With inflation added for 2004, retail should havebeen in the mid $150 range or higher. Sure some material changes were due. But colors... COLORS... we're talking about colors.. not construction of a shoefrom the ground up. COLORS.. Colors, one of the easiest phases of a shoe to get right... I can mix some base yellow and white or base yellow and black togetherand find the right color in a matter of 3 minutes.

one of the better retros:

credit is given when due but I can only count a handful of correct retros out of 4-5 dozen

 

[elderwatsondiggs]

If y'all would read the latest issue of Sole Collector and check out the article about the 1/2 Cents, theyexplain why it is so hard to remake the originals. It is not as easy as it seems.

 

[nccueagle]

my only complaint is the max air bubbles

they went from 3-D

to no-D

and thats why the griffensmay be a no go for me

 

[elderwatsondiggs]

Originally Posted by NCCUeagle

my only complaint is the max air bubbles

they went from 3-D

to no-D

and thats why the griffensmay be a no go for me

N-C-C-UUUUUUUUUU
NCCU Alumni here. Sorry for the threadjack.

 

[swerv1n]

to WallyHopp's post.......its crazy how the black Deion Sanders Retro actually looks better than the OG. How often does that happen...? weird...

 

[chinasuperman21]

Originally Posted by UrN0tLike

Only retro i feel a difference in that I have is the bred xi from the cdp. Fits way diff.

i hate the material on the insides, it's so hard now. that's why i sold mine cuz the 2001s are wayy better.

 

[el bro]

Originally Posted by Swerv1n

to WallyHopp's post.......its crazy how the black Deion Sanders Retro actually looks better than the OG. How often does that happen...? weird...

I dont know if you are joking, but I think that was one of the worst retros ever. It ranks up there with the tech challenge, and the military IV.

 

[swerv1n]

Originally Posted by El Bro

Originally Posted by Swerv1n

to WallyHopp's post.......its crazy how the black Deion Sanders Retro actually looks better than the OG. How often does that happen...? weird...

I dont know if you are joking, but I think that was one of the worst retros ever. It ranks up there with the tech challenge, and the military IV.

WOW i had the shoes switched i thought he listed the OG's first...that gold tone on the OG's was ridiculous...retros do look wiz-ack

 

[jaw knee c]

its called cost reduction. its common business practice to reduce the cost of products through different materials, less materials, different manufacturingprocess, different manufacturing locations, etc.

 

[burns1923]

Wally, great comparison post.

The 07 Blue Penny Foam Ones were on point as far as Nike retros go.

I'd put them at the top in terms of what Nike's accuracy with retros has been.

The Tech Challenges from 07 were the worst retro I've ever seen. White/Neon became White/Mustard.

 

[el bro]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

Wally, great comparison post.

The 07 Blue Penny Foam Ones were on point as far as Nike retros go.

I'd put them at the top in terms of what Nike's accuracy with retros has been.

The Tech Challenges from 07 were the worst retro I've ever seen. White/Neon became White/Mustard.

And whats crazy on the Foam One is they still cut cost on it. The OG's foam was much thicker. But Im sure by doing that, they were still able to keepretail at 200. Now what I dont know, is the feel of the OG's. Did they feel better with the foam thicker, or did they feel the same as the retros? Thatgoes to people who owned and wore both the OG and retros.

 

[kapepper]

as always, good info wally!

 

[eebs7eez]

Originally Posted by MJsaver

Originally Posted by CadillacFLOW

Originally Posted by MJsaver

I still got my og columbia xi's and theres not a huge difference from the cdp xi's

funny because......instead of wearin shoes u examinin em with a magnifying glass.

notice i said theres not a huge difference.

only ppl stressing over this is the NT POLICE, when u throw most of the cdp

kicks on nobody except sneakersexuals is noticing an 1/8 inch of patent leather.

or say yoooooo you got a lil bit less cushion around the ankles. Throw the kicks on

and rockem, dont obsess over minimal details. 90% of us rockin em casually anyway

that's sort of like saying there's not much difference between a mazda and a mercedes. from a normal perspective they're both carswith engines, four wheels, doors etc. A lot of any shoe's following is small details, and i can't believe for a second that you can't feeldiffrerently about a cdp xi and og columbia's. the small differences are 90% of what matters for shoes.

 

[el bro]

Originally Posted by eeBS7eez

Originally Posted by MJsaver

Originally Posted by CadillacFLOW

Originally Posted by MJsaver

I still got my og columbia xi's and theres not a huge difference from the cdp xi's

funny because......instead of wearin shoes u examinin em with a magnifying glass.

notice i said theres not a huge difference.

only ppl stressing over this is the NT POLICE, when u throw most of the cdp

kicks on nobody except sneakersexuals is noticing an 1/8 inch of patent leather.

or say yoooooo you got a lil bit less cushion around the ankles. Throw the kicks on

and rockem, dont obsess over minimal details. 90% of us rockin em casually anyway

that's sort of like saying there's not much difference between a mazda and a mercedes. from a normal perspective they're both cars with engines, four wheels, doors etc. A lot of any shoe's following is small details, and i can't believe for a second that you can't feel diffrerently about a cdp xi and og columbia's. the small differences are 90% of what matters for shoes.

You are correct sir.

I buy my shoes for comfort as well as looks. Most of the cost cutting has affected the comfort, and that right there keeps me away from those retros. Goodthing for Nike, is that zoom air is comfortable in almost all the shoes it is in.

 

[eebs7eez]

Originally Posted by Jaw Knee C

its called cost reduction. its common business practice to reduce the cost of products through different materials, less materials, different manufacturing process, different manufacturing locations, etc.

if we're gonna be economists, you should look at the fact that cost reduction is essentially eliminating all serious shoe collectors from themarket of retro shoes. that's a very big market considering a clean retro usually results in most interested collectors buying multiple pairs. eliminatingthat market means you only have sixteen year-old's buying them off the clearance rack. where are the economics in that? no effense to any 16 year oldNTer's

 

[trethousandgt]

^^^^^^agreed

 

[thetaffy]

Its just a fact of life, things are not built to last these days hence nikes cheaper materials!!
Its not just nike every manufactur is doing it,its sad i know but what can you do blah blah blah WELL.......

I think us Nike Talkers should make a online petition to be put forward to nike about there bad materials,paint cracking etc.
Because even though we are all airing out thoughts/opinions in these forums nike might just not realise the huge amount of people who feel strongly about thesesubjects,if a online petition was made they might just wake up and realise how many people feel the same.
get everyone to sign the petition online and maybe nike might just get there act together.
you can all laugh at this if you want but i think it is a serious enough issue to put forward,but who is with me???

 

[trethousandgt]

im down

 

[swerv1n]

me too

 

[posite proliferator]

THE MATERIALS USED NOWADAYS ARE MORE COST EFFECTIVE.THE OLDER MATERIALS ARE ANTEQUATED AND TOO COSTLY. PLUS THEY WANT THEM TO GET DIRTY SO U CAN BUY MORE OFTHE EXACT SAME SHOE OR ANOTHER.THE JB EFFECT.IE OLYMPIC 7 SOLE IN FRONT OF SHOE,TURNS YELLOW ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY.

 

[swerv1n]

the most disapointing retro to me was the Air Pippen 1. This is easily my top 5 Nike shoe ever....and Nike somehow found a way to completelyruin it. These would be my grails if i could find them anywhere. Look at my sig if u got info on these. When the retros dropped i didnt buy any of the newcolorways. The WORST part was how Nike skimped on the air sole unit and made it smaller...i mean come on...last i heard air was free. Take a look at the pics.And hit this link at kicksonfire to cast your vote to retro this classic OG Air Pippen colorway of white.
http://www.kicksonfire.com/2009/02/16/bring-it-back-nike-air-pippen-1-white-black-silver/

I will never forgive Nike for this shameful retro......

Classic OG Air Pippen 1 with FULL air unit and i do mean FULL...wow...beautiful shoe!!!!.....

Air Pippen 1 Retro.....notice the much smaller air unit.......

.....is itthat serious over at nike...

And as if the smaller air unit wasnt enough....purple..?..?...

....wow

 

[posite proliferator]

THAT WHITE IS FIRE.UPTEMPO'S AND PIPPENS WERE ALWAYS 2 OVERRATED.BUT YOURE RIGHT THERE SHOULD BE A PETITION TO CHANGE THE NEW RELEASE TO OG STANDARDS.VALIDPOINT KUDOS

 

[posite proliferator]

THAT WHITE IS FIRE.UPTEMPO'S AND PIPPENS WERE ALWAYS 2 OVERRATED.BUT YOURE RIGHT THERE SHOULD BE A PETITION TO CHANGE THE NEW RELEASE TO OG STANDARDS.VALIDPOINT KUDOS

 

[twig1026]

cheaper materials and knowing they're gonna sell = more profit for less work