- 85,054
- 113,566
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I totally agree with this. They know what they are doing by giving us a 98% retro every time around. They never give us 100%. Just to keep us coming back for the next. Space jam perfect example. The next retro will be 23 on the back, jumpman jam with a super clear outsole matching the 2000 release with super high pl cut. Each retro they change a small detail from the previous. It would not surprise me if 10 years from now they give us the perfect OG mold 3 ep height and hidden red lining with a jumpman return on the back tab. Each retro differs from the last in some way.
One of the best recent examples are the Bordeaux 7. Yeah they fixed the shape and added green to the tongue, but it had that ugly toe speed bump and the midsole was too dark. Changes people passed on, and reason to cop the next version.
The 45 jam release was spot on except for one thing. The pl cut on this release is too high compared to the pairs he wore on the court.The 2016 release is spot on with the PE, the 2000 and 2009 release are nothing more than a retro + colorway.
The original 92 release of the Bordeaux had a grey tone midsole AND a black darker midsole depending on where they were made. Aquamanjay_ has those pics.The midsole wasn't too dark, what are you talking about.
The original 92 release of the Bordeaux had a grey tone midsole AND a black darker midsole depending on where they were made. Aquamanjay_ has those pics.
Does who posted it first really matter. The point is there were two diff retros with diff details by design from Nike. Correcting something insignificant really don't help. I simply remember him posting photos of a Bordeaux original made from two diff locations.Actually, this person posted those photos first and informed us why the green was different:
https://niketalk.com/threads/bordeaux-7s-july-18th-2015.611123/page-321#post-25170736
He reposted it:
https://niketalk.com/threads/bordeaux-7s-july-18th-2015.611123/page-328#post-26866876
I totally agree with this. They know what they are doing by giving us a 98% retro every time around. They never give us 100%. Just to keep us coming back for the next. Space jam perfect example. The next retro will be 23 on the back, jumpman jam with a super clear outsole matching the 2000 release with super high pl cut. Each retro they change a small detail from the previous. It would not surprise me if 10 years from now they give us the perfect OG mold 3 ep height and hidden red lining with a jumpman return on the back tab. Each retro differs from the last in some way.
My 3rd time owning this shirt. it came out with the 2001 retro
When you realize this, why continue to buy? At that point YOU can control what only you do and avoid that type of frustration
01 or 03? I still have mine from 03, I remember I copped from Eastbay
I like this release. That's why I'm in.When you realize this, why continue to buy? At that point YOU can control what only you do and avoid that type of frustration
01 or 03? I still have mine from 03, I remember I copped from Eastbay
This is the one from 03
The 2016 release is spot on with the PE, the 2000 and 2009 release are nothing more than a retro + colorway.
The 45 jam release was spot on except for one thing. The pl cut on this release is too high compared to the pairs he wore on the court.
Bro that was addressed to Nike/Jb but thanks for pointing out the obvious. I get it, but I’m not 100% that Nike deliberately jacks up the mold.....now materials and Nike Air/Jumpan, yes. Point is for Niketalk is a community forum and if you settle then we never get the OG shape. I’m just tired of that same answer.You're fooling yourself if you actually believe the "we lost the molds excuse".
Them not doing it to OG form gives them an excuse to rerelease them in a few years a tad bit closer to OG form and basically double the profits. Prime example: 2012 vs 2016 WCIV. Yall have the right to be mad. Not giving you crap for that. I'm just saying, this is what's on Nike's mind. Money and marketing.
Bro that was addressed to Nike/Jb but thanks for pointing out the obvious. I get it, but I’m not 100% that Nike deliberately jacks up the mold, materials and Nike Air/Jumpan yes. Point is for Niketalk is a community forum and if you settle then we never get the OG shape. I’m just tired of that same answer.
The speed bump was waaaay too easy to remove to pass over. It takes like 8 seconds and an iron.One of the best recent examples are the Bordeaux 7. Yeah they fixed the shape and added green to the tongue, but it had that ugly toe speed bump and the midsole was too dark. Changes people passed on, and reason to cop the next version.
A lot of people passed because of that. Even MJO23DAN passed for that reason.The speed bump was waaaay too easy to remove to pass over. It takes like 8 seconds and an iron.
And they removed whatever made the ankle collar stiff on the OG for the 2000 release. The 1st retro was as trash as any.There's one other big difference that never gets brought up in here, and it goes for all XIs released after the original DMP: They took the firm foam out of the upper. The OGs and earlier retros, there is very firm foam padding on the inside of the cordura upper. All the newer retros' uppers are soft and flimsy in comparison. Squeeze the upper between your thumb and forefinger on the older XIs and compare it to the post-DMP releases and it's obvious.
And they removed whatever made the ankle collar stiff on the OG for the 2000 release. The 1st retro was as trash as any.