Originally Posted by ohdannyboy
C'mon bro. That's like asking why the Air Max 95's I bought last week have a 2011 production date.
The only thing I'm wondering is why are you still on this thread?Originally Posted by Zyzz
damn, do i really need to post my receipt for the 2 pairs i bought. really? what do i need to lie about for the 100th time?Originally Posted by ohdannyboy
Originally Posted by Franco23x
Your shady cuz you on Jay's sack lmao
How much he payin you per day because I want easy cashh
I don't think he's getting cash, but I'm almost positive he's gonna get a free pair of concords.
You do know that nike is still producing air max 2009's in 2011, right?Originally Posted by knuckles2k5
Originally Posted by ohdannyboy
C'mon bro. That's like asking why the Air Max 95's I bought last week have a 2011 production date.
yea because the air max 95 been retroed so many times over the years while the air max 09 only been released once in 2009
nah brah i admitted my mistakeOriginally Posted by thenewjs23
Originally Posted by KryptiX
you forgot to show that there was another tanner that posted right above him...
which he was probably replying to..
cmon now..
I like how you did not take what was posted as fact and went to do your own research. Come to find out what was posted was not as it seem. Then provided proof that the evidence was mis presented. My spidey senses are telling me that there is a lot of this going on in this thread.
he shot himself.
Originally Posted by NoobLee
I mean, do you wanna call them WHITE TOECAPS? If that floats your boat better, go ahead.
I only mess with certain oversea sites when it comes to early release, from experience.
I know my dude Z in real life and I know he always get real shoes in at his shop http://www.23penny.com he hooked it up with a good price since my dude overseas wanted too much
Well, that was a shameless plug.
haha i actually saw those comments earlier today when i was looking at his fb pageOriginally Posted by hostos
nah brah i admitted my mistake
i do agree that its good that people are investigating instead of just believing what is said
props to krypt
Why is nooblee word so golden all of a sudden.Originally Posted by eddo1005
Originally Posted by flores
Ok can you clear up this whole "cloudy toes" ordeal? Because I don't understand it at all.Originally Posted by eddo1005
alright, cloudy toes.
If the shoe has a cloudy toe it means its real or fake?
sure,
Basically someone called Nooblee, out of the blue posted pictures of concords with see through sole on the toe cap, and deemed them fake. He also posted concords with cloudy sole on the toe cap and deemed them to be real.
He then elaborated that, this whole A++++++++ replicas is something that started recently with the BC IIIs, concord XIs, and............restocked SJ. He mentioned that AR concords are fake, and marqueesole sold a fake pair to sneakgeekz. He then went on to say, marqueesole got duped this time, because he always wanted to be the first one with the latest release. He then went on to say that Jay has been sending out pictures of a legit pair of concord with cloudy sole on the toe cap. He said Jay even sent zyzz a real pair of concords.........but then he says that Jay is playing it smart and sending out pics of the real shoe, while preparing to ship fake concords(see through) to fill orders. Nooblee implied that the reason he waited this long to come out with the info is because if he came out early with it, then AR, SDS would have their shoes sent back for more doctoring(ie making the sole cloudly at the toe cap). Since AR has already begun shipping, he came out with the info. Now the delays that are happening at SDS, as he claim, are because Jay is having his shoes remade with the cloudly toe cap.
So if we are going by what nooblee has said only, then if you are buying concords, bc iiis, restocked SJ, then you are most likely receiving fake pairs(or A++++++reps, however you want to call them).
He does not, however, make accusation that anything else besides the 3 shoes mentiond aboved to be fake. ie, the early released SJ(released prior to 2009 RD) are not necessarily fakes, as a matter of fact, are probably real. Every other model not including the 3 mentioned above that are sold should all in theory be real, as he made no claims that those are fake.
He was in the BC III thread with help on the fake Js vs real and he did so after AR shipped out his pairs. Why are you so hell bent on not believing. If you cannot admit that there is more than obvious shadiness going on then you're part of the problem.Originally Posted by flores
Why is nooblee word so golden all of a sudden.
who is this guy to say whats real and whats fake.
All I've seen this dude write is laughing smileys..why is everyone taking this guy so serious.
I agree with you due to myself hearing that theory in the past. I am not sure if you went through the pages and saw my post about receiving Cool Greys at the very end of November of last year and they have the translucent sole instead of opaque and other than that, there are absolutely NO DEFECTS on the shoe. I know exactly what you are talking about the hole at the heel part underneath the insole. I have that hole in both of my shoes at the exact area you are talking about and I knew that that was one of the main components to determine its authenticity. So the question is despite the translucent sole, do you consider my pair fake? Thanks.
