- 13,286
- 10,780
Only thing I don’t love from what we can see in that pic of the lows is that the eye-stay strip of material appears to be smooth leather rather than nubuck or faux suede or whatever. I think that would look better. But still a must-buy based on that image alone.
They really killed it this year and this model overall. I wonder if the 34 will go down as a lucky one-off in terms of its big success and cool styling ... or if these jokers finally learned a lesson and will give us something modern but classically Jordan again with the 35. This year proves that any Air Jordan flops of the past however many years had nothing to do with MJ being retired or no one caring anymore—and everything to do with wacky, at times hideously laughable shoes, regardless of whose name was on them.
Case in point: me. I was and am a huge MJ and AJ fan for 30-plus years now. But I only bought TWO annual Jordans between the 16s and this year. Because they were mostly just ... ugh. I only have the Chicago 34s but that’s just because I have too damn many shoes in my closet. I’ve had to stop myself several times from buying another pair of Chicagos and the Ambers as well. And I’ll probably end up regretting it. I’m definitely in for at least this pair of lows, maybe more. It’s been almost 20 years since I felt like that about a Jordan. Simply give us a genuinely dope shoe and clearly we’ll buy it. **** really isn’t rocket science.
same here. for me, the Jordan signature line have been mostly a "PASS" for me when MJ finally retired for the last time. although I didn't like the shoes that he wore as a Wizard but came close with the 17 retros, if not for the bad traction and god awful color suede they used on them, I would have copped by then. after those, most of the Jordan Sigs were a miss. surely, some people have mad love for the 28s, but it didn't give me that sense of excitement for the shoe, plus the fact the WestBrook was the face of that line back then, ugh.