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

[ajnewbie]

Ill just put this here.

 

[paulleinahtan]

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.

My size...

Nice pick up.

 

[airthompson]

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.

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.

Wait, you never wore or held these, but your speaking down on its quality? But feel your opinion is justified because a few others, who too never wore them, share the same opinion?

textbook NT

 

[cjdynasty]

Here's the thing, that banned leather is superior to any Jordan 1 (or any Jordan off the matter) in the last 10 years. I have Banneds, 01s, and 13s. 13s are the worst by a long shot! But judging 13s in a vacuum based on today's standards, it's a decently crafted shoe. But to compare it to Banneds??? Do some of you guys own banned? Or have even see/felt them in person. Couldn't have.

 

[lovehateself]

 
Traded Gamma 12s, and infrared 3Lab5s.  Both of which I paid retail for, so approx $430.

 

[jsonmyfeetz]

To say they are on a class on their own is a bit much, don 't you think? As stated earlier, all this argument of quality doesn't hold that much weight when shoes like the 09 Shadows and Vegas ones are not discussed in the same light pertaining to quality as the Banneds. Unless of course it is coming from individuals who actually consider the originals' materials as inferior.

No I don't think its much. I own the banneds and 94's and even the 94's are not even close. I have beat up OG's and they don't feel as good either. The Shadows and Vegas 1's are nice but they are nowhere near the level of the Banned's. Do you own the Banned's?

 

[yoof]

Wait, you never wore or held these, but your speaking down on its quality? But feel your opinion is justified because a few others, who too never wore them, share the same opinion?

textbook NT

Perhaps I don't own them, but owning pairs of 1s and other similarly textured shoes, along with far superior hand-crafted shoes, are sufficient for me to make a reasonable inference. I think I made myself pretty clear with my prior post regarding how we would objectively define what "quality leather" is, and it looks like the majority of Banned owners place the most emphasis on texture. Sure, my opinion would definitely have more merit if I actually owned/have access to the shoe, but I don't think I failed in providing some decent rationale for my opinion

No I don't think its much. I own the banneds and 94's and even the 94's are not even close. I have beat up OG's and they don't feel as good either. The Shadows and Vegas 1's are nice but they are nowhere near the level of the Banned's. Do you own the Banned's?

I don't, but let me ask you, on what basis are you determining quality? If texture and feel is your only/main consideration, then naturally I would have no more argument. Otherwise, it goes back to what "quality" is for each of us. Personally, I factor in leather authenticity along with the cost/manner of production.

 

[suprasaiyan]

No I don't think its much. I own the banneds and 94's and even the 94's are not even close. I have beat up OG's and they don't feel as good either. The Shadows and Vegas 1's are nice but they are nowhere near the level of the Banned's. Do you own the Banned's?

No, he doesn't. But he represents the "2013 > Banned because 2013 is more OG" camp. Just bugging ya @Yoof  

 

[jsonmyfeetz]

Perhaps I don't own them, but owning pairs of 1s and other similarly textured shoes, along with far superior hand-crafted shoes, are sufficient for me to make a reasonable inference. I think I made myself pretty clear with my prior post regarding how we would objectively define what "quality leather" is, and it looks like the majority of Banned owners place the most emphasis on texture. Sure, my opinion would definitely have more merit if I actually owned/have access to the shoe, but I don't think I failed in providing some decent rationale for my opinion
I don't, but let me ask you, on what basis are you determining quality? If texture and feel is your only/main consideration, then naturally I would have no more argument. Otherwise, it goes back to what "quality" is for each of us. Personally, I factor in leather authenticity along with the cost/manner of production.

The quality of the leather and the feel of the shoe is just better. And it's real leather not like whats on the 2013's. They have the feel of a nice Italian leather shoe.... to me. They feel and smell, lol, like Gucci loafers which is odd coming from JB. They haven't used real leather on any recent shoe that I can remember. I know some look like real leather but they are real and synthetic together. Good debate tho.

 

[lamekilla]

The banned's are just a special version of the blk/red 1. They are clearly better quality (they feel amazing) but that doesn't necessarily mean its "better". At the end of the day it's a representation of the classic colorway. Lol what's the debating about guys?

 

[geraldg2309]

The banned's are just a special version of the blk/red 1. They are clearly better quality (they feel amazing) but that doesn't necessarily mean its "better". At the end of the day it's a representation of the classic colorway. Lol what's the debating about guys?

This.

lol at all the back and forth posts.

 

[apthekid]

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.

No...they do not all share that smooth, soft texture. Banned I used a tumbled leather, which is actually softer than the '13 leather.

I own both. I'm speaking in matters of fact.

 

[lovehateself]

No...they do not all share that smooth, soft texture. Banned I used a tumbled leather, which is actually softer than the '13 leather.

I own both. I'm speaking in matters of fact.

co-sign

 

[rhinosport]

No...they do not all share that smooth, soft texture. Banned I used a tumbled leather, which is actually softer than the '13 leather.


I own both. I'm speaking in matters of fact.

co-sign

Qft.
I posted this in the blk/red 1 thread.


Many folks downplay the banneds. But until you have them in hand, to touch and caress them, they will never know. They are on a league of their own, despite what the '13s have (or lack there of).

 

[airthompson]

Wait, you never wore or held these, but your speaking down on its quality? But feel your opinion is justified because a few others, who too never wore them, share the same opinion?

textbook NT

Perhaps I don't own them, but owning pairs of 1s and other similarly textured shoes, along with far superior hand-crafted shoes, are sufficient for me to make a reasonable inference. I think I made myself pretty clear with my prior post regarding how we would objectively define what "quality leather" is, and it looks like the majority of Banned owners place the most emphasis on texture. Sure, my opinion would definitely have more merit if I actually owned/have access to the shoe, but I don't think I failed in providing some decent rationale for my opinion

You posted a lot of stuff to back your opinion, but put it this way. If your a car reviewer and reviewed the previous model year Dodge Challenger, and the current Mustang & Camaro you cannot make an article commenting on the newest Challengers performance with just generalization because you drove cars like it.

The banned's are just a special version of the blk/red 1. They are clearly better quality (they feel amazing) but that doesn't necessarily mean its "better". At the end of the day it's a representation of the classic colorway. Lol what's the debating about guys?

We're debating quality, not which is better. Which retro is better would be a matter of opinion. Which Retro 1 has the best overall construction and or quality is a matter of fact.

 

[airthompson]

No...they do not all share that smooth, soft texture. Banned I used a tumbled leather, which is actually softer than the '13 leather.


I own both. I'm speaking in matters of fact.

co-sign

Qft.
I posted this in the blk/red 1 thread.


Many folks downplay the banneds. But until you have them in hand, to touch and caress them, they will never know. They are on a league of their own, despite what the '13s have (or lack there of).

I used to think they were wack cuz the distressed leather, and X on them. Then I took em in a trade cuz nobody offered me '01s, and was blown back by quality and most importantly comfort. Y'all forget that that's the most important and soul purpose of a shoe. I don't know the material of the insole, but it makes your foot slide right in. The ankle padding is mad plush and the genuine leather makes you feel like your rocking loafers.

 

[dj proto j]

I used to think they were wack cuz the distressed leather, and X on them. Then I took em in a trade cuz nobody offered me '01s, and was blown back by quality and most importantly comfort. Y'all forget that that's the most important and soul purpose of a shoe. I don't know the material of the insole, but it makes your foot slide right in. The ankle padding is mad plush and the genuine leather makes you feel like your rocking loafers.

have you rocked banneds for a few wears yet?

cuz i've heard they are super comfortable, and then i've heard the opposite.

i haven't unDSed either of my two pairs yet so i don't know.

i heard all the 2013's with OG treatment are super comfortable compared to 2001's... they're not hard to top tho.

i have the royals and shadows from 2013, unDSed neither, and i haven't scored the bred and black toes yet.

so i'm just curious how you rank the comfort between the banneds and 2013's...

 

[yoof]

You posted a lot of stuff to back your opinion, but put it this way. If your a car reviewer and reviewed the previous model year Dodge Challenger, and the current Mustang & Camaro you cannot make an article commenting on the newest Challengers performance with just generalization because you drove cars like it.
We're debating quality, not which is better. Which retro is better would be a matter of opinion. Which Retro 1 has the best overall construction and or quality is a matter of fact.

Well in fairness, I think in this case a more appropriate analogy would be a car driver having driven and reviewed a Lamborghini Aventador, while never having driven a Lamborghini Aventador Sesto Elemento.  Exact same car and engine, just different materials in the chassis.  Same thing with the other 1s versus the Banned.  

Fact?  Yes, the Banned 1s have a more tumbled/soft feel to it.  Absolutely.  But does that as a  fact equate to better quality?  By that logic, does that mean that soft suede is far superior than all other kinds based on texture alone?  There's oiled suede, which has a more canvas feel to it, yet one cannot simply dismiss oiled suede as of being inferior quality.

If there's one thing I would like anybody to take away from my walls of text, it's that when it comes to quality, it's a matter of personal preference regarding what factors are considered that DEFINE what quality is is.  Again, can you really say that the Banned 1s are FAR superior when the cost of production is extremely similar?  Marginally, sure.  I can accept that they are perhaps slightly better (yet even then I insist that is debatable).  

 

[dj proto j]

as far as Yoof, and naysayers of the banneds, i'm not gonna address it any further, after this...

while i respect his effort, and apprehensiveness, there's no point when he doesn't own them, and the basis for his argument is a graph of the cost of a bottom of the barrel jordan 1 retro (which only helped prove my point, that if they tacked on quality, genuine leather to that cost, and sold them for FULL MSRP in their own outlets, they still made a lovely profit, so the argument that they would HAVE to cost more in retail doesn't make sense)...

the banned 1 is the most premium option of the shoe for those who like to wear or collect premium sneakers, or those connoisseurs of jordans who have to have such a cool version of the shoe in their collection.

and as i predicted (tho i doubted it at times, admittedly, cuz i thought the 2013's were gonna be done in huge numbers), the value of them only went up with the release of the 2013 retro. cuz it raised the popularity of the shoe, and due to the super limited numbers, the 2013's aren't widely available (and since the resell value of the 2013 is going up further and further, for a bit more you can own the super premium, more rare version of the shoe)...

simple as that.

 

[yoof]

The quality of the leather and the feel of the shoe is just better. And it's real leather not like whats on the 2013's. They have the feel of a nice Italian leather shoe.... to me. They feel and smell, lol, like Gucci loafers which is odd coming from JB. They haven't used real leather on any recent shoe that I can remember. I know some look like real leather but they are real and synthetic together. Good debate tho.

Well I definitely can't argue with that, haha.  If to you they are real leather (or at least come very close to it) then that's all that matters.  But again, let me re-emphasize that knowing how much was put into the shoe (Banneds) versus how much was put into making a shoe like artisan Italian loafers (plus acquiring undoubtedly genuine materials), makes it difficult for me to simply accept the Banneds as better just because they feel better (or similar) to high-end dress shoes.  

For argument's sake, if it cost $16 total to make the Banneds with only $4 invested in the leather (unsure if even authentic or not) per pair, would you really still say they are of the same caliber in regards to quality compared to an Italian loafer that has leather worth $40 to get?  

Again, quality is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[yoof]

as far as Yoof, and naysayers of the banneds, i'm not gonna address it any further, after this...

while i respect his effort, and apprehensiveness, there's no point when he doesn't own them, and the basis for his argument is a graph of the cost of a bottom of the barrel jordan 1 retro (which only helped prove my point, that if they tacked on quality, genuine leather to that cost, and sold them for FULL MSRP in their own outlets, they still made a lovely profit, so the argument that they should cost more doesn't make sense)...

the banned 1 is the most premium option of the shoe for those who like to wear or collect premium sneakers, or those connoisseurs of jordans who have to have such a cool version of the shoe in their collection.

and as i predicted (tho i doubted it at times, admittedly, cuz i thought the 2013's were gonna be done in huge numbers), the value of them only went up with the release of the 2013 retro. cuz it raised the popularity of the shoe, and due to the super limited numbers, the 2013's aren't widely available (and since the resell value of the 2013 is going up further and further, for a bit more you can own the super premium, more rare version of the shoe)...

simple as that.

My apologies, haha, I was definitely not going for coming off as apprehensive.  Simply playing devil's advocate.  

The only difference between the "bottom of the barrel" AJ1 and the Banneds would be the upper materials.  Same midsole, outsole, likely same insole, lace material, cost of labor.  It seems as if you are convinced that the leather is indeed genuine.  I'm no leather expert by any means, but in my opinion Nike wouldn't be so silly as to invest in using 100% authentic leather on the caliber of Italian dress shoes and still charge for such a low price.  I could be wrong, but it's really up to speculation and preference as to whether or not the Banneds have superior leather (unless of course there is someone that can provide an OBJECTIVE and not SUBJECTIVE means of measuring "quality of leather)  Some people prefer a more stiff texture, and for them that could be higher quality. 

Again, if they DID tack on quality of leather, would it really make sense from a business perspective to charge less when they are already undercutting their potential profits by making so little of the shoe to begin with?  So if I decide to throw in 15 dollars worth of leather, making the shoe $30 to make, and charge for about the same amount as a regular version, as a retailer I would have losses in potential profits.  Jordans all sell out eventually, so them flying off of shelves is no problem.  Nike makes profits at the end of the day.  They pocket money through those "lesser" AJ1s whenever they are sold in outlets and Nike store retailers alike.  More even, since they have undoubtedly higher numbers.  So if Nike DID in fact use a significantly more expensive leather in the likes of Italian dress shoes, they would be losing hefty bits of profit.  I'm not sure if you read through my example or not, but if a dress shoe worth $40 of leather sells for over $300, how is it even safe to assume that a 16.25 base shoe assuming the same caliber leather used (thus bumping it up to 56.25) made in small quantities for an MSRP of $150 would compare?  

Long story short, if your sole measure of quality is texture, then yes, no argument there.  Close enough to dress shoes?  Fine.  But unless there's irrefutable evidence to prove/disprove whether or not the Banned leather is genuine and how much it actually cost, it's unfair to state as fact the Banneds are in league with high end dress shoes.  

I'm not arguing so much as to try to downplay the Banneds as trashy or anything, I'm sure they're a fantastic shoe, but what I AM arguing is against proclaiming something meant to be an opinion as a matter of fact.  To some they might be superior leather, but to say that in a way as if there's no room to argue otherwise is a bit unfair.  

 

[dj proto j]

you got me wanting to take my banneds to a leather shop and see what the real deal is now, just to put this all to rest (and even then, they can't determine what it truly cost nike to make them, they don't have access to leather in bulk like nike can buy, therefore they have no idea the cost when it's on that level)...

point is, they are better quality than any jordan 1 they've put out. you tried to compare them to the shadows with the tumbled leather from '09... sorry, but they're better than those (i have both)...

at least they seem like it.

so you're sorta right, and so are we, cuz none of us are leather experts... but as long as they look, feel, smell, and seem better, they're gonna be considered better.

 

[yoof]

you got me wanting to take my banneds to a leather shop and see what the real deal is now, just to put this all to rest (and even then, they can't determine what it truly cost nike to make them, they don't have access to leather in bulk like nike can buy, therefore they have no idea the cost when it's on that level)...

point is, they are better quality than any jordan 1 they've put out. you tried to compare them to the shadows with the tumbled leather from '09... sorry, but they're better than those (i have both)...

at least they seem like it.

so you're sorta right, and so are we, cuz none of us are leather experts... but as long as they look, feel, smell, and seem better, they're gonna be considered better.

Haha bro I never said you guys were wrong, I just wanted to put forth the other side of the same coin 

.  

I respect your point, and if I owned those shoes I may be likely to disagree just for the sake of it 

 I'm sure there are others who share/don't share the same opinion, so at least I can say that the issue of quality is not one of absolute left and right, black and white, right or wrong.  Haha, but it's all good.

Hopefully at the end of they day you guys all enjoy your pairs and purchases, and of course wear them

 wish JB would just retro the Chicago 1 the right way already

 

[airthompson]

dj proto j have nothing but good things to say about comfort. Only negative things I've heard were from people who didn't get the correct size.

 

[bballermarkie]

I mean at the end of the day they are ones. I walked around Boston all day in mine relatively recently and my feet were a little sore at the end of the day but much better than most ones in my collection