Air Jordan 6 Black/Infrared 1991 vs. 2000 vs. 2010 Comparison

Originally Posted by ninjahood

91's with that black leather is such a nice touch....wish da BIN23 jordan were just 100% faithful reproductions instead of da crap we get now.
Click to expand...

everytime i read this guys posts i like him more and more. but im more of a baraka kind of guy
laugh.gif

  
 
The originals can't be beat. I didn't get the first Retro because they don't have 3M and the tongue is too short. At least the 2010 appears to have a more og tongue lengthwise. I just can't get over the material used on the 2010 version. They look fuzzy to me.

I would love to see the BIN 23 VI be the prototype retro black infrareds made with original materials.....of course that won't happen.
 
The one thing that I remember about about my 1991 VI's was the tongue, it was tall/long. On my 2000 retro VI+ they are shorter & 2010 retro VI looks taller than the 2000's. I know this is not a biggie, but hey I loved when my holes in the tongue were visible even when I had them laced all the way up tight.
 
Originally Posted by Cement Greyman

The originals can't be beat. I didn't get the first Retro because they don't have 3M and the tongue is too short. At least the 2010 appears to have a more og tongue lengthwise. I just can't get over the material used on the 2010 version. They look fuzzy to me.

I would love to see the BIN 23 VI be the prototype retro black infrareds made with original materials.....of course that won't happen.
Click to expand...

na not rlly....jus clean it often n u str8...material is super smooth. u gotta c in person to rlly c it tho. keep a lint roller. same material as the nubuck 12's
 
Originally Posted by thebeast23

Originally Posted by Cement Greyman

The originals can't be beat. I didn't get the first Retro because they don't have 3M and the tongue is too short. At least the 2010 appears to have a more og tongue lengthwise. I just can't get over the material used on the 2010 version. They look fuzzy to me.

I would love to see the BIN 23 VI be the prototype retro black infrareds made with original materials.....of course that won't happen.
Click to expand...

na not rlly....jus clean it often n u str8...material is super smooth. u gotta c in person to rlly c it tho. keep a lint roller. same material as the nubuck 12's
Click to expand...


I've seen them in person. They may not be fuzzy but they look fuzzy. If I have to keep a lint roller with me to keep my shoes lint free I'm just not gonna buy them.
 
Originally Posted by Darkwing Duck

Originally Posted by Rob1ne

i can see the OG's and 00's gettin embarrassed havin their ******ed brother next to them
Click to expand...

lol they are nearly identical shoes besides the different shades of red, "nike air" on the heel, and the 2010's material just looks newer and fresher, although the 2000 version is the best lookin IMO


Thanks for the pics op, just further proves that the 2010 retros are not as terrible as everyone makes them out to be, a bunch of negative nanceys in this forum
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?  They might not be TOO far off the 2000 retros, but there's no comparison to the originals as far as quality and shape of the shoe.  Notice how the midsole at the toe box and the toe box itself is not as thick/tall, the tongue has the horrible/rough nylon trim at the top (the '10s in the pic don't, but mine do; mine look like the cut of the '00 in those pics), the noticeably lesser quality leather (it's bad when it's that clearly visible in pictures), the tongues are shorter (though the '10 is closer to the original), etc.  The first things I noticed when I first saw a pair of '00 retros is that the smooth leather on the back 1/4 of the shoe was replaced with the same cheaper leather used on the rest of the shoe, which is something I've very seldom seen talked about on NT.  Maybe it was discussed more back when the '00 retros came out, but not the last couple years.  I loved that feature on the originals, as it separated and made the heel/ankle portion look really solid/tough, so right off the bat, that rubbed me the wrong way.  I knew they certainly weren't going to bring it back for '10, as JB is getting cheaper and cheaper on the materials.  And look at how much better the overall leather looked on the originals vs either of the retros (the other thing I noticed right away).

I'm glad this comparison was put together, and was actually very well done.  For a while, there were so many people saying there isn't that much of a difference that I started thinking maybe I'm just remembering wrong, or it's wishful thinking on my part for original JB quality.  These pics made me realize I shouldn't doubt myself.  After all, I actually grew up with original Air Jordans, and knew the quality first hand (believe it or not, people used to actually WEAR their Jordans back then!).  The black/infrared was the first pair I bought (and kept; exchanged white/fire red Vs for them since the VI came out shortly after I had bought them), and I wore them into the ground on the basketball court for nearly 2 years.  This was reconfirmation that what I remember of them was correct.  There IS a substantial difference in overall quality.
 
that 91 og looks so durable.. looks a touch bullky
but i love the material for the 00 VI
wish the 2010 black v red VI was the same material as the dmp 6
 
Originally Posted by ninjahood

91's with that black leather is such a nice touch....wish da BIN23 jordan were just 100% faithful reproductions instead of da crap we get now.
Click to expand...

Yup.. i would be working double time if this is the case.
 
It letsyou know how cheap and how much bs JB is working over everybodys head with these super cheap shoes there selling to us today,when i was kid around the late 80s and early 90s i remember older people were always saying that Nike was spending around $5-$15 to make one pair of shoes and then flip them for $100 or more,now looking at how awful JBs quility has gotten today compared to there past years its safe to say there probably spending $1-$5,i might be wrong on the numbers cause i dont work for any shoe company but i bet the numbers on there production cost has dramatically went down from what it use to be,look at how they didnt throw the 3m in them,or how far the outer material quility has decreased on this retro over the years,whats even more sadder is the the atittude of the average shoe consumer of today,the atittude of its not back in the day anymore so get over it,or im just thankfull they made this retro again so theyll spend more money on lesser quility shoe that wont last them a couple of months if there wearing them everyday and not storing them for a few years,as long as there atittudes stick around like this JB can keep making retros with less and less more quility than what they were before,in 5 years from now theyll discover some new way to make the materials themselves and it will look the same and feel the same but theyll probably fall apart after 4 weeks of wearing them,but hey atleast you got raped to get a shoe that looks good for a couple of weeks,watch it get that bad with JB before people stop buying there shoes,then JB might go back to making quility shoes like they use to,but the trillion million sheep out there will never let it happen,theyll keep suck in it up forever not knowing how its suppose to be,i cant wear a 2008-2010 jordan retro daily for over 2 months if i wanted to,its pretty sad that i remember wearing ogs for about a year tops everyday and they would hold up better than most of these low quility retros can after just a couple of months of wearing them,but like some of yall on here keep saying this is not back in the day its a new day,yea right,so people like getting jerked for an overpriced low quility shoe just becuase they wanna enjoy the shoe they use to have or wanted to have when they were little and then end up getting a shoe thats not even half of what it should be.
 
Originally Posted by HAGS

Great pics and descriptions on nicekicks site, thanks half!
Click to expand...





obviously, the OGs are superior. the little details like NA, 3M under the perforations and the different heel material are what make them great. but i like the '10 "suede" material better tho.
 
Just the basic shape between the 00' and 10' looks a lot different than the OG's...It's like they lost the blueprints of the OG and just had to start all over from scratch on the 00' and 2010...the 00' and 10' look similar in shape, but the OG shape and cuts and desgin looks different....especially the midsole...the red paint on the midsole has more of a rounded shape compared to the 00' and 10'. I wish I could find a decent pair of wearable OG's...that's a one in a million chance if any. Are ANY OG's Still wearable? I'd assume probably not.
 
Originally Posted by mjfanatic

that 91 og looks so durable.. looks a touch bullky
but i love the material for the 00 VI
wish the 2010 black v red VI was the same material as the dmp 6
Click to expand...
They are durable.  Mine are still standing... of course, I never wear them
laugh.gif




  
 
Originally Posted by green rhino123

those 1991s look repainted or something
i have the original and the cuts/angles on the infrared trim
are sharper like the retro pics show
Click to expand...
c'mon now. yall been on here too long to not notice that these pics are obvious photoshops. you  really dont have to but Look real close at the areas above the air unit and you can see that its been doctored. My question is why. And people keep saying the pics look similar. NO IN THE HELL THEY DONT. Each version of the shoe has a obvious change in the shade of red all the way down to the vred-- oops I meant infrareds. Compared to the 91s the 2010s look varsity red. Im just sayin. Why the PS pics bruh?
 
Originally Posted by grownmendonthate

It letsyou know how cheap and how much bs JB is working over everybodys head with these super cheap shoes there selling to us today,when i was kid around the late 80s and early 90s i remember older people were always saying that Nike was spending around $5-$15 to make one pair of shoes and then flip them for $100 or more,now looking at how awful JBs quility has gotten today compared to there past years its safe to say there probably spending $1-$5,i might be wrong on the numbers cause i dont work for any shoe company but i bet the numbers on there production cost has dramatically went down from what it use to be,look at how they didnt throw the 3m in them,or how far the outer material quility has decreased on this retro over the years,whats even more sadder is the the atittude of the average shoe consumer of today,the atittude of its not back in the day anymore so get over it,or im just thankfull they made this retro again so theyll spend more money on lesser quility shoe that wont last them a couple of months if there wearing them everyday and not storing them for a few years,as long as there atittudes stick around like this JB can keep making retros with less and less more quility than what they were before,in 5 years from now theyll discover some new way to make the materials themselves and it will look the same and feel the same but theyll probably fall apart after 4 weeks of wearing them,but hey atleast you got raped to get a shoe that looks good for a couple of weeks,watch it get that bad with JB before people stop buying there shoes,then JB might go back to making quility shoes like they use to,but the trillion million sheep out there will never let it happen,theyll keep suck in it up forever not knowing how its suppose to be,i cant wear a 2008-2010 jordan retro daily for over 2 months if i wanted to,its pretty sad that i remember wearing ogs for about a year tops everyday and they would hold up better than most of these low quility retros can after just a couple of months of wearing them,but like some of yall on here keep saying this is not back in the day its a new day,yea right,so people like getting jerked for an overpriced low quility shoe just becuase they wanna enjoy the shoe they use to have or wanted to have when they were little and then end up getting a shoe thats not even half of what it should be.
Click to expand...
u actually got it backwards my dude. as bad as ppl say that quality is deez days its not as bad as ppl make it seem. as on this release the material used on these r MUCH better then material used on the last infras no matter how much u like em. actually look at the close up OG pic n look at the other 2 n u tell me wat loox more sloppy. evry1 nees to stop fallin into the hype n believn wat evryone b postin. i aint sayin all shoes r better quality. dnt get me wrong but on this particular release it is.  on 11's evryone complains bout the rubber drips on the RETRO shoes
FACT: OG as  well as retros both had rubber drips on the shoe. evrybody jus cuz material is different duz it mean its worse? do we all kno the worth of leather now since we sneakerheads? no. jus cuz it feels thicker, harder, or looks shinier is it cheaper/ not necessarily. ppl have even said with the durabuck if u tripped to ball in em then ur toe wit come right out the side of the shoe after a while. mayb thats why they stopped using it. some drops are not what i would like to call "poor" quality but jus not whats expected. we also gotta look at the demand as well. it drastically went up so erythng cant b the same especially wit just under 100 people workin for JB....yes that is fact as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

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