- 3,012
- 5,645
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
Or here's a idea...just wait like you been doing since the announcement. What's the point in paying extra money to have them a week earlier
Last edited:
Air Jordan 11 Low IE OG black red
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by hitman243,
- Start date
Or here's a idea...just wait like you been doing since the announcement. What's the point in paying extra money to have them a week earlier
- 10,469
- 18,530
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
Black / Cement pair that released last year had it too…
- 2,348
- 3,142
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
Well...I mean prices go up over time plus inflation. I haven't done the math but I'm sure $115 in 96 is around $175 in today's money. I don't mind paying $175 I just wish these came with full length zoom and the leather is 96 leather.
- 2,181
- 1,264
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
You can't. They were Champion NBA socks that the Bulls would get custom in black for the playoffs. The closest to those, IMHO, are the For Bare Feet "on-court" ones they put out just before they lost the socks license to stance. I was happy to find some at tj maxx a few years back.
rainking
Supporter
- 8,053
- 17,380
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
Inflation has almost nothing to do with shoe prices. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any $150 shoes with better tech by far than retros. It’s only about what they think/know is a high price they can sell a ton of shoes at. If XIs weren’t as popular as they are, they wouldn’t cost $220. It’s all about greed.
- 943
- 1,526
- Joined
- May 7, 2021
Tambien.
- 2,348
- 3,142
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
Yes and no. Nike is definitely greedy no doubt. But, inflation definitely plays a part. Costs have gone up in 25 years and businesses adjust for that. 115 in 96 is most likely around 175 today. My biggest issue is with the price of J1s. Those should be $125 for crappy materials and $150 max for premium materials. Nike is laughing all the way to the bank with J1s.
- 2,267
- 5,926
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2018
115 in 1996 is the equivalent of 200 today according to this calculator. So in actuality the price of these is LESS today if you take purchasing power into account, which you have to.
Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value From 1913-2024
Easily calculate how the buying power of the U.S. dollar has changed from 1913 to 2024. Get inflation rates and U.S. inflation news.
www.usinflationcalculator.com
- 54,767
- 61,370
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
Dudes will pay $170 for Jordan 1's but now all of a sudden have a problem with 90's tech in relation to cost 
rainking
Supporter
- 8,053
- 17,380
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
115 in 1996 is the equivalent of 200 today according to this calculator. So in actuality the price of these is LESS today if you take purchasing power into account, which you have to.
Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value From 1913-2024
Easily calculate how the buying power of the U.S. dollar has changed from 1913 to 2024. Get inflation rates and U.S. inflation news.
Dudes will pay $170 for Jordan 1's but now all of a sudden have a problem with 90's tech in relation to cost
Personally I was merely pointing out that the inflation argument is minor at best when it comes to retros. Nike sells plenty of modern performance sneakers with solid tech included for similar prices or not hugely more than it did 20 or more years ago. XIs, for example, aren’t priced at $220 because of inflation. They’re $220 because they’re so popular and Nike realized it can sell millions of pairs at that price no problem.
- 702
- 2,140
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
patiently been waiting for these Blk & red to release, been enjoying the 2015 Cobalt IE in the meanwhile, but they are not the most comfortable.
AIR J XIII
Supporter
- 6,497
- 12,651
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2002
People are still trying to justify the prices of retros 
Anything but admit you’re getting the shaft right?
First, I’m sure there were costs associated with these in 1996 that aren’t there now (R/D), second, we’re not getting the same level of product quality as in 1996.
EVERYTIME this nonsensical reasoning comes up I ask the same question, and I haven’t gotten an answer in 15 years… why were the AJ3s $100 in 1988 and 2003? Was there no inflation?
Why is the More Uptempo only $10 more than it was in 1996?
How are adidas and Reebok relatively unaffected by this inflation?
Just admit it, they charge more for retros because they can, and from a business perspective, I don’t blame them. They are not a non-profit.
Anything but admit you’re getting the shaft right?
First, I’m sure there were costs associated with these in 1996 that aren’t there now (R/D), second, we’re not getting the same level of product quality as in 1996.
EVERYTIME this nonsensical reasoning comes up I ask the same question, and I haven’t gotten an answer in 15 years… why were the AJ3s $100 in 1988 and 2003? Was there no inflation?
Why is the More Uptempo only $10 more than it was in 1996?
How are adidas and Reebok relatively unaffected by this inflation?
Just admit it, they charge more for retros because they can, and from a business perspective, I don’t blame them. They are not a non-profit.
- 2,348
- 3,142
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
Well yeah they can obviously bc look at J1s which have no technology and most are built like shizz and they charge $170 for them. But, to think that a business isn't accounting for inflation is pretty silly. Take a look at retro Lebron 7 and 8. Both were $160 retail when the OG dropped 10 years ago and both are now $200. Its definitely a mix of inflation and what Nike thinks they can get away with. You gotta remember too, $100 in 88 was a ****load of money, and in 03 it was still quite a bit. My guess is JB didn't raise the price on the early retros (99-04) bc it was testing out the retro market AND the respective retail on the OG 3,4,5,6,7,9,11,12,13 was already a lot of money. $150 in 97/98 for XIIIs was a ton of money.People are still trying to justify the prices of retros
Anything but admit you’re getting the shaft right?
First, I’m sure there were costs associated with these in 1996 that aren’t there now (R/D), second, we’re not getting the same level of product quality as in 1996.
EVERYTIME this nonsensical reasoning comes up I ask the same question, and I haven’t gotten an answer in 15 years… why were the AJ3s $100 in 1988 and 2003? Was there no inflation?
Why is the More Uptempo only $10 more than it was in 1996?
How are adidas and Reebok relatively unaffected by this inflation?
Just admit it, they charge more for retros because they can, and from a business perspective, I don’t blame them. They are not a non-profit.
- 2,348
- 3,142
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
I'll 100% agree with you on the quality. That is prob the biggest area I have an issue with in regards to JB. I'm ok paying most current prices (save for J1s), but give us top quality and new tech. Every J1 should come with zoom air (SB Dunks do), and Jordan's from the 7 onward that has encapsulated air or zoom air should now come with zoom. It's not new and expensive tech but it should be there. End of day JB did much better with these 11 lows and a handful of other retros.People are still trying to justify the prices of retros
Anything but admit you’re getting the shaft right?
First, I’m sure there were costs associated with these in 1996 that aren’t there now (R/D), second, we’re not getting the same level of product quality as in 1996.
EVERYTIME this nonsensical reasoning comes up I ask the same question, and I haven’t gotten an answer in 15 years… why were the AJ3s $100 in 1988 and 2003? Was there no inflation?
Why is the More Uptempo only $10 more than it was in 1996?
How are adidas and Reebok relatively unaffected by this inflation?
Just admit it, they charge more for retros because they can, and from a business perspective, I don’t blame them. They are not a non-profit.
- 11,623
- 20,856
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
Dudes will pay $170 for Jordan 1's but now all of a sudden have a problem with 90's tech in relation to cost
I'll never get the 1s hype. Greatest marketing trick ever pulled outside of art and high end fashion. I remember when people were going insane over the Roshe Runs. Nike is just printing money at this point.
- 2,348
- 3,142
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
I own only 3 pairs of J1s and all 3 are non hyped pairs and have amazing quality (Bloodlines, Defiants and Wheats). I have no desire to add anymore either. I can't justify spending a lot on a shoe like them. When I see guys literally buy every J1 i scratch my head. To me they are kinda like a very expensive Converse Chuck.
- 10,261
- 8,057
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
I was thinking about the Roshe madness a few weeks ago. Are those still in production ? I never got the hype for those
Just wish they didn’t introduce this new seam on the toe box.
Butchered toe box too
(screenshot from Nightwing’s review)
KanyIZZY
formerly j o 19
- 18,336
- 47,682
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
IE’s haven’t been made with love since that 2003 run. Shape, comfort, and details have lacked in one way or another since then.
- 187
- 306
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2013
Shape looks the same as the previous retro iteration like the referee blacked out ... was not really happy with those , cardboard leather , lightweight but no comfort at all .... polyurethane insole could help in those
- 488
- 354
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Soles on my white 03s split last year and I haven’t been able to fix them. Tried everything. I just want a re-release.
Many shoes have lost their original shape. Seems like all the shoes now are made sleeker
- 9,109
- 31,739
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
Say wut?????
You have it backwards.
Sleeker as in low profile/slimmer
Shoes that are supposed to have a little bulk and roundness now look slimmer
- 9,109
- 31,739
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
All I know, is that over the past 15 or so years Nike has butchered OG's by NOT making them sleek as OG's were. Particularly toe boxes. Perhaps we're just talking about different things.
