Wonder if and when we will ever get a re-retro of these actually done right......

[trethousandgt]

will we ever see the painted heal and flaming tennis ball return as well as the neon color? Keep in mind the originals DID have a neon color, not the yellowlike the retro's. The original's below look a little yellow but that is after years of storage. Anyhow, Makes me wonder after seeing pictures of thenike trainer max 91 re-retro with materials and color that APPEAR to be closer to the original than the last retro.

 

[air max 87]

no, they retroed once, bombed, it took them $20 to move.....

as for the logo? no, i belive that belongs to andre...or its in his contract to that extent....

nike makes minor changes (colors most of the time) to suit the """"OG"""" collectors for those who still have pairs,that way theres no confusion to OGs and retros....

 

[Magic33]

You might see them again in ten years, but based on Andre's book, you actually might not see them at all.

I don't think they were an on point retro, but judged on their own merit, they were cool

I've worn mine like once...lol

 

[ruxxx]

I didn't look at these and cringe when I first saw them,but I can see why you'd want Nike to put them out again in all their glory............
however...........the DT Max? I was literally angry at the way they destroyed those and not only does Nike need to put those back out again,they also need toissue an apology for that crap!

 

[trethousandgt]

Originally Posted by air max 87

no, they retroed once, bombed, it took them $20 to move.....

as for the logo? no, i belive that belongs to andre...or its in his contract to that extent....

nike makes minor changes (colors most of the time) to suit the """"OG"""" collectors for those who still have pairs, that way theres no confusion to OGs and retros....

Thats incorrect, if that logo belonged to andre then it wouldn't have been put on this jacket nor the t shirt that dropped before and the reason they bombed was because nike REALLY watered them down, hadthey been done right they would have sold very well.

 

[wallyhopp]

almost every retro has to be judged on its own merit.

colors on the shoes are just as integral as the type of cushioning in the shoes.

my thing is, if you are trying to "copy" or emulate something, you better do it right, or not at all.

alot of these colorways are too close to be called merely coincidence.. they have such low standards on their emulation of classic shoes

 

[air max 87]

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by air max 87

no, they retroed once, bombed, it took them $20 to move.....

as for the logo? no, i belive that belongs to andre...or its in his contract to that extent....

nike makes minor changes (colors most of the time) to suit the """"OG"""" collectors for those who still have pairs, that way theres no confusion to OGs and retros....

Thats incorrect, if that logo belonged to andre then it wouldn't have been put on this jacket nor the t shirt that dropped before and the reason they bombed was because nike REALLY watered them down, had they been done right they would have sold very well.

maybe im wrong about the logo thing, but that was one of the reasons i heard, maybe it being placed on footwear is differant that having it placedon a t-shirt.....

those arent andre t-shirts, but those are andre shoes....

 

[trethousandgt]

Originally Posted by air max 87

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by air max 87

no, they retroed once, bombed, it took them $20 to move.....

as for the logo? no, i belive that belongs to andre...or its in his contract to that extent....

nike makes minor changes (colors most of the time) to suit the """"OG"""" collectors for those who still have pairs, that way theres no confusion to OGs and retros....

Thats incorrect, if that logo belonged to andre then it wouldn't have been put on this jacket nor the t shirt that dropped before and the reason they bombed was because nike REALLY watered them down, had they been done right they would have sold very well.

maybe im wrong about the logo thing, but that was one of the reasons i heard, maybe it being placed on footwear is differant that having it placed on a t-shirt.....

those arent andre t-shirts, but those are andre shoes....

Sorry once again thats incorrect, a logo is a logo, if he owned that logo they wouldn't be able to use it for anything. Once its someone's trademarkyou can't use it, if they can use it on a 400 dollar jacket, and a 30 dollar t shirt they could have put it on the sneakers. There's a lot ofmisinformed people on this message board, not bashing you but people make excuses for things they don't know anything about on this message board not agood look.

 

[air max 87]

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by air max 87

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by air max 87

no, they retroed once, bombed, it took them $20 to move.....

as for the logo? no, i belive that belongs to andre...or its in his contract to that extent....

nike makes minor changes (colors most of the time) to suit the """"OG"""" collectors for those who still have pairs, that way theres no confusion to OGs and retros....

Thats incorrect, if that logo belonged to andre then it wouldn't have been put on this jacket nor the t shirt that dropped before and the reason they bombed was because nike REALLY watered them down, had they been done right they would have sold very well.

maybe im wrong about the logo thing, but that was one of the reasons i heard, maybe it being placed on footwear is differant that having it placed on a t-shirt.....

those arent andre t-shirts, but those are andre shoes....

Sorry once again thats incorrect, a logo is a logo, if he owned that logo they wouldn't be able to use it for anything. Once its someone's trademark you can't use it, if they can use it on a 400 dollar jacket, and a 30 dollar t shirt they could have put it on the sneakers. There's a lot of misinformed people on this message board, not bashing you but people make excuses for things they don't know anything about on this message board not a good look.

theres different levels of copyrights (etc), i aint saying im right, but perhaps im not wrong either to an extent.....

granted majority of people talk out their %!% on this board. you could also have no idea what your talking about either

like i said, i may or may not be wrong, theres alot of red tape and agreements and such we dont know about, so we can agree to disagree.

 

[trethousandgt]

Originally Posted by air max 87

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by air max 87

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by air max 87

no, they retroed once, bombed, it took them $20 to move.....

as for the logo? no, i belive that belongs to andre...or its in his contract to that extent....

nike makes minor changes (colors most of the time) to suit the """"OG"""" collectors for those who still have pairs, that way theres no confusion to OGs and retros....

Thats incorrect, if that logo belonged to andre then it wouldn't have been put on this jacket nor the t shirt that dropped before and the reason they bombed was because nike REALLY watered them down, had they been done right they would have sold very well.

maybe im wrong about the logo thing, but that was one of the reasons i heard, maybe it being placed on footwear is differant that having it placed on a t-shirt.....

those arent andre t-shirts, but those are andre shoes....

Sorry once again thats incorrect, a logo is a logo, if he owned that logo they wouldn't be able to use it for anything. Once its someone's trademark you can't use it, if they can use it on a 400 dollar jacket, and a 30 dollar t shirt they could have put it on the sneakers. There's a lot of misinformed people on this message board, not bashing you but people make excuses for things they don't know anything about on this message board not a good look.

theres different levels of copyrights (etc), i aint saying im right, but perhaps im not wrong either to an extent.....

granted majority of people talk out their %!% on this board. you could also have no idea what your talking about either

like i said, i may or may not be wrong, theres alot of red tape and agreements and such we dont know about, so we can agree to disagree.

I'm not a 20 year old on this site trying to impress a bunch of teenagers, if i say something and state it as a facts its because it is, if its something idon't know to be fact then i will state that as such. BTW you don't copyright a logo, you trademark it. But just to let you know, and once again im nottrying to be agressive towards you, anytime something is a registered trademark, you cannot legally use it on anything, and when you register the trademark youusually state what you will use it for. If he did own the logo there is no way nike would have been able to use it on a t shirt and not for a pair of sneakers.

 

[air max 87]

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by air max 87

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by air max 87

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by air max 87

no, they retroed once, bombed, it took them $20 to move.....

as for the logo? no, i belive that belongs to andre...or its in his contract to that extent....

nike makes minor changes (colors most of the time) to suit the """"OG"""" collectors for those who still have pairs, that way theres no confusion to OGs and retros....

Thats incorrect, if that logo belonged to andre then it wouldn't have been put on this jacket nor the t shirt that dropped before and the reason they bombed was because nike REALLY watered them down, had they been done right they would have sold very well.

maybe im wrong about the logo thing, but that was one of the reasons i heard, maybe it being placed on footwear is differant that having it placed on a t-shirt.....

those arent andre t-shirts, but those are andre shoes....

Sorry once again thats incorrect, a logo is a logo, if he owned that logo they wouldn't be able to use it for anything. Once its someone's trademark you can't use it, if they can use it on a 400 dollar jacket, and a 30 dollar t shirt they could have put it on the sneakers. There's a lot of misinformed people on this message board, not bashing you but people make excuses for things they don't know anything about on this message board not a good look.

theres different levels of copyrights (etc), i aint saying im right, but perhaps im not wrong either to an extent.....

granted majority of people talk out their %!% on this board. you could also have no idea what your talking about either

like i said, i may or may not be wrong, theres alot of red tape and agreements and such we dont know about, so we can agree to disagree.

I'm not a 20 year old on this site trying to impress a bunch of teenagers, if i say something and state it as a facts its because it is, if its something i don't know to be fact then i will state that as such. BTW you don't copyright a logo, you trademark it. But just to let you know, and once again im not trying to be agressive towards you, anytime something is a registered trademark, you cannot legally use it on anything, and when you register the trademark you usually state what you will use it for. If he did own the logo there is no way nike would have been able to use it on a t shirt and not for a pair of sneakers.

i apologize sir for wording it incorrectly, also i didnt know your word is gold

age has nuttin to do with the fact so i dont know why you brought it up, its irrelevant..

like i said, i may or may not be wrong, if i am, i apologize, but no one knows why nike didnt used the logo on the back of sneaker, so unless your name isandre, or phil. your post is opinion and hearsay just as mine is.

 

[trethousandgt]

^^^^ Your right age does have nothing to do with fact, i wasn't speaking on age in relation to fact i was relating it to MAJORITY of the people that comeon here stating false information are usually on the younger side. In regards to this incident it had nothing to do with andre owning the logo that was a falserumor. Exactly why they didn't use it that we don't know.

 

[trethousandgt]

^^^^ Your right age does have nothing to do with fact, i wasn't speaking on age in relation to fact i was relating it to MAJORITY of the people that comeon here stating false information are usually on the younger side. In regards to this incident it had nothing to do with andre owning the logo that was a falserumor. Exactly why they didn't use it that we don't know.

 

[air max 87]

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

^^^^ Your right age does have nothing to do with fact, i wasn't speaking on age in relation to fact i was relating it to MAJORITY of the people that come on here stating false information are usually on the younger side. In regards to this incident it had nothing to do with andre owning the logo that was a false rumor. Exactly why they didn't use it that we don't know.

right on sir, good discussion

i was misinformed regarding the usage of that logo.

 

[mister friendly]

I thought I was actually gonna find information in this thread

 

[thecalculator]

 

[c bale]

Nike actually released or "reissued" the IV in like 2000 or 2001 in low top and one colorway. Only reason that it's of any significance reallyis because it had the tennis ball on the tongue. I don't have any pictures of the shoe myself but if you do a websearch you'll see what I'm talkinabout. That one website from Australia or whatever had pictures of the sneakers from 2000/2001 but it appears that said website no longer exists.

Oh and the first official retro for the Air Tech Challenge is probably the worst retro ever done. Those "hybrids" or whatever are probably one ofthe ugliest pairs of sneakers that I've seen in my life; it's really insulting that Nike puts that kind of stuff out and tells you that it's cool.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by C BALE

Nike actually released or "reissued" the IV in like 2000 or 2001 in low top and one colorway.

they bombed too...but this had more to do with da fact that sneaker messageboards were in they infancy in 2000 and were largely unknown that they were retrod

 

[bam528]

Originally Posted by TheCalculator

hahahahha

 

[purplehazen]

oh man that kacket is sick, i would kill that jacket... wow they had some cool stuff back in the day... im gonna have to search eaby..

 

[Sinner]

^ Actually that jacket is a new release. It was on NDC a while back. IMHO, I think it looks like ***... about as bad as those hybrids. But thats just me.

Anyway, following up on what Tre was talking about, I admit, when pics of the ATCIII retro surfaced (without the flaming ball), I had initially speculated thatit was due to some 'agreement' between Nike and Agassi (as Agassi had already switched to Adidas). In the early 90's, Nike made this logo for"Andre's Court Club", which you can see incorporates the flaming ball with an A. I think its a reasonable assumption that that may have been thereason for the missing logo on the retro.


However, that theory went down the drain after Nike released Challenge Court logo tees, following the retro of the ATCII's.

 

[charmcitykid]

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

air max 87 wrote:

---

no, they retroed once, bombed, it took them $20 to move.....




as for the logo? no, i belive that belongs to andre...or its in his contract to that extent....




nike makes minor changes (colors most of the time) to suit the """"OG"""" collectors for those who still have pairs,
that way theres no confusion to OGs and retros....

Thats incorrect, if that logo belonged to andre then it wouldn't have been put on this jacket nor the t shirt that dropped before and the reason they bombed was because nike REALLY watered them down, had
they been done right they would have sold very well.

 

[ap27]

This was by far the worst retro of any shoe I've ever seen. And I'm by no means a big OG collector or anything, but there was SO much wrong with thisshoe, YELLOW?!?!?, NO LOGO?!?!?!, the Black part missing?....

This release was the equivalent of a Jordan releasing but being Black/Orange, having no logo, and with a different colored midsole. The sad thing is, a lot ofpeople (including myself) really wanted these for a long time before this joke of a retro came out. The way these released was embarrassing, and the sales werea reflection of the incredibly poor job Nike did with them.

By the way, that fusion garbage they did with the Agassi, didn't they get the neon color right on that shoe?...I would've maybe picked these up for $40if they weren't yellow...maybe...

 

[jordancrazy16]

I feeling that jacket

 

[inchecksince81]

Can someone post pics of those "hybrid" Agassi. Don't remember seeing those.