Air Jordan 1 Banned NO BUYING/SELLING/TRADING!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
DJ Proto J said:
Yoof, the flaw in your argument back there is that nike produced and sold the banneds themselves. just because they retailed for under $200 doesn't mean they didn't use premium leather and the costs to make them weren't more than their average jordans (i'd be willing to bet a lot of the most premium shoes with real leather like balenciaga's, LV's, etc, cost well under $100 to make also, prolly even under $50, even tho they mark them way up from there), doesn't mean they used crap leather and just tumbled it and tried to make it seem premium. you can actually smell the leather on these banneds, you can feel the difference, it's not the plastic crap they usually use.

they definitely did cost more to make than the average 1 retro, but they sold them themselves in their own outlets for MSRP, so they made ALL the money on them (and didn't lose money), instead of only half (or less) when they sell them to others like FTL, FNL, etc
Click to expand...
Well even if Nike sold the shoes themselves, a heavily profit-oriented company like them would look to cut as many corners as possible.  Let's say the cost of production was around $20 and MSRP is $140.  Nike would be simply pocketing the profits all to themselves, instead of having to give a share to other major footwear retailers.  Just because Nike made and sold the shoes by themselves does not mean that they invested more into the actual production of the shoes.  The Banneds went straight to outlets, and was definitely not a huge money maker for Nike.  Wasn't the shoes supposed to be a regular release, but was scrapped, then became an outlet release last minute?  From a logical standpoint, it would make sense for Nike to invest more in making the shoes and sell it for so low only if they had originally planned them to be an outlet release from the very beginning for the purpose of marketing ploys and garnering hype.  But I don't think that was the case.  I could be wrong though.  

The MSRP was definitely under $150, so it'd be safe to assume that it cost Nike a mere fraction of that retail price to make the shoes.  That says a lot about the leather itself, and overall quality as a whole.  

Before I go any further, I'd like to acknowledge that the term "quality" can mean different things for each of us, but for the sake of discussion allow me to present the term "quality" in an objective fashion.  When it comes to leather-based footwear, I find quality to be measured by factors such as:  the cost invested into production, the cost of the actual materials relative to substitutes and alternates, appeal to one's own personal tastes, authenticity, and if it actually does what it is supposed to do (which in the case of shoes is to provide structural integrity while lasting the intended lifetime of the product with normal use).  

First of all, the Air Jordan 1 is the absolute most basic shoe in the entire signature line and would naturally cost the least to produce.  There is not a sliver of carbon fiber or cutting-edge technology anywhere in the shoe.  The main costs in the factors of production would stem from the labor invested and the leather used.  

Now in regards to the argument of Banneds, we can safely hold all other factors constant and focus on one variable:  cost of materials.  We can logically infer how much it actually cost Nike to procure the leather they used based on this image, as well as the MSRP.  While that picture may not be referring to the Banned 1s themselves, it does shed some light to how much it costs Nike to make a pair of Air Jordan 1s in general relative to their MSRP.  All the OG Air Jordan 1s were around $140, Mids were about $110 or so.  $16.25 compared to MSRP.  A quick search reveals that the more up-scale shoe brands that use authentic premium leather range somewhere between $30 to $60 for the cost of the material itself.  Here's a quote from a link:

"So, how much does this $515 shoe actually cost to make? Follow these three steps.

1.) The Italian factory charges the designer around $130. Of that, $40 to $60 is for the leather. Extras (in this case, the buckle and stiletto heel) cost $40 to $50."

While that isn't the end-all, be-all supporting evidence for the actual cost of leather prevalent among designer shoe companies, it's a pretty safe bet to assume that similar brands priced similarly will have a similar range of costs for leather.  So if a $500+ dollar shoe has only $60 worth of leather, it would be reasonable to assume that a shoe like the AJ1 would utilize leather that is cheaper. 

So if we assume that the 1s uses quality leather comparable to other up-scale brands (based on the aforementioned operational definition of quality), why would Nike retail the 1s for such a relatively low MSRP?  It makes little sense from a business standpoint.  Nike has little to gain from aftermarket transactions, apart from hyped consumers eager to purchase future releases.  
 

And again, perhaps one could feel the difference in texture.  I don't doubt that the Banned 1s uses leather that is preferable for many, but to say it is superior as if it were a fact is debatable.  Softness and pliability are among one of the few measures of "quality", so I acknowledge your point of your own personal preference in what constitutes as quality.  For me, it's not only a matter of texture but, once again, a matter of how much was actually put into the shoe. 

Are Air Jordans hand-made by artisans?  Do they go through rigorous quality control?  What about the location of their manufacture?  If we're going to subject the AJ1 to the same measures of quality as designer, high-end shoes, then the 1s would fail most tests apart from texture.  Again, it really depends on our own individual definition of "quality"  
DJ Proto J said:
yeah, and we get it, everything is all about being true to the OG for you. get off my sack tho. we are having a debate in here, and i joined in, despite having expressed the same opinions in another thread.

not everyone cares about how true shoes are to the OG's tho.

that is a factor, but not always the only thing, for everyone (it is a factor to me sometimes, but not all the time).

some may prefer the shade of red on one, or the height on one, or the comfort... different strokes for different folks.

from what i hear the 2013's are more comfortable, and that is a bigger factor for me, cuz i find the 2001's uncomfortable after standing up DJing in them for hours at a time.

it's not a huge enough deal that i'd stop wearing my 2001's, but i would like to add the more comfortable version to the collection for those times i'd be wearing them for long periods of time.
Click to expand...
You are correct.  And that is the beautiful thing about this whole hobby, everybody has their own tastes and preferences that ultimately determine their purchases.
 
DJ Proto J said:
furthermore, the exclusivity is not the only reason people seek these, but also the quality difference, theme, story, etc...

this shoe was nike and JB's first full acknowledgment of the history behind this shoe, so much so that they included "nike air" for the first time in a decade...

without the banned 1, MJ having the balls to wear them anyways, and nike paying the NBA's fines, it's arguable this site wouldn't even be here, nor would sneaker culture as we know it. not to mention it opened up the doors for athlete endorsement deals, etc.

and for those who want the most premium version available of this iconic shoe and colorway, the banned 1 is the only candidate.

i own OG's from 85, 2001's, and 2 pairs of these banneds, and i firmly believe the quality of the banned 1 is superior.

unless you can prove otherwise, and not just with your speculation of costs to make them, i will continue to believe that. i own enough high quality leather shoes to know the difference.
Click to expand...
Of course.  It isn't the ONLY reason, but it's not hard to say that it's the MAIN reason.  Actual units in circulation may perhaps be even less than the originals currently available in the market.  The originals and other retros had plenty when released, the Banneds never had that many pairs to begin with.  They have undoubtedly a stigma of exclusivity (even for owners of the older retros) attached to them whether people admit it or not.  

Would the majority of people honestly buy the Banned 1s over the 2013 retro if both were a legitimate general release for the same retail price?

I've browsed these boards long enough to safely infer that many would be outraged that an iconic shoe has been tainted by unnecessary gimmicky branding.  

Quality difference?  What about the Vegas 1s and 2009 shadows among others?  Those shoes sat for an extended period of time.  They are of comparable quality.  

Theme?  Well this again is a matter of preference.  True-to-the-OG people vs. those who appreciate the bells and whistles.  For me, I think that the theme speaks for itself.  The silhouette and colorway of the shoes is more than enough for me to retell the story behind one of the most notorious shoes in NBA history & footwear culture.  The box could've done all the talking needed, but again, in my opinion I don't think the X's on the liner and the X on the back have any place on the shoe.  It ruins the silhouette that I've come to known and love.  Might not be the same for others, but for me, such an iconic shoe (colorway included) ought not be bastardized by unnecessary logo placement to emphasize a theme and story that the shoe itself & packaging can tell just fine.  

Most premium? I acknowledge and respect your point, but again, this goes back again to one's own personal definition and measure of what constitutes "quality". A shoe that cost Nike roughly $16.25 doesn't constitute quality for me.  It's not the same crummy leather they use in the majority of their releases, sure, but that doesn't really assure me that they used legitimate leather (legitimacy of the material being one of the measures of "quality" that I use).  

It is impressive (and enviable 
happy.gif
) that you own the originals, earlier retros of the shoes, and two pairs of Banneds.  You are entitled to your own belief of what is "quality", as everybody has different measures.

I may not have "proven" otherwise (because one can't certainly "prove" an opinion), but I am certain I have offered legitimate grounds for debate.  

$16.25 to make the shoe.  Think about it.  That doesn't scream luxury quality to me.  Texture is one thing, of course, but if it falters on the other measures, then I cannot consider the shoes as of absolute superior quality.  
 
Last edited:
As much as I love the Vegas 1s and 09' shadows, their BOTH nowhere near the Banned's. In my opinion, the Banned's were the most premium version out of all the Bred 1s to date.
 
Too premium for my taste to be honest. Leather and quality is absolutely great but I just don't like the look of it compared to an OG look. Just doesn't suit it right. It's like when you put a bunch of diamonds and gold on an iphone. Yeah it's worth a lot more and has great quality but I would prefer a simple black iPhone if monetary value didn't matter. Just my opinion though
 
geraldg2309 said:
Too premium for my taste to be honest. Leather and quality is absolutely great but I just don't like the look of it compared to an OG look. Just doesn't suit it right. It's like when you put a bunch of diamonds and gold on an iphone. Yeah it's worth a lot more and has great quality but I would prefer a simple black iPhone if monetary value didn't matter. Just my opinion though
Click to expand...
:lol: gold and diamond iphones. Thats where i draw the line. These are really nice but they are nothing more than an expensive collectible at this point. People that got them from the outlets should just condider themselves lucky and move on. The quality debate is stupid. Banneds were a one off. Las vegas pair has leather way nicer than this years og's. Make all the 2013 og 1s that way and its costing Nike. Im tired of the whatever it cost to make the shoe debate as well. It cost whatever to make a product and from there its all about profit margins. Maybe it cost an extra 10 a shoe to make xi's but they retail more, make a ton more and still sell out. nobody complains there though. This years og 1s are what everyone was waiting for and Nike delivered for once without screwing up. They should get all the credit for these releases. The side stamp wouldve been nice but come on. This is not the same corporation from 1985 and they arent gonna change the mass production way they do things. Kudos Nike.
 
Lol that all said. What you think i would have to throw on top of say a pair of ds royals and bred for a pair of these all size 10? I assume though that these fit more like the thick padded jumpman 1s so i would fit better a 10.5 though im a 10.
 
Agreed lol.

You should probably go half a size up because these are thickly padded. I remember someone telling me these fit a little tight. I'm not sure I would do that trade though. If you really want them for your collection and you have extra pairs then I don't see why not. I'm perfectly content with the '13s though. Royals and BlckRds seem enough to me for trade.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah, make sure you have some type of force field in these to keep creasing at a minimum. I use them with all of my 1s and had great success.
 
v8erman v8erman If Nike wanted to keep the OG style size tag, they probably choose not to. The Vs came out with an inner flap tag. Retro Vs till this day have the same tagging. The same goes for OG XIs vs retros. It would be a nice touch to keep that feature.
 
rhinosport rhinosport it would have made a nice addition most def.
geraldg2309 geraldg2309 true but even though im not really into the niche thing with these, the collector in me keeps calling. If someone took that offer with all pairs dead stock and it put me 600 out of pocket total, what kindve deal is that?
 
JayzIGotEm said:
As much as I love the Vegas 1s and 09' shadows, their BOTH nowhere near the Banned's. In my opinion, the Banned's were the most premium version out of all the Bred 1s to date.
Click to expand...

Nowhere near? I find that rather surprising. By what standard are you basing that off of? Texture? They are all very similar and I think that one would have to be either biased or have an extremely acute sense of touch to differentiate the marginal differences in the leather grain between all three shoes.

IMO , they all share that smooth, soft texture. I fail to see any stark difference that would objectively put the Banneds in a class of its own when it comes to leather.
 
Yoof said:
Nowhere near? I find that rather surprising. By what standard are you basing that off of? Texture? They are all very similar and I think that one would have to be either biased or have an extremely acute sense of touch to differentiate the marginal differences in the leather grain between all three shoes.

IMO , they all share that smooth, soft texture. I fail to see any stark difference that would objectively put the Banneds in a class of its own when it comes to leather.
Click to expand...

Sorry man. You're just not getting the fact that quality of the banned leather is superior to any leather used on a jordan 1. Again, I hope you get to at least hold a pair and really observe, touch and feel the difference. It's not just hype bro.
 
JayzIGotEm said:
Sorry man. You're just not getting the fact that quality of the banned leather is superior to any leather used on a jordan 1. Again, I hope you get to at least hold a pair and really observe, touch and feel the difference. It's not just hype bro.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, haha but again I among other people would most likely not go so far as to proclaim as fact that the leather is superior.
 
Just picked up some Banned 1s, size 10 DS.  Amazing quality shoe.  I got them for a steal too.  I will get some proper pictures up soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom