2019 All Star Black Infrared Air Jordan 6

[Aquamanjay_]

And thats why Im on the fence. I want a retro of the 91. Not the 2000 with 3m.

You know the 1991 likely ain’t happening. Early photos rarely completely miss what the actual shoe will look like. I think this colorway of the 6’s retros will never come as close as the other leather based 6s have.

 

[spizike231]

I remember a while ago someone was saying something about Nike / JB not being able to get the same durabuck so they moved to thr nubuck we’ve seen since they already use it on shoes across the board.

Wonder how true that is.

 

[Aquamanjay_]

I remember a while ago someone was saying something about Nike / JB not being able to get the same durabuck so they moved to thr nubuck we’ve seen since they already use it on shoes across the board.

Wonder how true that is.

The Durabuck Nike used then and now is practically the same. What they did to the 1991 heel, they added to a 2016 sample Metallic 5. It’s more of why won’t they instead of why can’t they.

 

[hydeous]

If for some reason they can’t, then they should’ve used smooth leather at the back; like the Carmine’s. I’d be down with that, just keep everything else like the Og

 

[Aquamanjay_]

They can. I went to the site that sold the sample, and finally found what exactly the brand called the shiny heel. It’s Anodized. With metal, anodizing is an electrochemical process that converts the metal surface into a decorative, durable, corrosion-resistant finish. Basically, it’s a coating to protect the metal and make it look shiny.

For the Metallic 5 and Infrared 6, the heel and ankle Durabuck was anodized with a coating, which is why it looks shiny and may feel smooth like leather. Jordan Brand made a test sample for the 2016 Metallic 5 that was anodized. They for sure can do it.

 

[Aquamanjay_]

If the UA factories couldnt get the anodizing correct, then there’s still a chance the 2019 will have the 1991 heel, or at least the 2000 heel, which was a much more subtle and dull anodizing. Some of the UAs suggest it may be on the 2019.

 

[RustyShackleford]

UA factories stay putting improved toe boxes on unauthorized early pairs, but JB still be giving us performance steel toes on shoes.

I have no faith in JB at this point, none.

 

[Gordonson]

Between seeing that the later run of original Black Infrareds had a fabric added to the edge of the tongue and now this anodization stuff, I feel like I've learned something new about sneakers for the first time in a good while. This thread is appreciated

 

[spizike231]

I gotta tip my hat off to Aquamanjay

He droppin knowledge in this thread.

 

[Aquamanjay_]

Now that I think of it, For the Metallic 5 Sample, I believe the more defined heel bumps is why anodized look didn’t make it to final production. The OG 5s ankle bumps were flatter and weren’t as defined, so the entire piece was anodized. With the retro sample, the anodized every part of the piece but the bumps. It doesn’t look as clean as the 1990. Maybe that’s why they didn’t do it. For the 6, that wouldn’t be as much a problem aesthetically
1990

2016

If the bumps were anodized completely, it’d look like this.

The actual release pair didn’t sell out quick anyway, so maybe they should’ve just added it.

 

[Aquamanjay_]

I gotta tip my hat off to Aquamanjay

He droppin knowledge in this thread.

Appreciate that; I always liked research. Funny thing is, I saw this sample on the website it was sold on months ago, but didn’t read the description until today.

 

[jshortt]

After Seeing Eddie Vedder of Pearl jam, Anybody got other pics of celebrities and musicians wearing Infrared 6's in the 90's?

I'll keep looking, but here's a handful that I remembered seeing at the time.

Public Enemy on SNL with Jordan hosting:

Jason Newsted of Metallica rocking a pair he took a sharpie to:

Frankie Bello from Anthrax in the Bring the Noise video:

 

[Quiggles706]

If the heel on the 6s don’t have that anodized look, I’m probably passing. That’s pretty important to me, along with the correct toe box as I said before. The Nike AIR is a plus, but these need to be set apart from the 2104. I’m sick of paying $190 for half a... retros

 

[rainking]

Now that I think of it, For the Metallic 5 Sample, I believe the more defined heel bumps is why anodized look didn’t make it to final production. The OG 5s ankle bumps were flatter and weren’t as defined, so the entire piece was anodized. With the retro sample, the anodized every part of the piece but the bumps. It doesn’t look as clean as the 1990. Maybe that’s why they didn’t do it. For the 6, that wouldn’t be as much a problem aesthetically
1990

2016

If the bumps were anodized completely, it’d look like this.

The actual release pair didn’t sell out quick anyway, so maybe they should’ve just added it.

What really would have been good would have been if the 2016 5 retro did the ankles correctly in the first place rather than those exaggerated molded bumps as if the 5s were the 6s. Then maybe they could have done the contrast/anodized/whatever you want to call it material on the ankles properly. I had the OGs in 9th grade and loved them. Wanted to love the ‘16 retro but it just wasn’t right to me every time I picked it up. Bummed me out but I passed and don’t regret it for a second. A real shame.

 

[Aquamanjay_]

What really would have been good would have been if the 2016 5 retro did the ankles correctly in the first place rather than those exaggerated molded bumps as if the 5s were the 6s. Then maybe they could have done the contrast/anodized/whatever you want to call it material on the ankles properly. I had the OGs in 9th grade and loved them. Wanted to love the ‘16 retro but it just wasn’t right to me every time I picked it up. Bummed me out but I passed and don’t regret it for a second. A real shame.

5s have had these more defined bumps since 2000. Doubt they’re going back to the 90s look.

 

[rainking]

5s have had these more defined bumps since 2000. Doubt they’re going back to the 90s look.

And ... so? I appreciate all the time you put into tracking this stuff down, dude. You presented some good ideas on WHY the retros didn’t have the different heel texture. I also recall a few months ago we discussed this contrast panel stuff. You and others seemed disappointed the retro 5 metallic didn’t have it. But you just illustrated what it would have looked like if it did, and it’s equally not good. So all I point out now is, it’s not always as simple as just changing one thing (ankle material in the 5’s case) if all the other elements aren’t correct.

If they don’t ever correct the ankle piece mold on these, then there’s no sense in moaning about the difference in material compared to the OG.

They can fix ALL of this stuff. We know they can. They clearly listened on the concords. It took forever, but they did. That’s why it’s worth not letting it die when we’re all discussing any of the classic models amd the retro versions thereof.

 

[tonytobacco]

They can. I went to the site that sold the sample, and finally found what exactly the brand called the shiny heel. It’s Anodized. With metal, anodizing is an electrochemical process that converts the metal surface into a decorative, durable, corrosion-resistant finish. Basically, it’s a coating to protect the metal and make it look shiny.

For the Metallic 5 and Infrared 6, the heel and ankle Durabuck was anodized with a coating, which is why it looks shiny and may feel smooth like leather. Jordan Brand made a test sample for the 2016 Metallic 5 that was anodized. They for sure can do it.

Looks like the reason the 'anodization' didnt work on the 2016s is because they didnt anodize the ankle bump making it look weird. I wonder if they scrapped it because they couldnt figure out why it didnt look right.

 

[tonytobacco]

nevermind, you covered it lol

 

[tonytobacco]

the ankle bump on the 2016 makes me sad. Its gotta be some sort of cost cutting procedure they do now instead of how it was. This shoe is a mess.

Why did they insist on making all the features so puffy on these???

 

[Aquamanjay_]

Where’s the guy from the Jordan 11 thread who had contact with Tinker Hatfield. I’d love to get his account on what the 1990/1991 as well as the 2016 sample Durabuck is

 

[Quiggles706]

You know the 1991 likely ain’t happening. Early photos rarely completely miss what the actual shoe will look like. I think this colorway of the 6’s retros will never come as close as the other leather based 6s have.

The Air Raid 8s prove they can do the anodized heel. I'm not excepting nothing else. This is the most important model to bring that back.

 

[lostboyz12]

This may of been a topic of discussion already in here, but
Can someone explain the Color of the 2014 Infrared vs 91' Infrared Color?

 

[spizike231]

And ... so? I appreciate all the time you put into tracking this stuff down, dude. You presented some good ideas on WHY the retros didn’t have the different heel texture. I also recall a few months ago we discussed this contrast panel stuff. You and others seemed disappointed the retro 5 metallic didn’t have it. But you just illustrated what it would have looked like if it did, and it’s equally not good. So all I point out now is, it’s not always as simple as just changing one thing (ankle material in the 5’s case) if all the other elements aren’t correct.

If they don’t ever correct the ankle piece mold on these, then there’s no sense in moaning about the difference in material compared to the OG.

They can fix ALL of this stuff. We know they can. They clearly listened on the concords. It took forever, but they did. That’s why it’s worth not letting it die when we’re all discussing any of the classic models amd the retro versions thereof.

Here’s my opinion on it-

To a lot of people.. the contrast heel panels don’t look good.

To a lot of people.. the bright shade of infrared on the 2014’s don’t look good. “Pink”. A lot of people (even in this thread) prefer the 2010 shade to the 2014 shade.

BUT y’all gotta remember.. there are a LOT of people who keep OG’s in their minds as grails they’ll never get ahold of. We dreamt of the OG pairs and analyzed each part and wanted each part accurately represented in a retro we could all cop. Thus far, this hasn’t happened.

There’s a big new crowd (not saying you’re a part of it) that thinks that OG’s and a lot of their features were bunk.. but love the “OG” concords with a 45. Hell, JB even marketed it as “OG”. OG concords had a more “purple” sole, not blue.. the patent leather was thicker, they had a 23 and the 23 wasn’t a sticker prone to cracking. The ankle portion with the 23 was even a super soft stretchy material.

But when it comes to a 100% OG accurate retro down to exactly how they released in their first run, as close as they possibly can.. JB won’t do it. Because most of these features are seen as irrelevant.. like the heel panel to you. Or the high OG tongue. Or the use of actual durabuck.

Say it’s ugly, say it doesn’t make sense anymore. But don’t act like you don’t know there’s a group of people out there waiting on the day they do a 99% exact replica of the OG line.

 

[jordman23]

2000's are still the best to drop aside from the originals just because of the Nike Air.

the 2014 Infrareds with 3M, wouldve been great of they had Nike Air, But I still copped of course.

 

[jordman23]

Here’s my opinion on it-

To a lot of people.. the contrast heel panels don’t look good.

To a lot of people.. the bright shade of infrared on the 2014’s don’t look good. “Pink”. A lot of people (even in this thread) prefer the 2010 shade to the 2014 shade.

BUT y’all gotta remember.. there are a LOT of people who keep OG’s in their minds as grails they’ll never get ahold of. We dreamt of the OG pairs and analyzed each part and wanted each part accurately represented in a retro we could all cop. Thus far, this hasn’t happened.

There’s a big new crowd (not saying you’re a part of it) that thinks that OG’s and a lot of their features were bunk.. but love the “OG” concords with a 45. Hell, JB even marketed it as “OG”. OG concords had a more “purple” sole, not blue.. the patent leather was thicker, they had a 23 and the 23 wasn’t a sticker prone to cracking. The ankle portion with the 23 was even a super soft stretchy material.

But when it comes to a 100% OG accurate retro down to exactly how they released in their first run, as close as they possibly can.. JB won’t do it. Because most of these features are seen as irrelevant.. like the heel panel to you. Or the high OG tongue. Or the use of actual durabuck.

Say it’s ugly, say it doesn’t make sense anymore. But don’t act like you don’t know there’s a group of people out there waiting on the day they do a 99% exact replica of the OG line.

I love the 2014s because of that OG Pinkish Hue and the 3M. I just wish they has NIKE AIR