Would u pay extra for better retros?????

[spoiledfeet]

I see Nike has taken notice to the complaints about quality given they supposedly made the spacejams better quality and hiked the price. I didn't buy embut would anyone pay higher for better quality retros? I know in the past they made it with cheaper materials but now is not the past. If I have to pay extra Iwill. Like the pippens white coming up. I would pay extra for og pockets etc. Is it worth it? Thanks

 

[sneakerjunkie]

yes it so is if nike made retro jordans or retro shoes like they used to i would pay a lil more but only if it was in a reasonble price budget not the spacejam cutthroat price i feel like i spent 187.00 on a box not even the shoes

 

[ruxxx]

I'm leaning towards no because the quality SHOULD be there already.As someone stated in another topic,for them to hike the prices on "betterquality" is like them actually admitting that they don't put out top notch $#!* to begin with. *cough*Jordan*cough*

 

[s dubl]

Hell no!!!


Check Reebok...the quality on their retros are great and most of em cost the same as they did originally....I bought two pairs of Pumps with great quality andthe price now is the same as it was in 1989/1990. Nike can easily do the same...

 

[solesearchin]

I shouldnt have to, PS the SpaceJams quailty was crap too.... Glue mess and patent leather had flaws....

 

[dunkaroos]

SpaceJams were better??????

Worse ever.

 

[air max 87]

No, we pay enough for the product as is, NIKE makes money hand over fist.

and now you wanna tell me that i should pay extra for what should already been givin? *%#! that stop givin them ideas....

 

[wallyhopp]

how much more are we talking?

performance shoes of the 90s were about $120 bucks.. to todays dollars, thats about $190 bucks.. with technological advancements, its still right around$120-140 bucks for that top of the line performance shoe (air max 09s, lebrons, kobes).

the problem is, just for $20 dollars less, you are getting a heck of a lot LESS. ie, your retro shoes.. Those may have retailed at $105 back in 1990 as wellbut for some reason, they just abuse the system and cut down on as much as they can.

then there are those obscure models that get great materials and have a cheap MSRP. those are the curve ball shoes.

Its all a battle for profits.. it starts with the lies about certain materials being "lighter" and more "durable" but anyone who owns themknows its just all about that extra profit margin.

my conclusion is that retros are a big fat waste of money when you compare what "new" nikes give you for just a few more dollars.

its sad really

 

[dathbgboy]

some ppl do, it's called the Supreme line w/ Forces, but u see how that flopped. I honestly wouldn't unless it was real sick colorway and I reallywanted em

 

[the game is a foot]

Originally Posted by s dubl

Hell no!!!


Check Reebok...the quality on their retros are great and most of em cost the same as they did originally....I bought two pairs of Pumps with great quality and the price now is the same as it was in 1989/1990. Nike can easily do the same...

I came in here just to post the exact same thing. The original Pump retros cost the same as the space jams, but the quality between the two is night &day!... Nevermind the $55 mark up on the sj's for a blue shoe tree and a "special" box that is still cheaper in quality than those $3 plasticshoe boxes you can get at the container store...

 

[enyouartist]

No way. It's up to Nike to improve the quality. We are already paying way too much. Don't give Nike ideas.

 

[marcelwuzhere]

man it aint nuthin wrong with the quality now if you wore the OGs back in the 80s and 90s the quaitly is just as equal now the technolgy on alot of retros likethe air max bubble have a different feel but other than what do you expect?

 

[biglefty23]

I feel like the people asking these questions all work for nike.

In the future they'll say they are using premium components on their shoes so we have to pay more.

They should be using premium components since we pay so much now anyway!

 

[panaricanretro]

Hell no. Someone just said above, Spacejams were no bettera retro than CDP XI's and they were actually way worse than the OG's or the 2000 retros, sowhy are they $50 more? Nah, no way would I pay extra, Jordan's already tryin to pull that BS next year by dropping "Luxury edition" III's andIV's with leather and details closer to the OG's for about $200.

 

[nhung2609]

Nope, Nike has a company should already be dropping only quality products.

 

[balloonoboy]

It wouldn't make sense to pay extra for something that I should already be getting in the first place.

We pay ridiculous prices as it is.

 

[spoiledfeet]

I'm completely torn. I see what some of you sayin about shouldn't have to pay extra for something I should be gettin with quality. But Nike obviouslyholds all the cards. Those old school shoes have to make comebacks so if I have to pay alittle extra i guess I will. Alot of u have valid points. Thanks.

 

[justhotkicks]

Originally Posted by s dubl

Hell no!!!


Check Reebok...the quality on their retros are great and most of em cost the same as they did originally....I bought two pairs of Pumps with great quality and the price now is the same as it was in 1989/1990. Nike can easily do the same...

Agreed. Reebok retro quality is very, very good. Although I only have two, the Tennisball MCs and Macdaddy RJs, they're still in phenomenal shape evenafter 10+ wears.

 

[retrogearsolid]

Like everyone else said: HELL NO!

Nike is already making a ridiculous profit considering that the shoes only cost a few dollars to make. Aside from re-creating the molds, a minimal amount isspent on R&D, and there is no advertising whatsoever for retros, so with the prices that we're paying, it should be a given that we get good quality.

Also, I can attest to the phenomenal quality on the tennisball Changs. Six years in, and still going strong. Great shoe.

 

[sneaktrix]

just dont tell Nike/JB this

 

[rl treyce]

Originally Posted by SpoiledFeet

I see Nike has taken notice to the complaints about quality given they supposedly made the spacejams better quality and hiked the price. I didn't buy em but would anyone pay higher for better quality retros? I know in the past they made it with cheaper materials but now is not the past. If I have to pay extra I will. Like the pippens white coming up. I would pay extra for og pockets etc. Is it worth it? Thanks

No No NO

 

[devildoc76]

No. Nike was at their best when they had a smaller lineup of shoes. Less to worry about, you can put out a better product. Back in the old days, you were achump if you had the same pair of sneaks goin into the next school year. We were also limited in our choices, especially in the early to mid 80's. Now wegot, QS, LS, Retro, HOH Packs. It's cool, because you gotta choice, but it' too many now. Hell, I bet you the heavy Nike clunkers they sell at likeKohl's, or Sports Authority hold up better than expensive retros. But nobody wants to buy em. Point being, scale back on the quantity, to produce betterquality.

 

[abstrakt]

No. Never. Wouldn't even think twice about it.

 

[jbv1]

NO. It's not worth the hassle of getting some retros now... Poor QC, choice of materials (personal pet peeves include lower grade leather & PAINTEDmidsoles), I could go on ad nauseam but as it is still a disposable material good with a fan base no matter how deluded.... SIGH...

Enough with the manufactured exclusivity BS & bring out quality retros or STOP & make some good new future classic stuff. Get some designers in thehouse that don't follow the JB mentality. How about that?

 

[dmxfury]

Hell no!!!


Check Reebok...the quality on their retros are great and most of em cost the same as they did originally....I bought two pairs of Pumps with great quality and the price now is the same as it was in 1989/1990. Nike can easily do the same...


100% agree, Rbk and their awesome pump retro shoes have gotten me back into the shoe game. Looking at some of the Nike retro shoes, I feel like it is a wasteof money at times. They have to step their quality up, it sucks they can use their market leverage to get away with ruining some true classics