solewoman
Staff member
- 19,540
- 21,349
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
Ive never been a fan of 1s except the black and gold patent released in 2003. Never been able to find my size. So these are a must I hope I can get these
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Perhaps due to them being a mid?? It's why I never bothered, as tempting as they were.THIS. Nobody was feeling these back then, let me guess they're limited and thats why theres such a long thread for these?
really?? the glitter was the deciding factor.The bottom is translucent & has gold speckles over it...
I'm done!
I remember the '03s sitting in stores forever.
THIS. Nobody was feeling these back then, let me guess they're limited and thats why theres such a long thread for these?
no **** ... there a millions of sneakerheads now vs hardly any back then .. be honest with ourselves how many people did you know in the 90s and early 2000s even keeping more than 2-3 pairs at a time? i knew a handfull, and most people thought we were crazy .. that was still the time of "Wear the newest shoes for 2 weeks then get more"Chicago 1's, Blk/red 1's, Wht/red 2's, Blk Cement 3's, & Wht Cement 3's sat in '94. The Royals sat in '01, I'm not getting why people don't get simple logic. It's a totally diff demographic now, on top of that these are totally different from the '03 Retro in which I had.
no **** ... there a millions of sneakerheads now vs hardly any back then .. be honest with ourselves how many people did you know in the 90s and early 2000s even keeping more than 2-3 pairs at a time? i knew a handfull, and most people thought we were crazy .. that was still the time of "Wear the newest shoes for 2 weeks then get more"
got me a pair of these for under retail months after release, and like u said, the quality on these are superb, very slept on shoe, love emMan I swear these r soooo underrated.
In a way you are right, you also have to look at the way JB dropped kicks, back then they didnt drop almost every 2 weeks, so you have to wonder would people have more kicks back then if they dropped like they do now...no **** ... there a millions of sneakerheads now vs hardly any back then .. be honest with ourselves how many people did you know in the 90s and early 2000s even keeping more than 2-3 pairs at a time? i knew a handfull, and most people thought we were crazy .. that was still the time of "Wear the newest shoes for 2 weeks then get more"
You and I must have grown up in very different places because there were quite a few people in my area that were into sneakers and had lots of pairs. I know what you mean about people wanting the newest shoes and that's back when they were still coming out with good new basketball designs that you could pull off casually.no **** ... there a millions of sneakerheads now vs hardly any back then .. be honest with ourselves how many people did you know in the 90s and early 2000s even keeping more than 2-3 pairs at a time? i knew a handfull, and most people thought we were crazy .. that was still the time of "Wear the newest shoes for 2 weeks then get more"
Are you saying retros weren't cool back in 99/2000 though? I was young but I do remember all those retros sitting in 94/95 but the 99 ivs sold out really fast and everything after was pretty tough to get except maybe the 00 fire red 5s.I don't agree with a lot of this.
I wouldn't say there were no sneakerheads. Being a sneakerhead is a fad now and that title didn't exist then. How you defined it is different. Back then you didn't need to buy every release to be a sneakerhead.
Many people had more than 2 or 3 pairs of sneakers.
Retros weren't cool back then and neither was wearing last years Jordan's. All of that is acceptable now. I remember when Jordan's first started retroing and I thought it was weird. That's how I got my 1994 III's.
IMO,dem Questions poop over these 1s.Kanye shrugsTroll post ^