Emerald Griffey Max I's For the Summer! (EDIT Pic Up)

^ its slighty deceptive when you take into account the inflation rate, 140$ back in 96 would be about 200$ today, so its not all that suprising that quality has gone down by about that much on retros in general. I would gladly pay the higher price tho for faithful reproductions of the originals, instead of thinner padding, harder midsoles and smaller air bubbles, oh and fake carbon fiber on the II's. Everyone has thier theory about why retro quality is the way it is, but I think this is the real culprit myself.
 
^ its slighty deceptive when you take into account the inflation rate, 140$ back in 96 would be about 200$ today, so its not all that suprising that quality has gone down by about that much on retros in general. I would gladly pay the higher price tho for faithful reproductions of the originals, instead of thinner padding, harder midsoles and smaller air bubbles, oh and fake carbon fiber on the II's. Everyone has thier theory about why retro quality is the way it is, but I think this is the real culprit myself.
 
Originally Posted by Trydan

^ its slighty deceptive when you take into account the inflation rate, 140$ back in 96 would be about 200$ today, so its not all that suprising that quality has gone down by about that much on retros in general. I would gladly pay the higher price tho for faithful reproductions of the originals, instead of thinner padding, harder midsoles and smaller air bubbles, oh and fake carbon fiber on the II's. Everyone has thier theory about why retro quality is the way it is, but I think this is the real culprit myself.
cant agree considering that non retros have better materials and generally cost the same as the retros. in theory, retros SHOULD be cheaper since there is no money needed for design/technology required to release a new shoe other than costs to reproduce the molds.
 
 
Originally Posted by Trydan

^ its slighty deceptive when you take into account the inflation rate, 140$ back in 96 would be about 200$ today, so its not all that suprising that quality has gone down by about that much on retros in general. I would gladly pay the higher price tho for faithful reproductions of the originals, instead of thinner padding, harder midsoles and smaller air bubbles, oh and fake carbon fiber on the II's. Everyone has thier theory about why retro quality is the way it is, but I think this is the real culprit myself.
cant agree considering that non retros have better materials and generally cost the same as the retros. in theory, retros SHOULD be cheaper since there is no money needed for design/technology required to release a new shoe other than costs to reproduce the molds.
 
 
^ thats what I was saying tho, the retros ARE cheaper, even though the price seems to be the same, cause the same value is not there for the materials used. Personally I think flywire is the cheapest thing nike has ever come out with, and just plain padding on newly designed shoes is a joke. If I didnt love these griffs so much tho I wouldnt even get the retro versions anyway. But like I said, everyone has thier own pet theory of whats happend to nikes quality in general.
 
^ thats what I was saying tho, the retros ARE cheaper, even though the price seems to be the same, cause the same value is not there for the materials used. Personally I think flywire is the cheapest thing nike has ever come out with, and just plain padding on newly designed shoes is a joke. If I didnt love these griffs so much tho I wouldnt even get the retro versions anyway. But like I said, everyone has thier own pet theory of whats happend to nikes quality in general.
 
^^^ not all newer shoes have flywire. V1 lebrons were better materials and so are the jordan 2011s. they dont even need to fund marketing for retros
 
^^^ not all newer shoes have flywire. V1 lebrons were better materials and so are the jordan 2011s. they dont even need to fund marketing for retros
 
Originally Posted by jayzrdead

so do we want higher priced quality retro's or cheaper lower quality?

comments like this make me realize why ive started a different hobby.
non retro nikes have better quality and materials than retros and cost nearly the same so the whole "worse quality because nike aint making enuff" argument is null and void.
its a matter of they KNOW it will sell so cut as many corners as possible vs they NEED to market this NEW sneaker so put good craftsmanship behind it.
 
Originally Posted by jayzrdead

so do we want higher priced quality retro's or cheaper lower quality?

comments like this make me realize why ive started a different hobby.
non retro nikes have better quality and materials than retros and cost nearly the same so the whole "worse quality because nike aint making enuff" argument is null and void.
its a matter of they KNOW it will sell so cut as many corners as possible vs they NEED to market this NEW sneaker so put good craftsmanship behind it.
 
Originally Posted by michael0360

Originally Posted by Trydan

Scanned this from one of my old eastbays-



That should put the volt controversy to bed.
smile.gif

durabuck upper  
pimp.gif
 good times 
dope
 
Originally Posted by REDd SPYDER

so is their an exact date set? first it was spring now its late summer...ehh
yea they playin im sure theylle pop up at the wrong time
 
Originally Posted by REDd SPYDER

so is their an exact date set? first it was spring now its late summer...ehh
yea they playin im sure theylle pop up at the wrong time
 
So that volt color is caused by aging? Thats crazy, that's the one time aging makes a shoe look better...
 
So that volt color is caused by aging? Thats crazy, that's the one time aging makes a shoe look better...
 
Back
Top Bottom