AIR JORDAN 3 BLACK CEMENT - NOVEMBER 23, 2024

[ill4eva]

Yeah, expecting kids to care about Michael Jordan and what he rocked is like expecting some of us to know how Chuck Taylor rocked his joints. Like, did he use every lace eyelet? Is the canvas on the current joints the same as the kind they had in the 60s?

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

These changes don't just make retros less like the OGs they also make them worse shoes overall, from a design aspect. (Less aerodynamic, less balanced)

Tinker's design were way deeper than just throwing stuff on because it looked cool.

 

[Kierris]

These changes don't just make retros less like the OGs they also make them worse shoes overall, from a design aspect. (Less aerodynamic, less balanced)

Tinker's design were way deeper than just throwing stuff on because it looked cool.

Nobody buying OG retros to hoop brother... It's 2024, they're lifestyle shoes now.

 

[g-time]

Doesn’t mean they need to have a huge change in design/shape though either

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

Nobody buying OG retros to hoop brother... It's 2024, they're lifestyle shoes now.

The whole point went over your head, I never mentioned performance.

I was talking about design, people wear these shoes for looks so design is important.

A shoe being balanced and aerodynamic isn't just for playing ball it's for the overall look and aesthetic too. We've been missing that with a lot of retros, Air Jordans used to look like the sleekest sneakers around.

 

[Kierris]

The whole point went over your head, I never mentioned performance.

I was talking about design, people wear these shoes for looks so design is important.

A shoe being balanced and aerodynamic isn't just for playing ball it's for the overall look and aesthetic too. We've been missing that with a lot of retros, Air Jordans used to look like the sleekest sneakers around.

There have been several ig posts comparing the 18' to the 24' and if you check the comments of those posts you'll see that most believe the 18' to be the better of the two. Point being that aesthetics and design preferences are subjective and will vary, it also highlights that besides us on nt, the majority of consumers could not care less about og specs. While I appreciate the improvements JB has been making, I also understand that a shoe doesn't have to be a 1:1 replica to be appreciated or be considered a good retro. They're better than the 18' retro and that is all that matters.

 

[Quiggles706]

There have been several ig posts comparing the 18' to the 24' and if you check the comments of those posts you'll see that most believe the 18' to be the better of the two. Point being that aesthetics and design preferences are subjective and will vary, it also highlights that besides us on nt, the majority of consumers could not care less about og specs. While I appreciate the improvements JB has been making, I also understand that a shoe doesn't have to be a 1:1 replica to be appreciated or be considered a good retro. They're better than the 18' retro and that is all that matters.

Yeah besides the shape, “elephant print included” the 2018 is my choice. Something about this leather doesn’t sit right with me.

 

[rainking]

Yeah, expecting kids to care about Michael Jordan and what he rocked is like expecting some of us to know how Chuck Taylor rocked his joints. Like, did he use every lace eyelet? Is the canvas on the current joints the same as the kind they had in the 60s?

Like I said the other day, it's not about whether kids care or not. None of these abysmal changes going back to the first part of the 2000s had anything to do with that. Especially since 20 years ago, when JB really started butchering its own classics, the "kids"--meaning us old clowns now who at the time were only in our early 20s and only a few years removed from Mike's prime--absolutely cared. That didn't stop JB one damn bit. So again, this "argument" about what kids today prefer is a red herring when we're discussing changes to the shoes. JB made all these changes DESPITE the kids of the time complaining about them left, right, and center.

 

[sphynx]

This is simply not true. Many people loved them, yes. Others just couldn’t pass on black cements with Nike air so we held our noses and bought them. I always hated my pair. To say that everyone loved them in 2018 is a huge stretch.

Then y'all act confused as to why Nike couldn't care less about appeasing the 4.3% of its existing customer base who care about 1:1 specs with the OGs

 

[ill4eva]

We have yet to see a truly perfect 1:1 retro, but yet everyone is still buying them. With the way this board talks,

Like I said the other day, it's not about whether kids care or not. None of these abysmal changes going back to the first part of the 2000s had anything to do with that. Especially since 20 years ago, when JB really started butchering its own classics, the "kids"--meaning us old clowns now who at the time were only in our early 20s and only a few years removed from Mike's prime--absolutely cared. That didn't stop JB one damn bit. So again, this "argument" about what kids today prefer is a red herring when we're discussing changes to the shoes. JB made all these changes DESPITE the kids of the time complaining about them left, right, and center.

And yet, here we are, still buying the “butchered” classics. Lol

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

Like I said the other day, it's not about whether kids care or not. None of these abysmal changes going back to the first part of the 2000s had anything to do with that. Especially since 20 years ago, when JB really started butchering its own classics, the "kids"--meaning us old clowns now who at the time were only in our early 20s and only a few years removed from Mike's prime--absolutely cared. That didn't stop JB one damn bit. So again, this "argument" about what kids today prefer is a red herring when we're discussing changes to the shoes. JB made all these changes DESPITE the kids of the time complaining about them left, right, and center.

That's why I brought up the fact that changing the retros makes them worse shoes overall.

They should have kept the same specs because they would have sold the same amount and the designs wouldn't have been compromised.

I'm sure JB was trying to save money when cutting corners but they did also try to "modernize" retros back then, it's been said by Gentry in interviews. I guess that clown thought he knew what was best for us.

A perfect example was how Japan got higher cut Jordan 1s in 2001 and the US got a lower cut.

I doubt that there was a market demand for the OGs to be changed, JB just thought they knew what they were doing.

 

[rainking]

We have yet to see a truly perfect 1:1 retro, but yet everyone is still buying them. With the way this board talks,

And yet, here we are, still buying the “butchered” classics. Lol

People still buy them because that's how much some of us love the shoes, the history, etc. It doesn't and shouldn't preclude us from criticizing weaknesses/inaccuracies about the retros. Some people take what they can get. Personally, I have passed on some of my favorite all-time models completely when the retros have been too jacked up for my taste--including the 2018 black cement IIIs. Had them in my hand on release day at FTL and just couldn't do it. I continue to be amazed by the NT faction that finds complaints to be the dominion of old fans and thinks complaints are pointless. If no one had complained for years about what they did to the XI, we'd probably still be getting that old trash XI shape and patent cut.

 

[engineer]

That's why I brought up the fact that changing the retros makes them worse shoes overall.

They should have kept the same specs because they would have sold the same amount and the designs wouldn't have been compromised.

I'm sure JB was trying to save money when cutting corners but they did also try to "modernize" retros back then, it's been said by Gentry in interviews. I guess that clown thought he knew what was best for us.

A perfect example was how Japan got higher cut Jordan 1s in 2001 and the US got a lower cut.

I doubt that there was a market demand for the OGs to be changed, JB just thought they knew what they were doing.

They’re still doing it to this day. You can see the results of their “market research team” all over their models. The collar height of 3s and 4s, the tongue on the 6s, whatever that is that they’re calling a foamposite these days.

All of these slight tweaks that nobody asked for just to make the shoe 1cm lower. Really it just completely throws off what was a perfectly balanced design.

 

[05fordgt]

They look sooo much like the 2001s

I still have my 2001s. One of my favorite pairs EVER!! They were SO GOOD!! I am almost tempted to buy a donor shoe for a midsole swap!

 

[JRepp23]

I think this conversation happens in every OG release thread. At this point, where JB is trying to "honor" its history, why would they not make them close to OG? It without question would not cost them any more money to do this. Especially since they love changing molds and cuts so frequently as proven. If JB would have done this right from damn near the start of all this, we wouldnt be having these debates. The shoes should look like its originals. Not some mid 2000s retro of it.
I have had no problem taking what I can get. But I think we as people that have given that brand the kind of money that we have, are more than qualified and even entitled to give them our feedback. To say, "awe this is what the kids like now and we should just be ok with it", Please.
I could care less if these kids appreciate MJ and what he did in these shoes. But I do, and people like myself helped build this brand to keep it relevant. So to say Nike shouldnt have to appease those buyers, that are still around, I disagree with completely.

 

[ill4eva]

People still buy them because that's how much some of us love the shoes, the history, etc. It doesn't and shouldn't preclude us from criticizing weaknesses/inaccuracies about the retros. Some people take what they can get. Personally, I have passed on some of my favorite all-time models completely when the retros have been too jacked up for my taste--including the 2018 black cement IIIs. Had them in my hand on release day at FTL and just couldn't do it. I continue to be amazed by the NT faction that finds complaints to be the dominion of old fans and thinks complaints are pointless. If no one had complained for years about what they did to the XI, we'd probably still be getting that old trash XI shape and patent cut.

They change the shoe to make you keep buying essentially the same shoe. It’s not to appease us old heads. Lol. I’ve bought the Concords 3-4 times over. Ready for the hi patent leather with the 23 on the back. And then the next retro after that will have the lower patent leather cut to appease the people who just got into 11s between 2000-2011.

 

[buddhashark]

I still have my 2001s. One of my favorite pairs EVER!! They were SO GOOD!! I am almost tempted to buy a donor shoe for a midsole swap!

No brainer

 

[rainking]

They change the shoe to make you keep buying essentially the same shoe. It’s not to appease us old heads. Lol. I’ve bought the Concords 3-4 times over. Ready for the hi patent leather with the 23 on the back. And then the next retro after that will have the lower patent leather cut to appease the people who just got into 11s between 2000-2011.

That entire theory--I'll go along with the idea Nike and JB are doing just that for that exact reason--is one of the dumbest, marketing-people-justifying-their-jobs logic in this retro footwear industry, and it has been since the first day it was put into practice. People do not buy the same retros over and over again BECAUSE each one is slightly different. They buy them DESPITE them being different, even when--as we just discussed a few posts above--they dislike the changes. I don't buy the same shoes again every 5-9 nine years because of changes, I buy fresh pairs because the previous pairs are old. If all they had ever done was release exact 1:1 copies of the OGs over and over again, I'd have actually bought MORE pairs than I have, because I wouldn't be choosing to pass on the trash versions that they've butchered beyond my recognition.

You can't have it both ways: You can't say on one hand that 90-something percent of people don't care about any of this, but then on the other hand believe that 90-something percent of buyers do what a lot of us here do and buy 2+ pairs of all these releases. And that being the case, your regular person will need a new pair on the next retro drop because the one pair they bought 5+ years ago has probably been beat. Most people aren't sitting on 100 pairs of sneakers and only wearing a single pair twice a year like all the weirdos like a lot of us on NT. Main point is, this idea that changes need to be made every time to entice people to buy the same shoe again is dumb as eff. And on top of that, if 90-something percent of buyers "don't care" about these nerdy little changes one way or the other, why would any of those changes/variances between different retro releases be necessary to get them to buy the shoes again? It's a contradictory argument.

 

[sickickz23]

Skip to around the 3:25 mark

 

[1978S]

I think this conversation happens in every OG release thread. At this point, where JB is trying to "honor" its history, why would they not make them close to OG? It without question would not cost them any more money to do this. Especially since they love changing molds and cuts so frequently as proven. If JB would have done this right from damn near the start of all this, we wouldnt be having these debates. The shoes should look like its originals. Not some mid 2000s retro of it.

This.

Like....what the hell is this in the pic below.....how can JB even call these "Jordan 3's?" Shape looks like a completely different shoe.

 

[1978S]

That entire theory--I'll go along with the idea Nike and JB are doing just that for that exact reason--is one of the dumbest, marketing-people-justifying-their-jobs logic in this retro footwear industry, and it has been since the first day it was put into practice. People do not buy the same retros over and over again BECAUSE each one is slightly different. They buy them DESPITE them being different, even when--as we just discussed a few posts above--they dislike the changes. I don't buy the same shoes again every 5-9 nine years because of changes, I buy fresh pairs because the previous pairs are old. If all they had ever done was release exact 1:1 copies of the OGs over and over again, I'd have actually bought MORE pairs than I have, because I wouldn't be choosing to pass on the trash versions that they've butchered beyond my recognition.

You can't have it both ways: You can't say on one hand that 90-something percent of people don't care about any of this, but then on the other hand believe that 90-something percent of buyers do what a lot of us here do and buy 2+ pairs of all these releases. And that being the case, your regular person will need a new pair on the next retro drop because the one pair they bought 5+ years ago has probably been beat. Most people aren't sitting on 100 pairs of sneakers and only wearing a single pair twice a year like all the weirdos like a lot of us on NT. Main point is, this idea that changes need to be made every time to entice people to buy the same shoe again is dumb as eff. And on top of that, if 90-something percent of buyers "don't care" about these nerdy little changes one way or the other, why would any of those changes/variances between different retro releases be necessary to get them to buy the shoes again? It's a contradictory argument.

PREACH!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[iTookanL]

Good video, pair looks great

 

[headdetective]

Those dingy polo socks, I know that’s my boy slaughterx

 

[ill4eva]

That entire theory--I'll go along with the idea Nike and JB are doing just that for that exact reason--is one of the dumbest, marketing-people-justifying-their-jobs logic in this retro footwear industry, and it has been since the first day it was put into practice. People do not buy the same retros over and over again BECAUSE each one is slightly different. They buy them DESPITE them being different, even when--as we just discussed a few posts above--they dislike the changes. I don't buy the same shoes again every 5-9 nine years because of changes, I buy fresh pairs because the previous pairs are old. If all they had ever done was release exact 1:1 copies of the OGs over and over again, I'd have actually bought MORE pairs than I have, because I wouldn't be choosing to pass on the trash versions that they've butchered beyond my recognition.

You can't have it both ways: You can't say on one hand that 90-something percent of people don't care about any of this, but then on the other hand believe that 90-something percent of buyers do what a lot of us here do and buy 2+ pairs of all these releases. And that being the case, your regular person will need a new pair on the next retro drop because the one pair they bought 5+ years ago has probably been beat. Most people aren't sitting on 100 pairs of sneakers and only wearing a single pair twice a year like all the weirdos like a lot of us on NT. Main point is, this idea that changes need to be made every time to entice people to buy the same shoe again is dumb as eff.

That’s fair. But one does wonder why we always see terms like “remastered” or “OG specs” thrown around for mostly Jordan retros vs any other shoe that gets retro’d.

That video up above kind of sums up the whole thought process of most people I guess. Dude goes from “I don’t really need a pair because my 2018s are still pretty fresh”, and within minutes of having the shoe and examining the leather, he says he’s not gonna sleep on em and will be buying a pair. Does he change his mind that quickly if that 2024 pair is exactly like the 2018s?

 

[nostalgia94]

Skip to around the 3:25 mark

pair looks like, might skip this release wtf