- 69
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2013
View media item 798487Are these legit?
01 metallic 5s SZ 13 LC
- Thread in 'Archive: Jordan Brand Price/Fake Checks' Thread starter Started by mylesb997,
- Start date
- 10,288
- 3,826
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
Need more pix but the N.A. looks off..could just be the high angle..Try to get 3-5 better pics.. include one of the size tag.
- 69
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2013
- 69
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2013
Bump
Rumble Gang
formerly retrohead182
- 7,981
- 4,083
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
More pics and BETTER pics. Closer angles, inside the shoe. Just looking at the pics the nike air sign looks off logo looks kinda wavey instead of sharp
- 1,468
- 4,999
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
mylesb997
1000% fake fam
- Wrong materials, should be a durabuck upper these appear to be a full nubuck upper (11's are the only black metallic 5's to feature nubuck, Og's, 00's & 06's are all durabuck)
- Sock liners are incredibly sloopy, even with heavy wear they still wouldn't lose their defined shape
- Wrong mesh nettings
- Flat 3m (if even 3m tongues) should have 3 PRONOUNCED ridges
- No black metallic 5's ever realesed in 2001 & style code # is completely wrong for
00"s (should be 136027-001 for 00's black metallic 5's)
- 17
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
etallic-5s-sz-13-lc/0_100#post_19812194"]
1000% fake fam
- Wrong materials, should be a durabuck upper these appear to be a full nubuck upper (11's are the only black metallic 5's to feature nubuck, Og's, 00's & 06's are all durabuck)
- Sock liners are incredibly sloopy, even with heavy wear they still wouldn't lose their defined shape
- Wrong mesh nettings
- Flat 3m (if even 3m tongues) should have 3 PRONOUNCED ridges
- No black metallic 5's ever realesed in 2001 & style code # is completely wrong for
00"s (should be 136027-001 for 00's black metallic 5's)
mylesb997
1000% fake fam
- Wrong materials, should be a durabuck upper these appear to be a full nubuck upper (11's are the only black metallic 5's to feature nubuck, Og's, 00's & 06's are all durabuck)
- Sock liners are incredibly sloopy, even with heavy wear they still wouldn't lose their defined shape
- Wrong mesh nettings
- Flat 3m (if even 3m tongues) should have 3 PRONOUNCED ridges
- No black metallic 5's ever realesed in 2001 & style code # is completely wrong for
00"s (should be 136027-001 for 00's black metallic 5's)[/quote]View media item 799698 View media item 799699
- 10,288
- 3,826
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
View media item 799698 View media item 799699etallic-5s-sz-13-lc/0_100#post_19812194"]
1000% fake fam
- Wrong materials, should be a durabuck upper these appear to be a full nubuck upper (11's are the only black metallic 5's to feature nubuck, Og's, 00's & 06's are all durabuck)
- Sock liners are incredibly sloopy, even with heavy wear they still wouldn't lose their defined shape
- Wrong mesh nettings
- Flat 3m (if even 3m tongues) should have 3 PRONOUNCED ridges
- No black metallic 5's ever realesed in 2001 & style code # is completely wrong for
00"s (should be 136027-001 for 00's black metallic 5's)
- 17
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
not even close..[/quote] thanks for the help
Rumble Gang
formerly retrohead182
- 7,981
- 4,083
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
View media item 799698 View media item 799699etallic-5s-sz-13-lc/0_100#post_19812194"]
1000% fake fam
- Wrong materials, should be a durabuck upper these appear to be a full nubuck upper (11's are the only black metallic 5's to feature nubuck, Og's, 00's & 06's are all durabuck)
- Sock liners are incredibly sloopy, even with heavy wear they still wouldn't lose their defined shape
- Wrong mesh nettings
- Flat 3m (if even 3m tongues) should have 3 PRONOUNCED ridges
- No black metallic 5's ever realesed in 2001 & style code # is completely wrong for
00"s (should be 136027-001 for 00's black metallic 5's)
Next time try to make your own thread these are 2 completely different shoes. No they are fake as hell